Sabre PIL question...rule quibbling highly likely, enter at your own risk

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

Just as a note, there is a signal that is specifically for passe; it's not the finger wag. Technically anyway.

Not in LES GESTES ET LES MOTS DE L’ARBITRAGE, nor the USFA Rulebook, both of which I just consulted.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Not in LES GESTES ET LES MOTS DE L’ARBITRAGE, nor the USFA Rulebook, both of which I just consulted.

just what i was thinking.

[Falcon (XB :)]

Originally Posted by downunder

just what i was thinking.

If an attack misses, is short, goes past the target, or is a point in line which does not hit the target with the point, then the word is: "Non" [No]

The signal is the usual index finger at the ear or temple, out to the side, then back in. (All signals starting with "N" do the same - e.g. "non valable" [non valid or off target] or "non correct" [non correct - and yeah I know it's common to hear "preparation" etc for that, but it's better to stick with the minimum FIE dataset)

So, some of the above are right. Words, in English. (French):

Point in line. (pointe en ligne) [straight arm with fist and index finger extended in direction of fencer threatened]
No. (non) [fist and index finger pointing at 1) temple, 2) out to the side at 45 degrees, 3) back to temple again - take at least 1-3 seconds for the action - in direction of fencer threatened]
Attack. (attaque) [bent arm, forearm horizontal, four fingers pointing at the floor, thumb close to the fingers - in direction of the attacker]
Touch. (touche or touché) [arm extended straight, palm in direction of the piste, thumb close to fingers - in direction of the fencer touched]
Point. (point) [Arm out to the side, forearm vertical, palm facing piste, thumb close to the fingers - in direction of the fencer who scored the point]

There is no separate signal for passé. That's a creative piece of nonsense dating from the 80s and 90s and the FIE Commission d'Arbitrage is very strong on getting rid of it.

FIE sabre refereeing seminars say a ref must look very hard for PIL actions, allow when established in time, but disallowed for bad execution of derobements (too much from the wrist, withdrawals of the arm or shoulder, not continuing to threaten the high-line, etc.) or if the point does not touch the target and the edge touches instead. They accept that this is a very tough call but they also expect that a ref should be cognizant of the issue.

[downunder]

ah i've worked out who you are now.

Originally Posted by Falcon (XB :)

If an attack misses, is short, goes past the target, or is a point in line which does not hit the target with the point, then the word is: "Non" [No]

The signal is the usual index finger at the ear or temple, out to the side, then back in. (All signals starting with "N" do the same - e.g. "non valable" [non valid or off target] or "non correct" [non correct - and yeah I know it's common to hear "preparation" etc for that, but it's better to stick with the minimum FIE dataset)

So, some of the above are right. Words, in English. (French):

Point in line. (pointe en ligne) [straight arm with fist and index finger extended in direction of fencer threatened]
No. (non) [fist and index finger pointing at 1) temple, 2) out to the side at 45 degrees, 3) back to temple again - take at least 1-3 seconds for the action - in direction of fencer threatened]
Attack. (attaque) [bent arm, forearm horizontal, four fingers pointing at the floor, thumb close to the fingers - in direction of the attacker]
Touch. (touche or touché) [arm extended straight, palm in direction of the piste, thumb close to fingers - in direction of the fencer touched]
Point. (point) [Arm out to the side, forearm vertical, palm facing piste, thumb close to the fingers - in direction of the fencer who scored the point]

There is no separate signal for passé. That's a creative piece of nonsense dating from the 80s and 90s and the FIE Commission d'Arbitrage is very strong on getting rid of it.

FIE sabre refereeing seminars say a ref must look very hard for PIL actions, allow when established in time, but disallowed for bad execution of derobements (too much from the wrist, withdrawals of the arm or shoulder, not continuing to threaten the high-line, etc.) or if the point does not touch the target and the edge touches instead. They accept that this is a very tough call but they also expect that a ref should be cognizant of the issue.

[keropie]

Did we really need the whole quote for you to say that you know who he is now?

[downunder]

Originally Posted by keropie

Did we really need the whole quote for you to say that you know who he is now?

surely his post was so meritous it deserved reading a second time?

[sabreur]

Originally Posted by downunder

surely his post was so meritous it deserved reading a second time?

Actually, his post is a stellar example of how the FIE is substituting beauracracy for sensitivity to the phrase and acute directing.

All of these "precise" desciptions of how the hand signals are to be executed are so much bull****, and have nothing to do with the ability of a referee to accurately and fairly call the action.

MR

[keropie]

Originally Posted by sabreur

Actually, his post is a stellar example of how the FIE is substituting beauracracy for sensitivity to the phrase and acute directing.

All of these "precise" desciptions of how the hand signals are to be executed are so much bull****, and have nothing to do with the ability of a referee to accurately and fairly call the action.

MR

Touche.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by sabreur

Actually, his post is a stellar example of how the FIE is substituting beauracracy for sensitivity to the phrase and acute directing.

All of these "precise" desciptions of how the hand signals are to be executed are so much bull****, and have nothing to do with the ability of a referee to accurately and fairly call the action.

MR

So what? My ambition is to be the best referee in the world. I know already that 99.9% of my foil phrasings are correct, so the only thing left for me to do is to improve the technical part of my refereeing, such as interpretations and signalling. This is very useful to me, as it is what is expected.

The only way to do this is to look to referees who have recently sat, and resat exams, and those whom are being selected to referee at the highest level.

Personally, I am grateful that there are active referees in Australia, and also that i am in contact with Helen Smith on the rules committee, and Keith Smith on the arbitrage. This is the only way i can advance myself as a referee.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by downunder

So what? My ambition is to be the best referee in the world. I know already that 99.9% of my foil phrasings are correct, so the only thing left for me to do is to improve the technical part of my refereeing, such as interpretations and signalling. This is very useful to me, as it is what is expected.

The only way to do this is to look to referees who have recently sat, and resat exams, and those whom are being selected to referee at the highest level.

Personally, I am grateful that there are active referees in Australia, and also that i am in contact with Helen Smith on the rules committee, and Keith Smith on the arbitrage. This is the only way i can advance myself as a referee.

Want to know what separates the really good referees from the rest? It's not their hand signals, phrasings, interpretations. It's all in the eyes. You can know all the rules by heart, be quite a bigshot in your country's refereeing community, maybe even write a regular column in the American Fencing magazine, but people aren't going to want you to call their bouts if you don't see the action right.

[keropie]

Clearly you didn't read the preceeding post though... 99.9% of his calls are correct... >.>

Downunder, if you want to stop coming across as an arrogant prick, you should stop making such claims. Really. Even if they happen to be correct, a statement like 'I'm a fairly accomplished official, and most of my calls are correct. I've been told by FIE rated officials that I do a good job, but that my hand signals could use more work. From that input, I've decided to . . .' would get the same information across, but actually make people who read it not want to ignore you (or hit you upside the head).

[Falcon (XB :)]

Originally Posted by sabreur

Actually, his post is a stellar example of how the FIE is substituting beauracracy for sensitivity to the phrase and acute directing.

All of these "precise" desciptions of how the hand signals are to be executed are so much bull****, and have nothing to do with the ability of a referee to accurately and fairly call the action.

MR

Ah, Sabreur, there are no precise descriptions in any of the FIE literature. Seek and you won't find. Sorry if the info seems to be bull****. However I hadn't seen a lot of discussion about that, there was a question about a signal, so the signal descriptions seemed to warranted. Oh, well.

Whle there is no official written description, there is a consistent strong convention developed through the FIE refereeing seminars and examinations. These are precise, and even if it seems as militarily rigid as Arthur Cramer might wish the FIE would prefer that the use of the words and gestures be uniform and kept to as simple a formula as possible.

Less words, uniform hand signals. Is that too much to ask?

The younger up and coming FIE referees are demonstrably consistent - and they are all rather good at calling the action fairly and accurately. The older crowd use a range of gestures, some of the new ones, some of the old or invented ones. Fine - the FIE guys are happy to have honoured old refs doing the A-grades. But the new guys are doing what the FIE would like to see.

You're absolutely right - the actions and calls are crucial - both the ones with and without gestures. However, I'm sure most sport-loving people would be really quite familiar with most of the umpiring or refereeing hand signals of their local popular codes, whether it be soccer, NFL, AFL, Rugby, cricket, baseball - and be able to imitate them pretty precisely.

But they are terrible at doing the same in their chosen sport. Seems odd.

[keropie]

Originally Posted by Falcon (XB :)

However, I'm sure most sport-loving people would be really quite familiar with most of the umpiring or refereeing hand signals of their local popular codes, whether it be soccer, NFL, AFL, Rugby, cricket, baseball - and be able to imitate them pretty precisely.

But they are terrible at doing the same in their chosen sport. Seems odd.

But if you watch, at least the American sports (particularly baseball) have hand gestures that are no where near as rigid as those described by FIE communication/USFA suggestions. The degree of rigidity necessary is whatever is consistently recognized by fencers, coaches, and (should they ever exist is meaningful numbers) spectators. The difference in which hand is in front of the parry signal really isn't meaningful, as it doesn't confuse anyone. An 80 degree angle vs. a 90 degree angle makes no difference. Etc.

The funny thing is that these signals are so well defined, and yet the border of Attack vs. preparation isn't nearly so well defined. Admittedly, attack vs. prep is more difficult to define in an easily perceptible manner, and honestly would be more debated as it has more impact on fencing than hand signals do. Oh well. I certainly understand the idea that hand signals need to be well defined, but they certainly are not as important as seeing the action. I do, however, find that people over expect consistency from fencing officials. No other sport has 100% officials, either (look at the red cards in USA-Italy soccer, for instance). But it is what it is.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by keropie

(look at the red cards in USA-Italy soccer, for instance).

*based on memory from watching the match live, I hope I haven't stuffed up my recollection*

The first was obviously red.

The second? As soon as I saw Mastroeni dive in I went "you're getting sent off for that, you idiot". It was a clear foot first slide into the opponent's legs, and I've seen plenty of people get red carded for the same offense. It's the kind of tackle you have nightmares about being on the receiving end of, and it needs to be punished.
The additional piece of context was that the guy with the ball wasn't doing anything. Mastroeni literally just ran up and took his legs out.

http://img0624.paintedover.com/uploads/0624/red_1.gif

Actually, looking at it again, thats red every single time.

The last one was perhaps borderline, because he at least got a foot on the ball. It was still a sliding tackle from behind where he caught the (if I recall correctly) and FIFA has been cracking down on that sort of thing for a while now. Besides, lots of yellows have been given out this tournament and they aren't always clear offenses.

I think the referee did a good job in a game that was probably more difficult to ref than his last two combined.

[keropie]

I actually didn't watch the match, but given the large reaction (which of course, mostly was American over here), there certainly seemed to be some debate on the calls. Everyone says the first was clearly red (didn't see it), but the second people have issues with, and the third (the only one I did see) I have issues with. If FIFA wants to make it so they can't take the ball away once the guy gets past them (i.e., no slide tackling from behind), they might as well give them red jerseys, funny pads, oblong balls, use their hands, and call them all quarterbacks ><

[KD5MDK]

I would say a better example of bad refereeing was the Australian match where one played (Croatian?) accumulated 3 yellow cards.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I would say a better example of bad refereeing was the Australian match where one played (Croatian?) accumulated 3 yellow cards.

and also where mark viduka was rugby tackled, as well as tudor punching the ball out of the penalty area and neither were given as penalties. Not that i'm bitter.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by downunder

I know already that 99.9% of my foil phrasings are correct.

Yowiee!

So, you're a 1 in foil, then?

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Yowiee!

So, you're a 1 in foil, then?

what is a 1 in foil?