ANOTHER QUANDARY from poorly proofread rules!

[Chris]

Originally Posted by downunder

Because the rules are sometimes written terribly.

And often equally well understood!

Originally Posted by downunder

"flèche se terminant par choc bousculant l'adversaire" is a red card. If you want an example of this look at Obry vs Fisher, Sydney 2000 Men's Epee Final about half way through where Fisher runs over Obry like a steam train.

If you were saying this was a dangerous act, I'd probably agree with you, and while I think it SHOULD be specified as such, I don't see where it says this in the rules.

Originally Posted by downunder

If you want another example, what happens if you step off the piste with one foot? Your opponent obviously advances a meter and you assume distance. Look at t.102.

'Not really interested in any more thread drift, thank you.

[bigdawg2121]

As stated it's epee. The highest other rating he seems to have is a 7. Wear a blazer and wave your hands in an official manner near an epee strip and you may happen across a 4.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by seak

Well he apparently has a 4 in epee, so clearly that means he already knows everything.

I think the tone of my OP clearly indicates that I am looking for more complete understanding of what this verbiage is intended to achieve (hence my quoting it): I am well aware of the fact that of the few people who seem to have actually read it (which excludes about 1/3 of the people responding), most are ignoring it.

Originally Posted by seak

And Chris you're making this waaaaay to complicated, you already have your answer it's just not the one you want. Yes the rules aren't written all that well, but I would venture to say that very few people who have actually passed the test (and most who haven't) are actually confused about this. Sorry.

Hey, I didn't put this in the rules...Frankly, I don't really agree with it either: I am just looking for someone who knows WHY it got put in and/or WHY it's being ignored, and/or WHY, after 8 years, or more, it's STILL IN THERE.
Is that so wrong?

And, no, I really didn't get that, yet.

Originally Posted by seak

If you'd kindly return to your cave now, the rest of us would appreciate it.

NBL!

Originally Posted by seak

(wonders htf this dude has a higher epee rating then I do, and sighs )

I passed the test, for 5, and, clearly, performed well enough in the eyes of FOC at Nationals to get promoted. I try to learn and understand as much as I can about the rules.

Originally Posted by seak

I was mainly being rhetorical, I actually ref very little epee (especially currently). Though I would think that being able to listen to higher rated refs, and correctly apply the rules would be necessary in achieving a 4.

Well, apparently, I have a higher rating than you do, and equally apparently, it would seem you wouldn't be willing to listen to me, so what does that tell you?

I can find higher (as well as lower) rated ref's, all over who will say and do a pretty wide variety of things, some will even do different things, depending on who's watching!

And clearly I WAS looking for input from higher rated ref's than me: MUCH higher; I just didn't really appreciate Downunder's dismissive, generalistic answer, when I was clearly looking for specifics.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Chris

If you were saying this was a dangerous act, I'd probably agree with you, and while I think it SHOULD be specified as such, I don't see where it says this in the rules.

t 63.3 Il ne faut pas confondre la "flèche finissant systématiquement en corps à corps" dont il est questionndans cet article avec la "flèche se terminant par choc bousculant l'adversaire" qui, aux trois armes, est considérée comme acte de brutalité volontaire et sanctionnée comme tel (Cf. t.87.2, t.120).

t 87.2 Tout match doit conserver un caractère courtois et loyal. Tout acte anormal (flèche qui se termine par un choc bousculant l'adversaire, jeu désordonné, déplacements anormaux, coups portés, brutalement, touches portées en tombant) est formellement interdit (Cf. t.114 à t.120). Dans le cas d'une telle faute, la touche éventuellement portée par le tireur fautif sera annulée.

In the penalty chart look for:

Acte violent, dangereux ou vindicatif

For less serious offenses of a similar order there is a hits made with brutality offense in group 1.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by downunder

t 63.3 Il ne faut pas confondre la "flèche finissant systématiquement en corps à corps" dont il est questionndans cet article avec la "flèche se terminant par choc bousculant l'adversaire" qui, aux trois armes, est considérée comme acte de brutalité volontaire et sanctionnée comme tel (Cf. t.87.2, t.120).

t 87.2 Tout match doit conserver un caractère courtois et loyal. Tout acte anormal (flèche qui se termine par un choc bousculant l'adversaire, jeu désordonné, déplacements anormaux, coups portés, brutalement, touches portées en tombant) est formellement interdit (Cf. t.114 à t.120). Dans le cas d'une telle faute, la touche éventuellement portée par le tireur fautif sera annulée.

In the penalty chart look for:

Acte violent, dangereux ou vindicatif

For less serious offenses of a similar order there is a hits made with brutality offense in group 1.

Yes, thank you, I have seen and read all that, in the English, as well as looking at the French, which I am not well versed in.

t.87 specifically lists it as deserving penalty; but t114, and t.120 don't specify the penalty for this SPECIFIC offense.

If you were to award the red card for the "flèche qui se termine par un choc bousculant", you would be exercising (and I would say, correctly,) the discretion of your position. And an appeal would not be justified.

However, it really doesn't SPECIFICALLY say you should red-card this.

And, the problem with that approach is that not many people will take it...

(Frankly, I have a hard enough time getting people to give yellow card for jostling no matter HOW violent...)

There's so much room for 'judgement' in the rules, and I know it can't ever be eliminated, I would just like to see things clarified whenever it can be so easily done.

[downunder]

There are many many problems with the rulebook and differing interpretations, especially at a local level.

In my opinion, this particular scenario is not a major problem compared to others.

[pinkelephant]

Originally Posted by seak

Well he apparently has a 4 in epee, so clearly that means he already knows everything.

Can't do - he isn't a teenager.

[veeco]

My main interpretation of the French version is that it is trying to clarify that it is the flecher's responsibility to avoid hitting their opponent during the fleche.

In doing so, it is trying to clarify the difference between a hit that happens to destabilize the opponent, and a mere body contact, a.k.a. corps a corps.

But yes, it is poorly written, as are a lot of other points.

On the other hand, if you're a referee and want to be good at it, IMO, the main thing you should be striving for is being just and not favor any of the fencers in your calls. Being anal sometimes helps, but most of the time it is really uncalled for, and unappreciated (at least from me).

This is the whole reason and difference between letter and intent of the rules, and perhaps, the difference between a very high level ref and a middle of the range one.

You can't have rules that are so specific and so well written that they cover every aspect of the game. That's why it takes a brain to be a good ref :-).

[KD5MDK]

Heresy!

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by Gav

So Chris I'd like to ask you what you're qualifications are? Seems only fair, if you are going to take on at least 2 FIE qualified referees that you do everyone the courtesy of stating what qualification you have for your demands.

I like how he skipped this question.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Chris

There's so much room for 'judgement' in the rules, and I know it can't ever be eliminated, I would just like to see things clarified whenever it can be so easily done.

but this isn't an example of somewhere it can easily be done. what's the difference between jostling (yellow), intentional brutality (red), and deliberate brutality (black)? Much like pornography, you know it when you see it. Will this lead to some referees applying rules in an overly-harsh or overly-lenient manner? sure. Judgment is the primary requirement to be a good referee. For simple convenience, a good rule of thumb is to give the yellow, red if it's really severe.

I have yet to see an action of this sort which warrants a black card, but the option is in the rules so that the referee has the tool available in extremely extraordinary cases. I'm curious if anybody has seen such a case.

I tend to agree with the bottom line of my fellow posters: stop nitpicking and looking for such specifics in the rules. the rules on this issue are (and should be) structured in order to give the referee a lot of room to make a judgment.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by veeco

Being anal sometimes helps, but most of the time it is really uncalled for, and unappreciated (at least from me).

This is the whole reason and difference between letter and intent of the rules, and perhaps, the difference between a very high level ref and a middle of the range one.

You can't have rules that are so specific and so well written that they cover every aspect of the game. That's why it takes a brain to be a good ref :-).

Seconded. I agree wholeheartedly as both a fencer and a ref.

-m

[tkexi991]

Originally Posted by veeco

My main interpretation of the French version is that it is trying to clarify that it is the flecher's responsibility to avoid hitting their opponent during the fleche.

In doing so, it is trying to clarify the difference between a hit that happens to destabilize the opponent, and a mere body contact, a.k.a. corps a corps.

But yes, it is poorly written, as are a lot of other points.

On the other hand, if you're a referee and want to be good at it, IMO, the main thing you should be striving for is being just and not favor any of the fencers in your calls. Being anal sometimes helps, but most of the time it is really uncalled for, and unappreciated (at least from me).

This is the whole reason and difference between letter and intent of the rules, and perhaps, the difference between a very high level ref and a middle of the range one.

You can't have rules that are so specific and so well written that they cover every aspect of the game. That's why it takes a brain to be a good ref :-).

Not to say that the rules are meant to be perfect, but often rules (especially in epee) are created in reaction to a specific undesirable scenario. Like the turning of the back rule was created to prevent cheating (and self hits) instead of a safety/honor rule like people tend to speculate.

There is nothing wrong in trying to find out the origin/raison d'etre of a particular rule. There is something wrong with ridiculing the OP just because you don't know.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by downunder

There are many many problems with the rulebook and differing interpretations, especially at a local level.

In my opinion, this particular scenario is not a major problem compared to others.

I never said it was...That's no reason not to try and sort it out.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Gav

So Chris I'd like to ask you what you're qualifications are? Seems only fair, if you are going to take on at least 2 FIE qualified referees that you do everyone the courtesy of stating what qualification you have for your demands.

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

I like how he skipped this question.

It wasn't necessary for me to answer it!

Whether I have a rating is really irrelevant to getting an answer that makes sense when I read the rules.

Unlike you, and Gav, I actually read, and RE-read stuff before I go off typing away: That information was already IN the thread before Gav' posted; It was there 3 more times before you posted.

But thank you for your informative contribution to the thread.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

but this isn't an example of somewhere it can easily be done.

Sorry, but have you actually read the OP!?
I wasn't just posing one of those conjured up, one-in-a-million, 'what if this happens? - you make the call' threads.

The difference is this is specifically a FLECHE' with a jostling contact; and it's SPECIFICALLY addressed IN the RULES.
And it actually happens quite a bit!

Originally Posted by epeemike81

what's the difference between jostling (yellow), intentional brutality (red), and deliberate brutality (black)? Much like pornography, you know it when you see it. Will this lead to some referees applying rules in an overly-harsh or overly-lenient manner? sure. Judgment is the primary requirement to be a good referee. For simple convenience, a good rule of thumb is to give the yellow, red if it's really severe.

Well, that's nice, but, again, THANKS, but I already knew that!

Originally Posted by epeemike81

I have yet to see an action of this sort which warrants a black card, but the option is in the rules so that the referee has the tool available in extremely extraordinary cases. I'm curious if anybody has seen such a case.

Clearly, I am too!

And, that is really is at the root of my inquiry - I wanted to understand if that was the true intent of that verbiage, and if so, what should really constitute sufficient conditions. As I said, I feel this often constitutes a dangerous action, and am quite comfortable showing the red card for it. I would like to understand what there is about this that made someone (apparently) think it was WORSE than dangerous.

Originally Posted by epeemike81

I tend to agree with the bottom line of my fellow posters: stop nitpicking and looking for such specifics in the rules. the rules on this issue are (and should be) structured in order to give the referee a lot of room to make a judgment.
-m

And you are REALLY happy with that?
Are you ready to have me referee your next DE bout?
Consensus is, most folks posting on this thread aren't happy with MY judgement (I am not really sure this is sufficient evidence to base an opinion - I tried to make it clear I was looking for an explanation, not just an answer, from a high-level).

SO you're happy with that sort of grab-bag, roll-the-dice, kind of results?

Clearly, I am not, and I won't apologize for it!

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Actually I did read the posts. In your first post you asked for

I would appreciate some input from an authoritative, knowledgeable source - i.e. FOC, or Examiner-type people - or corresponding role in your national organization.

And then you made sure to let people know you have a 4. I've read it. What I don't understand is when you got the answer from and FIE ref you decided it wasn't good enough. Honestly, you have a 4, that's really not all that impressive, and to then be a huge dick to someone who has the qualifications you're looking for is just ridiculous.