USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #3: Referee Development

[bigdawg2121]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Right. But if you fail it three times then pass on try #4, they do not refund all four fees---only the last. Which is why I said it can be a barrier to taking it multiple times...the more times you fail, or expect to fail, the greater the deterrent.



I cannot agree. They are often just bizarrely phrased, and several of the answers sound correct.

This is aside from questions like my "favorite", the one about the required run-back area for a regulation strip. No rule requires any set run-back...but the diagram of a strip includes one. Is the diagram a rule? The question seems to assume so...or does it only assume there's a written rule setting down the run-back dimensions, when there isn't one?





But seriously, I have never seen 9 out of 10 of the penalties in the rules committed. In sabre, you see crossovers, bell hits, that sort of thing. And equipment failures. Yet most of the exam is about calculating complex penalty matrices of the form of "A has a card for X, then B does Y, then A does Z, with a twist of lime, what's the card?" When this situation never appears in the real world...

Also, the test really isn't difficult. Most of the time the answer is plainly in the rules. In the event that you have a legitimate gripe about a question/answer and you've identified another possible answer (e.g. there is no required runoff but I'm aware of the picture blah blah blah) it's likely that your proctor will go ahead and give you credit based on your ability to demonstrate that you actually know the rules. However, for those actually wanting to ref, all you have to do is just answer the question in the most straightforward way possible. It's not really designed to trick you. Worrying about whether you'll likley see a penalty etc is silly. Unlike the internets, picking a random semantic battle just for giggles is difficult to do with a test.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

You have 30 yrs of watching fencing but how much of that time have you devoted to refereeing, trying to see things as a referee does etc?

Yes, but even just as a spectator I think I'd notice if a referee was handing out penalties like that. I'd say that 98% of all bouts go without any cards whatsoever. Most of the rest have maybe a yelow card, or maybe, as I said, repetitions of one infraction by one fencer. The odd black card. I have never seen the sort of combos the test dreams up, as fencer, spectator or referee.

Maybe it happens in foil, but then I'm not likely to test for a rating in foil. ( Or epee. )

[IanSerotkin]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Really?

You've had bouts where A had a red card for one infraction, and committed a second infraction just as B, who had a card for a third infraction committed a fourth?

I sabre?!

Personal experiences: In sabre, no. In epee, perhaps once a year. In foil, roughly once or twice every NAC I'll have to a parse situation that complicated.

Penalties happen an order of magnitude less in sabre than they do in epee, and an order of magnitude less in epee than they do in foil. (But just because it's exceedingly rare in sabre doesn't mean it can't happen within the rules.)

[bigdawg2121]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Yes, but even just as a spectator I think I'd notice if a referee was handing out penalties like that. I'd say that 98% of all bouts go without any cards whatsoever. Most of the rest have maybe a yelow card, or maybe, as I said, repetitions of one infraction by one fencer. The odd black card. I have never seen the sort of combos the test dreams up, as fencer, spectator or referee.

Maybe it happens in foil, but then I'm not likely to test for a rating in foil. ( Or epee. )

Thus, in the completely non-hypothetical situation I mentioned in my first post you would have done....?

[foillion]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

With respect, I cannot agree. The test IS "difficult", in that many of the questions and answers are...poorly written. Or at least oddly written.

The test may be difficult...but the questions...ALL OF THEM...are made available to you before the test. They're on the F'ing website. If you can't pass a 30 question multiple choice test where the questions are given to you beforehand, I don't want you as my ref. I took all three tests and passed the first time with maybe 20 mins of studying beforehand. It's really not that hard.

And as far as having to parse calls and cards, it happens. Not often but it definitely happens. The job of a ref is to enforce the rules and facilitate fencing. To enforce the rules you need to know them, to know when not to enforce the rules and facilitate fencing...(aka pull up your socks, straighten your blade, don't swear on my strip again even under your breath) you need to know the rules.

-P

[Inquartata]

Which is not the same thing as doing multiple-interlocking-penalty puzzles.

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

Thus, in the completely non-hypothetical situation I mentioned in my first post you would have done....?

Since it was foil, I wouldn't have been there in the first place.

[KD5MDK]

Did you skip the part where bigdawg2121 was performing a skyhook? That's not a foil move.

[bigdawg2121]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Did you skip the part where bigdawg2121 was performing a skyhook? That's not a foil move.

No no, he ignored the part where passe-avante was illegal ....either that or the part where I spent more oe less 4.5/5ths (or 4.5yrs) of undergrad fencing saber. Both are plausible mistakes.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Which is not the same thing as doing multiple-interlocking-penalty puzzles.

It's not that hard mate . I'd much prefer it to 45 minutes of grilling on obscure rules from Arthur Kramer.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

No no, he ignored the part where passe-avante was illegal

Eh, sorry about that. I saw the word "foil" in there and leapt to a conclusion...

So, OK, your hypothetical:

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

How's this one for you: Fencer on the right, already having a yellow card for a faulty bodycord, launches an attack which finishes with passe-avant. The fencer on the left executes a proper counterattack which finishes with the rear foot off the strip. The rear foot of the fencer on the left lands atop a foil thrown carelessly by a fencer on an adjacent strip and falls down with the conclusion of his retreat. Who gets the card/s if anyone? How many touches awarded during the phrase?

An excellent example of why the questions on the exam are poorly written: Ambiguity or lack of detail.

For instance, Left steps off the strip. To avoid a touch, or just in the course of the action? It makes a difference. Does his counter land before or after he steps off? It makes a difference. Is he close enough to the end of the strip that losing a meter will put him off with both feet? It matters to the call.

And does Right cross before or after the halt?

Definitely happened to me during a dual meet one year as I hit a sky hook and the other guy missed their attempted remise (which necessitated the cross) and then busted my tail and did a back somersault thanks to a careless foil which was either too close to or on my strip.

Your touch, assuming you hit before stepping off. The fall was caused by external circumstances beyond your control. Again, a simple call with either no or only one penalty---like most sabre bouts.

[bigdawg2121]

This:

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Eh, sorry about that. I saw the word "foil" in there and leapt to a conclusion...

So, OK, your hypothetical:



An excellent example of why the questions on the exam are poorly written: Ambiguity or lack of detail.

For instance, Left steps off the strip. To avoid a touch, or just in the course of the action? It makes a difference. Does his counter land before or after he steps off? It makes a difference. Is he close enough to the end of the strip that losing a meter will put him off with both feet? It matters to the call.

And does Right cross before or after the halt?






Your touch, assuming you hit before stepping off. The fall was caused by external circumstances beyond your control. Again, a simple call with either no or only one penalty---like most sabre bouts.

Is an absolutely perfect illustration of pretty much every point made in this:

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

Also, the test really isn't difficult. Most of the time the answer is plainly in the rules. In the event that you have a legitimate gripe about a question/answer and you've identified another possible answer (e.g. there is no required runoff but I'm aware of the picture blah blah blah) it's likely that your proctor will go ahead and give you credit based on your ability to demonstrate that you actually know the rules. However, for those actually wanting to ref, all you have to do is just answer the question in the most straightforward way possible. It's not really designed to trick you. Worrying about whether you'll likley see a penalty etc is silly. Unlike the internets, picking a random semantic battle just for giggles is difficult to do with a test.

Analysis to follow later, if I feel like it*.



*NB that in this case "feel like it" most closely means, "am at the bar and it's more or less empty for a bit and the DJ is terrrible or the girls really just aren't that cute tonight".

[dcrocket]

We are hold a seminar annually. The Division pays $20 of the cost up front while the referee candidates pay $30. The Division refunds $15 if and when a candidate passes the exam. We hold an open the next day to provide the practical examination...the referee candidates referee for no pay. In addition, we provide ample opportunity for the new ref's to make the money back at the local tournaments. It is working very well and we have had no shortage of young referees. The harder step is to push them to do regional and national events to get better ratings. Where we need help is for those that do not pass the exam at the course. It is virtually impossible to get them to travel to take the exam. We have a large number of non-rated fencers who have taken the course...

[KD5MDK]

I get annoyed at those people, which is why I'm going to apply to be an examiner so I can carry the exam with me and offer it to them wherever I encounter someone who announces how much trouble they have in getting to take the exam.

[dcrocket]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I get annoyed at those people, which is why I'm going to apply to be an examiner so I can carry the exam with me and offer it to them wherever I encounter someone who announces how much trouble they have in getting to take the exam.

Yes...on my list of things to do also.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

Is an absolutely perfect illustration of pretty much every point made in this:

Unfortunately, so many of the questions are like that that no examiner has the time, patience or inclination to discuss more than a couple of them. After the seminar I took, there was a crowd of people around the examiner after the test. He was trying to grade the exams and was being peppered with questions and complaints all the while. There's no way to make this a meaningful solution to the problem.

Especially when the obvious answer is to write the questions properly in the first place...

[bigdawg2121]

The point Inq, is that instead of reading the question and answering it you decided that you would try to play semantic games and ask all sorts of what-ifs to go along with it. If one were to simply read what was written and answer it, life would be simple.

Nothing was mentioned about avoiding a touch, nothing was mentioned about the location on the strip (which incidentally, does not matter), the wording stated pretty simply that:

A) The attack finished with Passe-avante
B) The counterattack was properly executed and finished the foot off the side of the strip.

Therefore, you should

C) Award the touch for the properly executed counterattack and a RED card for the passe-avante (being the second YELLOW offense). This results in two touches for the fencer executing the counterattack.

Edit: you should probably also tell the forgetful foilist that they shouldn't put equipment pratically on strips that are in-use.

Reading is fundamental...trying to create reasons for the question to be inadequate is better left to conversations and internet forums where someone might go for it. The answer key, however, is much less patient.

However, if you were actually able to find your examiner after the test and discuss the fact that you know the rules and just don't actually like answering the questions b/c that just seemed like taking the easy way out, they'd probably go ahead and give you the benefit of a doubt.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

The point Inq, is that instead of reading the question and answering it you decided that you would try to play semantic games and ask all sorts of what-ifs to go along with it. If one were to simply read what was written and answer it, life would be simple.

So you think, but my mind just doesn't work that way. Just as there are many learning styles, there are many testing styles. This one just works poorly for me, because I cannot just ignore mistakes and leap to conclusion based on vague assumptions.

Nothing was mentioned about avoiding a touch, nothing was mentioned about the location on the strip (which incidentally, does not matter),

Of course it matters. If Left stepped off and his losing a meter then puts him off the back of the strip, there will be a touch awarded on that basis alone. One which would not be awarded otherwise.

And "nothing was mentioned" is precisely the point: There are two possible calls depending on the action which is not completely described, one earns a penalty and one doesn't, and the question asks us to assume that it's one possibility rather than the other.

[IanSerotkin]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Of course it matters. If Left stepped off and his losing a meter then puts him off the back of the strip, there will be a touch awarded on that basis alone. One which would not be awarded otherwise.

That's incorrect. The action in question results in two point being awarded to Left, thus, the fencers are placed on their on guard lines for the next action. Where Left stepped off the strip therefore does not matter.

Here's a logical representation of the scenario, to take away the "vague assumptions" you say you hate:

Code: