FIE Decisions of Executive Committee

[esskreemr]

http://www.fie.ch/download/press/200...%20Doha_nr.pdf

More refereeing objectivity and
improving the worldwide
standards of the organisation
of fencing competitions are the
main goals for the
International Fencing
Federation (FIE) until 2008.
“The success of the Olympic
Fencing Competition in Athens
needs to continue”, said René
Roch, FIE president, during the
first Executive Committee
meeting in 2005 in Doha, Qatar.
One of the first decisions is
to restructure the referees’
exams, to achieve a major
improvement in objectivity and
to standardise exams. To
introduce the video proof for
the referees during competition
is another way of approaching
this goal. The first tests with
video will be conducted in
2005.
Two new Vice Presidents have
been nominated for the next
four years (2004-2008) in this,
the first Committee meeting
after the elective congress in
December: H.E. Saoud Bin
Abdulrahman Al-Thani from Qatar
and the Rumanian Ana Pascu were
elected. “His Excellency has
greatly helped to develop
fencing in the past three
years, since he became
president of the Qatar Fencing
Federation”, Roch said. Ana
Pascu has been member of the
Executive Committee since 2000.
She is an Olympian, who
participated five times in the
Games between 1960-1976. She
won two bronze medals.

[peet]

Wow. Video???
Anybody know more about this?

-p

[esskreemr]

Hmmm. Video Replay. Good catch Peet. I didn't see that.

[MikeHarm]

Using video sounds like a great idea.

[cowpaste]

I hope they don't start using video to decide "simultaneous" attacks though. One person will ALWAYS go first, but mentally, two competitors will often attack at the same time. I don't want to start losing points because my opponent attacks me 1 frame before I attack him.

[foilz]

Adoption of the video replay will assure fencing's destruction by the IOC.

Think about it. Think about the predilection of fencers for the ultimate judication of video replay.

"I'm so fast, so perfect, so complete, only the videotape can capture it."

Appeal (by any connected party) would be part and parcel of the adoption of video replay. Think of what that would mean for fencing!

Think of the protest, counter-protest, delay, confusion. Think of the involvement of coaches, countries, fans, and other partisans. Think of the utter disorder that would undoubtedly impact virtually any bout of any importance, not just in the Olympics, but at FIE events anywhere, and maybe even national tourneys.

Think of the loss of fencing's credibility.

Most Olympic sports have been blurred fuzzy by dope, professionalism, and money. That's on top of an ancient layer of nationalistic fervor.

By contrast, fencing is a pretty clean sport. Judging is partisan, and questionable perhaps, sometimes, on some occasions. But does video replay fix that?

If figure skating can find a way for judging to be improved, and diving can work to keep subjective judgements under control, why can't fencing? And why can't fencing do even better?

Why should videotape (which I would argue -- and many experts would agree -- is a totally and absolutely imperfect technology for the adjudication of fencing actions) be employed as a substitute for what human beings actually should be doing?

M. Roch is sincere, but M. Rogge is the rogue elephant in the room (this is not meant disrespectfully).

Adoption of video replay will confirm to Rogge and members of the IOC: (1) international fencing is of questionable quality, authenticity, credibility; (2) you can't trust the sport itself to adjudicate its own competitive events (the sport is imperfect, subjective, and partisan); (3) they had to introduce video replay to manage competition because fencing officials couldn't find a credible way to do it themselves.

Rogge's reaction would be totally predictable: "We were right. Fencing is in trouble. They not only fail to bring in money to us and NBC, but they don't know how to adjudicate their own competitions. It's time for fencing to move aside."

On the other hand, if the IOC is looking for finite discriminators (not humans) to decide victory over defeat (in other sports, the boxer goes unconscious, the showjumper knocks down rails, the shooter misses the target, the yacht comes second by 0.000000003 of a second), then video replay won't fix this problem. Why?

HUMAN BEINGS HAVE TO INTERPRET THE VIDEOTAPE!

Are we in a strange loop here?

In a real world -- and in an unreal world -- fencing's survival strategy should be based on honor, goodwill, the integrity of honorable people, classic traditions, and the power of human beings to play, compete, and win.

The Olympics, frankly, are not very good at this.

That's why the IOC seeks to buttress imperfect and partisan sports (most of which have been destroyed by dope and money) with the alchemy of electronic measurement.

And that's true even though IOC members know that the one organization in the world that has failed to live up to Olympic traditions is the Olympic movement itself.

As a redemptive measure, I always thought that the sport called ultimate (frizbee for the rest of you) would be the one sport that would save the Olympics. This is a game where players call the fouls on themselves, believe it or not. And the players hammer each other if that doesn't happen.

That's what Olympic honor should be about.

Unfortunately, I now believe that today's Olympics would corrupt even ultimate.

In my humble opinion, I believe that fencing must find better ways (and forge better offensives) to be strong and Rogge-proof.

Videotape is not the way.

FWIW.

[neevel]

For fencing, I think instant replay would probably be far too clumsy, given the normal pace of a bout. You could end up with fencers appealing every touch, if only to delay the bout and get more time to rest and think.

That said, if this has to happen, then there must be some mechanism to limit the number of appeals. Perhaps each fencer is allowed only 1 appeal per 5 touch bout and 2 per 15 touch bout, and will recieve a red card if the appealed call is upheld by instant replay (in addition to whatever touch may be scored by the action). You might also have to make loss of appeal on the final touch of a bout a black card (otherwise the deciding touch would always be appealed, given that the fencer recieving the touch would have nothing to lose if only a red card was at stake). Limiting use of instant replay to just the top 4 or top 8 bouts might also be necessary (so you don't need cameras at every strip during the pools and early-DE rounds).

Still, the best thing is to not use replay in the course of an actual bout in the first place. The best use of video is as a tool for critiquing referees after the bout, and as a training tool to give demonstrations of how a certain action should be called.

[mfp]

Originally Posted by neevel

For fencing, I think instant replay would probably be far too clumsy, given the normal pace of a bout. You could end up with fencers appealing every touch, if only to delay the bout and get more time to rest and think.

That said, if this has to happen, then there must be some mechanism to limit the number of appeals.

That's the instant replay approach NFL football adopted.

But forget using instant replay for directing for a moment ... consider how cool it would be to use something like EyeVision in televising fencing bouts:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/s...-23-matrix.htm

And have any fencers local to CMU considered visiting the Robotics Institute's "3D room" and offering them some fencing action to record?

http://www.ri.cmu.edu/events/sb35/tksuperbowl.html

[Epeecurean]

There's a huge debate in the UK over the proposed use of video replays and other technology (such as chips in balls) to help make refereeing decisions in soccer. This followed an incident a few weeks ago in which Tottenham Hotspurs were robbed of what would've been a game winning goal against Manchester United when the linesman didn't see the ball cross the line even though it was like 3 feet over the line and everyone on television clearly saw it was a goal:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Soccer/Ne...?oneclick=true

Some of the arguments against video are that it would disrupt the flow of play, that these disputes are part of the game and make it interesting, and that it is too costly or unfeasible.

I watched an American football superbowl play-off game and the video replay system seemed to work fine. However, American football has so many breaks anyway it doesn't really disrupt play much to have another break.

For fencing, I think video replays isn't really feasible other than in the final stages of World Championship and Olympic competitions. I think this latest initiative follows from Athens 2004 when Roche and FIE officials used video evidence to determine that the Hungarian referee had made incorrect calls in the men's foil final between China and Italy. Perhaps now they want the power to overturn bad decisions? I would be concerned that this might politicise refereeing (not that it is pure right now).

I definitely wouldn't want video review after video review in a fencing bout, we have enough delays as it is. If they were to implement video reviews, my suggestion would be to limit each fencer to 2-3 video appeals in a 15-touch bout.

[rory]

I believe (having been told by an FIE cat-A ref) that if you make an appeal to directoire you're supposed to put down a "deposit" - an amount of cash, which you lose if your appeal is unjustified.

I imagine this would hold true for video replays.

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by rory

I believe (having been told by an FIE cat-A ref) that if you make an appeal to directoire you're supposed to put down a "deposit" - an amount of cash, which you lose if your appeal is unjustified.

I imagine this would hold true for video replays.

As opposed to the current system where you appeal to the ref directly and the cash changes hands all before the bout ...

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by neevel

Still, the best thing is to not use replay in the course of an actual bout in the first place. The best use of video is as a tool for critiquing referees after the bout, and as a training tool to give demonstrations of how a certain action should be called.

My understanding was that this was already the practice. I seem to recall an article from AF (presumably by Jeff B.) a year or two ago where he was talking about this process after the World Championships. My recollection was that it discussed how they had all the refs in a room together, watching each touch and each making the call. On touches where there was some disagreement or where the call didn't agree with what the referee had called in the bout they reviewed it more closely. The article specifically talked about a call where there was general agreement that the AiP call (in foil) had been incorrect. With slow-mo more referees agreed with the original call. Frame-by-frame ended up showing clearly that the original call by the referee in the actual bout had been correct.

If video replay were to be used while the bouts are in progress I'd suggest that the best use is not to allow appeals/challenges from the fencers/federations, but rather to do the equivalent of the rules in the last 2 minutes of football -- ie appeals initiated by the officials. I would have it be the referee's decision, rather than a second official's (ie the referee of the bout can choose to use the video replay prior to making his/her call rather than the video being used to review a call already made at the prompting of someone else). I thought I'd even heard that this was already an available option (although, unsurprisingly, one that might never be used).

-B :)

[fluidfencer]

I believe instant reply would be a big mistake, for all the reasons already mentioned.

I don't have any experience at international high-level fencing competition, so I don't have a strong point of reference. What I have seen is that everyone understands the subjective nature of refereeing, even parents of youth fencers. They don't want a clearly unqualified referee working national or international tournaments, but understand that even a very well qualified might miss a call once in awhile, or that we should give the referee the benefit of the doubt since we might not see what they do.

I don't see a system that's broken, just one that needs to be continually improved. Just because there was one situation during one Olympic event, are we going to make a dramatic shift? That seems to be becoming a pattern. "Hey! I know. Let's make this huge change as a gesture to the IOC. Forget about investing in a better system of training referees. Too much bother."

*sigh*

[tsalyards]

Abolish right-of-way and your problem is solved. I am probably alone in this camp, being a foil fencer who thinks that both off targets and right-of-way should be done away with. Bold moves are required to pump new life into this sport

-Tad

[esskreemr]

Another point I saw on a IOC Sport Highlights article (see News With a Point, Jan 21, 2005) was that they will begin looking at the see-through masks for the other sports.

Since I don't and probably never will fence Internationally, this isn't a big thing for me. I'm 100% sure I would hate plastic masks. With the amount I sweat, I probably wouldn't be able to see ...

[Inquartata]

Unfortunately, what we, the mere fencers think, is unimportant and immaterial. The FIE will do as it pleases to pursue its own objectives, which I think it is clear often diverge significantly from those of the people about whom the sport is supposed to be.

Bravo, Mr. Roche, you have done it again.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by tsalyards

Abolish right-of-way and your problem is solved. I am probably alone in this camp, being a foil fencer who thinks that both off targets and right-of-way should be done away with. Bold moves are required to pump new life into this sport

-Tad

ROW is one of the reasons I fence foil. As for pumping new life into this sport, I think that fencing as a whole has seen increasing numbers, at least here in the U.S. I think we all know that it will never be a mainstream sport. I'm sure most of us are happy with increases at the current level but don't really want to see fencing on the same level as hockey even. That much money changes the sport into a franchise opportunity. I like the amateur focus of fencing.

[MikeHarm]

I don't think the extra time would be an issue. After all, once they eliminate off target lights in foil that would make everything run a lot faster freeing up plenty of time for the use of video.

Video replay seems perfect for a tool that they could use to either improve the quality of directing by peer review of whats being called to make it more consistant (in a similar sort of way that the good call open type of thing like American Fencing Magazine talked about this month) or to keep unscrupulous directors in check which would add to the integrity and credibility of the sport.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by MikeHarm

Video replay seems perfect for a tool that they could use to either improve the quality of directing by peer review of whats being called to make it more consistant (in a similar sort of way that the good call open type of thing like American Fencing Magazine talked about this month) or to keep unscrupulous directors in check which would add to the integrity and credibility of the sport.

The referees already review video to conduct the peer review aspect. I don't like the idea of video "instant replay" at the time of the bout. I'll have to see how the powers that be decide to implement the "test", but considering the "test" that they've put through with foil debounce times, I'm willing to bet that it will come off as half-baked.

Craig

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Video replay...think about the NFL. They have two or three semi-trailers full of video recorders and switching gear, with super-slo-mo capability.

How long--with all that gear and expertise--does it take them to decide whether the player's knee hit the ground before the fumble?

Now, do you truly think the FIE will bring to bear the same level of professional review in a replay system? If they don't strictly limit the initiation of replay, the matches are going to take an hour to complete.