Self Directing

[RoninX]

Much has been made lately over self directed pools. Particularly in the ROW weapons, with much discussion regarding it. One aspect that I was curious on people's preceptions on was when coaches are called upon to ref their own fencers in a tournament.

This seems to be less of an issue here in the northwest but in the midwest when I was fencing during highschool and college coach were frequently called upon to direct bouts/pools, which sometimes meant directing their 'own' fencers. At MSU our coach always told us that we should hope not to have him as a director if he was called upon because he would always give the benefit of the doubt to our opponent in such a situation... and was as good as his word. I saw him exasperate a number of our fencers by refusing to call an action in their favor unless such a call was absolutely clear.

Has your coach discussed such a situation with you? Would they refrain even if the tournament was short handed on refs?

(Edit: sorry, this thread should really be called COACH Directing)

[akaiyuki]

Back in my high school my coach told us to basically always request another ref when my opponent's coach is directing. There seemed to be more bias back in that league. Perhaps the coaches had more personal bonds with their students, and might consciously, or unconsciously, make calls favoring their students. Or perhaps all fencers in my high school league knows considerably less about fencing compared to fencers at USFA competitions, the coaches knows the fencers are not likely to argue even if they make the wrong call.

This problem never came up in college though. It seems like all the coaches has respect for other coaches and their fencers, and I never see any obvious bias when coaches ref their own students. When we are short on refs and we need a coach or teammate to ref, we make sure that it's ok with both fencers.

[oiuyt]

In the vast majority of situations the referee should be recusing him/herself from any bouts involving a student. While it's somewhat questionable to merely be involved in the event, in absence of a larger appearance of impropriety this is generally ignored. The referee should take another pool (or, as is common at the local level where a club might have one or more students in every pool) should at least trade off those bouts involving a student.

When it is unavoidable (or otherwise preferable to the alternatives), the situation should be clear to all involved. And once the bout starts there shouldn't be any bias in either direction. It's just as bad to intentionally bias against one's fencers as in their favor. The referee is an impartial official. If a referee cannot be impartial even when his/her fencer is on the strip then s/he has no business in the role.

-B

[Wafath]

As a coach, there have been cases where I have refuesed to ref one of my students, as I knew that she would only get touches in sabre from me if she got one-lights. I always saw her actions as either prep, counter-attack, or attack no, redoublement (ie, wave at the air in front of your opponent, and then start to attack.)

She got the bennifet of the doubt from other refs.

W

[KD5MDK]

As a fencer, I know that I will get fewer touches when my coach is refereeing than with someone else is, because he knows and sees all my flaws.

[RoninX]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

In the vast majority of situations the referee should be recusing him/herself from any bouts involving a student.

Perhaps I should explain further. It was frequently my experience in MI that when fencing in collegiate club hosted meets that coaches and assistant coaches were essentially the only refs save some worthy volunteer alums. The varsity schools did better but still often pressed coaches into service. It was standard practice.

Originally Posted by oiuyt

When it is unavoidable (or otherwise preferable to the alternatives), the situation should be clear to all involved. And once the bout starts there shouldn't be any bias in either direction. It's just as bad to intentionally bias against one's fencers as in their favor. The referee is an impartial official. If a referee cannot be impartial even when his/her fencer is on the strip then s/he has no business in the role.
-B

Let me also be clear that this was not a case of, every call going the opponents direction, more that we would have to make solid touches to score. If there were alternative refs they were used first but there simply was a dirth of officials. As to impartiality on the strip - that ideal only survives until you actually are faced with reffing someone you know. You cannot be completely subjective. It is impossible. Even if your only interaction is through reffing them many times in the past you still have an impression of their game. Certainly you can call it as you see it - anything else would be cheating. However, past experience will always impact how you see certain actions.

Anyway, I'm curious as to what other people have observed or been told in similar situations.

[erooMynohtnA]

I've been directed by my own coach, and I've been directed by the coach of the other fencer.

I prefer a neutral party. However, oiuyt makes a good point. Sometimes there is no preferable alternative.

While I know what my coach is looking for in his directing, he also knows my bad habits. While the other fencer's coach knows that fencer's bad habits, that fencer also knows what that coach is looking for. I prefer to take all that out of the equation, but I've never had a problem with a call made in either situation.

However, there's always that nagging suspicion in the back of your mind that your coach might have called that close one yours, but wouldn't have for someone else. The converse is true for the other fencer and his own coach. I've never had a problem with a biased coach, but I'm always afraid the other fencer will perceive a bias from mine.

[Frank Pratt]

I think you need to guard against unfairness and even the appearance of unfairness when assigning referees. If a fencer claims that a referee is favoring his opponent because the person on the other side of the strip is his/her student, there is absolutely no way the referee can prove that he/she is not being biased, no matter how honest he/she is. If at all possible, I would avoid having a coach referee a bout where one of the fencers is his/her student. This goes for épée too; there are more judgment calls in épée than most people realize.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by RoninX

Let me also be clear that this was not a case of, every call going the opponents direction, more that we would have to make solid touches to score. If there were alternative refs they were used first but there simply was a dirth of officials. As to impartiality on the strip - that ideal only survives until you actually are faced with reffing someone you know. You cannot be completely subjective. It is impossible. Even if your only interaction is through reffing them many times in the past you still have an impression of their game. Certainly you can call it as you see it - anything else would be cheating. However, past experience will always impact how you see certain actions.

Let me just repeat what you posted earlier:

Originally Posted by RoninX

because he would always give the benefit of the doubt to our opponent in such a situation... and was as good as his word. I saw him exasperate a number of our fencers by refusing to call an action in their favor unless such a call was absolutely clear.

This is, in my opinion, extremely poor practice. If a call would be made in Fencer X's favor it must also be made in Fencer Y's favor in reversed circumstances.

I am a referee. I have, at times, been called upon to referee my own students (current or former). Because it was preferable to the alternatives. I would NEVER intentionally bias my calls either in favor of or against any fencer, whether my student, my clubmate, my countryman, etc. To PRE-ANNOUNCE such intentional bias is... I'm failing to come up with a sufficient description for how hideously wrong this is....

As you state, "Certainly you can call it as you see it - anything else would be cheating", yet this is PRECISELY what your coach apparently routinely pre-announced as his intended practice.

To repeat my earlier statement, "If a referee cannot be impartial even when his/her fencer is on the strip then s/he has no business in the role."

Impartiality is a significant part of the job. If one cannot be impartial then one cannot be a good referee.

-B

[Poulet]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Impartiality is a significant part of the job. If one cannot be impartial then one cannot be a good referee.

The subconscious is a powerful [and often undetectable] force. Of course, obvious intentional bias in either direction is a failure to execute one's duty as a referee, but still, one can only very rarely have total impartiality with a connection to either fencer. No matter how hard one tries to consciously be unbiased, there still can be some subliminal partiality.

[notalent]

It would be nice if that happened all the time. Bias happens more often in an attempt to show a lack of bais. The coach goes to so great an effort to show that he isnt favoring his student that he ends up being biased against his student. Unless there is blatant cheating going on. Thankfully I havent seen that in many years.
Since I only have a few students and dont have to ref them it isnt an issue with me.

Originally Posted by oiuyt

In the vast majority of situations the referee should be recusing him/herself from any bouts involving a student. While it's somewhat questionable to merely be involved in the event, in absence of a larger appearance of impropriety this is generally ignored. The referee should take another pool (or, as is common at the local level where a club might have one or more students in every pool) should at least trade off those bouts involving a student.

When it is unavoidable (or otherwise preferable to the alternatives), the situation should be clear to all involved. And once the bout starts there shouldn't be any bias in either direction. It's just as bad to intentionally bias against one's fencers as in their favor. The referee is an impartial official. If a referee cannot be impartial even when his/her fencer is on the strip then s/he has no business in the role.

-B

[notalent]

This is ofcourse one of the problems of being the coach, you see every mistake made.

Originally Posted by Wafath

As a coach, there have been cases where I have refuesed to ref one of my students, as I knew that she would only get touches in sabre from me if she got one-lights. I always saw her actions as either prep, counter-attack, or attack no, redoublement (ie, wave at the air in front of your opponent, and then start to attack.)

She got the bennifet of the doubt from other refs.

W

[RoninX]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

As you state, "Certainly you can call it as you see it - anything else would be cheating", yet this is PRECISELY what your coach apparently routinely pre-announced as his intended practice.

To be clear, I have rarely had a ref who I felt treated both fencers as evenly as our coach did - regardless of what he said to us. While I never competed in a ROW weapon under him (against of clubs, I bouted in all three weapons under his directorship), this sentiment was echoed by others* - though no one can recall being given a "sloppy" touch during a bout (practice or otherwise). His warning served to make us fence even more crisply.

*though sometimes not until they got a chance to see the action on video later, during a bout more than a one reacted in disbelief.

Originally Posted by oiuyt

To repeat my earlier statement, "If a referee cannot be impartial even when his/her fencer is on the strip then s/he has no business in the role."

Impartiality is a significant part of the job. If one cannot be impartial then one cannot be a good referee.

-B

No one can be entirely impartial, which must be why it is so hard to find good refs. Simply being familiar with a person style is enough to bias your calls. If you have seen them attack enough that you know that that slight pump forward in sabre is the beginning of their attack - they thus gain ROW, and perhaps a touch. In a fencer you are not familiar with you may not notice, or recognize such a slight action as gaining ROW. If someone believe themself to truly be impartial regardless of who is fencing in front of them, then they are not as self aware as a good ref should be - "first, know thyself".

Anyway, perhaps you have to have known the man, or seen a bout called by him to understand what he really meant. In looking back over my first post it does seem shocking in "black and white".

[swordsen]

When I am reffing in a local event and one of my students comes up I let the other fencer know that I am his opponents coach and ask if he would prefer that I find another ref. I cannot ever recall a fencer taking me up on it.
As for bias against your own fencers, I will admit that I have had students of mine tell me that they prefer I not direct their bouts because they knew that certain things they did would never get called an attack by me but other refs would give it to them. ther was also one girl who would get exasperated becaseu I knew when and how she would cover target in a certain action and would card her for it if I saw it and very few other refs ever saw it.

[RoninX]

Interesting. How did/do you react when your own fencer requests that you not ref them? Do they make this known ahead of time? Have you ever recused yourself based on your own fencer's request after being assigned a strip?