Refs getting better?

[cfaustus]

In the wake of hearing so many fencers comment on how there appears to an epidemic of directors who do not know how to properly call actions, as well as the recent timing changes which supposedly are intended to fix this in part, I thought we might take a poll on our impressions of reffing.

[keith]

flawed, no poll.

oh maybe we should have a poll on the opinions of football players on the ability of linesmen to spot offside properly.

[cfaustus]

lol.. sorry, the forum jammed when I attempted to post the poll with the Topic.. I had to put it in after I had posted.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by cfaustus

In the wake of hearing so many fencers comment on how there appears to an epidemic of directors who do not know how to properly call actions, as well as the recent timing changes which supposedly are intended to fix this in part, I thought we might take a poll on our impressions of reffing.

Maybe your edition of ye olde internet 1.0 provides a different translation, but we haven't seen/heard this tsunami of complaints about refereeing.

Refereeing is at it's all time best in terms of the talent pool (size/quality), because during the past ten years that you, and your ilk, spent whining about how fencing is ruined, another group of people were working hard to improve the general level of fencers, referees, and administrators.

Yeah a couple of bad calls here and there, but that's sports.

Your trolling for a fight, and I don't know why.

[cfaustus]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Maybe your edition of ye olde internet 1.0 provides a different translation, but we haven't seen/heard this tsunami of complaints about refereeing.

Refereeing is at it's all time best in terms of the talent pool (size/quality), <XSNIPX> people were working hard to improve the general level of fencers, referees, and administrators.

Yeah a couple of bad calls here and there, but that's sports.[/i]

GREAT! I am glad to hear it. I actually was simply referring to much of the talk I have heard from SF folk as well as seen here. I am happy that your experience is different! Actually, I am honestly interested in others opinions, because I KNOW that many people have been working to fix things and it is important to sometimes take a step back and see if progress is being made. And in case you are wondering, I voted as not having enough expereince (as I have only returned to SF in the past year) to notice a difference. Again, I am genuinely interested in others opinions.

[Mr Epee]

Please provide links...

[broncofencer]

I think a lot of combined issues are the problem.

the refs do their best and its a tough job. My hat is off to them for doing it. That being said however, with the increase in popularity of the sport comes an influx of inexperienced refs that don't put the time into the sport and its numerous rules. That combined with the yearly changes to those rules make it difficult for officals to keep up. This then creates lower quality at the low level tournaments especially in divisions where they have to beg for officials at C & Unders or below. Which, then gives fencers a poor idea of the correct call so when it is different than expected it is the offical who was wrong. I also think more people are needed to train new officials since many divisions have only 1 person you get a inbred directing style so that a whole state might call ROW on motion and nothing else.

I answered that there were more refs making incorrect calls due to the reasons above. But I feel that this is on the lower levels of fencing. When I go to higher level competions I think the officiating is improved and usually correct.

[Katman]

I put that I haven't noticed a change, but I really should have put that I'm inexperinced. I've only been going to local tournaments for a year and half or so.

My experince thus far is that sometimes people will complain no matter how good of a job you do. Bummer.

[mrbiggs]

My opinion of refs in general has begun to increase once I've started to appreciate that different refs will call different actions in their own way, that it's a part of foil, and that I need to adapt to it. There really, to me, isn't even a "right" or "wrong" call anymore, just whatever the ref thinks is correct. (Excepting, of course, simple calls like parry-ripostes.)

The only problem is inconsistent refs, and I've found that luckily, few refs are inconsistent.

[Repechage]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Please provide links...

Wow. You must be cranking yourself up for a tournament or something. I bet you silence conversation real fast at a party

I think refs are getting better, especially in sabre. The USFA has been working hard to develop referees, and more and more of the young people I know are getting into it.

[noodle]

are we talking locally? regionally? nationally?

[striker]

Originally Posted by cfaustus

In the wake of hearing so many fencers comment on how there appears to an epidemic of directors who do not know how to properly call actions, as well as the recent timing changes which supposedly are intended to fix this in part, I thought we might take a poll on our impressions of reffing.

It may be a good idea to read the FIE magazine edition 51 for the year
2005, page 13.

http://www.fie.ch/download/magazines...revue%2051.pdf

The issue of standardizing and training referees is addressed in this
article. Perhaps FIE did see something that needed improvement.
Just by reading the article I personally do not think that FIE feels there is
a "crisis" in refereeing. I think they would like to remove the human
error factor and move towards better education and standards.
They very well know that one big mistake at the highest levels
of competition is just one mistake too many (refer to the article).

At the local level, in my own area, my personal observation has been
very positive. I measure this by the number of calls that strongly get
challenged per tournament - there are not that many.

[SmokeyTheCat263]

Originally Posted by cfaustus

as well as the recent timing changes which supposedly are intended to fix this in part reffing.

If refs have gotten significantly better since last year, it's only cause there are more 1 lighters.

Quite frankly, when I ref foil I find the new timings to be, at best, a mixed blessing.

Yes, there are more one lights. However, if two-lighters on the new timings have become harder to call: Foil fencing has transformed from flashy parry-reposts/long chasing attacks, to 20 second preparations followed by two short attacks, one after the other. How could this be easier?

-ahk

[pigeonmeister]

I cannot comment on an international level.

Yet why is it always easier to call an action correctly when your standing with your mates at the side of the piste, than when your stuck in the middle with two red faced foilists bellowing at you?

I find that the hardest thing in foil is to split up the identity and sequence of a fast clash of blades followed by two lights and two screaming fencers. At immence speed two fencers come together and whose is the beat and who's is the parry? I find this difficult when refing our top national fencers. I don't see how the new timings effect this, if anything the fact that the reposte wil often now fail leaving a one light remise, makes things easier.

I also think that fencing under the new timings has made tempo and timing more important (closer to sabre). People are more confident in breaking up opponents movements into seperate actions. Thus there are better timed attacks on preperation and smaller windows of opportunity, which can be harder to spot. Yet an argument could be made that, if old timings foil had been reffed properly (in terms of marching attacks and point threatening the target area) then it would have been a lot harder. Indeed the new timings are basically an admission that refs were not up to the task of reffing foil properly.

[kalivor]

A lot of the experienced referees who are local to me are showing up less frequently than they used to. As a result, there are a number of new and less experienced referees at local events, and more bad calls.

On the other hand, at the national-level tournaments (and the bigger/luckier ones that tend to get a good number of our national-level referees), I think the quality of refereeing is very, very high in Canada.

[fluidfencer]

When our club started hosting regional events in 1998, we were able to get quite a few refs from around the southeast (and tried to pay a reasonable fee for their services). Since then, as fencing has grown, the same people just don't have the time to do that outside their own club (and places closer to home), no matter what we offer.

Turned out to be a blessing, because we asked the FOC for help last year and got a bunch of our own people earnings ref ratings. The ones who compete frequently are very good (one will be at Summer Nationals), and ones like me are so-so.

There are still some growing pains. After a recent tournament, we restructured the way we allocate refs at our tournaments to better match the difficulty of the bout with the quality of the ref. We are hosting another FOC clinic soon (a pretty cool plan that will be done with the Chattanooga club - thanks Bart) to improve things further. I see major improvements in the last couple of years, and in the next couple of years.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by cfaustus

In the wake of hearing so many fencers comment on how there appears to an epidemic of directors who do not know how to properly call actions, as well as the recent timing changes which supposedly are intended to fix this in part, I thought we might take a poll on our impressions of reffing.

I voted for recent improvement because I feel that my division (North Carolina) of the USFA has done a good job in the last few years at getting more people trained and rated as directors. I know that at least half a dozen people have earned their first director's rating in just the last year or so. Just having more people in the division taking the exam and practical has stimulated discussion and a better general understanding of the rules. I feel that the quality of the directing seems to be improving slightly. I believe that this change is partly because my division has a Vice Chair of Coach & Referee Development. That seems to keep some focus on creating local opportunities for people to take the director's exam and practical.

As a director, I try to call the actions in the "standard" way. If the US FOC said, "Look at this action. We'd like you to call it *this* way," then I'd certainly follow those guidelines. Barring that, I try to match my calls to the way I see most other rated directors calling the action. I have made calls sometimes that I don't like but that I feel obligated to call. With the old timing, I hated that the aggressor in foil could maintain RoW even when his tip was pointed at the ceiling, and his arm was clearly (to me) not moving forward. But that's how I'd call it when directing because that's how it's called at every national tournament that I've attended.

Some people who talk about "directors who do not know how to properly call actions" are really complaining about the current, standard interpretation of the rules. If some of the best directors at the national level are consistently calling a certain type of action one way, then that becomes the right call. Unfortunately, there is often a disconnect between directing at the local level and directing at the National level. I feel that directing is improving when there are more people directing at the local level and when those directors change their calls to match the interpretation of the rules shown at the national level.

[dekko]

As the former holder of this position in NC I am very happy to say it is being left in more than capable hands with Matt Cox taking over(formally OFA now NC). Our division had for years one or two good refs then nothing. We as officers made it an action item to do what we could to improve the opportunity to learn how to ref. We have had 2 classes so far and hopefully will have more in the near future. We also are very lucky to have Ron Miller in our division to give the coaching(USFCA) exams. We had 10 people recently take and pass the monituer portion of the test in all three weapons.

I guess we are like most divisions as our good refs are also coaches and fencers and not avaiable(usually) for reffing at qualifying events. We have installed a ref pay scale that pays based on rating. I agree this isn't ground breaking stuff but something we have done on the local level to help improve reffing. So far it has worked and we have 4, I think, new ref ratings in our division and should have more soon.

Not sure if this applies but I am wondering if people think it has stayed the same because they see new faces and wonder if they can ref. As they fence they wonder if this guy or girl can ref or not and..... This year at nationals there are a little over 130 different refs over the 10 days to ref all the events. Sharon has done a great job, as usual, getting a good mix of old and new faces.

Don't be afraid if you are fencing this summer and see a new face dont be afraid that they don't know what they are doing, they may be just fine but this is their first nationals as a ref.

My own opinion is that top to bottom reffing has gotten better as there are more people I have never seen before at national events who have good skills and know what they are doing. This is a far cry from where we were a couple or so years ago when less than 100 refs came to nationals.

If possible, as this event gets bigger, and if you have a rating, contact the right people for nationals that year and see if you can ref for a day or so to help out. I am not allowed to hire anyone for this but next year if you're in the ATL for 3-4 days but only fence 1 see if you can ref for one or two days if for no other reason than to help out. If the growth continues, 130 refs may not cut it in years to come.

[haroldbuck]

I've got to say, if there are problems with refereeing in this country, it's because the referees aren't valued. It would have cost me hundreds of dollars and days of travel to get certified, and then--if I became one of the top officials in the country--I'd get a trip comped to nationals and get paid $100/day to work 12-hour days. No thanks.

Meanwhile, a new lacrosse official can make $100 in an afternoon 20 minutes from his house in 3.5 hours, doing a JV and a Varsity lacrosse game. Which one values officials more?

[oiuyt]

USFA national rates are hardly the only referee compensation available. This past season I was paid $175 for a fairly low-stress day doing collegiate reffing about 20 minutes from my house (MACFA championships, hosted by Haverford). Probably 6-7 hours.

Local events in several divisions that I've worked this season have offered $100/day. While most of the days are a bit longer than the Lax example that you gave, proximity may or may not be any worse, depending on where one lives. Collegiate and high school refereeing is available in addition to USFA local events.

When I ref nationally I get non-financial benefits as well. I enjoy flying to various parts of the country to referee. I enjoy reffing at the national level. I enjoy being at NACs. I enjoy seeing people that I know from around the country that I only see at these events. I get to improve my skills as a referee. I get to watch fencing. I get to watch what other fencers and other coaches are doing, which helps make me a better competitor and a better coach. I get satisfaction out of doing something I enjoy doing, and doing it well.

And even the financial aspect is not directly the honorarium (or even the honorarium and the per diem combined). I annually travel to 3-4 national events (all of the Div I events) where I would otherwise have to pay travel expenses. By combining these competition trips with reffing I get most of that expense covered. This is money that I would otherwise be spending that I don't have to worry about.

Would I be happy getting paid more? Absolutely. Am I happy with the current level of compensation (with the chance of further improvement as my ratings (currently I'm a 3) improve)? Yes. Would I work for less? Undoubtedly, although I would be less happy about it, and if it were enough less then I would be tempted to skip the occasional event, which I don't do currently (I've been at every national event for the past 2 1/2 seasons). Would increased compensation help with encouraging some referees to be interested in/willing to work additional events? Absolutely. But money is far from the only concern.

Is refereeing a high-skill task that receives poor hourly compensation? Again, absolutely. It's a good thing there are so many people willing to do it under the conditions that currently exist. Is the solution to double entry fees to $100/event and pass that along to the referees? Would that improve the quality of the refereeing at our national events? I don't think so. I think the FOC is doing an amazingly good job already at both increasing the total numbers of referees and the numbers of top referees in the corps. The training that is available -- both from the clinics, and, more importantly, via feedback at national events over the span of multiple seasons -- is great. Big kudos to the FOC. What they're doing is working and working well.

-B :)