New FIE Escrime Available:

[esskreemr]

Finally, they got rid of that horrible tri-language format. Unfortunately, you'll have to scroll through 14 pages of gibberish (French ) to get to the English translation which starts on page 15.

Mr Roche finally admits that fencing was in no danger of being dropped...

The Singapore vote, confirming our participation in the 2012 Olympic Games, is a great comfort to us and demonstrates that, contrary to certain false allegations made during an unscrupulous voting campaign, our sport is not in danger.

Whew, now we can actually concentrate on promoting fencing, ensuring that the established rules are followed, right?

However, we should not delude ourselves that there is nothing left to be done, as many sports are coveting a seat at the Olympic table. We will be challenged, as will all the other sports, each Olympic year.

In case you don't read Frenglish a translation is at hand:

"I refuse to acknowledge that any of the timing changes were ill-concieved. In addition, I plan to continue with my campaign to make foil as close to epee as possible because I hate foil."

http://www.fie.ch/Communication/Magazines.aspx

[nahouw]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Finally, they got rid of that horrible tri-language format.

It is the summary of the analysis of the IOC for fencing. The FIE packaged it for distribution for its federations. It includes the Singapore decisions.

The full IOC report including all sports can be found here, attached to its press release:

http://www.olympic.org/uk/news/olymp...uk.asp?id=1349

[esskreemr]

Why not break the electronic editions into the three languages? I could do it for them. It would take about 1o minutes. I don't want to have to scroll through a bunch of French to get to the part I can read. I can understand that format for the paper edition considering the printing costs and everything. There doesn't seem to be a reason to hold on to that unseemly and noisome format for the electronic version.

[JEC]

Originally Posted by IOC

Judging/refereeing system

Judging is assisted by a signalling system indicating when a valid hit has been made.

In epée bouts the judge’s role is to control the bout and award points based on the light signal system. The judge does not interpret the actions of the fencers or accord priority to simultaneous hits. Judging in epée bouts is described as being 90% objective, as most decisions are made by the signalling system.

In foil and sabre bouts the judge takes on a more significant role, controlling the bout and deciding on the convention of priority when two hits occur simultaneously. The judge is assisted by two assessors who follow the bout and intervene in cases of fault, but not in interpreting the convention of priority. Judging in foil and sabre bouts is described as being 50% objective, as the priority of a hit is decided by the judge, not by the signalling system.

Epee - 90% Objective - I contend that it is 98% objective. Only controversial actions are calling a halt, when equipment fails, touches occur after passing the opponent, stepping out or floor touches. Uncertainties in those referee actions occur rarely.

Foil/Sabre - 50% Objective - Is it really as objective as flipping a coin?

[JEC]

Originally Posted by IOC

Page 43

Judging/refereeing system

Judging is assisted by a signalling system indicating when a valid hit has been made.

In epée bouts the judge’s role is to control the bout and award points based on the light signal system. The judge does not interpret the actions of the fencers or accord priority to simultaneous hits. Judging in epée bouts is described as being 90% objective, as most decisions are made by the signalling system.

In foil and sabre bouts the judge takes on a more significant role, controlling the bout and deciding on the convention of priority when two hits occur simultaneously. The judge is assisted by two assessors who follow the bout and intervene in cases of fault, but not in interpreting the convention of priority. Judging in foil and sabre bouts is described as being 50% objective, as the priority of a hit is decided by the judge, not by the signalling system.

Epee - 90% Objective - I contend that it is 98% objective. Only controversial actions are calling a halt, when equipment fails, touches occur after passing the opponent, stepping out or floor touches. Uncertainties in those referee actions occur rarely.

Foil/Sabre - 50% Objective - Is it really as objective as flipping a coin?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by JEC

Foil/Sabre - 50% Objective - Is it really as objective as flipping a coin?

Flipping a coin (and determining a winner) is nearly 100% objective (barring things like the Steelers play-off game a few years back). Random and not skill based, but completely objective.

-B

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by JEC

Epee - 90% Objective - I contend that it is 98% objective.

Foil/Sabre - 50% Objective - Is it really as objective as flipping a coin?

I don't think that they're saying 50% correct. It sounds more like they're saying the decision in foil is 2 parts - machine judges materiality and human judges ROW. Thus, 50% of the decision is entirely objective. The other 50% requires human interpretation. Even if the director is correct in 100% of his calls, the decisions are still subjective judgement calls on the part of a person.

In a game like epee, the box makes most of the decision: the materiality and the lockout determine whether one or both fencers got a touch. The director's role is limited. He contributes maybe 10% to the decision of the touch because of his role in determining whether fencers had stepped off strip, already passed, etc.

Either that, or the percent is a measure of how often the human's decision matters. Perhaps 50% of the exchanges in foil are one light actions, and the other 50% of the actions require the director. Then maybe 1 in 10 epee actions require the director to determine a pass, floor touch, etc.

Epee is much closer to sports like basketball or tennis. The rules for a score are very clear. The only role of the official is to judge technicalities (you had already passed or the ball was out of bounds) and penalties (corps-au-corps or charging). You rarely here a coach telling an epeeist that he has to fence the opponent *and* the director.

[keith]

.... or maybe 98% of all statistics are made up?

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by JEC

Epee - 90% Objective - I contend that it is 98% objective. Only controversial actions are calling a halt, when equipment fails, touches occur after passing the opponent, stepping out or floor touches. Uncertainties in those referee actions occur rarely.

Foil/Sabre - 50% Objective - Is it really as objective as flipping a coin?

Foil and sabre may not be as objective as epee, but that is due to the inherent complexity of the conventions. In order to guage objectivity, you could set up 5 referees and see how many times they concur on the final outcome. Has this ever been done? Probably not. I still think that a panel of referees consisting of the floor referee and two referees reviewing each action could be done without interferring with the flow of the bout.

If all three refs agree: point stands.
If the floor ref and 1 vid ref agree: point stands.
If the two vid ref agree with each other but not with the floor ref: call overruled.

At international finals and semi-finals, this would help take care of the controversies.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

In order to guage objectivity, you could set up 5 referees and see how many times they concur on the final outcome.

That doesn't make the judging any more objective. Having 10 judges at a chili-tasting contest doesn't mean that tasting chili is an objective measurement.

-B

[OROD]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

That doesn't make the judging any more objective. Having 10 judges at a chili-tasting contest doesn't mean that tasting chili is an objective measurement.

-B

So are you saying that if we dip our lames in chilli that foil will become more objective, or that having 10 chilli judges directing foil bouts will make it more objective? =)

I have a better suggestion... how about if we cover Roch in chilli, and then we toss him into a pit with 10 starving aligators? But heck, I'm not completely heartless... we can give him an epee to defend himself with.


.

[Mo]

At the upcoming Senior World Championships, there is supposed to be instant replay.
Does this mean that they will actually make correct calls?
Who can object to a call?
Will it actually allow for a call to be recinded?
It is hopeful that the refs knowing they can be corrected (if that is true,) will make more of an effort to stop giving points to the person whom they think should win, as opposed to the person who actually does win. While this doesn't happen all the time it happens often enough it high levels of competition.

[misha]

Originally Posted by JEC

Epee - 90% Objective - I contend that it is 98% objective. Only controversial actions are calling a halt, when equipment fails, touches occur after passing the opponent, stepping out or floor touches. Uncertainties in those referee actions occur rarely.

these are sooo wrong... I do not know where to start


.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

That doesn't make the judging any more objective. Having 10 judges at a chili-tasting contest doesn't mean that tasting chili is an objective measurement.

-B

Yes, but there is a reason that they have 10 judges, it helps smooth out inconsistencies. Each judge has a personal opinion about the flavor, ingredients, etc. Relying on one judge allows for a greater potential of error. With a multi judge system, the referee will be extremely hesitant to commit a deliberate error. "Agreement" percentages could be assessed at the end of the bout as another metric.

[rcmatthews]

No sabre and foil are not as objective as say basketball. But consider football. After every play the ball is spotted at a position on the field determined by the officials. Very likely this is not the exact spot where the ball should be spotted at. And then they go and measure for a first down with something that is exactly 10 yards. Hmmm. How about calls like pass interference or holding? These can and do change the outcome of the game very often, and are quite subjective. Subjective doesnt necessarily mean bad.

[misha]

Originally Posted by rcmatthews

No sabre and foil are not as objective as say basketball. But consider football. After every play the ball is spotted at a position on the field determined by the officials. Very likely this is not the exact spot where the ball should be spotted at. And then they go and measure for a first down with something that is exactly 10 yards. Hmmm. How about calls like pass interference or holding? These can and do change the outcome of the game very often, and are quite subjective. Subjective doesnt necessarily mean bad.

Last time I checked football was not in Olympics


.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by JEC

Epee - 90% Objective - I contend that it is 98% objective. Only controversial actions are calling a halt, when equipment fails, touches occur after passing the opponent, stepping out or floor touches. Uncertainties in those referee actions occur rarely.

Foil/Sabre - 50% Objective - Is it really as objective as flipping a coin?

Yes if a foil match is directed by somebody who does not understand foil
it could be even less than 50 % objective.

Now the question is (again) do these FIE people know foil ?

If we look at these catastrophic test timings and all these future
proposed reforms, i do have my opinion ...

[rcmatthews]

Originally Posted by misha

Last time I checked football was not in Olympics


.

I was comparing it to other sports. Objectivity is not some gold standard for the way something should be judged. How about boxing then, if it must be an Olympic sport? Judges deciding who won a round? Very similar to our own sport, methinks. Diving, figure skating, karate, ballroom dancing, baseball, ad infinitum.

[ViewtifulMisho]

The fact they think of fencing as subjective is pretty bad. Every call should be objective. Whether the ref sees an action or not is one issue, but he is not supposed to make the call based on his likes and dislikes, i.e. subjectivity.