How was Refereeing at Nationals

[sabreman]

I thought Colin Parker also did a great job of sabre directing.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

I second that notion as well...every time I had him as a director (which turned out to be fairly often), i was nearly 100% happy with his calls. He was consistent the entire way through. Plus, he got to throw a black card.

[nahouw]

I thought Colin Parker also did a great job of sabre directing.

I agree!! and he has great strip presence.

[Joe biebel]

I only had a very short stay. One event, V50 men's Foil. I noticed the same anomaly, that I saw in at the Denver NAC. The referees were "required" to give a card when there was a corps-a-corps. While I agree that this should always be enforced, it should not be carded when the referee does not know who is at fault. I noticed several examples in my bouts as well as others, where the ref carded both fencers when a corp-a-corp happened. In my opinion only one card should have been issued in almost every case. The rest of the time the refs were penalizing both fencers, unnecessarily.

I know I can't have it both ways. I really like the fact that the FOC has mandated strictness by the referees. The only downside I have noticed so far has been the occasional wrong penalty, especially corps-a-corps.

I don't really know the answer, except perhaps to allow some leeway in this situation. I think it's better to say, "en-guarde" than to throw a card when you don't really know who is at fault.

[oso97]

I disagree. 99% of the time it is clearly obvious who is at fault in a corps-a-corps, particularly with the objective guidelines the FOC has given.
Did a fencer refuse to pass to the side on a fleche? fault.
Did the fencer step in to avoid a touch? fault.
Did one fencer loose his balance? fault.
Did one fencer headbutt the other? fault.

I could go on and on, but making the call of who is at fault in a corps-a-corps is a BASIC foil referee skill - akin to being able to correctly interpret attack-parry riposte-remise with two lights. Fencers are actively trying to halt the action by use of the corps-a-corps.

Take your complaint to the rules commission, you're barking up the wrong tree if you are upset because a rule was correctly applied.

The same goes for griping about being given a card for covering target area with the mask.

[Inquartata]

1) Christine Griffith, yes. Thanks to all who remedied my "senior moment".

2) I did not have Colin as a ref. Or Christine, though I did watch some bouts she ran. Or for that matter anyone I knew, except for Brad. All strangers to me for the most part.

3) I could have gotten a card for corps-a-corps at one point. I didn't. Whew.

4) It isn't always possible to tell who's at fault corps-wise. Simultaneous attacks, both fencers appear to be wildly trying to avoid crashing together but fail. Not common, admittedly, but I have seen it. You could of course card both in this case.

5) At least no one was going around with a ruler measuring the lettering on lames. A good thing, too, since I saw several instances of crudely scrawled magic-marker names, names marked out and another printed below ( lame obviously changed owners ), and ( as always ) several fencers with no name whatsoever in evidence anywhere, or wearing a friend's lame. I saw no cards being given for any of these.

[Peach]

How often is corps-a-corps carded in sabre? Usually, by the time we close a touch has already been scored, so I guess it's a moot point. I find one of my weaknesses as I try epee is an unwillingness to move into or past my opponents because I'm so used to sabre.

[Inquartata]

Peach! Epee? Say it ain't so!

[edew]

Corps-a-corps after the touch is not always a moot point. It's not "oh, it's after the touch" if I hit my opponent and then I steamroller him onto the ground. Or I make a fleche, hit my opponent, and as I run past, he hipchecks me into the next strip. Brutal acts or uncontrolled acts are penalizable whether it's before, during, or after a touch is scored.

[Joe biebel]

I disagree. 99% of the time it is clearly obvious who is at fault in a corps-a-corps, particularly with the objective guidelines the FOC has given.
Did a fencer refuse to pass to the side on a fleche? fault.
Did the fencer step in to avoid a touch? fault.
Did one fencer loose his balance? fault.
Did one fencer headbutt the other? fault.

I could go on and on, but making the call of who is at fault in a corps-a-corps is a BASIC foil referee skill - akin to being able to correctly interpret attack-parry riposte-remise with two lights. Fencers are actively trying to halt the action by use of the corps-a-corps.

Take your complaint to the rules commission, you're barking up the wrong tree if you are upset because a rule was correctly applied.


The same goes for griping about being given a card for covering target area with the mask.

Since your post came directly after mine, one might assume that you were disagreeing with me. Nothing I said in my post was a complaint about a rule being "correctly" applied. Slow down, read the posts completely, see what people are saying before you become argumentative. I was merely stating that my experiences with the corp-a-corps calls has been a misapplication of the rules especially in regards to a giving both fencers a card on the same action. Can it happen? Of course, both fencers can be at fault. Does it happen nearly as often as the cardings would indicate? Very unlikely. The FOC mandating that, "if there is contact, you must call corps-a-corps", is causing a fair number of refs to give cards to both fencers when there is contact caused by only one. I think the reason is they are not sure who is at fault, and so rather than card one fencer and risk a huge mistake, they card both fencers, and so hopefully make only a small mistake.

I have been hoping for the FOC to require rules enforcement for years. They have clearly done a good thing here. It is my opinion that "correctly" calling corps-a-corps is still a weakness that needs to worked on. If I said anything to the FOC as constructive criticism, it would be to decrease the number of double cards on a corps-a-corps situation. The only analogy I think of off the top of my head is a referee that calls a lot of simultaneous attacks. To me, this is a weak official. One that can not see, or is afraid to call the action as tight as it is.

[Wizardly]

Refereeing at nationals was on a scale from very poor to very good: fair.

*Happy to see doublt corps a corps being called.
*Unhappy to see corps a corps being called on the fencer turning away from the body contact to avoid potential injury due to the contact. If a fencer must do so and be penalized, the other fencer must be red-carded for jostling. However, the fact that the latter fencer so much as moved second should not be a factor in the deciding of a penalty.
*Unhappy about the continued non-differentiation between jostling and corps a corps. The latter is not a penalty in epee. However, when two epee fencers run into each other and bump heads, we are FAR beyond simple contact. I would be inclined to conclude that refs are afraid of red cards. Corps a corps is touching, transfer of momentum is jostling (dangerous/violent/vindictive), cross checking is deliberate brutality.
*Severely unhappy about the attitude of referees. I'll quote rule t.87

All bouts must preserve the character of a courteous and frank encounter.

I understand how hard it is being a referee. I've done that, umpired, and worked retail; I understand the general abuse of fellow humans. THIS IS NO EXCUSE TO BE RUDE, SPITEFUL, VINDICTIVE OR DISCOURTEOUS. I've smiled through it all, and they sure as hell can too. It is the responsibility of the referee to maintain the character of a courteaous...encounter. By failing to be courteous themselves, they have already violated this agreement. Referees are present to serve the fencers by doing their jobs. Impatience is acceptable ONLY to the extent of the smooth running of the pool and should NEVER be the default attitude. Failure to use complete sentences is discourteous; I'm not saying that you must say "please" and "thank you" to everyone (although it would be nice to hear from the high-and-mighty-egotists), but "you! up!" deserves a response that itself deserves a black card. You are in charge of the strip as a referee; however, bear in mind that you no more important than the people participating in the event. They are human beings too, and the only thing stopping them from treating you the way you treat them is three pieces of colored paper (or floppy disks, or what have you) in your pocket...and if that is all that keeps them from returning your treatment, you don't deserve to have them!

[oso97]

4) It isn't always possible to tell who's at fault corps-wise. Simultaneous attacks, both fencers appear to be wildly trying to avoid crashing together but fail. Not common, admittedly, but I have seen it. You could of course card both in this case.

And they should be. Maybe this seems a little too hard-nosed, but you committed a penalty. Give me one reason, supported by the rulebook or other convention, that the card(s) should not be given?

[oso97]

Since your post came directly after mine, one might assume that you were disagreeing with me. Nothing I said in my post was a complaint about a rule being "correctly" applied. Slow down, read the posts completely, see what people are saying before you become argumentative. I was merely stating that my experiences with the corp-a-corps calls has been a misapplication of the rules especially in regards to a giving both fencers a card on the same action. Can it happen? Of course, both fencers can be at fault. Does it happen nearly as often as the cardings would indicate? Very unlikely. The FOC mandating that, "if there is contact, you must call corps-a-corps", is causing a fair number of refs to give cards to both fencers when there is contact caused by only one. I think the reason is they are not sure who is at fault, and so rather than card one fencer and risk a huge mistake, they card both fencers, and so hopefully make only a small mistake.

This is of course different. From the way your post was phrased, its not too big a jump to conclude you were complaining about the issuing of cards for all corps-a-corps contact (in foil and sabre of course).

Still though, I stand by what I said. Determining the fault in a corps-a-corps is a basic foil refereeing skill, and should be taught as such. It would also help if foil coaches were to insist that the rule be applied at all in-house bouting as well.

[Peach]

Peach! Epee? Say it ain't so!

Hey, I hadda do something at Summer Nationals besides Vet-50 WS--I couldn't do the I-A because it was the same day, and I'm durned if I'll travel across the continent to fence one 17-person event.

I scored touches in most of my bouts in the Vet-50 WE

[Peach]

Corps-a-corps after the touch is not always a moot point. It's not "oh, it's after the touch" if I hit my opponent and then I steamroller him onto the ground. Or I make a fleche, hit my opponent, and as I run past, he hipchecks me into the next strip. Brutal acts or uncontrolled acts are penalizable whether it's before, during, or after a touch is scored.

Sorry for not being more clear. I meant by the time we close, meaning get close enough for corps-a-corps to be even possible, the point is moot. I usually avoid bumping into my opponents because it just ain't necessary--if I'm that close already a touch has already been scored.

The question is, how often is corps-a-corps called in sabre, though? I rarely see it.

[oso97]

Sorry for not being more clear. I meant by the time we close, meaning get close enough for corps-a-corps to be even possible, the point is moot. I usually avoid bumping into my opponents because it just ain't necessary--if I'm that close already a touch has already been scored.

The question is, how often is corps-a-corps called in sabre, though? I rarely see it.

*Grin* cause, everyone know, sabre fencers are more controlled and precise fencers than foilists.

Actually, it probably has to do with the whole "depth of target" thing....

[Inquartata]

And they should be. Maybe this seems a little too hard-nosed, but you committed a penalty. Give me one reason, supported by the rulebook or other convention, that the card(s) should not be given?

I have none. I was not arguing that, only contesting the idea that it's always possible to assign one fencer or the other responsibility for a corps.

Say---isn't the required after-bout handshake a corps-a-corps? Hah! Yellow cards all around!

[oso97]

I have none. I was not arguing that, only contesting the idea that it's always possible to assign one fencer or the other responsibility for a corps.

Say---isn't the required after-bout handshake a corps-a-corps? Hah! Yellow cards all around!

I did say that its always possible to assign one fencer or the other responsibility, I said 99% of the time it is clearly obvious who is at fault. Okay, okay, I can see how this could be interpreted as saying its one or the other, but I was also including cases where both are at fault.

Geee I'm being testy today, aren't I?

[Inquartata]

Welcome to the Hair-Splitters Club for Men.