NAC Div 1, Rules

[Victor]

(tangent thought) This is going to sound wacky, but consider: Anyone who has problems dealing with 'unfair' refs, emotionally speaking, should practice the scenario with a friend. Really.

For example, set up a situation in which your practice opponent (another friend) hits after he has left the bounds of the strip. Your ref should call a valid touch and award a point. ... NOW you get to complain, fret, fume or whatever you feel like doing. Really dig down into your gut and recognize exactly how unfair the stupid situation is. Ask the ref if maybe he didn't see what he thinks he saw. And then, when he bluntly states that the point stands, well, that's that. You're screwed. Deal with it.

Because it's gonna happen sooner or later, and better that you should practice your response now, when it doesn't matter, than when you're at 13-13 at a real tourney. Practice maintaining your emotional focus to recover from a crappy ref call. Practice everything. Practice practice practice.

[oiuyt]

Wow, where to start...

Originally Posted by southernsword

This has been helpful discussion.

After reviewing the bout again I've decided that the fencer was probably at fault for not demanding the weapon be tested before giving it to the referee.

Once the weapon has been unplugged it is too late to request a test. This goes directly to CVille's points about thoroughly knowing the rules. Something which epee fencers are known for.

Originally Posted by southernsword

However in the action, it appeared that the one with the bent blade was probably the first to make contact with his opponent and that the blade was "run into" by the opponent who took a hard shot to the groin area before his own blade made contact, scoring a touch that was awarded to them.

The broken blade was not handled until the director allowed the fencer to disconnect and get the replacement blade.

There is no evidence that the fencer or director made attempt to depress the point to see if it would score, or to rebend the blade, it simply wasn't touched at all. (to touch the equipment or unhook before presenting the blade to the referee is either a penalty if bouting is going on, or disqualifies it to be ruled upon by the director if after the touch, so that part the fencer did do well)

Therefore, I guess by default the touch remains unchallenged.

Well of course by default it remains unchallenged. The referee awarded the touch. If the fencer whose equipment might, possibly, have had a failure doesn't ask for a test there's nothing to change that. Incidently, merely touching the equipment generally does not disqualify it from being tested. Doing anything that, in the opinion of the referee, could materially affect whether or not the apparatus could register a touch disqualifies the equipment from being tested. Pretty much anything that has a good chance of changing the state of the equipment disallows testing. It's safest to merely hold the weapon out to the referee. The rules require the test to be immediate, supervised by the referee, and without changing anything in the equipment. Referees are instructed to pay attention to the fencer against whom a touch is scored to insure that no changes have occured prior to a potential testing request. It's generally accepted that actions that wouldn't change the equipment's functionality (gently testing the tip, etc.) do not disallow the right to request a test. Any action by the fencer that could affect the functionality (slamming the tip into the ground, fiddling with the barrel, etc.) would prevent a test from being made. It's referee's discretion when that line has been crosssed.

Originally Posted by southernsword

There were lots of calls in this pool that were bad and so I was very concerned about this fencer's issue since worse things were already happening in the directing.

There were "lots of calls in this pool that were bad".... There aren't lots of calls in an epee pool (the calls that there ARE are important, and not easy, I'm not suggesting refereeing high-level epee isn't an important skill, but there are rarely MANY calls).

Originally Posted by southernsword

There were two directors on the strip and this created so much confusion that no one could tell what the official score was. Yet with two directors such things as fencing backwards, refusing to salute after the bout, getting in the opponent's face and yelling or gesturing, stepping off the strip to avoid a touch, declaring a touch invalid because it touched the piste without verifying that the piste was grounded or not, etc. etc. etc.

All this took place in the presence of the FOC representatives and all they could say was you have to question it before unhooking, etc. the same old line of reasoning I hear all the time. I would think that an FOC rep would be there to evaluate and intervene when observing a director who is seeking an improved rating, etc.

And we're back to CVille's point. Know the rules. Know your rights.

If there were FOC representatives at the strip they were probably there because they were aware that there were some issues or potential issues or at least some claim of some issues. This goes to the non-public nature of much of the referee education that I mentioned in my previous post. Just because you didn't see the FOC reps take action doesn't mean nothing was done. Intervening is extremely rarely done and is nearly never required. IF the FOC reps thought that one of the referees was out of his/her depth and failing miserably they would have subtlely taken that ref off on a pretext and left the other ref sharing the pool to finish the remaining bouts. It's highly unlikely that BOTH referees assigned to a pool were incompetent.

As far as the score, referees are instructed to announce the score after each touch. If, as a fencer, you are ever in doubt of the score, ask the referee. While, in an ideal world, the spectators are also aware of the score, in the real world some referees are quieter than others, especially towards the end of a long weekend (or week in the case of Summer Nationals). D1ME being the first day that shouldn't have been much of an issue. Hand signals are designed to help spectators that are some distance away from the action (due to the enforcement of a sportszone) know what the referee has called. Proper and highly visible handsignals are definitely something that the FOC reps work on with referees, especially as the referees work into the 5 or better categories.

I'm not even sure what you mean by "fencing backwards".

Originally Posted by southernsword

Yet, with new rules, like giving black cards to anyone around the strip or on the strip causing a disturbance of the order, etc., that would intimidate anyone from arguing a point of rules or action...because basically if the director is staring at the ceiling or reading their notes, etc. they can't make a judgement about what they didn't see and so the bottom line is it is always their call, their judgement no matter how good or bad a job they do. I just don't understand the "appeal" process when a fencer is in a pool or a D.E. and a director of the bout fails to maintain order on the strip, or fails to penalize brutality that give the offender an advantage, or an ignoring or misapplication of a rule. What exactly should the fencer do? What is legal? It would be nice if there was a procedure outlined in the RULES that says something other than a complaint made in writing by the fencer, submitted with a fee etc. Also, if you complain and it gets rejected, you get penalized for bringing the issue to the Bout Committee by being carded for the offence of questioning basically.

In an individual competition no one other than the fencers on the strip can argue a point of rules. No one should be able to argue an action, actions are matters of fact.

The referees and BC are no where NEAR as adversarial to the fencers as your post implies. Know your rights. Know what you can question and what you can't. Know how to do so. And don't assume that the officials are there to screw you. They're not. They are doing the best they can. Thank them when they do well. Try not to scream at them when occasional mistakes are made. Realize that the referee has the best position to see MOST of what happens on a fencing strip and likely is a trained and competent individual.

The rules allow for an appeal of a misapplication of the rules. The types of things that require technical written appeals and fees are a whole different class of appeals. Those are the tpyes of things where you have NGB's appealling to the FIE about mismanagement of a competition. The process for a bout committee appeal is quite simple. Request of the referee that s/he get a BC ruling on their most recent ruling. Wait until that has happened before allowing the fencing to resume. Do it calmly and wait for the appeal process. Generally the BC will come over, attempt to determine what happened and what the question is, and then will make a determination. If the question is an argument over whether or not what the referee says happened is what actually happened the appeal will fail. If it's saying that the referee did something wrong in applying a rule then it will succeed if that was the case and fail if it was not. Because making such an appeal delays the entire competition there is a penalty for doing so frivolously. It's a group I penalty to make an unjustified appeal (yellow card for first occurance, red card for subsequent violations in the same bout). This is very similar to, for example, the NFL rule of losing a time out for losing an appeal. You are not penalized for questioning. You are penalized for questioning without justification. You've just penalized everyone else in that room by slowing down everything in process and later to come in the day. If you're right and the referee was in error, okay, you're good. If you're doing it and you're wrong, you deserve to be penalized.

Originally Posted by southernsword

So if you ask for a bout committee and your complaint is denied you get a penalty. Of the few times I have complained or asked, 100% of the time it has been denied. On the last time I was penalized a point. If a coach, parent, or teammate acts as witness, support or advocate they can be carded for interferring with the order. So the fencer can be penalized in two ways just for being in opposition to something important that went on in the bouting.

Spectators (everyone other than the two fencers on strip and the officials that are involved in the bout) have no right to be involved in any way. They should NOT be acting as witnesses, support, or advocates. That said, unless they create a major problem they will generally be ignored (while being shooed back out of the sportszone). When they DO create a larger problem they are now interfering with the ability of the BC to establish what happened and make a ruling and they deserve the spectator warning that they may receive. If it continues beyond that point they deserve to be expelled from the venue. It is rare that things get to that point.

How is the fencer penalized in two ways "just for being in opposition to something important that went on in the bouting"? The fencer is not penalized for being in opposition to what happened. The fencer MAY be penalized for actions taken by him/her due to that opposition. If spectators cannot properly comport themselves in the manner required at a fencing tournament they may be asked to leave, which, indirectly can affect a fencer, but this is not the fencer being penalized for being in opposition to what happened.

Perhaps what you mean is that a fencer can disagree with a ruling. Then make an unjustified appeal of the ruling and receive a penalty. Okay, the fencer may now perceive a double whammy (first call went against and then punished for the appeal of the first call). Let's look at it another way. A call was made. It was the correct call (we know this because the appeal upheld the call). No penalty there. Then the fencer objected to the (correct) call. The fencer has just earned a penalty. Okay, another situation. A call is made. It's incorrect due to a misapplication of the rules. The fencer has been "penalized" by having the wrong thing occur. The fencer makes an appeal. The appeal overturns the original ruling, there is no penalty. Okay, third situation. A call is made. It's incorrect because the referee is a blinded idiot and saw something which didn't happen. But the referee's call is a matter of fact rather than a rules interpretation. Human error has come into play, the fencer is penalized and there is no recourse. That happens. Referees are not perfect. No appeal should be filed. If the fencer does go ahead and decide to file an appeal (apparently not having followed oso's and CVille's advice about knowing the rules and when such appeals are appropriate) THAT will result in a penalty to the fencer. But this penalty has been earned by the fencer for doing something contrary to the rules.

Originally Posted by southernsword

However, if a director ignores fencing off the strip, or brutality, unsportmanslike conduct or allows a touch after corp a corp, then there is no penalty to the opponent who acts in such manner and if the fencer complains they are likely to lose because of the subjectivity of the call. Besides, directors really don't like being called into question, especially if they are young. The further consequences to the fencer who is disadvantaged by the call is that they risk offending the director or committee which due to the subjective nature of the judging could have further negative consequences.

If the referee does not believe it happened it didn't happen. There is no penalty because there was no infraction. The complaining fencer is not only LIKELY to lose an appeal, s/he should lose the appeal.

Issues with additional consequences of having questioned a referee are a completely different topic. There are some referees that will favor those who question, some referees that will penalize those that question, and the good referees for whom such things will have minimal impact on future calls. At times the manner of questioning is at least partially a determiner of which category a particular referee will fall into this time. Young referees tend to be less experienced, both at refereeing and at life. They tend to be more affected by many types of questioning of their competence. A good competitor should be well aware of this fact and act accordingly.

Originally Posted by southernsword

The point is right or wrong, what IS the proper procedure for objection to a call that will get the desired results and not risk a penalty for objecting?

Depends on the type of error. Depends on the personality of the referee. Generally staying calm is a good suggestion. Politely ask for a reconstruction of the final phrase of the touch. If there's some particular thing that, as a fencer, you disagree with, consider asking the referee about what you believe happened. S/he will generally either explain why that isn't what happened, or, if it's something that was missed, pay more attention to it in the future. If the referee has misapplied the rules, hopefully that is now clear and can form the basis of an appeal to the BC. If the referee merely disagrees with you on what happened there is little to nothing to be gained from further arguments or questioning. Hopefully by having politely brought the referee's attention to some aspect of what has happened the referee will make the correct call in future, similar, situations.

Originally Posted by southernsword

Thanks for the contributions to the thread. I think this is an important issue that I see replayed at every tournament. I would like to see it discussed in the American Fencing magazine as well. As far as I have been able to discern, there has been little discussion of it and I am sure our U.S. teams could benefit from learning how to handle situations at International Tournaments as well.

The fencers on the US teams should already be well aware of all of this. You don't get to be one of the top 3-4 people in the country without knowing how to handle things properly at a variety of levels in a variety of situations.

Personally I think that every fencer who is serious about his/her sport should learn how to referee and should practice the skill at a variety of competitions. Seeing everything from the other side can be extremely useful. It will make you a better fencer.

-B :)

[oso97]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Okay, back to the problem I had with OSO's otherwise very good post....

When citing the rules as clearly and completely as possible make sure that you're also citing them correctly. A fencer MAY score a touch with one foot off of the strip (as well as be scored upon). It's TWO feet off the strip that does not allow the scoring of touches (although the fencer can still be scored upon).

-B

Yes, two feet. It was very late when I was writing that after a long day. I didn't proofread as well as I should have!

Thanks for the correction!

[oso97]

A couple of comments, continuing this thread particularly as it applies to knowing the rules.

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Once the weapon has been unplugged it is too late to request a test. This goes directly to CVille's points about thoroughly knowing the rules. Something which epee fencers are known for.

When I was learning to referee, Andy Shaw once said in a clinic "the rulebook would be a quarter the size it is if it weren't for epee fencers!" This statement is a bit glib, but still there is a kernel of truth at the core. Andy has quite a collection of USFA rulebooks and you can see the evolution of the rules over the years, as different situtations are handled Pretty much every rule in the rulebook was put in there for a reason. Know them.

Originally Posted by oiuyt

There were "lots of calls in this pool that were bad".... There aren't lots of calls in an epee pool (the calls that there ARE are important, and not easy, I'm not suggesting refereeing high-level epee isn't an important skill, but there are rarely MANY calls).

I think its actually just as difficult to referee high level epee well as it is to referee high level foil or sabre, but for totally different reasons. It requires cultivating a different set of skills. You don't have to have the feel for tempo and such that the ROW weapons require, but you have to be TOTALLY on your game and observing EVERY little detail constantly. Couple this with extremely large epee events, and by the time you get to the end of it you can be utterly exausted.

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Spectators (everyone other than the two fencers on strip and the officials that are involved in the bout) have no right to be involved in any way. They should NOT be acting as witnesses, support, or advocates. That said, unless they create a major problem they will generally be ignored (while being shooed back out of the sportszone). When they DO create a larger problem they are now interfering with the ability of the BC to establish what happened and make a ruling and they deserve the spectator warning that they may receive. If it continues beyond that point they deserve to be expelled from the venue. It is rare that things get to that point.

This is something our sport has gotten a lot better about lately, at the national level in particular. Still though, there are a lot of coaches out there who view this as different from how they feel the situation should be. Particularly those of Eastern European origin. I had an interesting discussion one time with a competitor originally from Eastern Europe, who explained to me that in the situation in which these coaches "grew up" there was a very clear pecking order. Coaches are given the utmost respect and referees are at the bottom of the totem pole. Referees exist to do the bidding of the senior coaches and make sure the proper fencer wins. Any referee who doesn't defer in a most respectful manner to a coach is would find himself out of a job.

Because of some highly public incidents that happened, at NACs they now have the sportzone and referees are instructed to keep everyone but the competitiors outside of it, and ignore everything that goes on outside. Despite the fact that I've more than once been on the recieving end of a short-fused coach's temper, I think there is a lot the coaching community could offer to help with the "referee situation." This is afterall a group of people who are involved on a day-to-day basis with the development of the sport, and are just as highly trained and experienced as the referee corps. Coach's could do a lot more to help promote refereeing as another way to be involved in the sport and be involved in training referees.

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Personally I think that every fencer who is serious about his/her sport should learn how to referee and should practice the skill at a variety of competitions. Seeing everything from the other side can be extremely useful. It will make you a better fencer.

Not to mention you can learn valuable lessons about how to make proper appeals!

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by oso97

I think its actually just as difficult to referee high level epee well as it is to referee high level foil or sabre, but for totally different reasons. It requires cultivating a different set of skills. You don't have to have the feel for tempo and such that the ROW weapons require, but you have to be TOTALLY on your game and observing EVERY little detail constantly. Couple this with extremely large epee events, and by the time you get to the end of it you can be utterly exausted.

I agree, I was merely trying to point out that there tend to be few actual calls, while not perpetuating the stereotype that a drunk monkey could be an adequate epee referee. Being a good epee referee is not easy. The higher the level the epee fencers the harder the epee referee's job becomes.

Originally Posted by oso97

Despite the fact that I've more than once been on the recieving end of a short-fused coach's temper, I think there is a lot the coaching community could offer to help with the "referee situation." This is afterall a group of people who are involved on a day-to-day basis with the development of the sport, and are just as highly trained and experienced as the referee corps. Coach's could do a lot more to help promote refereeing as another way to be involved in the sport and be involved in training referees.

With some coaches there is a huge amount they can offer and most referees would be well advised to listen to those coaches, especially when a bout is not in progress. Other coaches are actively trying to set up situations inside referees' heads that will benefit their students in the future. And some coaches fall into both categories at different times. Knowing which coach is in which category is one of those things that referees learn (or don't) at the national levels.

Some coaches are very helpful for the developing referee. Others are extremely detrimental (either intentionally or merely because their approach either drives developing referees out of the ranks or leaves them unable to effectively continue doing their job or developing in the future).

Coaches and referees should not be adversaries. Fencers and referees should not be adversaries. Most of the time this is true. An unfortunately high percentage of the time fencers and coaches (and a smaller but still unfortunately high percentage of the time, referees) fall into an adversarial role.

-B :)

[peet]

Originally Posted by southernsword

I disagree with the fencing manual above that a directors should not publically correct another. I don't know where that idea comes from

That idea comes from the need for one clear authority on calling actions in a bout. Can you imagine the "ref'ing by committee" nightmare that would result if any ref present could immediately and publicly question the calls made by the ref presiding over a bout?

Originally Posted by southernsword

When a referee's mistake costs a fencer a bout that they clearly won I think the fencer who has earned the right to fence in the competition and has paid dues to the USFA, Entry fees to the USFA, Competition fees to the USFA, then the fencers should have the opportunity to have some sort of hearing process when there is an issue of the director not doing their job.

As previously mentioned, If the mistake is a misapplication of rules there is a hearing process. (Warning: a potentially inflammatory statement follows): If it is a matter of fact, it is not a mistake. It is a difference of perception between the ref and the fencer (or coach, or whomever). Just because the ref saw it differently from any number of other people doesn't make them wrong. It also doesn't make them right. It only makes them the ref, who's rulings on matters of fact are final.

Originally Posted by southernsword

The directors are paid for their work. They should be competent.

Oh boy, Now you're really stepping in dangerous waters. The referees at national events are competent. They are not, however, infallible. All ref's in all sports from top to bottom make mistakes. As for getting paid, can you imagine someone getting paid $65 (an example) to stand around for 15 hours tolerating the abuse of fencers & coaches doing such a thankless job for the money???? No. They do it for love of the sport, and a desire to participate in a helpful way.


Refs are human. They make mistakes. The more they ref, the fewer mistakes they make. You sound like you think you are getting screwed by mistakes more often than others. You are not. We all get "robbed" of touches occasionally by ref's mistakes. Live with it and fence on....

cheers!
-p

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by southernsword

I disagree with the fencing manual above that a directors should not publically correct another. I don't know where that idea comes from but it is generally good form to correct a public mistake publically and correct a private mistake, privately.

Pick a sport where this happens. Please. Any sport. Any examples.

Do the judges at the side of a boxing ring halt everything, and correct the boxing referee? Do you see officials in basketball, soccer or anywhere else doing this sort of thing?

Of course not. It's the referee's judgement that matters. Also: The referee is generally positioned in a better spot to observe the action.

When a referee's mistake costs a fencer a bout that they clearly won I think the fencer who has earned the right to fence in the competition and has paid dues to the USFA, Entry fees to the USFA, Competition fees to the USFA, then the fencers should have the opportunity to have some sort of hearing process when there is an issue of the director not doing their job.

What sort of hearing process? How would this work? How much do you want your fees to go up, if they're to pay everybody and book the venue for an extra week so that the event can be stopped every time a fencer feels robbed by the referee.

And in the end? Nothing would be done, because there's no choice but to trust the referee, who has been trained to observe and officiate over a fencing bout, and was in the best position to make the right call.

The directors are paid for their work. They should be competent. The fencers are paying for the opportunity to fence. They should win or lose on their skill in a bout and not on the incompetence of a paid director who can't even write the score down correctly, or signal the score so that the record keeper can write it down correctly.

Ah, so you're looking for infalliable referees and record keepers. Better find a different planet, then. Everyone makes mistakes. Particularly when you're at a large event, and the referees are putting in long hours for low pay.

Apparently, anything a referee does that is a matter of "how they see it" is beyond appeal. That would include the score keeping, whether an action was "brutal" or not, etc.

I find this very discouraging.

I don't see why. I'm not sure who you'd like to see making the decisions. Clearly, if there's a disagreement as to the score, SOMEONE has to resolve it. Somebody has to decide whether or not an action is brutal.

Who should do it, if not the referee? Isn't that what they're there for?

Perhaps we could shift this discussion away from refereeing and talk about how to bend the rules and get away with it. Perhaps that would be the most fruitful discussion at this point.

There seems to be a lot of different subjective views about judging of fencing bouts. I think I am just unlucky enough to get the " " kind all the time. (fill in the blank with your descriptor of choice)

What are these subjective views? I mean, other than those who complain about or defend the way certain calls tend to go in the RoW weapons ...

[oso97]

Originally Posted by southernsword

The directors are paid for their work. They should be competent. The fencers are paying for the opportunity to fence. They should win or lose on their skill in a bout and not on the incompetence of a paid director who can't even write the score down correctly, or signal the score so that the record keeper can write it down correctly. Apparently, anything a referee does that is a matter of "how they see it" is beyond appeal. That would include the score keeping, whether an action was "brutal" or not, etc.

Referees get paid for their work? HA!

What we get is a small pittance. Seriously. Its a per diem and honorarium yes, but basically, its a "thank you for volunteering." Its barely minimum wage. Better than it used to be, but still, not any where near "actual pay."

You want professional referees? Or at least semi-professional fees? Expect your tournament fees to double. Minimum.

All the same, we referee because we love the sport. Not because we're getting paid to do it. There is a difference.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by oso97

Referees get paid for their work? HA!

What we get is a small pittance. Seriously. Its a per diem and honorarium yes, but basically, its a "thank you for volunteering." Its barely minimum wage. Better than it used to be, but still, not any where near "actual pay."

You want professional referees? Or at least semi-professional fees? Expect your tournament fees to double. Minimum.

All the same, we referee because we love the sport. Not because we're getting paid to do it. There is a difference.

Some do it to make extra money on the side, some of us do it because a friend or mentor ask us to.

Personally, I only do it when asked by someone I can't (for friendship or mentor reasons) refuse, or I can get some kick *** frequent flier miles and it's in a good city. It ain't love for the sport though...

If you take a look at some other refs, it's just an excuse to travel, and party with their friends...

[oso97]

Originally Posted by southernsword

I guess it is really hard to think that the fencer has to not only be alert on strip and fence the bout to win, but must keep everyone around them accountable. Keeping up with the remaining time, the accuracy of the score, the function of the strip and electrical equipment, keep their coach calm, notice if the opponent was off strip when they scored, etc. That seems like a lot for one person, whereas by contrast the director usually has a timekeeper, a score keeper, and sometimes floor judges to assist.

Two thoughts, and I'm really not trying to be inflamatory here, but still...

#1, my coaches always taught me that it WAS my responsibility to ensure that I was alert on strip and fencing the bout to win, keeping up with how much time is elapsed, knowing what the score was, making sure the equipment was working so that I could score a touch and keeping an eye on the opponent making sure he's not cheating. That is, if I wanted to win. Cause you better believe your opponent is doing all that. Its part of what makes us a SPORT, as opposed to a MARTIAL ART (to drag up stuff from other threads). And I teach my students to do the same.

#2, it sounds like you'e done little if no refereeing. You really need to step off the competition piste and see what its like from the other side. It will make you a better fencer and competitior. For the record, I've never had a timekeeper and scorekeeper (unless it was the rare moment when I was sharing a strip with another referee or doing a final bout) that I didn't have to track down and get myself. I've only had assesurs (assistant referees - floor judges, arm judges, foot judges) for MAYBE 5% of the bouts I've refereed.

#3, consider this: You fence 6 bouts in a pool of 7. The referee does 35. Without a break. Similar numbers apply for DE tableaus.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by oso97

I've only had assesurs (assistant referees - floor judges, arm judges, foot judges) for MAYBE 5% of the bouts I've refereed.

Must be much more common where you referee than anywhere I do.... :)

Gold medal bouts, sometimes. Other bouts when necessary, yes. The vast majority of bouts? No.

Two days of reffing this past weekend I didn't have an assesuer once (including the gold medal bout that I did).

Previous tournament I did (a 2-day foil event in Germany) I had asseseurs for two bouts, one the gold medal bout (all of the round of 4 and beyond had them) and one earlier bout where there was a question on whether or not one of the fencers was covering at times and her opponent asked in advance of the bout for them to be present (for reference, the fencer in question did not cover once during the course of the bout, although having seen her fence a previous bout (with a different referee and no hand judges) I understood why the request had been made).

I can't remember when the previous time I had them was. Mmm, yes I can, a couple of bouts (same fencer, and one who definitely DID cover) in Atlanta.

It's a VERY small fraction of the time. 1 bout in 20 is WAAAAAAAY too high a guesstimate. Then again I suspect you knew that and were just throwing out a sufficiently low number to point out the flaw in the argument while still having it be so clearly defensible that arguing that you were lowballing your estimate would be rediculous.

-B :)

[oso97]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

It's a VERY small fraction of the time. 1 bout in 20 is WAAAAAAAY too high a guesstimate. Then again I suspect you knew that and were just throwing out a sufficiently low number to point out the flaw in the argument while still having it be so clearly defensible that arguing that you were lowballing your estimate would be rediculous.

-B

Or something like that

But you're right. Something like 1 in 50 would be closer. But still probably too high. Although I do referee a lot of regional events without grounded strips...

[rrs]

<refereeing hat>

a quote to start:

ref: "attack from the left is parried, riposte from the right is good. touch for the right"

left fencer: "sir, but it was my beat attack"

ref: "well then next time do it better!"

as has been alluded to, there can sometimes be a certain amount of subjectivity in the priority weapons - for example, is it a beat-attack, or is it a parry-riposte? occasionally refs make genuine mistakes - we are, for the most part, human after all (allegedly). all too frequently, however, perceived mistakes come simply from fencers knowing what they *thought* they did, versus either what they actually did, or what the ref saw them do, and deciding that their interpretation was what actually happened.

bottom line: what the referee sees is what happened. this is not open for discussion, and cannot be appealed.

<coaching hat>

given this, for better or worse a key part of the sport (at least for the priority weapons) is convincing the referee that you have priority by making your actions clear.

so, if a referee calls parry-riposte when you think it was your beat attack, find out why. you are perfectly within your rights to ask the referee to clarify his call. you can ask (politely, and only once) "wasn't it my beat attack?" . if you want to be less threatening about it, you could ask "did i beat too low on the blade"? the important thing is not to stand there getting annoyed at the referee, but rather listen to what they have to say to find out why they made the call they did, and then modify your fencing style accordingly. because like it or not, for that bout, or that poule, or for however long you have that particular referee, it is their perception that matters. not yours, not your friends, not your coaches'. so if they think you beat too low on the blade (for example), change the way you beat. of course, if when they clarify their call, it turns out that they have misapplied a rule, then you have grounds for an appeal. but even if there is no grounds for appeal, asking a simple and polite quetsion can still get you valuable information.

as a fencer, it is your responsibility to find out what the referee wants to see, and then make sure that is what you give them. if you do that, as long as they are consistent, you can't go wrong. and if they're aren't consistent, go for the one light touches. that way, nothing is open to 'misinterpretation'!

[Victor]

(tangent)
I actually had a ref once who refused to tell us how much time was left in the bout when