Refereeing: how much explanation?

[Harold Buck]

For refereeing foil and saber, many directors like to give some
explanation about the reason for the call. For example, the referee
might say "Preparation, attack, counterattack. You're searching for the
blade" to let the fencer know why it was called preparataion. Or,
"Attack, riposte, remise. Your beat is too low." This type of
explanation is sometimes useful for the fencers, since it lets them know
exactly what the referee is seeing and the logic behind the calls.

I've heard some people say that you should NOT give any explanation
since it just opens the door for the fencers to argue with you. Instead,
they say to limit it to what is necessary to reconstruct the action
(e.g., "Attack is no, riposte is no, remise is good. Touch left.")

What do people think about this issue?

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

[Byrocat]

Well, some would say that giving such explanations is giving fencers an
unfair advantage ( a coach telling them what they did wrong.)

At the high levels of competition, I would say that such comments are
perhaps counter-productive and , as suggested, an opportunity to enter into
an argument with the director. My old copy of the rule book says nothing
about providing an added commentary as to "why" it was called.

However at club-level competitions, it's a very good teaching aid if
someone's noting what you're doing wrong and giving you the opportunity to
correct it.

However, there is also nothign in the rulebook where a competitior asks for
the director's call on the sequence. You listen, nod and go on fencing.

One master that I fenced against regaled us with a story about one sabre
director who always called the sixte-parry and immediate riposte as a
hesitation. He got so frustrated with the director that he dropped back into
teaching mode, giving a almost-subvocal commentary of the actions until he
deliberately invited a low cut into sixte, caught the parry and then lunged
with a direct riposte to the other fencer's crown, shouting "Parry Sixte!"
"Riposte!". Stood up and stared at the director as if to say "now try
calling that one some other way."

Got the hit, and the director started calling parry riposte sequences
correctly, both for and aginst him.

Next day, I wound up in a similar situation, pulled the same sequence.
Director looked at me "parry, hesitation, counter-time, riposte. You
hesitated. Nice parry too!"
"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:no_one_knows-968B3F.14345223022004@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> For refereeing foil and saber, many directors like to give some
> explanation about the reason for the call. For example, the referee
> might say "Preparation, attack, counterattack. You're searching for the
> blade" to let the fencer know why it was called preparataion. Or,
> "Attack, riposte, remise. Your beat is too low." This type of
> explanation is sometimes useful for the fencers, since it lets them know
> exactly what the referee is seeing and the logic behind the calls.
>
> I've heard some people say that you should NOT give any explanation
> since it just opens the door for the fencers to argue with you. Instead,
> they say to limit it to what is necessary to reconstruct the action
> (e.g., "Attack is no, riposte is no, remise is good. Touch left.")
>
> What do people think about this issue?
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson

[Bruce J. Heidebrecht]

The less said, the better.

Use only words listed in the USFA rulebook. (attack, counterattack,
parry.....)

The worst I've experienced was one particular Referee who would look
directly at the person getting hit and explain to them "You attacked, he
parried and riposted and hit." Made you feel like even more of an idiot
after doing something you realized was NOT your best fencing!

Just look directly forward (through both fencers) and state "Attack,
riposte, remise, touch." (Use the hand signals if you have learned them and
are comfortable with them)

If you are not using the hand signals, add in statements of which side is
doing what action "Attack from the left, riposte from the right, remise from
the left. Touch right" (Again, avoid using "you" and "he/she" as you are
not talking directly to either fencer, but just announcing the action to
everyone.)


Bruce J. Heidebrecht

[Mattie & John Condray]

Perhaps its human nature, but I do find most referees direct their calls to
one or other of the fencers - almost always to the fencer who lost the
point. After an exchange, if a referee starts talking to me, I know its not
going to be good!

-mcc
"Bruce J. Heidebrecht" <bjheidebre@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BC5FEDBA.9A5%bjheidebre@comcast.net...
> The less said, the better.
>
> Use only words listed in the USFA rulebook. (attack, counterattack,
> parry.....)
>
> The worst I've experienced was one particular Referee who would look
> directly at the person getting hit and explain to them "You attacked, he
> parried and riposted and hit." Made you feel like even more of an idiot
> after doing something you realized was NOT your best fencing!
>
> Just look directly forward (through both fencers) and state "Attack,
> riposte, remise, touch." (Use the hand signals if you have learned them
and
> are comfortable with them)
>
> If you are not using the hand signals, add in statements of which side is
> doing what action "Attack from the left, riposte from the right, remise
from
> the left. Touch right" (Again, avoid using "you" and "he/she" as you are
> not talking directly to either fencer, but just announcing the action to
> everyone.)
>
>
> Bruce J. Heidebrecht
>

[Holly E. Ordway]

Mattie & John Condray wrote:

> Perhaps its human nature, but I do find most referees direct their calls
> to one or other of the fencers - almost always to the fencer who lost the
> point. After an exchange, if a referee starts talking to me, I know its
> not going to be good!

I've noticed the same thing - first at Nationals, then in many other
circumstances (with a real director, not in self-directed stuff). As a
fencer, I find it useful to have the call directed to the one who didn't
get the touch - for one thing, in a crowded and noisy venue, it's one more
cue to "who got the touch" (sadly not all directors are as clear as they
should be about raising their hand to indicate who got it) and it offers
the immediate opportunity to ask a question if the call isn't clear.

I agree with the suggestion that it's useful to give "explanatory" comments
at a lower level, but not at a higher level. When I referee, I generally
don't offer comments unless one of the fencers asks (or looks obviously
puzzled).

As a fencer, I find that it's very very very very (etc.) helpful when the
referees use the official hand gestures. They're clear and easy to
understand, and infinitely better than the miscellaneous hand-waving and
gesturing that I see a lot by unofficial referees. I've started teaching
them to the people I fence with at my club, for use in our casual bouting
as well - I find that using the correct hand gestures also makes it easier
to correctly (and concisely) describe the phrase verbally as well.

--Holly

[William Marshal]

Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote

> For refereeing foil and saber, many directors like to give some
> explanation about the reason for the call. This type of
> explanation is sometimes useful for the fencers, since it lets them know
> exactly what the referee is seeing and the logic behind the calls.
>
> I've heard some people say that you should NOT give any explanation
> since it just opens the door for the fencers to argue with you. Instead,
> they say to limit it to what is necessary to reconstruct the action
> (e.g., "Attack is no, riposte is no, remise is good. Touch left.")
>
> What do people think about this issue?


I'm in the latter camp. Not only do detailed explanation delay the
fencing and invite strip-lawyering, as you say, there is also another
issue: the ref who explains in detail may be seen as "helping" a
fencer in some cases, by telling him what he's doing wrong ( and thus
perhaps vitiating his opponent's strategy )...

If a queston is raised about a particular call, the ref should then be
amenable to expatiating far enough to resolve the issue, but if there
is none explanation should be minimal---in fact limited to the hand
signals if possible.

[Gawnsoft]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:11:20 GMT, "Holly E. Ordway"
<hollyOUTordway@WITHverizon.THISnet> wrote (more or less):
>As a fencer, I find that it's very very very very (etc.) helpful when the
>referees use the official hand gestures. They're clear and easy to
>understand, and infinitely better than the miscellaneous hand-waving and
>gesturing that I see a lot by unofficial referees. I've started teaching
>them to the people I fence with at my club, for use in our casual bouting
>as well - I find that using the correct hand gestures also makes it easier
>to correctly (and concisely) describe the phrase verbally as well.

Where are these official hand-gestures documented?

Are they US gestures, or FIE gestures?



Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Holly E. Ordway]

Gawnsoft wrote:

> Where are these official hand-gestures documented?
>
> Are they US gestures, or FIE gestures?

They're in the USFA rulebook. I can't say with 100% certainty, but I believe
they're from the FIE (after all, the USFA rules are a translation from FIE
rules).

--Holly

[Harold Buck]

In article <FFM_b.4939$fL4.3373@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
"Holly E. Ordway" <hollyOUTordway@WITHverizon.THISnet> wrote:

> Gawnsoft wrote:
>
> > Where are these official hand-gestures documented?
> >
> > Are they US gestures, or FIE gestures?
>
> They're in the USFA rulebook. I can't say with 100% certainty, but I believe
> they're from the FIE (after all, the USFA rules are a translation from FIE
> rules).


There's also an unofficial gesture used by the fencers to complain about
the referee's call, but its use results in a black card.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

[JDzik]

Harold Buck writes:

>There's also an unofficial gesture used by the fencers to complain about
>the referee's call, but its use results in a black card.

Rather strange that it should be so punished, when you think of it. Because it
bears a striking resemblance to the usual salute given to the referee, with the
exception that it can be done even when the fencer has forgotten to bring his
foil.

Joe

[William Marshal]

Gawnsoft <xlucid@users.sourceforge.remove.this.antispam.net > wrote

>
> Are they US gestures, or FIE gestures?


FIE. At least, they are used in international competitions as well as
here in the US.

[Thom Cate]

Gawnsoft <xlucid@users.sourceforge.remove.this.antispam.net > wrote in message news:<ubum30lccjm5jojs47q565nd63ed7eptb2@4ax.com>. ..


> Where are these official hand-gestures documented?
>
> Are they US gestures, or FIE gestures?

The gestures are documented in the current USFA rulebook--and should
be in the rule book for any other FIE-compliant country.

The gestures exist primarily for the television audience, and having
watched a few videos from FencingFootage.com, I have to say I'm really
glad they're there--though clearly most referees give them short
shrift, barely raising a hand at the end of the reconstruction.

I encourage every referee to learn and use these hand-signs, as they
make it easier for spectators (regardless of being a fencer or not) to
understand the complex events in the phrase, and the awarding/denial
of the touch.

Cheers,

TC

[Thom Cate]

Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<no_one_knows-968B3F.14345223022004@comcast.ash.giganews.com>...

> For refereeing foil and saber, many directors like to give some
> explanation about the reason for the call.

Bad mojo, right there. Why open that door? Reconstruct, award touch
or not, move on. IFF a fencer requests clarification, THEN the ref
might provide some form of BRIEF explanation--and in the inevitable
"clarification"by the slighted fencer in question, a small shrug and
the magic phrase "Not for me; en garde."

This works well at the club/divisional level as well, but it should be
applied kindly, and especially with young/neophyte fencers NEVER
address his/her reconstruction to a particular fencer.

Some refs even prefer the terminal phrase only, such as "Halt!
Counter-parry from my left is valid," as the phrase counter-parry
necessarily requires an attack and a parry-riposte.

I'm 100% pro-brevity. Fencing tournaments run long enough as it is
w/out long-winded referees.

Cheers,

TC

[Byrocat]

Just remembered the same fencing master from before actually judging one of
my sabre bouts.

Typical sequence would result in the following call sequence: Halt! Attack
Left! Riposte Right! Contre-temps Left!

Then he'd go through the actions again, looking at the judges: Attack? No?
No? No! Parried? Riposte? Yes? Yes? Touch Left! En guarde! Pret?

One guess who was Left!

Oui, c'est moi!

[Harold Buck]

In article <iR50c.68210$ee3.635937@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Byrocat" <strikemaster2000@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> Just remembered the same fencing master from before actually judging one of
> my sabre bouts.
>
> Typical sequence would result in the following call sequence: Halt! Attack
> Left! Riposte Right! Contre-temps Left!
>
> Then he'd go through the actions again, looking at the judges: Attack? No?
> No? No! Parried? Riposte? Yes? Yes? Touch Left! En guarde! Pret?
>


I've tried to get in the habit of doing both at the same time, as in
"Attack is no, riposte is no, remise is yes, touch right," using the
hand signals to indicate which side each action is from, since someone
pointed out to me that it makes things go much faster. However, I've
noticed if I have a tough time reconstructing the sequence I'll revert
to the two-stage explanation to buy some time.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

[Dirk Goldgar]

"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:no_one_knows-5734A9.09575429022004@comcast.ash.giganews.com
> In article <iR50c.68210$ee3.635937@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "Byrocat" <strikemaster2000@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>> Just remembered the same fencing master from before actually judging
>> one of my sabre bouts.
>>
>> Typical sequence would result in the following call sequence: Halt!
>> Attack Left! Riposte Right! Contre-temps Left!
>>
>> Then he'd go through the actions again, looking at the judges:
>> Attack? No? No? No! Parried? Riposte? Yes? Yes? Touch Left! En
>> guarde! Pret?
>>
>
>
> I've tried to get in the habit of doing both at the same time, as in
> "Attack is no, riposte is no, remise is yes, touch right," using the
> hand signals to indicate which side each action is from, since someone
> pointed out to me that it makes things go much faster. However, I've
> noticed if I have a tough time reconstructing the sequence I'll revert
> to the two-stage explanation to buy some time.

But Byrocat is clearly describing a dry (judged) sabre bout. In
refereeing a dry bout, the referee should always (IMO) describe in
advance the sequence of actions he intends to poll the judges on, and
then proceed to the actual poll. That way the judges have a chance to
fit the hits they actually saw into the sequence of events as
reconstructed by the referee.

Incidentally, I hope the call Byrocat describes was made back in the
days when bouts were scored by touches *against*. Otherwise the
awarding of the touch to the left seems off base. Or have I missed
something?

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

[Byrocat]

"Dirk Goldgar" <dgoldgar@NOalumni.SPAMprinceton.edu> wrote in message news:<eRo0c.26610$W74.8796@newsread1.news.atl.eart hlink.net>...
> Incidentally, I hope the call Byrocat describes was made back in the
> days when bouts were scored by touches *against*. Otherwise the
> awarding of the touch to the left seems off base. Or have I missed
> something?

Sorry, now showing my age in creeping senescence (senility). Yes, 1976
Canadian Nationals. Hits against. Dry sabre. with electric sabre just
being talked about.

Planning to get back into the sport and it looks like I have an awful
lot of unlearning to do.....