Refereeing: Brutality vs. vindictive act vs. just being mean

[IHateMrPotatohead]

From what I've read in the rulebooks, it seems like these rules are pretty vague, and up to a lot of "referee discretion." Just as it is when calling preparation, there seems to be a huge range of enforcement of the cardable/not cardable offenses.

For example, if someone is just "fencing" out of control, running over their opponent, playing Zorro, etc., is this a cardable offense? Yellow, red, black even? Do you warn the fencer? Do you ignore the behavior? How long do you let it go on?

Discuss.

[noodle]

brutal action - someone doing something to purposefully hurt their opponent
vindictive action - someone doing something with the purpose of revenge, possibly including brutality.

both of them include intent. its not possible to write down the rules on measuring someone's intent. thats why its a little more wide-open. an action that, if seen out of context, could look like an accident, but could be, in reality, revenge.

[IanSerotkin]

Originally Posted by IHateMrPotatohead

From what I've read in the rulebooks, it seems like these rules are pretty vague, and up to a lot of "referee discretion." Just as it is when calling preparation, there seems to be a huge range of enforcement of the cardable.not cardable offenses.

For example, if someone is just "fencing" out of control, running over their opponent, playing Zorro, etc., is this a cardable offense? Yellow, red, black even? Do you warn the fencer? Do you ignore the behavior? How long do you let it go on?

Discuss.

The rulebook is indeed a wonderful source of vagueness at times. My personal favorite is "manifest cheating." What is manifest cheating, exactly, and how does it differ from regular cheating? Also, what the hell is "dishonest fencing?" Fencing with the intent to lie?

To try to answer your questions, here's how I parse some of those phrases in my own head:

Touch with brutality (Group 1): A blow or action that unintentionally had excessive force.

Vindictive action (Group 2): An intentional action designed to injure one's opponent. Something like intentionally trying to slide under the bib to pierce someone's neck, or intentionally aiming for groin with the intent to injure.

Deliberate brutality (Group 4): A blow or action that intentionally had excessive force.


But as you note, there's a lot of shades of gray. If a fencer grazed his opponent with the guard (either intentionally or unintentionally), that's a Group 2 red card. If he hit his opponent with the guard as hard as he possibly could, then that's deliberate brutality and a Group 4 black card.

[IHateMrPotatohead]

Thanks for your replies so far.

What about fencing out of control in a dangerous sort of way? Any opinions on those people?

[noodle]

Originally Posted by IHateMrPotatohead

Thanks for your replies so far.

What about fencing out of control in a dangerous sort of way? Any opinions on those people?

halt, card for disorderly fencing.

[HDG]

Originally Posted by IanSerotkin

Vindictive action (Group 2): An intentional action designed to injure one's opponent. Something like intentionally trying to slide under the bib to pierce someone's neck, or intentionally aiming for groin with the intent to injure.

To my mind, vindictive indicates both intent (logically necessary) and given its etymological link to revenge, something done after the halt

[Redblade]

When I first saw this message thread header, I assumed it referred to referees being mean, brutal and vindictive. ... A topic worthy of discussion as well.

[mrbiggs]

There are basically 4 penalties for acting in a dangerous manner, one for each card. And although the wording does make it somewhat clear when cards should be used, it's mostly up to the ref.

Y: Disorderly fencing
R: Dangerous, violent or vindictive action
G3R: Fencer disturbing order on the strip
B: Deliberate brutality or Offense against sportsmanship

Obviously if someone intentionally trips their opponent, it's not disorderly fencing, and if someone trips and falls while still attempting a touch, it's not deliberate brutality.

[KD5MDK]

Scoring a touch while falling is distinct and separate from disorderly fencing. They're different offenses. I consider disorderly fencing to be "out of control", minor misconduct, etc.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Scoring a touch while falling is distinct and separate from disorderly fencing.

It's a card, and it's not listed as a seperate offense, so it has to come under some other category. What would you define it as?


(I'm just curious, it's not really relevant to the discussion)

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by IHateMrPotatohead

For example, if someone is just "fencing" out of control, running over their opponent, playing Zorro, etc., is this a cardable offense?

"Running over their opponent"? I'm not sure what you mean by that. It sounds more like a possibility for corps-a-corps or jostling.

"Playing Zorro"? Again, I have no idea what that means. Maybe I've seen too few Zorro movies. Could you describe the fencer's action?

Originally Posted by IHateMrPotatohead

Yellow, red, black even? Do you warn the fencer? Do you ignore the behavior? How long do you let it go on?

I don't ignore the behavior. If I'm going to card for it, I'm (hopefully) going to card for it the first time I see it. I'd prefer to give a yellow card on the first action that appeared to be disorderly (to me) than to wait until both fencers are frustrated and are making actions that appear vidictive or intentionally brutal. I would imagine that this type of behavior would escalate if both fencers feel that the referee is not going to penalize for it.

Even if one fencer is the "instigator" on the strip, the other fencer is going to get sick of what he feels are brutal hits. If the referee is carding for the brutal hits, the other fencer has some confidence that the referee will keep the fencing safe and sane. If the referee is not carding for the brutal hits, this fencer may retaliate with a vindictive action in an attempt to exert his own control over the strip and to get his opponent to "back off."

Originally Posted by IHateMrPotatohead

What about fencing out of control in a dangerous sort of way?

If I, as the referee, feel that the action in the bout is becoming dangerous, I feel that it's my responsibility to control that behavior. I feel that it's part of "controlling the strip." Of course, like you said, different referees have different thresholds for what they feel is dangerous.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

There are basically 4 penalties for acting in a dangerous manner, one for each card. And although the wording does make it somewhat clear when cards should be used, it's mostly up to the ref.

And that's the wonderful part about the range of cards and the vagueness of the wording. It basically gives the referee all of the tools he needs to try to control the strip.

If the the tension in the bout starts to rise, and the fencers start doing their actions with a greater intensity, there may be more corps-a-corps or jostling or other similarly (largely unintentional) disorderly fencing. As soon as you see something cardable in this rising intensity, you give the yellow card.

For a vindictive hit, I imagine an action like a saber cut made from the elbow and fairly clearly after the halt. I can see a cut with poor form from time to time. I can imagine that the fencer didn't hear the halt. If I see both together, especially in the context of a bout where I know that the fencer is already looking frustrated, I'm going to give a red card for a vindictive action.

I have fortunately never personally witnessed a black card, and I've never had to give one. Through discussions like this on Fencing.net, I'm hoping to develop a good intuition so that the first black card I award will be appropriate for the behavior and not the result of my inaction or overzelousness earlier in the bout.

If both fencers are smart, on the first card, they'll clean up their behavior. They'll realize, "Oh. I can be intense, but I have to fence a clean bout, or I'm going to lose it on penalty cards." Unfortunately, there are fencers who from time to time find such penalty cards provoking. I generally assume that they simply haven't refereed much.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by IHateMrPotatohead

Discuss.

Looking at the replies so far, I'd love to see more concrete examples of behavior that people have seen and how it has been handled by the referee.

The problem I have is that I don't think that it's my job as a referee to penalize "weird" fencing. That is, if a fencer wants to crouch strangely and jump around on the strip, as long as he's not covering target or jostling his opponent or anything, it's hard for me to call it disorderly. It might not look like anything that I think resembles fencing, but if he seems to be in control of his body and can peform odd actions safely, I'm not inclined to penalize it if the fencer isn't breaking any other more obvious rules.

That is, there's a difference between odd and disorderly/dangerous. I have seen very few rated fencers make "odd" actions on purpose. I normally see that kind of thing from unrated fencers who just haven't competed much. They freak out the other Us, who aren't sure what to do with their Zorro act or whatever. Their form tends to be poor enough that most rated fencers beat them badly. So, as long as I maintain a safe fencing strip, I assume that they'll learn to stop doing it when they repeatedly lose badly. The only time I would intervene is if I see the fencer cross over into actions where they don't appear to be in control of themselves or where they're putting themselves or the other fencer at a (greater than usual) risk of injury.

I've seen very few examples of any of this kind of behavior, so I'd love to hear from others with more experience. It'll help me prepare for the first time I have to deal with this situation.

[IHateMrPotatohead]

Originally Posted by tbryan

The problem I have is that I don't think that it's my job as a referee to penalize "weird" fencing. That is, if a fencer wants to crouch strangely and jump around on the strip, as long as he's not covering target or jostling his opponent or anything, it's hard for me to call it disorderly. It might not look like anything that I think resembles fencing, but if he seems to be in control of his body and can peform odd actions safely, I'm not inclined to penalize it if the fencer isn't breaking any other more obvious rules.

An what happens if their "odd actions" are dangerous to their opponent? Is it "your job" then?

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

It's a card, and it's not listed as a seperate offense, so it has to come under some other category. What would you define it as?


(I'm just curious, it's not really relevant to the discussion)

Here's how the penalty chart puts it.

Originally Posted by t.120

Jostling, disorderly fencing * ; taking off mask
before the Referee calls ‘Halt’; undressing on the
strip

t.87
Unjustified appeal t.122
Abnormal fencing action *
Touches with brutality or while falling *

Note how "Touches... while falling" has its own line, with 2 others between it and "disorderly fencing", which is itself grouped with several only vaguely related offenses.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by IHateMrPotatohead

An what happens if their "odd actions" are dangerous to their opponent? Is it "your job" then?

Yes, but because they are dangerous, not because they are odd.

[LUDICROUS]

Cue Downunder vs American-fencing-mentality argument.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by IHateMrPotatohead

An what happens if their "odd actions" are dangerous to their opponent? Is it "your job" then?

Of course. I think that I already addressed that in both of my posts.

My point was just that it would help me to hear examples actions that crossed from odd to dangerous. I just haven't seen many bouts like that. Perhaps I'm just a lucky referee that way.

[Joe biebel]

Brutality does not necessarily mean on purpose. It can be clumsiness, excitement, lack of skill. It is cardable with a red card, so any hit would be annuled also. Let's say a fencer is trying their hand at "flicking" and doing it very hard or badly where it is clear that their opponent is being hurt. Touch annulled, red card for each offense. If the act is vindictive, clearly meant to hurt or cause pain, personally, I would go right to a black card for unsportmanlike conduct. I do not know the thinking behind putting it (Vindictive act) in the red card area. Most refs will wimp out on brutal fencers. I've even been told by refs that "they did not mean to hurt me" like that made it okay. It is not okay to hit hard. If you do it accidently, red card. If you do it on purpose Black card.

Clearly, the rules are unclear. It is the "feel" for intent that the ref uses to define which card, unless of course, there are also words accompaning the hit like "take this you *&%##@!$#%^*) as the hit is delivered.

[KD5MDK]

Touch with brutality is a Group 1 offense (initial yellow card). You're probably thinking "dangerous, violent or vindictive action". I agree that brutality isn't punished as strictly as it should be often.