Doubtful Double?

[fencergal33]

The general rule if there is unceratinty is to not give out a point. Did the ref actually see what happened? If he didn't and is uncertain then he has to annul the touche.

Well....at first the ref said "point left", awarding the point for the foot touch. There were NOT 2 lights in this situation, so it doesn't seem to make any sense as to why the guy was trying to apply this rule, except to confused a fairly new ref. It was a local tournament, so it's not like they can get the best rated referees around. After Mr. A started getting in the ref's face and arguing the touch, the ref decided that he wasn't sure after all, which, in knowing the guy personally, I think was the result of a lack of confidence in himself.

[Mr Epee]

No one should be surprised by ANY of the questions on the referee exam, the FOC publishes a "study guide" which includes all of them.

-B

Yeah, they publish the questions, but the answers aren't easy to find.

I think it's pretty funny that almost all of the highest rated referees passed the exam before it was 90% to pass.

I'll bet that most working referees couldn't pass the exam today.

At least not without studying.

[oso97]

Yeah, they publish the questions, but the answers aren't easy to find.

I think it's pretty funny that almost all of the highest rated referees passed the exam before it was 90% to pass.

I'll bet that most working referees couldn't pass the exam today.

At least not without studying.

This is an interesting point. One of my students right now is studying to take the exam and is working through the question sheet. I think its definitely tougher than when I took it. But its actually been pretty good for me to reaquaint myself with the answers.

[nyacfencing]

As an aside, the correct response by the referee in this situation would have been floor judges. And the most appropriate time to involve floor judges would have been after the first "questionable" touch (especially if it was argued). Why, as a referee, would you want to put yourself into that situation?

In 16 years of epee fencing, I have only seen the questionable double-touch rule employed once. Most fencers openly admit when they are hit, or are trustworthy enough to believe when they say they weren't. This rule was really meant for those situations when nobody, including the fencers, is sure of what happened (which does sometimes happen in epee).

This rule is not meant to be used when the referee is sure but the fencers who was hit isn't. The fencer does not call the action, and his/her opinion only counts if he/she acknowledges being hit, and acknowledges it before the referee makes their decision (a fencer who acknowledges being hit after the referee throws out a touch is subject to a yellow card for disputing the action and potentially disreputing the referee). Their disagreement with a hit counted as valid doesn't make a difference one way or the other and is certainly subject to the same yellow card. If the referee is unsure, they may ask the fencer whether or not they want to acknowledge being hit. But if they believe the hit was valid, the fencer may not argue otherwise.

[DJ Apostrophe]

As a referee, I've applied this rule only once... in a repechage DE bout in Div I women's epee in chattanooga last year the fencers were fencing close to the edge of the strip, one person lunged and hit the other in the shoulder, while that person counterattacked to the girls shin... i wasn't sure if she hit the shin or the floor, so I gave the girl the option of the double or no touch... at the time she was down big, and overly emotional... couldn't really process what I was asking her... and it took me repeating myself several times before she ended up chosing one (I don't remember what she chose)...

the only time I've had to apply it... otherwise I've never seen it used first-hand.

-w

[oiuyt]

Though I have to say, after being at that seminar for 9 hours (George went VERY in depth), I'm pretty sure I could ace that test if given another opportunity.

Mmm, taking the clinic is (currently) officially required before sitting the exam (although there has been some discussion of changing that policy, I understand). In any case, the clinic is not designed to be test-prep.

MrE: re: top refs having passed prior to the 90% rule, that's almost a certainty given a) how long the top refs have been reffing and b) that the 90% rule is relatively recent. I first passed the test (with a >90% score) before the rule was in effect. I subsequently passed it again under the 90% rule (seemed easier to retest than to try to get paperwork out of Maryland Division and, as best I could tell, they'd basically just filed it somewhere in Baltimore rather than reporting to the FOC who they were examining and certifying). As to most working refs not being able to pass without studying, it also wouldn't surprise me if most practicing lawyers (or judges, for that matter) couldn't pass the bar without studying, network administrators pass the MCSE exams without studying, etc., etc., through many professions that involve or require certification. Doesn't mean that they can't do their job perfectly well. The certifications help as a preliminary screening mechanism early in the career.

-B

[Mr Epee]

A couple of significant differences though:

1. Lawyers and other professionals have more time to do research. Referees are required to make split second decisions about an extremely limited number of situations.

2. The Ref Exam is certainly not comparable to a Bar Exam.
_________________________________________________

Not to jump too far off the subject, I was under the impression that the Seminars were not intended to teach people the rules (self-study, people), and that things were being changed to require passing the test BEFORE taking the exam.

I think this is a vastly superior idea.

[ReverseLunge]

You just got 'lucky' then.

Again, if the ref is uncertain of whether a touch is valid or not he can not give the fencer a point.

I did not get lucky. He gave me the point and then my opponent argued it and that what made him uncomfy.

[ReverseLunge]

Sorry about deleting all of those posts. We were getting into the realms of 'unacceptable'. Back to the regular discussion.

You need to settle down.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Mmm, taking the clinic is (currently) officially required before sitting the exam (although there has been some discussion of changing that policy, I understand). In any case, the clinic is not designed to be test-prep.
-B

You're aware that the majority of pre-written-test clinics ARE taught as test preparation, right?

[DJ Apostrophe]

You're aware that the majority of pre-written-test clinics ARE taught as test preparation, right?

I assume you're talking about a Kaplan "score 1600 on the SAT"(or whatever the new perfect score is) type test-prep class...

those classes / seminars exist to help you pass the test...

The ref seminar is (and should be) more about being a competent referee. Refereeing on a strip isn't a multiple choice test, and you shouldn't prepare for it the way you would prepare or such a test.

True, you do need to pass the multiple choice test to become a referee, but if the seminars were taught to help you pass the test and didn't pay attention to refereeing in 'the real world' then it really wouldn't prepare you for what you experience as a referee.

-w