Acknowledging Touches

[its_me_mango]

i never thought about it, i think it's sort of natural to react strangely to the tension of the bout, but i have to side with veeco in this, i used to acknowledge acknowledge and acknowlege, only to have my opponent deny, deny and deny he was ever hit, or hit correctly or hit by me, or whatever, as difficult as it may be to do, i don't think you should acknowledge anything in a serious competition, allow the director to do his job, they may know more about it anyway. acknowledging touches during practice with your sparring partners is a totally different thing.

[epeemike81]

Mango,

Do I understand you correctly? You would NOT acknowledge that you had, in a deftly skilled maneuver, in fact landed a BRILLIANT touch on the leg..... of the chair beside the strip?

In an earlier post, Veeco asked what the difference is between acknowledging this touch and acknowledging a ROW dispute. The difference is that in the latter, you have done SOMETHING fencing related well enough to convince the director that it is your touch. In the former, you have received a fraudulent touch, not do to your fencing convincing the director to make a judgement call in your favor, but rather due to the directors lack of occular accuity.

it is indicative of questionable scruples at best.

-m

[veeco]

Originally posted by epeemike81:
In the former, you have received a fraudulent touch, not due to your fencing convincing the director to make a judgement call in your favor, but rather due to the directors lack of occular accuity.

it is indicative of questionable scruples at best.

I'm sorry, it's me again. Hello! Well, in the ROW case, you agree with me that you let the director's perception of the bout be the final judge and not acknowledge. Well, in any case, if you do not acknowledge, it means that you think the director is not blind enough not to see the action correctly. At the same time, you also agree that if you get a wrong call made in your favor you're not going to do anything about it (still in ROW weapon). What's the difference? The director when he/she is referring epee should be able to see whether the touch hit the floor. If he/she is not confident in his/her abilities he/she can ask for floor judges. If he/she thinks they can see everything without any problem, then they should assume that position and make the call.
Believe me, it doesn't have anything with winning all the time, I get beat, and that's no problem with me, but it actually makes the whole thing go much more smoother.

And, as Mango said, since you can't rely on the other guy to be acknowledging, if the referee is constant in his calls, he might call another floor touch against me next time.

[epeemike81]

Veeco,

The difference is in the level of the misconception on the part of the ref. I have been directing bouts at times and have called an action as a pary riposte. The gentleman who got the call politely informed me that he thought it was a beat. It sure looked like a pary to me. The issue is that when that type of misconception occurs, your opponent is quite often being penalized because his/her beat was NOT clean. YOU know you didn't try to pary, but if his action was cleaner, the wrongful call would not have been made.

In the example of hitting something other than your opponent, your opponent has done everything right and is being punished purely for a mistake by the director. THIS should be acknowledged.

BTW, if it is NOT about winning all the time, than it should be about playing fair and having fun. Thus, in the spirit of playing fair, you should acknowledge regardless of what your opponent may do.

Two wrongs do NOT make a right.

-m

[its_me_mango]

i believe the director is the correct person to call the action and the point, the person who taught me this was an experienced fencer who told me to HUSH UP during a bout as I proudly pointed to my chest and acknowledged a point. It's their call. The reason being, so much is going on that a fencer could easily mistakenly offer up a point by being confused as to the order of the action that was stopped by a light, either white, green or red. If I accidentially hit a person or object off the strip of course i'ld let someone know that.

O. K. I'll jump in and spend my two Pennies.
I think Mango has it correct. In a Competition, say Nationals or the NCAA finals for the sake of arguement, The fencers in all reality have no say. The Ref/Director is in charge of the bout. His/Her call of the conversation/action and its outcome are exclusively His/Her domain.
If we as fencers want to call the action and accept or denie touches is really not the ref/directors concern. They are in charge of the bout not the fencers. We at my Salle are taught to aknowledge all action truthfully and promptly.
If you do not like the way a bout is being called, adjust your fencing tactics to compensate.
To Quote Dr. Rudy Volkman in the Big Book of Fencing... "Ultimately it is the fencers' responsibility to give the director the kinds of actions he/she can interpret into calls: EXAMPLE,
"attack, riposte,touch," called Nelson Braff in one of my favorite officiating anecdotes.
"No way!" responded the attacker; "it was my beat attack."
"Do it better next time," was Nelson's retort. End Quote, Section 5, Page 209.
So...Acknowledge the action good or bad, if your opponent won't, then your the more honorable fencer, and that still counts for something.
Yep, Clear as mud.

Ron.

[d8m2k]

It's a sport people. In a competition, people are trying to win. That's what competitions are for.

Look at other sports. Some of the greatest athletes break the rules, and the refs don't call it.

Does anyone care that Michael Jordan, during his final and game winning shot, he pushed off of Byron Russell? No.

During the Women's soccer world cup a couple of years ago, does anyone care that the US goalie, Scurry, took a couple of steps forward before the kicker had touched the ball? No. In fact when they asked her about it, she said it's partly about playing the ref.

[epeemike81]

Mango-

good. we are in agreement. I have consistently said that you should let the director call ROW, but should acknowledge if touches were scored on a surface other than your opponent. THAT is where Veeco and I disagree.

d8m2k-

There is no real analogy for what I am trying to say.... the pushing off thing is more like ROW. The best analogy I could come up with is still not a very good one: lets say in hockey, they went to electric scoring. then lets say you palmed the puck and tripped the scoring mechanism in some other way. If the ref doesn't notice, your team will be credited with a goal, possibly a game winner, but I think we would all agree that it is very different from just pushing off.

The example is still different, since it requires intent, but the level of the misconsception is about the same. you didn't score the goal, but are being credited with it. To go for and accept such a goal is clearly unscrupulous. When this happens in fencing, and you do NOT acknowledge that you hit floor, it is almost as unscrupulous (I say almost due to the fact that it was not intentional).

again, the difference is between interpretation and perception. The director can interpret touches differently than you, so you need not acknowledge ROW. His lack of perception, however, in not seeing that you hit floor should not affect the bout.

-m

[d8m2k]

Originally posted by epeemike81:
.d8m2k-
The example is still different, since it requires intent, but the level of the misconsception is about the same. you didn't score the goal, but are being credited with it. To go for and accept such a goal is clearly unscrupulous. When this happens in fencing, and you do NOT acknowledge that you hit floor, it is almost as unscrupulous (I say almost due to the fact that it was not intentional).
again, the difference is between interpretation and perception. The director can interpret touches differently than you, so you need not acknowledge ROW. His lack of perception, however, in not seeing that you hit floor should not affect the bout.
-m

Intentionally hitting the floor is called cheating. I am talking about the ref making a mistake in my favor.

Much like a ref saying that your counterattack was an attack, when you know you reacted.

Or a ref not calling Jordan for pushing off.
It's the same.



[This message has been edited by d8m2k (edited 07-11-2001).]

[epeemike81]

IMO, such a mistake should be corrected. Whether or not a player pushed off is a judgement call. Whether or not the goalie moved forward too soon is a judgement call. Whether it was your beat or his parry is a judgement call. Whether you hit your opponent or the floor is a question of fact, and if you have ANY self respect, you would NOT accept such a miscall. Though clearly less heinous than intentionally hitting the floor, to accept such a touch is STILL dispicable.

-m

[d8m2k]

They are all judgment calls at the time.

Only afterward do you see fact.

Fact: Scurry moved forward.
Fact: Jordan pushed off.
Fact: You counter-attacked.
Fact: I hit the floor.

Watch the replays.

You can justify to yourself why in some situations it is okay not to acknowledge, but really, there is little difference.

But if it makes you feel better...


[This message has been edited by d8m2k (edited 07-11-2001).]

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by d8m2k:
I never said I intentionally hit the floor. That is called cheating. I am talking about the ref making a mistake in my favor.

Much like a ref saying that your counterattack was an attack. Or, that your opponent did not take your blade.

Please re-read my post. I stated that the analogy was not great due to the fact that my analogous situation was intentional, and your acceptance wasn't. Here I go again, trying to come up with an example....

boy, this is going to stretch it....

Baseball: a guy hits a foul ball into the dugout. SOMEHOW the umps think it is a homerun (yeah, yeah, I know.... but that is the problem with these comparisons). His teammate, rather than coming forward and admitting the mistake, hides the ball and accepts the mistake in their favor. Is THAT the same as pushing off? They didn't seek to cheat, they just accepted a HEINOUS mistake. I think, however, that most reasonable people would agree that this is more than a little shady, in terms of the morals involved.

-m

[d8m2k]

Look, this could go on forever...

You get attacked, you stand there and stick out arm out late.

The ref calls same time...

You know you countered. The opponent knows you countered.

Do you accept the touch knowing that the ref just made a mistake?

[Miep]

Let me relate what happened to me last week during the Div I WE. In the bout to get into the final, I hit my opponent in the leg while infighting. My point then slid down and hit the floor. I knew I had hit her, and she knew I had hit her. The ref called it a floor touch. While I stared at him in disbelief, she went back to the on guard line and aknowledged to the touch. The ref shrugged and gave me the point. This allowed me to go up two touches in the third period and win what was a very tight bout. I thought that was one of the most sportsmanlike gestures I have ever witnessed in my fencing career, given what was at stake. That fencer was Kerry Walton, who has consistently proven herself to be one of the most honorable young fencers out there. She seems to be one of the few kids in fencing who really enjoys the sport. Meanwhile, I watched several of her young competitors that day reduced to tears in lesser situations. I guess it all goes down to what is important to you: winning at all costs, or winning with pride and dignity.

[Peach]

I agree, Kerry is cool. She is an elite fencer but a really nice person.

[epeemike81]

d8m2k,

I would acknowledge the touch if I thought I came out late. However, I do not believe it is unscrupulous to not acknowledge that. Since the director has a better view, I can understand why some people would let him decide. Though you THINK that you extended late, and your opponent THINKS you extended late, the director can see it, and may see that, though moving forward, your opponent did not extend in time.

With a floor touch, you don't think, but rather KNOW that you hit floor. Don't get me wrong, if you are unsure, don't acknowledge. If, however, you are sure that you hit the floor, you should acknowledge.

to Miep,

Nice post! Being from MA (Boston/Amherst), I have had the pleasure of seeing Kerry fence at a number of tournaments. Not just her, but the Hohensees as well are all class acts. I agree, though, that I have seen many other young WE fencers who are not yet mature enough.

-m

[This message has been edited by epeemike81 (edited 07-11-2001).]

[its_me_mango]

many fencers, especially beginners can't acknowledge touches because they are too uncertain. While you're fencing there's so much adrenleline pumping, a person can continue to fence without feeling a touch, especially with the chest plates. When a new fencer touches the floor, sometimes they are completely unaware of it, sometimes it's that their parries are too strong or wide because they're inexperienced, but even experienced fencers when faced with a stronger, faster, more expereinced fencer, will simply fence without keeping score, without counting touches, or checking weapons etc. They leave things up to their directors, who call the shots, and not always in their favor. After a while, many directors will ask the fencers just to fence and let them do the work, why? It messes them up. They have a clear picture in their minds of what happened, they get ready to describe everything and assign a point and suddenly, one of the competetors corrects the director, explains everything acknowledges a point and the director loses his train of thought and has to throw everything out, or invite side judges or other people in to sort out the mess.

[veeco]

Originally posted by epeemike81:
I would acknowledge the touch if I thought I came out late. However, I do not believe it is unscrupulous to not acknowledge that.

Let's just get rid of the referees then, and while we're at it, let's just get rid of the referees in all sports, since we are all oh so sportsmanlike. The point is that in every situation, the referee HAS a better view than yours. I might think I hit the floor because it felt hard under my point. Well for what I know, the ref might have seen my blade slide on the floor and then hit the foot on the sole of the shoe (yes, I've seen it happen).

If you agree that the referee has a better view, then you shup up and let the referee do his/her job. Because they are better at it than you are.

[epeemike81]

Veeco,

You are right. Directors do have a better view. That is why, as I already said, you can let them call ROW. With floor touches, however, he has the view, but you have the knowledge. If you don't know for certain whether you hit floor or foot, then don't acknowledge, as I said. But if you are certain that you hit floor, you should acknowledge. I have yet to meet anyone in competition who doesn't acknowledge. That is true of everybody I know from the rankest beginner to A's, to international fencers.

Btw, if you don't know what you are hitting, you might want to work on how aware you are. It is important to know exactly where you are hitting, especially when it comes to trying to reproduce errors. This makes it a lot easier to locate a dead spot, for instance.

-m

[its_me_mango]

ah! now i see the problem, it's an eppee thing, foot or floor. we don't have that problem in FOIL! hey-la!
foil,
foil,
foil,