Unofficial Referee Handbook - Peer Review Requested

[Agent_V]

This is a really good idea, and the result so far looks great - minus a few details:

1) On page 15, you might want to mention that any failure of those named equipment checks results in confiscation of the weapon - tightening a loose barrel by hand is not ok.

2) On Page 20, the discussion of soft/hard halts for leaving the strip should include a note about going off the rear limits - that being a hard halt for both fencers. Also, corps-a-corps is a soft halt in all three weapons, not just epee.

3) On page 27, you might want to use a different phrase than "If that doesn't work:" for the tests when touches register on a fencers' bell guard. This carries the connotation that the light didn't turn on, when what you mean to say is that the light DID turn on (when it shouldn't have done so).

4) On the same page, when touches on the lame register as off targets in foil, there is one occasional situation that will confuse the testing: the B-C wires (that plug into the guard) of the fencer who is registering the off-targets are switched (often due to careless repair of the bodycord by the fencer in question). This will result in off target lights registered all the way back to the machine on the opponent's A-line. Way to test for this: with a 2-prong connection, reverse the plug and try again. Harder to switch a bayonet connection. (This may be too detailed, but your guiding principle seems to be more instead of less information :-))

5) On page 29: a stop-hit is not an attack on preparation. I think you mean "a properly executed in-time stop-hit has priority over the attack." (i.e. landing in the tempo previous to the opponent's final action)

6) I have serious qualms with the section "Foil: The Counter-attack vs. the Attack on Preparation". Specifically, you are implying that any forward step constitutes retroactively an attack as long as an extension follows before the subsequent lunge or fleche. That is certainly not correct, as evidenced by the following scenario:

Fencer A, maneuvering, takes a forward step. She has no intention of attacking. Fencer B starts a quick advance lunge (extending from the get-go) right at the beginning of this step forwards by fencer A. Fencer A, reacts to this sudden action by starting an extension just before her advance ends and the subsequent lunge. Both fencers hit in the same tempo.

As this section describes it, one should award the touch to fencer A. And then one would have Buckie Leach jumping up and down in a second, because half of his training is founded on the principle that a step forward without an offensive action is a preparation; fencer B is the one who actually began the "initial offensive action".

Certainly it is worth a mention that a proper advance-lunge does not require the fencer to be extending throughout the entire action, but I believe Bill Oliver already covered that in his discussion of "Threat" on page 31.


I think some of the following might deserve a mention also:
Calling halt when bell-guards collide (but no cards)

As Dan mentioned, not to leave the strip to request armorer/head ref/medical.

How to handle coaches. E.g. if they interrupt during the bout politely mention that you can discuss the call after the bout is done, give cards as necessary if they persist. Also (reminded by RITfencing in an earlier thread), to learn which coaches to listen to (ex: Mikhail Petin, Nat Goodhartz, Les Stawicki, Emit Kaidanov, and many others...), and which not to (several).

Alexander

[SJCFU#2]

Originally Posted by Agent_V

4) On the same page, when touches on the lame register as off targets in foil, there is one occasional situation that will confuse the testing: the B-C wires (that plug into the guard) of the fencer who is registering the off-targets are switched (often due to careless repair of the bodycord by the fencer in question). This will result in off target lights registered all the way back to the machine on the opponent's A-line. Way to test for this: with a 2-prong connection, reverse the plug and try again. Harder to switch a bayonet connection. (This may be too detailed, but your guiding principle seems to be more instead of less information :-))

Another way to test for reversed B and C lines is to simply hold the bare metal of the blade in contact with the opponent's lame (creating a C-A' short) and press the tip by hand. Normally this would result in an off-target touch but if the B and C lines are reversed it the machine will indicate a valid touch.

[TooLoftheDeviL]

Originally Posted by Agent_V

2) On Page 20, the discussion of soft/hard halts for leaving the strip should include a note about going off the rear limits - that being a hard halt for both fencers. Also, corps-a-corps is a soft halt in all three weapons, not just epee.

Corps-a-corps falls into the "commits an offense" for foil and sabre, so it's covered there.

Fencer A, maneuvering, takes a forward step. She has no intention of attacking. Fencer B starts a quick advance lunge (extending from the get-go) right at the beginning of this step forwards by fencer A. Fencer A, reacts to this sudden action by starting an extension just before her advance ends and the subsequent lunge. Both fencers hit in the same tempo.

As this section describes it, one should award the touch to fencer A.

Uh... yeah? This is what, question 1 or 2 in the foil section of the referee exam? If one person starts an advance, and the other sticks out their arm and makes a quick advance lunge, and the first slowly extends their arm before they even finish that advance... That's easily an attack for A.

Calling halt when bell-guards collide (but no cards)

Or, not doing that because it's not a reason in and of itself to call halt.

[jfarmer]

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

Are you seriously checking the taping that closely? It's a rule that doesn't even specify a tolerance in either direction. Most commonly it's taken to mean "no more than 15cm" but that's not reall supported by anything...if there's enough tape to prevent random intermittent lights/grounding just let the fencers fence...

Checking that the tape is there and that it's fairly close to 15cm? Yes. As I said, doing so doesn't take any extra time while I'm checking the barrel for looseness, excess tape etc. before weight testing. Why wold I do so? Well, it's in the rules. Regardless of what you or I think, it is in the rulebook and so should be checked. Do I insist that the tape is precisely 15cm? No. So I suppose that one could say that I've slipped a little ways down the slippery slope of "selectively enforcing the rules"...

And I would argue that ensuring that both fencers meet the same body of rules in regards to equipment does "just let the fencers fence..." What would your feelings be if I as a referee allowed your opponent to use a foil that didn't quite pass a weight test? It only took 498 grams to score? Should the referee "just let the fencers fence..." in that case?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by jfarmer

Checking that the tape is there and that it's fairly close to 15cm? Yes. As I said, doing so doesn't take any extra time while I'm checking the barrel for looseness, excess tape etc. before weight testing. Why wold I do so? Well, it's in the rules. Regardless of what you or I think, it is in the rulebook and so should be checked.

No, it shouldn't be checked. It's obviously against the spirit of the rules and just wastes time and makes the fencers respect you less.

EDIT: I should specify that a quick glance to make sure that the tape is doing its job is completely fine and probably a good idea, but measuring it against your hand is ridiculous.

[KD5MDK]

Would you card a fencer for wearing a lame that covered more than the required target area?

[seak]

I tend to check that the tape is intact and they actually have the barrel covered. This is mainly at low level college stuff though, and a lot of the people there don't know how to tape correctly, and don't know what the tape's there for.

That being said unless its truly horrid I will generally just quickly explain why it's an issue and let them fence with it, but make clear that I expect them to have it fixed by the next bout. And no I don't measure it, I more mean not having the tape in shreds .

[jfarmer]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Would you card a fencer for wearing a lame that covered more than the required target area?

Why? The rules do not state that wearing an oversize lame is not allowed:

Originally Posted by 2007 USFA Rulebook

m.28 The conductive surface of the conductive over-jacket which is worn over the protective jacket must cover the valid target of the fencer (cf. t.47) entirely and without omission when standing upright, when in the on-guard position and when lunging.
..
..
The conductive collar must have a minimum height of 3 cm.
..
..
The conductive jacket must be so made that when it is laid flat there is a straight line between the point of junction of the lines of the groin and the two points corresponding to the tops of the hip bones (ilium).

The band of non-conductive material passing between the legs must be at least 3 cm wide (see Figure 14, above).

And Figure 14 shows that the lame must cover at least the top of the fencers hipbones.

So, it's required to cover valid target area in it's entirely. Nothing said that prevents it from covering additional area...

[bigdawg2121]

Originally Posted by jfarmer

Checking that the tape is there and that it's fairly close to 15cm? Yes. As I said, doing so doesn't take any extra time while I'm checking the barrel for looseness, excess tape etc. before weight testing. Why wold I do so? Well, it's in the rules. Regardless of what you or I think, it is in the rulebook and so should be checked. Do I insist that the tape is precisely 15cm? No. So I suppose that one could say that I've slipped a little ways down the slippery slope of "selectively enforcing the rules"...

And I would argue that ensuring that both fencers meet the same body of rules in regards to equipment does "just let the fencers fence..." What would your feelings be if I as a referee allowed your opponent to use a foil that didn't quite pass a weight test? It only took 498 grams to score? Should the referee "just let the fencers fence..." in that case?

In fact many weights are probably significantly less than 498 g. There are tolerances laid out for weights and many go unchecked by any official source and are often wildly outside of those tolerances. Furthermore, letting my opponent fence with a weapon that didn't pass weights would benefit them and make it easier to score touches. Having the weapon taped mostly just stops them from hitting and getting no lights whatsoever. As you seem to agree that mandating exactly 15cm is silly, I'd argue that checking to see that there's more than what seems to be a reasonable amount of tape to prevent the fault is also silly.

Also, because there are numerous relatively valid reasons, which I don't feel like going over, why someone might have their tape shorter than 15cm. Most of the reasons to have it longer involve having a wire popping out, or uninsulated. Hence, I'd be more likely to question or "enforce" this rule when there's significantly more than 15cm than if there's a fair bit less .

[downunder]

Originally Posted by TooLoftheDeviL

Or, not doing that because it's not a reason in and of itself to call halt.

I would generally call halt for anything more than a basic meeting of the guards. It's a safety issue in terms of possible injury to the fencers and also a potential issue of fencers not being able to wield their weapons. It's easiest to just call halt and get on with it again.

Originally Posted by Agent_V

Also, corps-a-corps is a soft halt in all three weapons, not just epee.

This is not entirely clear cut. I've been told by Grand Prix referees within the last week that it's only soft for epee.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by downunder

This is not entirely clear cut. I've been told by Grand Prix referees within the last week that it's only soft for epee.

What was the rationale for that?

[downunder]

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

What was the rationale for that?

I didn't ask, he was coaching at the time and it was a quick argument/chat about something else.

Again don't take it as gospel, and I'm not active enough on the senior circuit to have any clue.

[KD5MDK]

Was it to his advantage for you to interpret it that way?

I find it disturbing that I could be in the midst of performing an action and that there is something you could do that would disallow my touch like this.

[catwood1]

Very nice job Ian. I think a document like this would have been quite helpful when I first started reffing. Its nice to see someone take the time to write this out.

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Was it to his advantage for you to interpret it that way?

I find it disturbing that I could be in the midst of performing an action and that there is something you could do that would disallow my touch like this.

I agree. If im fencing someone (say in sabre) and they are doing a long attack, I shouldn't be able to cause corps a corps and get his attack to not count.

[KD5MDK]

corpse a corpse would end the bout immediately.

[catwood1]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

corpse a corpse would end the bout immediately.

Wow! Indeed it would!

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by jfarmer

What would your feelings be if I as a referee allowed your opponent to use a foil that didn't quite pass a weight test? It only took 498 grams to score?

Originally Posted by USFA Rulebook m.11

The weight of 500 g supplied by the Organizing Committee may have a tolerance of ± 2 g, i.e. 498–502 g.

Better question might be a foil that required 497g....

-B

[jfarmer]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Better question might be a foil that required 497g....

-B

True. I should have looked at that section when I wrote that to refresh my memory. I had it in my mind that it was ± 1 g, i.e. 499–501 g