Fencing Phrase Analysis vs. One Light

[Mr Epee]

Referees are wisely encouraged to avoid over sharing in their calls.

In other words, don't volunteer information while refereeing.

The thinking is similar to an umpire in baseball calling balls and strikes instead of identifying Fast-ball-strike, Curve-ball-strike, Slider-ball, etc... this information is beyond what is needed to continue, and could possibly provide an advantage to one of the players.

Fairly clear, right?

But what about the occurrence of a single light? Should the referee make a call of "Parry-Riposte Point Left" ... even if the PR is not a deciding factor in the point?

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Yes, absoluetly. "Point right, one light" is not a valid call, you still need to make a basic call such as. Attack right, or riposte right.

[Agent_V]

Depends, in my mind, on the referee, and how confident the referee is in his/her calls. If it's one light, and I'm not sure as to the content of the phrase d'arms, I'm going to raise that one hand and keep my mouth shut (except for a "Touch left/right"). However, if the referee is in complete command of the bout, then it is reassuring, and informative to both fencers if the referee gives the analysis of the phrase, especially in non-obvious cases of multiple preparations, stop touches, and the like. The fencer who missed/was locked out will often want to know whether he would have received the touch had he landed it.

My general rule/observation is that doubt as to the referee's ability, by the fencers, whether or not it is fully justified, can turn a spectacular bout into one of frustration, hence the referee should do as much as possible to negate this doubt.

Alexander

[Gav]

The good high level ref's that I've seen reffing always go through the phrase. Even if that is something like: "Attack no, counter-attack left touche good. touche left". Poorer ref's tend to say "touch left one light". I get the impression that this over-sharing guideline is more about over complicating refereeing. If you have multiple exchanges there's no need to go back to "fence" and recall it all. Or in infighting moments "attack left no, counter attack right no, counter-attack left no ... <some time later> .... counter-left no, parry-ripose right touche -- touche right" all but the last exchange is superflous.

[IanSerotkin]

It's the referee's responsibility to immediately reconstruct the entire phrase after calling halt, regardless of the lights on the box--two, one, or even zero.

That is, if one fencer left the strip while remising and the other fencer riposted, but no lights were on the box, the phrase would be something like: "Attack is parried, riposte fails. Fencer on the right left the strip, fencer on the left advances a meter. En guarde." The remise is not called since it occurred by the passing fencer after the halt, and thus is not part of the phrase.

The requirement to do so can be found in t.42, which states:

"As soon as the bout has stopped, the Referee reconstructs briefly the movements which composed the last fencing phrase."

It makes no reference to what lights are on the box; the need to reconstruct the phrase exists independently.

[Mr Epee]

Ian is an excellent resource.
T.42 in it's entirety.

Originally Posted by Current Rules

t.42 As soon as the bout has stopped, the Referee reconstructs briefly the movements which composed the last fencing phrase.

For finals, the Referee may make use of a television monitor to check on his decision should he be uncertain.

After reaching his decision regarding the materiality of a touch, the Referee, by applying the rules, decides against which fencer a touch is to be awarded, whether both are touched (épée) or if there is no valid touch (cf. t.55ss, t.64ss, t.74ss).

The Referee would use the following signals (see Figure 3, p.16).

Interestingly, there is no mention of any verbal description required. The referee is to reconstruct the final fencing phrase verbally? pantomime? in his/her mind? Not too specific. There are specific instructions to use hand signals.

[OROD]

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

Yes, absoluetly. "Point right, one light" is not a valid call, you still need to make a basic call such as. Attack right, or riposte right.

Of course it's a valid call. One light is one light, no RoW involved, no interpretation, nothing the director needs to explain to make the call as to who gets the touch. It's one light goes on, on touch scored, period!


.

[penguin_2000]

I think the director should explain the final action, even for 1 light. However, sometimes, a no call is better than "attack left, no, counter attack right, no, ... then stuff happens, one light".

[sabreur]

The referee should parse the final action, even if it is one light. The fencers need to pay attention to what he/she says.

Here are a couple of reasons why--

A attacks; B counter-attacks. One light for B (A is off-target or gets beat by the close-out time). B gets the touch--but it is an important piece of information for A to know that he/she actually had right of way in that action and would therefore also have it in a similar action where he/she (hopefully) hit on target or inside 0.10 seconds. It is equally important for B to know that the ref did not feel he/she had priority, even though they got the touch.

A attacks; B counter-attacks. One light for A. B still needs to know that he/she didn't have right of way in the particular situation, and it helps A as well.

I will ask the referee what the action was, whether I got or lost a one-light touch, if I'm not sure how the ref saw priority--it is very important as you figure out how you are going to fence a bout.

PS--why are YOU asking this? You fence epee, where it is hardly an issue.

MR

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by sabreur

PS--why are YOU asking this? You fence epee, where it is hardly an issue.

MR

Because there are many more one-light events in Foil these days... I have heard this is true in Saber also, but I haven't watched saber for years.

[KD5MDK]

Make a call of some sort. If the action was confused, remise works.

[Amadeus]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

But what about the occurrence of a single light? Should the referee make a call of "Parry-Riposte Point Left" ... even if the PR is not a deciding factor in the point?

yes, in my opinion. this helps me get used to the ref, and how he or she calls actions.

one great example is one-light counterattacks. if i attack, my opponent hits, and i miss, it is very helpful i know whether my attack was viewed as a valid attack or preparation by the referee.

of course, i agree truncation on some calls. nothing is worse than a referee who feels the need to mention all 6 parry ripostes before calling a 1 light remise (or some sort)

so i like refs that call the action, but that don't give more detail than necessary.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Referees are wisely encouraged to avoid over sharing in their calls.

In other words, don't volunteer information while refereeing.

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

But what about the occurrence of a single light? Should the referee make a call of "Parry-Riposte Point Left" ... even if the PR is not a deciding factor in the point?

I'm amused that most of the replies argue from the point-of-view of the fencer. "It helps me get used to the way the ref calls." I agree, but it would also help me as a fencer if the referee gave some nice suggestions, such as, "Attack arrives. Maybe try an inquartata with that counterattack next time."

Of course, as a referee, I would like the fencers to get used to the way I call on exchanges where the call doesn't matter. For example, suppose the bout starts with a couple of one light actions, and I call the following action

• preparation right
• attack into preparation, no
• counter attack, yes

Later, when there's an exchange and two lights with the same action, the fencer on my right shouldn't be surprised that the touch is awarded to the left for a successful attack into preparation. The fencer will probably complain anyway, but it shouldn't be a big surprise since he heard the same call for that action even when it was his one light touch.

I agree that T. 42 seems to indicate that the referee should always reconstruct the last phrase. I personally try to call the final phrase after every halt. I haven't seen enough national or international refereeing to know whether that practice is common among high level referees. Sometimes, the action is so clear that it probably doesn't matter, but as a referee, it's probably best to be consistent and simply call at least the final action every time.

I'd be interested to know what the FOC thinks.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by Agent_V

Depends, in my mind, on the referee, and how confident the referee is in his/her calls. If it's one light, and I'm not sure as to the content of the phrase d'arms, I'm going to raise that one hand and keep my mouth shut (except for a "Touch left/right").

Originally Posted by Agent_V

My general rule/observation is that doubt as to the referee's ability, by the fencers, whether or not it is fully justified, can turn a spectacular bout into one of frustration, hence the referee should do as much as possible to negate this doubt.

From watching beginning referees, I would guess that calling the action on one light exchanges actually helps the referee. They get used to watching the action and calling the action. It seems to help them get into the rhythm of making the call and using the hand signals. A one light action or (in foil) an off-target only action takes the pressure off. They can make the call, and even if the call is wrong, the bout is unaffected. It seems to build the referee's confidence (even if he's wrong) to be calling the action in those cases. If a fencer complains, it may shake the referee's confidence, but I think that overall, it's better for the referee to hear those complaints on calls where it doesn't matter than to skip a bunch of calls, pray for one lights, and then finally have to make a tough call with both fencers arguing. The referee may also feel more comfortable learning how to shut down a complaining fencer when the referee knows that the complaint cannot affect the outcome of that exchange.

I'd rather have a confident referee in control of the bout even if he's calling the action wrong. In a stressful bout (lots of arguing, coach interference, etc.), I'd prefer to have that confident but incompetent referee to one who is somewhat better at seeing the action but who is also tentative, nervous, and affected or swayed by the fencers and spectators. The confident referee will at least be able to control the strip and have a better chance of preventing black card situations.

As a fencer, if the referee sucks, then I'd prefer to hear the one light calls that suck, too. At least that gives me more information about what strange things this referee requires for an attack to be valid or a stop hit to be in time.

Of course, if the referee has absolutely no idea, then he shouldn't just make up a call. In that case, should he just say, "Touch, point right"? Or should he admit, "I'm sorry. I lost the action, but it ends with a touch against the left, point for the right"?

Edit: Basically, I guess I'd like the referee to call all of the actions as though there were two lights. If it's a tough action to call, or if the referee is uncertain, but in the case of two lights, he'd make the tough call, then he should also make the call even if there's only one light. If he has no idea and would have to throw out the touch if there had been multiple lights, then he shouldn't make up the action. As a fencer, if the referee follows this rule of thumb when calling one light actions, I can gather more information about how obvious the exchange has to be for the referee to see it.

[fencerbill]

There are two points that are both correct:

The referee briefly reconstructs the last fencing phrase;

and

Referees are wisely encouraged to avoid over sharing in their calls.

You don't have to call all the intermediate ripostes before the last.

But you particularly should not overdescribe how the fencer moved forward, took a little hitch, waved his off hand, scratched his butt, etc. It is not the fencing actions that get you in trouble it is the extraneous description that they can argue about.

And I do agree, both as a fencer and a referee, that the fencer should understand why he was unsuccessful.

I have a snide little ploy I sometimes use for annoying fencers who pester me too much. First, I tell them I will discuss it after the bout. Then after the bout I tell them I can't remember the action.

[downunder]

repot from the other thread:

alright. What people do at local/regional competitions is a different matter. What you should do, is phrase every hit, but only the immediate action. Refereeing at a national/international level at foil i have never phrased beyond a counter-riposte.

You will not pass your FIE licence unless you do this.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

There are two points that are both correct:

The referee briefly reconstructs the last fencing phrase;

and

Referees are wisely encouraged to avoid over sharing in their calls.

You don't have to call all the intermediate ripostes before the last.

But you particularly should not overdescribe how the fencer moved forward, took a little hitch, waved his off hand, scratched his butt, etc. It is not the fencing actions that get you in trouble it is the extraneous description that they can argue about.

And I do agree, both as a fencer and a referee, that the fencer should understand why he was unsuccessful.

I have a snide little ploy I sometimes use for annoying fencers who pester me too much. First, I tell them I will discuss it after the bout. Then after the bout I tell them I can't remember the action.

This is the reason why hand signals are so important. You don't need to describe every action in minute detail. The hand signals simplify the calls for the ref by limiting the description.

For example, I remember a bout I reffed where both fencers thought they took the blade and hit. To me, it was clearly riposte for the left (left controlled the blade) and I signalled it as such. The fencer on the right looked at me and said, 'Didn't I take?', and without a word, I merely repeated the hand signal for parry for my right. The fencer on the right nodded, and said, 'I guess not.' and turned away...

I didn't have to say a word, or over explain...

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

I have a snide little ploy I sometimes use for annoying fencers who pester me too much. First, I tell them I will discuss it after the bout. Then after the bout I tell them I can't remember the action.

Telling fencers -- or more commonly coaches -- that you'll discuss an action/interpretation after the bout/pool is a reasonable action, and a good way to help defuse a potentially troublesome situation. But you then need to follow through and have the discussion!

Most often this occurs when a coach comes up after a pool bout (while the next pair of fencers is hooking up) to disucss one (or more) of your calls. It will frequently become obvious almost immediately that the discussion will take more time than is available before the fencers are ready for the next bout. Postponing the discussion until the pool is completed is reasonable. Then go talk it over with the coach (generally after a further delay to turn in the scoresheet -- don't have this conversation while holding the scores out on the floor unless you really want to piss off every other fencer, coach, referee, armorer, trainer, BC staff member, and FOC/assigner who now has to work that much later). Keeps the relationship aimiable, keeps tensions down, allows for feedback in a constructive setting, etc., etc.

Postponing the discussion and then avoiding it is a REALLY good way to create a reputation for oneself and really piss off other people. Especially if they've seen it more than once from you. And if you referee to any significant degree you WILL see the same fencers/coaches over and over again. Which leaves aside the fact that doing so is just wrong. If you commit to doing something you ought to do it.

-B

[Inquartata]

I cannot recall ever seeing a ref who has NOT at some point just awarded a one-light touch without further explanation. If it's good enough for Derek Cotton, I figure it's good enough for lowly little me...

[Amadeus]

Originally Posted by downunder

repot from the other thread:

alright. What people do at local/regional competitions is a different matter. What you should do, is phrase every hit, but only the immediate action. Refereeing at a national/international level at foil i have never phrased beyond a counter-riposte.

You will not pass your FIE licence unless you do this.

i agree completely, that's what should be done at every level. (and i think it is, for the most part.)


inq, you're right that refs occaisionally just give 'touches', but i think that should be reserved for times when the ref doesn't see the action or didn't understand the action. i don't see a reason to just give touches otherwise.