My own damn fault for not adjusting my game, but back in the day I would have just flicked his ass. Arghhhh!
While this might have been satisfying in its own right, it still only leads to a white light. Might have been a better option to direct your flick instead to a valid target.
-B
__________________
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
While this might have been satisfying in its own right, it still only leads to a white light. Might have been a better option to direct your flick instead to a valid target.
-B
LOL...
__________________ . "I don't mind being the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one." - Ozymandias .
I'd have to check, but I don't think the rule on covering specifies that part about "when the opponent is threatening". So really, a ref could card anytime a hand incautiously strays between lamé and opponent. Apart from "consensus practice" among refs, what stops him from doing so?
But your advise I think rather defeats the purpose of the appeal process, which is to improve understanding and application of the rules by referees and to prevent improper misapplication of them to the detriment of the fencers ( and fencing ). If followed a shrewd ref could caefully avoid ever being appealed simply by refusing to give the grounds upon which a call is made, thereby ensuring that ALL of his calls are "matters of fact" and never misapplications of a rule--even when they ARE misapplications of a rule.
This may make tournament run more smoothly and safeguard refs individually, but it could have negative repercussions for the sport overall, no?
IOW, if I am understanding correctly it sounds like you're advising refs to cover their asses above all else---never say anything which could tell a competitor that you've interpreted a rule and give him grounds to question it. How is this a good thing for the sport, really? Isn't it goal displacement?
What you say in the first paragraph about a "shrewd" rerferee is correct. I would just call him/her a good referee, at least as far as demeanor. Perhaps when training at club a real review of an action, with opposing views and opinions is appropriate and would have a beneficial affect for all concerned, but not at a tournament. What I am really advising refs to do is to make the call simple. If you are applying a penalty, merely show the card, name the infraction and thats it. The tournament bout is a bad time to bring the ref "up to speed". Appeals should be limited to the facts as the referee sees them. Most of the time, when a fencer does not like a call, they try to "mine" the referee for additional information.
Example 1, a ref calls halt after an attack that off-target. The ref says " the attack was off-target, but the target was covered, touch for the left, yellow card for the right. The penalized fencer says, "wait a minute, what do you mean covering target? Explain please, could you demonstate?" The answer is no. The explaination is you covered target.
Example 2, fencer A flesches at B, B counterattacks with flesche, A stops dead before they pass each other and parries the counterattack and makes a direct riposte that arrives after B passes A. The ref reconstructs the action but awards no hit maintaining that the fencers were past each other. "A" asks, "Didn't I stop before we passed and take a parry, and should I not be allowed a riposte? At this point, the ref will either believe the answer is no or yes. It would be appropriate to answer the question as it is germaine to the reconstruction the referee has given. Of course, if the referee answers yes, you have grounds for appeal, assuming he retains his original outcome after giving new or additional information. The referee may believe the fencers did in fact pass each other, in which case the answer would be no, and no appeal would be possible.
Fencers and referees do need to learn rules but just as importantly application of the rules. At each level of competition there is a different and unwritten expectation from the fencers and referees. At your local Y-10 competition, there may and probably should be a lot more explaination and perhaps even some detailed dialog. At an NAC the refs are going to restrict the "feedback" and limit there calls to pretty much what the hand gestures provide for. They usually know the rules and will give minimal description and detail. Example 2, could take place, and a correction of the call, or an appeal of the call, assuming the refs review states that "B" passed "A" and he/she does not change the outcome. If you take it further, say to an international competition, there is an assumption that the refs are very good and know and understand the rules. Secondly, at such a competition, it could be very difficult to "converse" with a referee in detail ,in a mutual language. The reconstructions are simple and usally limited to what the hand gestures allow.
I believe the higher the grade of the competition, the less "interplay" there is or should be allowed between referee and fencer. If the ref makes a mistake on a call it is less likely you would to be able to "mine" for details. The refs would be less likely or able to give you additional information.
There are only a few mistakes that a ref will make that can be corrected or appealed. All would have to do with technical aspects of the rules. "Attack counterattack" reversed by the ref, will stand and no appeal is possible. "Attack, riposte, you put one foot off the strip while making the riposte, no touch" now you've got an appeal. "Attack, riposte, you were off the strip, no touch, enguarde", Sir was I off with both feet? The ref may or may not give addional detail, they may simply repeat the call. I would answer assuming the question seemed in good faith and was asked in a respectful tone and as a result the outcome might be changed.
As far as "advising refs to cover their asses above all else---never say anything which could tell a competitor that you've interpreted a rule and give him grounds to question it", only partly correct. When would a referee not be inpreting a rule? That is what they do. What I would advise refs to do is not to submit to input of their inpretations by the fencers on the strip. The ref may have his faults and prejudices on certain rules issues, but a disgruntled fencer is not a reliable source for feedback. If a referee is going to listen to anyone regarding their interpretation, it needs to be an authoritative, knowledgeable, disinterested party and not at the time in question. Does this mean that mistakes might be made at the moment in question? Perhaps. The simple fact of the matter is that we have humans judging humans, in a very complex game, with a lot of rules and possible interpretations of the rules. You will never see all refs, FOCs, BC chairmen, fencers, agree on all aspecs or interpretations of the rules. I just feel that during a tournament you are only going to slow things down to a crawl by turning it into a courtroom and entertaining questions will likely grow exponentially as the fencers see openings to score touches with their mouths.
__________________
I'm a foil fencer, and I can change, if I have to, I guess.
So you can admit of no middle ground between "Permit no possibility of questions" and "Turning tournaments into courtrooms"? It seems to me that such a middle ground must exist, inasmuch as it is what we have now...
Nor can I agree that either keeping the pool clipping along or keeping refs from ever being seen to have been wrong by deliberately phrasing appealable rule mistakes as factual decisions is the paramount concern of fencing. In fact speaking as a fencer I'd place them rather far down any list of priorities, well behind fairness and transparency, the correction of mistakes, etc.
( Were my main role in fencing that of referee I might feel differently, of course, but goal displacement is easier to see from the outside than the in. )
BTW, this practice---minimizing information so as to construe every decision by a ref as a construction of fact rather than an application of a rule---could be used to conceal outright cheating by a ref. And this is not really something which can be addressed "later"; if it is not caught when it's happening it becomes the word of so-and-so against the ref, who will almost always get the benefit of that doubt.
I once watched a gold-medal sabre bout in which the ref called the action correctly and then, momentarily distracted, turned back to the strip and awarded the single-light touch to the wrong side. About 15 spectators, including partisans of the person awarded the touch, pointed out the error. The ref still awarded the touch to the wrong side. This was merely a mistake and the well-founded refusal to change a call, but if a ref were minded to cheat he could do this sort of thing virtually with impunity in many situations ( ie outside of World Cup tableaus where half the FIE was watching, or Div I NAC finals, etc ).
IMO a ref who makes a mistake out to have the courage to be corrected rather than disadvantage a fencer in the name of finishing the event faster.
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
I once watched a gold-medal sabre bout in which the ref called the action correctly and then, momentarily distracted, turned back to the strip and awarded the single-light touch to the wrong side. About 15 spectators, including partisans of the person awarded the touch, pointed out the error. The ref still awarded the touch to the wrong side. This was merely a mistake and the well-founded refusal to change a call, but if a ref were minded to cheat he could do this sort of thing virtually with impunity in many situations ( ie outside of World Cup tableaus where half the FIE was watching, or Div I NAC finals, etc ).
I saw that happen at the Junior World Championships.
I also saw the entire FIE officials sections get to their feet and protest. The referee, realising the mistake, quickly reversed the call, and the fencers went to their break.
So you can admit of no middle ground between "Permit no possibility of questions" and "Turning tournaments into courtrooms"? It seems to me that such a middle ground must exist, inasmuch as it is what we have now...
Yes, it does exist, and it's a very tricky balancing act for the referee. That's part of being a good referee, IMO. I'm not going to explain what exactly I saw that I thought was preparation. If you asked, I'm just going to tell you that you prepared. If you're at an event like Summer Nationals, and you don't know what a preparation is, then you're in trouble. I might have a different tolerance for it than you are used to (in terms of hand position, extension, and movement), but you can normally figure out what you need to do in just a couple of touches. If not, that's one of those things that a coach can sometimes help you understand during the event.
As a referee, I don't want to be dragged into minute discussions about what I saw. I give very little "extra" information during a bout. I want to give just enough to make the fencers confident that I do know what I'm talking about. I'm consistent. I'm in control of the strip. My judgements are based on the rules. If I have some interpretation a bit "off" from convention (how long before a fencer is not longer immediately riposting but is in preparation, what's the timing needed to establish a point in line, where exactly should the hand be to not cover target when the fencer reverses shoulders), the best time for me to learn about it is during a referee seminar, not during a bout.
As a fencer, when I complain or question a referee, it usually isn't on the way to an appeal. It normally means that I think he's missing something, and I'm hoping that he'll pay a bit more attention once he hears someone point it out. I think that I hit a remise into preparation, but the referee calls it for the riposte. I look at the referee, "Sir? Preparation?" The referee repeats his call. He doesn't need to explain the call. We both saw the action. If he misses it again, then he and I have different tolerances for preparation, and I better adjust my tactics.
If the (foil) fencer ducks as I attack, I might ask, "Sir! Wasn't that covering with his head?" I expect the referee to say, "No," or maybe, "No, his head was still up." That second reply is still a statement of fact, but it tells me that the referee knows the rule and what he's supposed to watch for. The reason I asked is an attempt to make him watch a bit more for covering target with head. That's all I wanted. I don't want to discuss how much the opponent has to look down before he considers it to be covering with head and how much my opponent was or wasn't looking down. That doesn't do anyone any good.
Now, if a fencer is staring at his feet and counter-attacking, but the referee won't call it covering with head, I'm going to send for someone to observe the referee. I don't really think that I'll get the referee to change his mind. It sucks that my referee sucks, but I don't think that he's really going to learn a new way of calling an action or pentalty in the middle of my bout. If I get an observer in time, the referee may soon learn that he's not calling it right. But probably not in time for my bout. Too bad for me. I may talk to the referee about it after the bout. During the bout, I'm just going to be hitting a lot of mask, throat, and back of head on my way to try to find valid target.
What the referee really wants to avoid is a two minute conversation on what he considers to be preparation and what exactly the fencer did that was or was not preparation. And, yes, I've seen such conversations happen during bouts at fairly large tournaments (like one of the Chesapeake Challenge events). The moment something like that happens, I'm ready to pack up and go home. I do not expect the referee to maintain good order on the strip any more. I expect inconsistent calls as fencers' arguments chip away at the referee's confidence and sway the calls in subsequent touches. Every time I've seen a referee let himself get dragged into minutiae, all of the rest of these expectations have been fulfilled.
In general, most low-rated referees err on the side of giving too much information. That probably comes from refereeing a lot at club, where they are probably joking and chatting while they referee. Take that same manner into a National event, and you'll quickly lose control of the strip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquartata
BTW, this practice---minimizing information so as to construe every decision by a ref as a construction of fact rather than an application of a rule---could be used to conceal outright cheating by a ref.
It doesn't really conceal it. It just makes it hard to appeal. But the referee doesn't need anything to do that. He just needs two light actions. In saber, the timing is so tight, he just calls all two light actions for your opponent.
His attack hit before your parry.
Now, your attack was parried, his riposte scored. I'm sorry, but your light was from your remise.
His attack arrived. Your stop cut was late.
His stop hit arrived before the last action of your compound attack. That makes it his touch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquartata
And this is not really something which can be addressed "later"; if it is not caught when it's happening it becomes the word of so-and-so against the ref, who will almost always get the benefit of that doubt.
Right, but you can't win any of these ones on appeal. You need to get a neutral observer to watch. Then, they can see whether the referee is right or whether the referee is just making up excuses to give all two light actions to your opponent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquartata
IMO a ref who makes a mistake out to have the courage to be corrected rather than disadvantage a fencer in the name of finishing the event faster.
Yes and no.
I'm happy to explain which rule is in play. He started his action before he left strip. He hit, and he was only off strip with one foot. His touch is allowed.
I'm not happy to discuss whether the second foot was on the line, over the line, stepped off and came back, etc. Even if I'm wrong, I called what I saw. Here's why I called it that way. Come on guard.
And, yes, there are many fencers who want to have this type of argument during a bout. On multiple touches during the bout. These are really the fencers from whom the referee is trying to "defend" himself and the smooth running of the tournament.
I'd be interested whether your point of view changes when you finally pass the exam, take the practical, and referee a few big events. Especially after you've refereed a few bouts with a "rules laywer" on strip. And after you've blow a few calls at big events. And after you've blinked or sneezed, and missed the moment of the final action of the phrase at 14-14. And after you've refereed fencers who are better than you as fencers, and they really disagree with how you perceive the actions (no matter which one of you is actually right).
I'm not going to explain what exactly I saw that I thought was preparation. If you asked, I'm just going to tell you that you prepared. If you're at an event like Summer Nationals, and you don't know what a preparation is, then you're in trouble. I might have a different tolerance for it than you are used to (in terms of hand position, extension, and movement), but you can normally figure out what you need to do in just a couple of touches. If not, that's one of those things that a coach can sometimes help you understand during the event.
Good point. Also, if you award A a touch for an attack in preparation and B asks, "Why?" to answer by explaining that advancing without extension of the hand gives no RoW is coaching the fencer, not referreeing. It is not the referee's job to coach a fencer who does not understand the rules of RoW, nor is it fair to fencer A who understands the rules, knows when his opponent has made an error and takes advantage of it.
Generally if that gets queried for me, i pull one elbow behind my back - hand outside, then poke myself in the chest with the other hand.
Tends to get the point across quickly and simply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsy
Good point. Also, if you award A a touch for an attack in preparation and B asks, "Why?" to answer by explaining that advancing without extension of the hand gives no RoW is coaching the fencer, not referreeing. It is not the referee's job to coach a fencer who does not understand the rules of RoW, nor is it fair to fencer A who understands the rules, knows when his opponent has made an error and takes advantage of it.
I'm not going to explain what exactly I saw that I thought was preparation. If you asked, I'm just going to tell you that you prepared. If you're at an event like Summer Nationals, and you don't know what a preparation is, then you're in trouble.
Yes, I'm completely with you here.
Quote:
As a referee, I don't want to be dragged into minute discussions about what I saw. I give very little "extra" information during a bout. I want to give just enough to make the fencers confident that I do know what I'm talking about. I'm consistent. I'm in control of the strip. My judgements are based on the rules.
All to the good. BUT...
There ARE scenarios where a call depends not on interpretation of things like "Who was attacking?" but on fine points of the rules. For instance, fencer A is attacking. Fencer B retreats to the end of the strip and as he steps off with his back foot A's attack finishes and B parries it. As B begins his riposte, the ref calls halt and awards a touch to A on the basis of B having gone off the end of the strip. This is a clear mistake; the fencer must be off with BOTH feet. But if the ref adheres to your method and just repeats his mistaken call, the fencer is obviously robbed by the ref's mistaken understanding of a rule. An appeal is definitely in order, but the fencer will not be able to gain legitimate, valid relief because the ref just insists that it's a matter of fact rather than of rules. This IMO is not to be countenanced merely because refs don't like to be questioned, much less overruled....and still less in the sole name of bout expediency. The main imperative is fair, proper fencing and scoring according to the rules, not referee convenience or self-protection. Do you see what I'm saying?
Quote:
As a fencer, when I complain or question a referee, it usually isn't on the way to an appeal. It normally means that I think he's missing something, and I'm hoping that he'll pay a bit more attention once he hears someone point it out. I think that I hit a remise into preparation, but the referee calls it for the riposte. I look at the referee, "Sir? Preparation?" The referee repeats his call. He doesn't need to explain the call. We both saw the action. If he misses it again, then he and I have different tolerances for preparation, and I better adjust my tactics.
Sure, and that's the way to handle it when you believe the ref has missed an action rather than that he's misapplying a rule. Tapping your guard to indicate that you tought you had parried, pantomiming that you felt a beat was on your forte, and so forth are perfectly appropriate ways of trying to draw the ref's attention to something you think he missed. Hopefully this primes him to see it if it happens again---brings it to the forefront of his attention. Especially useful for things for which greener refs sometimes don't watch very well, such as crossovers and cuts which land after the fall of the front foot of a final lunge. It's hard for a ref to concentrate on seeing everything at once.
And it's expected that the ref is merely going to reaffirm his original call. It would be surprising ( indeed dismaying ) if he didn't.
But calls which involve mistaken understandings of the rules DO occur occasionally, and in these cases it is of no comfort to a fencer that the ref may have his understanding corrected in some future ref seminar.
I lost a bout at 14-14 once, on an opponent's taking of my PIL. The beat arrived about an inch from my guard. From the resulting "conversation" I conceived an inkling that the ref may not have thought that the beat-on-the-lower-third-of-the-blade-is-parried rule applied to lines. I know this is a hard thing to see as a ref, due to his perspective, and I didn't expect the call to be changed. I did not plan to appeal, either. BUT, the opportunity ought not be foreclosed just in the interest of moving the tableau along. The fencer ought not to have to have a legitimate option, one allowed by the rules, foreclosed because a ref is too cagey with his wording to ever let an appeal happen...
Quote:
If the (foil) fencer ducks as I attack, I might ask, "Sir! Wasn't that covering with his head?" I expect the referee to say, "No," or maybe, "No, his head was still up." That second reply is still a statement of fact, but it tells me that the referee knows the rule and what he's supposed to watch for. The reason I asked is an attempt to make him watch a bit more for covering target with head. That's all I wanted. I don't want to discuss how much the opponent has to look down before he considers it to be covering with head and how much my opponent was or wasn't looking down. That doesn't do anyone any good.
Agreed. This sort of thing is not what I'm on about.
Quote:
I'm happy to explain which rule is in play. He started his action before he left strip. He hit, and he was only off strip with one foot. His touch is allowed.
Well, then perhaps we have been talking at cross purposes. This sounds fine, and this sort of rule-based call is just what I've been talking about. OTOH a ref could phrase that call laconically enough to bypass entirely the matter of whether he was off with one foot or two, thus allowing no grounds for a question. If a ref explains a call as far as you indicate in this example and his understanding of the rule is NOT the basis of the question, I have no problem with his brusquely shutting down debate. I had thought you were advocating that refs parse calls so that even if their understanding of the rule was faulty no one could ever pin the matter down...
Quote:
I'm not happy to discuss whether the second foot was on the line, over the line, stepped off and came back, etc. Even if I'm wrong, I called what I saw. Here's why I called it that way. Come on guard.
Right. But if instead a ref said that he stepped off with one foot, therefore the action is not allowed, his understanding of the rule is clearly incorrect and an appeal is in order. I think we are on the same page, really. I would not like to see refs adopt the practice of restricting their wording so strictly that even in the example above the question of one or two feet off could never even come up. And it's possible to do that.
Quote:
I'd be interested whether your point of view changes when you finally pass the exam, take the practical, and referee a few big events. Especially after you've refereed a few bouts with a "rules laywer" on strip. And after you've blow a few calls at big events. And after you've blinked or sneezed, and missed the moment of the final action of the phrase at 14-14. And after you've refereed fencers who are better than you as fencers, and they really disagree with how you perceive the actions (no matter which one of you is actually right).
Well, I hope it won't. I'd like to think I'd try hard to avoid having that happen, and to keep the principle firmly in view that it's about the fencers, not about me. But I recognize the power of the siren song of goal displacement.
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
BTW, this practice---minimizing information so as to construe every decision by a ref as a construction of fact rather than an application of a rule---could be used to conceal outright cheating by a ref. And this is not really something which can be addressed "later"; if it is not caught when it's happening it becomes the word of so-and-so against the ref, who will almost always get the benefit of that doubt.
There are several supposed-to-be-good refs I have had who have simply refused to explain anything, on the basis of "I am the ref, you are the fencer, you have no right to question my call" to the point where if I ask them to repeat the action they will not. I agree with your assessment of this issue; I think that referees should give all the required information (how many feet, etc) when explaining an action. Nobody likes it when a ref goes into too much detail though (well, you had a line, and he searched for your blade, but when he did you withdrew your arm, and even though you still had priority momentarily you held it a little too long and by the time you attacked he had already began extending his arm... etc etc just say attack damnit).
This is a good discussion, but all the examples have been "The referee makes a mistake, the fencer -- who knows better -- cannot correct it, and the fencer is penalized". All too often, it's the reverse.
My experiance, even at local tournaments where the referee "pool" is not very deep, is that the referees usually know more than the fencers do. In the last two years, I have had fencers argue about such things as: not being given a warning before leaving the end of the strip, being carded for turning the back, being carded for reversing the shoulders and covering target, being carded for not having a spare weapon by the side of the strip, allowing their opponent's riposte to arrive after they have left the side of the strip (the riposte started in time), being carded for holding the electical equipment while fencing....need I go on? And these are just rules calls, not calls of priority.
Yes, fencers seem to have little chance to "educate" referees in the course of the bout. But if you give the fencer a pathway for "correct" protests, you also have to allow "incorrect" protests as well. Even you, Inq, admit
Quote:
But calls which involve mistaken understandings of the rules DO occur occasionally, and in these cases it is of no comfort to a fencer that the ref may have his understanding corrected in some future ref seminar.
(emphasis mine).
What's the mechanism to allow those occasional protests that have validity from the overwhelming majority that don't?
There ARE scenarios where a call depends not on interpretation of things like "Who was attacking?" but on fine points of the rules. For instance, fencer A is attacking. Fencer B retreats to the end of the strip and as he steps off with his back foot A's attack finishes and B parries it....Do you see what I'm saying?
Yes. I see what you're saying. I think we are actually saying the same thing.
This type of mistake does happen--I've seen almost exactly this mistake at a National event. But I'm with Allen. The majority of the "issues" really seem to be with fencers arguing about "but, wasn't my foot here, not there? How can you call that off the strip?" or "You can't card for covering with the mask." That's why, when giving advice to referees, I suggest that they err on the side of giving too little information. It's easier to start from there to finding an appropriate amount of elaboration than it is to start from giving too much information and trying to recover once you've ended up in a stupid argument with a fencer.
On the other hand, from my meager experience, part of "controlling the strip" is convincing the fencers that you know what you're talking about. Give them just enough details (especially when they ask for clarification) that you've stated "as a matter of fact" all of the information needed to apply the relevant rule. Often, a referee does this with a little pantomime. In your example, if you looked down and saw that you still had one foot on and asked, "Sir, wasn't I on with one foot?", I would not simply repeat that you were off strip. Instead, I would probably say, "No", while pantomiming raising my front foot, withdrawing it back over an imaginary line, and then setting it down again in front of that line. It's quick, it gives you the information you need to know that I ruled correctly, and it quickly establishes that we both know the relevant rule in this situation. Now, if you start arguing about whether you really "broke the plane" when withdrawing your foot, you're going to end up on my "annoying fencer" list very quickly. You should know that such a discussion is going nowhere. Come on guard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquartata
I lost a bout at 14-14 once, on an opponent's taking of my PIL. The beat arrived about an inch from my guard. From the resulting "conversation" I conceived an inkling that the ref may not have thought that the beat-on-the-lower-third-of-the-blade-is-parried rule applied to lines.
Yikes. This gets to the very edge of where I wouldn't want to be as a referee. I personally wouldn't give you much information here. If you asked whether he beat your forte, I'd probably just tell you, "He had a successful beat attack on your line." Where exactly I saw the beat arrive gets pretty close to the "Wasn't my foot here, not there?" kind of question. "Didn't his beat arrive here, not there?" Not a conversation I want to have with the fencers during a bout, even if it is relevant to the call.
Now, after your questioning, I would probably go ask other referees (if I was unsure) about how to call beats to the opponent's forte on a point-in-line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquartata
Well, then perhaps we have been talking at cross purposes. This sounds fine, and this sort of rule-based call is just what I've been talking about. OTOH a ref could phrase that call laconically enough to bypass entirely the matter of whether he was off with one foot or two, thus allowing no grounds for a question. If a ref explains a call as far as you indicate in this example and his understanding of the rule is NOT the basis of the question, I have no problem with his brusquely shutting down debate. I had thought you were advocating that refs parse calls so that even if their understanding of the rule was faulty no one could ever pin the matter down...
Yeah, I'm not that "strict." Then again, I'm still primarily a fencer, not a referee. Here, it's important for the fencer to know the rules and to speak as respectfully as possible when asking a question. If the referee really knows the rules, he'll immediately understand what the fencer is trying to ask. As a referee, I want to show you, "Ah, yes. I know the rule you're asking about. Here's a statement of fact in the context of that rule." Unfortunately, if I don't know the rule you're asking about, I may not be able to give you enough information, or I may find you to be simply argumentative. That's why it's important for the referees to know the rules.
So, in the case that you think you hit on an action where you left the strip with only one foot.
"Attack. Touche is annulled. You were off strip, so the touch is not allowed."
"Sir? Wasn't I only off with one foot?"
Here, the referee will hopefully understand immediately why you asked that question. With that sort of question, I think that it's not appropriate for him to say: "I said you were off strip, no touch. Come on guard."
He could say:
No. Both feet came off the strip.
Only one foot was off the strip, but that action did not arrive. You started a new action after leaving the strip. I called halt for leaving the strip.
Yes, you were only off with your front foot. No touch.
The first two give you no grounds for appeal (whether the referee is correct in what he saw). The third may lead you to ask whether you started your action before you left the strip with one foot. If he says, "Yes," then you should appeal.
If a referee wants to shut down argument, then he can still provide additional information. That lets you understand that he knows the rules you're worried about. He can just claim that you were off with both feet or that your action started after you were already off. That still shuts down any possibility for appeal, but it gives you enough information to know that he's applying the rules correctly based on what he saw.
I beileve that not giving any information just tends to annoy the fencers. I would think that it's harder to control the strip that way. If you're asking questions after every single touch, I'll give less information and shut you down faster and try to make it clear that you're starting to annoy me. If you ask a question from time to time about something relevant, then I'm happy to elaborate a little in a rules-based way.
Of course, if the referee elaborates, and you think that his statements of fact are wrong, you might think that the referee is blind. But at least you have confidence that he's a blind referee who knows the rules.
sorry if i've repeated someone it is a bit much to read just to give an opinion but i think that teh duck with his legs is nothing wrong however his head is also dipping implying that his body is being covered by his head so yes i would card that
__________________
Sabre is for Life not just for Christmas
sorry if i've repeated someone it is a bit much to read just to give an opinion but i think that teh duck with his legs is nothing wrong however his head is also dipping implying that his body is being covered by his head so yes i would card that
An on topic post? The nerve of some people!
To save you the trouble of findnig it, this reply from an international (FIE-rated) referee is pretty much the authoritative answer to the original question, and it killed off most of the on-topic discussion.
Before that, there was a lot of back and forth about whether several of us thought that the legs were covering. (There was a pretty good split, but based on Mr. Scaggs' post, it sounds like those of us in the "not covering" camp need to adjust our understanding of this rule.) I think that most of us felt that the head position as shown in the picture was not covering.
After that, we've drifted off into the "how much information should a referee give when reconstructing the phrase" topic again.
referees should give as little info as possible so that the fencers can never better themselves by understanding where they went wrong. Also Refereeing sabre can be difficult enough without having to have them explain guesses. I have asked a referee to explain him/herself several times in the past to hear "I dont have to explain myself to you" in response on the odd occasion
an off topic post ....
i thought usa did alright in the world cup given that football (sorry soccer) isnt exactly an american sport
__________________
Sabre is for Life not just for Christmas
so to follow up on the covering legs question. How can you duck without covering target with your legs? I mean you can bring your chest to your knees instead of putting your knees in front of your chest but either way your legs are covering valid target?
__________________
What's the "real" world again? I don't think I can see it from my window
so to follow up on the covering legs question. How can you duck without covering target with your legs? I mean you can bring your chest to your knees instead of putting your knees in front of your chest but either way your legs are covering valid target?
I don't think it matters. If you go down deeply, you will likely cover target. It is the same thing as being enguarde with your unarmed hand in front of you and to the side. Your opponant has a clear shot at the target from the perspective of the weapon angle. The opponent makes a flesche and you sidestep leaving your unarmed hand where it was but moving your chest to a position that is now behind the arm relative to the attack. This would be covering. I think it is perhaps a bit misguided if a referee makes a distinction between putting an offtarget part of the body between the attacking weapon and the valid target, or, moving the valid target behind an invallid body part. They are the same, and, they both have the same effect. If the defender ducks deep enough and the attack is coming from a normal angle, the legs will probably cover target. The rules allow you to fence pretty much however you please. It is even expressed that ducking is allowed. The important thing to remeber is that it does not mean you don't enforce the other rules. You duck, to the extent shown in the earlier photograph, at your own risk. A properly aware and educated referee, will call the covering, no matter how you cover.
__________________
I'm a foil fencer, and I can change, if I have to, I guess.
I conceived an inkling that the ref may not have thought that the beat-on-the-lower-third-of-the-blade-is-parried rule applied to lines. I know this is a hard thing to see as a ref, due to his perspective, and I didn't expect the call to be changed. I did not plan to appeal, either. BUT, the opportunity ought not be foreclosed just in the interest of moving the tableau along. The fencer ought not to have to have a legitimate option, one allowed by the rules, foreclosed because a ref is too cagey with his wording to ever let an appeal happen...
Linear Mode
