Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

KD5MDK · 08-31-2005, 01:14 AM

In the Washington Post about a week ago, I saw that the internation Boxing federation was having its funding withheld by the IOC over differences in refereeing. It said that Fencing and several other sports had likewise caused issues, but were progressing in negotiations.

http://www.sportsjamaica.com/read_article.php?id=3623

Any word on how this involves fencing?

Mr Epee · 08-31-2005, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

In the Washington Post about a week ago, I saw that the internation Boxing federation was having its funding withheld by the IOC over differences in refereeing. It said that Fencing and several other sports had likewise caused issues, but were progressing in negotiations.

http://www.sportsjamaica.com/read_article.php?id=3623

Any word on how this involves fencing?

Interesting post... what exactly were you doing on the "Sports Jamaica" website?

KD5MDK · 08-31-2005, 01:40 PM

I was googling for an online accessible version of the story I saw in the Washington Post.

Feltan · 08-31-2005, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I was googling for an online accessible version of the story I saw in the Washington Post.

I likely story if I ever heard one.

Are you sure you weren't try to score some weed?

Regards,
Feltan

D'Art · 08-31-2005, 07:53 PM

Soooooooooo.............back on topic(ish) what was the other sport that the IOC had "discussions" with? I got fencing, gymnastics and wrestling, as well as boxing. Now, as bad as my maths is, I still believe there's one sport left....

Li'l Bebe · 09-01-2005, 06:22 PM

Well they said that fencing was making improvements, so hopefully we're ok.

MikeHarm · 09-01-2005, 11:11 PM

I think the new timings will help a lot with this.

mrbiggs · 09-01-2005, 11:16 PM

It's nothing to worry about. The IOC "discussed issues" with us, and we "improved," apparently by "rashly creating new rules calling for relatively untested visor masks and badly thought out timing changes."

Morion · 09-02-2005, 12:48 PM

It sounds to me like the IOC is trying to dictate to the various sports federations on how they should be run. I'm sure their driving motivation will be how to make more money so I don't think I like this idea. I would rather the focus be on the safety and fairness of the competition rather than on television contracts.

Mr Epee · 09-02-2005, 01:03 PM

The IOC has a product.

That product it sports.

When the credibility of those sports are placed in jeoprardy, because something other than the performance of the athletes (and their equipment) is seen to influence the outcome, then the value of the product that the IOC is responsible for promoting is diminished.

Referee scandals and blatant cheating by referees, coaches, athletes, and organizers hurt the image of the games, cause a drop in popularity, and take years to be over come.

They also make money...

If sport wasn't a business, then it wouldn't survive outside of the recess grounds.

tbryan · 09-02-2005, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

It's nothing to worry about. The IOC "discussed issues" with us, and we "improved," apparently by "rashly creating new rules calling for relatively untested visor masks and badly thought out timing changes."

I think that visor changes are really out of place in this discussion. If you compare the sports mentioned in the article, it's really focused on problems with officiating. See the sports mentioned in this article for example.

Now, other than temporarily banning an official (see this report), I don't know whether any of the IOC required or was pleased by any other changes in fencing. I've heard that the reduced lockout time is supposed to reduce judging errors by making two light actions (where the director's decision really matters) less common in foil and sabre.

But we all know that no one wants the champion at any tournament to be determined by mistakes or deliberate bias from a director. I don't know anything about the fencing director who was suspended or the details of the calls. Many of us have seen directors officiating bouts above their skill level and (worse) directors with a clear bias in their calls, and that's why the sport has procedures in place for how to make an appeal.

In most sports, there are officials who have to make decisions about rule violations and boundaries. In some sports, like fencing, the officials also make the decisions about awarding points. We're used to it. Not everyone is. In many sports (soccer, basketball, etc.), it's readily apparent when someone scores. The only thing the official can do is rule that the competitor violated a rule while scoring, annulling the score. Epee is closer to those sports in the role of the director.

Foil and sabre fencers require the director to make a call on every touch. We expect and tolerate a certain number of "close" calls and outright errors, but I don't think many fencers would tolerate a director who just couldn't see which fencer made the parry or beat or a director who almost always awarded the blade action for the fencer on the right. I'm not sure that chaning the lockout time is really the best solution, but I'm not sure that I have a much better idea for reducing the amount that the director's decisions affect the result of a bout.