Need more foil referees? Ask some epee referees!

[Rolls]

Epee fencers have to out-think their oppnents... huh, too bad foilist and saberist don't get that option because the director calls the action.

But why do they call foil the thinking man's game...

Those who don't see the potential for harm probably are missing some of the strategy, tactics and beauty of epee as well ...

Great epee fencing involves trying to outthink your opponent and that can involve deception and trickery -- you're trying to set your opponent up to provoke them to make mistakes and take advantage of the situations when they make them. Having a director describe the actions, even if it's as simple as stating who attacked and who countered, can help clue a competitor in to what's going on. That's not the job of the epee director and can disadvantage the fencer who might have spent a great deal of effort setting something up.

Epee directors who describe actions in the manner edew originally suggested are giving out TMI -- too much information. Please don't do that. Go ahead and think about how you'd call the action for foil if you want, but keep it to yourself. If someone is going to point out to a competitor what's going on, it should be their coach during the breaks -- it shouldn't be something the fencer possibly gleaned from a director's color commentary.

Ways some directors give out TMI ...

1) Commenting on the fencing action in any way beyond that necessary.

2) Volunteering the time remaining when neither fencer asked for it.

3) Noticably looking at the stopwatch closer and closer as time gets shorter and shorter.

Epee directors should stick to adjudicating/scoring the bouts and strive to avoid giving out unnecessary information. Having edew teaching us to count in other languages is cool though

[oiuyt]

Well, an attack no is different than an attack that lands late in epee timing. What I would have said is, attack, counterattack. Then award the point as per epee rules. If an attack actually missed, and the counterattack landed, then I would say, "attack no, counter yes" but still award points based on epee rules.

Basically, just make the call, don't refer to the lights. It's practice.

K, guess that makes sense. Merely hearing the call is not enough to know where the touch went. But then again, it is just practice.

-B :)

[oiuyt]

But why do they call foil the thinking man's game...

Because "they" are foilists and don't know any better? :)

-B :)

[edew]

I fence foil, I fence saber, and I fence epee. I have to say that foil is the most physically and mentally demanding of the three disciplines. Saber requires lots of preplanning (you need to know what you're going to do before you step behind the onguard line each time). Epee requires constant vigilance (you can't lose focus after seconds or minutes of nothing happening; and you need to understand what's happening in the context of the whole bout, not just for the next touch). Foil has both.

That's just the way it is.

[Bokken]

Regardless of the weapon, I always call the actions when I direct. It's the referee's job to call actions as appropriate to the rules and award touches accordingly, not coddle a fencer's game plan.
I've never had anyone whine about "You're giving out too much information" in sixteen years. IMO, anyone who can't cope with "attack from the left no, counterattack from right arrives, remise late, touch right" needs to grow up and learn how to adapt.

Not that I'm opinionated or anything.

[edew]

All I'm asking is that epee referees use the opportunity to call the actions, even if that's done in one's head or under one's breath. You still have to award points based on epee rules: both lights go off, touch for both.

It's an opportunity to practice seeing attacks, counterattacks, parry-ripostes and remises without bombing the call for the fencers.

And frankly, it's a go way to keep awake during those mind-numbing 1-0 at the third period bouts.

Lastly, watching the actions will also keep the referee vigilant about when to halt the action. Was the hit after the pass or during or before? Call the action and you'll find out.

[oiuyt]

And frankly, it's a go way to keep awake during those mind-numbing 1-0 at the third period bouts.

No, there's still only the one call there... It helps if you mentally track who has ROW as each take of the blade, extension, etc. occurs, perhaps.... :)

-B :)

[mfp]

Hmmn.

I fenced in some of the epee bouts in which Edew refereed using foil action calls. Did it affect the outcome of any of the bouts regarding who eventually won or lost? Maybe or maybe not. I certainly don't know and no one can say definitively. But even the mere possibility that the outcomes might be affected is a good enough reason to avoid calling epee bouts (aloud) that way.

Now as for the slightly different question as to whether his foil like action calls affected any of the fencers and their fencing in any way, I can answer that with a definitive, "Yes". So that's probably another good reason to skip calling epee bouts that way.

[edew]

I only did it with one Direct Elimination bout. So unless you're either Sean Harder or Toby Tolley, it didn't occur with you.

[Epeecurean]

I think this would be a great training tool in a club setting to get epee fencers to understand better what happened in the phrase and then to start analyzing it.

I'd be against it at comps though. It would slow things down and it's "too much information" as fencer X says.

[mfp]

I only did it with one Direct Elimination bout. So unless you're either Sean Harder or Toby Tolley, it didn't occur with you.

Nope. You did it in a round of 64 open epee DE bout as well. Not consistently throughout the entire bout, and not at all during the 3rd period, but enough to be noticed several times earlier on. Afterwards a spectator even asked me what was up with the calls, I told them "it beats me" and why not ask you.

The oddball calls were pretty much just extra background noise for me to ignore until one startled me by calling something I didn't see the same way (oddly on a touch for, not against me). I figured you had a much better view than I, took note, and decided I should listen more closely from then on.

[edew]

It won't slow things down because there are rarely more than two phrases (attack no, parry-riposte yes). It's not too much information because the referee is describing actions, not intents. Actions are all overt. If the referee saw it, so did both fencers and any other spectator. It's exactly the same information as shown live, just verbalized.

Maybe the attack was intended to draw a counter-attack, to which the original attacker would remise quickly. The call would be attack (maybe yes, if it arrived; suppose otherwise: no), counter-attack (suppose no), remise. Everyone saw that. No one, not the referee nor the opposing fencer would see that the remise was intentional and the initial attack was only a set-up. We don't call intents, just the actions. Thus, there will be no more information provided than what is already displayed. Would articulating that information be any better than what the epeeists can see with their own eyes? I'm quite sure the better epeeists will probably see more in the actions than what a referee would call (even a sharp-eyed epee-experienced referee), but whatever is called would not be any different than what actually occurred.

[Epeecurean]

All I'm asking is that epee referees use the opportunity to call the actions, even if that's done in one's head or under one's breath. You still have to award points based on epee rules: both lights go off, touch for both.

It's an opportunity to practice seeing attacks, counterattacks, parry-ripostes and remises without bombing the call for the fencers.

OK, if it's just done in one's head than I have no problem with this at comps and indeed I think it is good thing for epeeists to do when directing. Especially when it is a self-directed pool (as we mostly have here in the UK) you are gathering valuable information about your opponents. Of course, when doing this in epee you really end up focussing on key details (preparations, tells, favourite parry, etc.) rather than RoW-style calling the action. In thinking about the action, it's better to identify the strategy behind the action (like "he's doing counter-time, starting with a beat-4 false attack to draw out the counter-attack and then taking the blade in a bind 6") rather than just RoW ("attack-counterattack-riposte".

[Epeecurean]

Hi Edew, I think our last two posts show what might be OK for a director to say out loud versus what he thinks/analyses in his head.

[edew]

Actually, the referee need not say anything. Just make the hand signals. Since most epee fencers have no clue about the hand signals, they probably won't glean much from the signals (and frankly, the fencers, even foilists, rarely look at the whole hand signal sequence: we just look for which hand is raised).

[jBirch]

Just to jump in here, I think not only is a great idea, but it's also a requirement of the rules.

t.42
"As soon as the bout has stopped, the Referee briefly analyzes the
actions that compose the final phrase d'armes.
For finals, the Referee may make use of a television monitor to check
decisions should he or she be uncertain.
After reaching his decision regarding the materiality of a touch, the
Referee, by applying the rules, decides to which fencer a touch is to be
awarded, whether both are touched (épée) or if there is no valid touch
(cf. t.55ss, t.64ss, t.74ss).
The Referee would use the following gestures (see Figure 3, p. 16)."

This tells me that the analysis and communication of the phrase is a requirement for all three weapons. There is no where specified that the action must be explained for foil and sabre but not for epee.

[edew]

Well, in that case, all the more reason to get epee referees to analyze the actions. It'll help bring up more foil referees (which I think is in more dire straits than saber referees), as well as follow the rules.

It also helps the referee avoid ennui.

Maybe the FOC should move ahead and require epee referees to call the action at all times.

[fluidfencer]

Based on the clinic and testing that Bill Oliver did for us this past summer, they do require hand signals. At least I am pretty sure. Don't they use hand signals in the Olympics and other high level events?

There is a side benefit... Referees who use proper hand signals gain at least a little instant credibility with the fencers, which translate to less arguing and a more smoothly run bout.

Well, in that case, all the more reason to get epee referees to analyze the actions. It'll help bring up more foil referees (which I think is in more dire straits than saber referees), as well as follow the rules.

It also helps the referee avoid ennui.

Maybe the FOC should move ahead and require epee referees to call the action at all times.

[edew]

From what I've seen of WC and Olympics level epee officiating, the only signal epee referees make is the raised hand to signify who receives the touch. On occasion, they also include the "arm-sticking-out-to-the-side" signal to signify an attack that scored, immediately followed by the raised arm to award a point.

I've yet to see a referee do the "attack" hand signal (four fingers pointing down on the side of the attacker).

[pkt]

From what I've seen of WC and Olympics level epee officiating, the only signal epee referees make is the raised hand to signify who receives the touch. On occasion, they also include the "arm-sticking-out-to-the-side" signal to signify an attack that scored, immediately followed by the raised arm to award a point.

I agree, that seems to be the encouraged m.o. [modus operandi]

I've yet to see a referee do the "attack" hand signal (four fingers pointing down on the side of the attacker).

I've always refed epee making the calls under my breath, like you said for my own practise.

Epee bouts take long enough, so taking the extra time to call the actions is strongly discouraged by the DT who usu. want to finish the competition as expeditiously as possible.

PK