Kolombatovich : Rules of Referees

[swordsen]

I am surprised there isn't already a thread about this latest letter from the FOC. But I must love the first line

" First, please do not argue with this material." Good luck there!


Other than that everything he says makes perfect sense to me. Although that PIL after the lunge is going to cause howling heebes all over the place. I have listened as coaches and FOC examiners have explained why it wasn't so in the past........

[dcrocket]

What letter from the FOC?

[seak]

Points of Emphasis on Fencing Rules for Referees as Determined by the FIE by George Kolombatovich

First, please do not argue with this material. This is all instructions given by the FIE to referees in seminars, at all referee meetings before Grand Prix World Cups and all World Championships. This is the way it is. Our fencers and coaches need to understand that they must be pragmatic in how they fence and in how they teach. There has been an extensive discussion about "Distance Parry" and "Mal Parré" (bad parry) and priority. The two terms are incorrect, even though too many coaches and referees use them. (If you can have a "Mal Parry," why don't we have "Mal Attack," "Mal Remise," or any number of things? If an action is insufficient, then it does not exist.) Some of the concepts of priority that have been given could be called "Mal Concept."

If I make a parry or a beat, do I get the right of way? The answer is "No." It is a very important concept that it is the offensive action that gives one the right of way. A parry only stops the opponent's offensive action; the riposte gives the right of way. A beat is only a preparation; the offensive action after the beat is what can give the priority.

If I make a parry or cause my opponent to miss me or fall short, do I get the priority? Again, the answer is "No." Remember, it is the offensive action that gives one the priority. All a parry or making your opponent miss you or fall short does is to momentarily stop your opponent from having the priority. This problem very often comes up in sabre. Sue makes a cut and is short. Mary waits a second or two, and then starts moving forward with her guard down by her hip. Sue attacks and Mary then sticks out her arm with both hitting valid target. All too often the referee calls it "Attack by Sue, No. Riposte by Mary. Point for Mary." Another example is when after Sue's first cut is short, Mary does nothing, and Sue makes a new offensive action which arrives as Mary counter-attacks. There are at least two problems here. One is that there cannot be a riposte unless there is a parry, and there was no parry here. Rule t.7 includes the following two definitions: · "The riposte is the offensive action made by the fencer who has parried the attack." · "The parry is the defensive action made with the weapon to prevent an offensive action arriving."

The other problem exists because some coaches and some referees believe that since Sue's attack was "No," and, even though there was no action by Mary, Mary now has the priority. An action, not a movement, is what is important in determining priority. What we have in the first example, after Sue's attack being short, is Mary advancing down the strip without making any fencing action whatsoever and while that is going on Sue makes an attack and Mary makes a counter-attack. Point for Sue. In the second example we have Sue making a remise, a reprise, or a redoublement; again, point for Sue. Obviously, if Sue had not started her offensive action before Mary started her offensive action, Sue would not have had the priority. Even if one were to incorrectly think of making your opponent fall short as a "distance parry," Rule t.79 (sabre) and Rule t.57 (foil) state: The parry gives the right to riposte; a simple riposte may be direct or indirect, but in order to annul any subsequent movement by the attacker, it must be carried out immediately, without any hesitation or pause. Another "new" thing is really an old thing. The point in line has the highest level of priority; it always has been this way. If the point in line is correctly established before an offensive action by an opponent, it has the priority. Rule 56.6 states: "If the attack is initiated when the opponent is 'point in line' (cf. t.10), the attacker must, first, deflect the opponent's blade." The priority of the point in line is retained whether one advances, retreats, or lunges. With all this in mind, it is obvious that the referees are correct when one fencer finishes an attack that is short in the position of point in line, that fencer continues to have the priority, and the opponent must deflect the opponent's blade. Something that had confused almost everyone was the very brief period where an action from the low line was not being given the same degree of priority that was given to actions from the high line. Fortunately, that entire concept was unanimously voted out by the FIE Refereeing Commission.
Sincerely, George Kolombatovich President of the Refereeing Commission, Fédération Internationale d'Escrime

[dcrocket]

I am surprised there isn't already a thread about this latest letter from the FOC. But I must love the first line

" First, please do not argue with this material." Good luck there!


Other than that everything he says makes perfect sense to me. Although that PIL after the lunge is going to cause howling heebes all over the place. I have listened as coaches and FOC examiners have explained why it wasn't so in the past........

This is how I have been ref'ing all along...with many disagreements...

At the NAS Junior Sectionals I made 2-3 remise calls where a fencer stopped with a point in line that he either then extended or the opponent ran onto. While I gave him the touches, he was not happy about my calling them remises. Oh well...

In any case, should I expect to see this letter in the mail or is it posted somewhere? Just wondering as to how it is being disseminated, as I have now read it...

[jeff]

It went out as a blast e-mail, I'm guessing to everyone registered at the FOC website. I think every word of it is great, though nobody will observe the "don't argue" part.

[victord66]

What letter from the FOC?

This was actually their monthly newsletter. Here is the remainder:

Fencing Officials Commission Newsletter
June 2008
06/08/2008
Dear Victor,
Welcome to the FOC newsletter, the official source of information for US referees.
In This Issue



• What's up with the USFA?
• Life Membership Offer
• Summer Nationals
• Points of Emphasis on Fencing Rules for Referees as Determined by the FIE by George Kolombatovich
• Elections



Life Membership Offer


Dear Tournament Officials: The Executive Committee of the Board of Directors has recently approved a motion to offer a discounted life membership to those tournament officials who are owed reimbursements for the 07-08 season.
This includes those referees, bout committee members, armorers, techs and trainers who are owed reimbursement and/or honorarium for the JO's, or one or more NAC's for the 2007-2008 season. Please go to the link and review the cover letter and application. If you would like to take advantage of this offer, please either send in your application by fax, email or mail, or reply to myself or Tana Isgar: tana.isgar@usfencing.org by May 31, 2008. Reimbursements through Summer Nationals can also be applied to this offer.
Your life membership can be applied to another, if you choose. You may also choose to apply less than the $1000 from your reimbursement and supply the remainder in cash (or credit card.) This would be true if you were owed less than $1000. If you would not like to take advantage of this offer, your reimbursements will continue to be issued. If you have any questions about the attached, please feel free to contact us. Thank you for all that you do. Best Regards, Dana Brown USFA Membership Dana.brown@usfencing.org Fax: 719-632-5737 US Fencing 1 Olympic Plaza Colorado Springs, CO 80909


Summer Nationals


Summer Nationals are just around the corner. Many referees will be needed.
If any USFA referees have been contacted about availability, and have not confirmed with George Kolombatovich or Sharon Everson, please do so immediately. Airfares are skyrocketing. Delay will cost the USFA money, and might result in your participation being denied.
Anyone who is available and who has not been contacted, please stand by for further information. We are approaching the second wave of referee contact. If there are any openings in the referee cadre, we will be sending out invitations soon.


Points of Emphasis on Fencing Rules for Referees as Determined by the FIE by George Kolombatovich (see above post)



Elections


Remember that the USFA election deadline is fast approaching. Please take a minute to fill out your ballot and submit.
The system will only work if everyone participates.
What's up with the USFA?

Many US referees are owed substantial amounts of money. USFA Treasurer candidate, Greg Dilworth provides some insight.
We all know that the USFA has been extremely slow to pay us the money for our work at domestic and international tournaments. Every member of the FOC has heard directly from referees about their frustration. We all share that frustration, mostly because we are extremely disappointed that the lack of payment is impacting your enjoyment and ability to referee. Members of the FOC have worked with the national office to understand the situation. As you may know, the USFA ran a deficit of over $1 million in the 2006/2007 season. This occurred as a result, not of any sort of malfeasance, but rather as a result of bad procedures and a lack of clear lines of management and responsibility. The Board of Directors only learned of this situation at their meeting in February.
This year, things are going somewhat better. However, we were not budgeted to have a surplus in 2007/2008. In fact we were budgeted to lose around $111K. If we stick to that budget and add the loss to the previous deficit we're likely to end up with close to $1.25 million of debt after Summer Nationals. It's an Olympic year and many of our expenditures are laid out in already published documents (such as the Athlete's Handbook and the Schedule of events). So, for the most part we're staying the course for the rest of this year. The new Budget & Finance committee is currently working with the national office to develop a budget for the 2008/2009 season that will start to correct the situation. An outline of the plan is to pay back the debt over a two year period by asking all segments of the organization to sacrifice. We will have to both economize on expenses and look for additional and new sources of revenue to run budget surpluses of around $600K each year for the next couple of years.
Until the finances are put back into shape, we will need to wait for the cash flow from a subsequent event (Summer Nationals for example) to arrive before we'll be able to pay expenses for previous events (JO's for example). It's very likely that this will continue through the entire 2008/2009 season, with payments arriving between 2 and 4 months after the event. By the 2009/2010 season payments should be down to a 1-2 month delay. Hopefully, we'll be fully current by the 2010/2011 season, with payments made immediately upon receipt of the expense report. Until the situation improves (with a new ED, a new and more transparent budget, and better procedures at the National Office) we hope that you'll be patient and will continue to volunteer during this rough period for the organization.

Quick Links...
Check Your Rating
Last Month's Newsletter
Related Topics
Our Sponsors
Referee Magazine
More About Us

Join our mailing list!
[ ][Join]


email: newsletter@fencingofficials.org
web: http://www.fencingofficials.org

United States Fencing Association | One Olympic Plaza | Colorado Springs | CO | 80909

[dcrocket]

Aha...and I thought that the Newsletter was just wicked sporadic....I must have dropped off the mailing list...

[bigdawg2121]

Well now I know why I'm still waiting to hear whether or not I'm going to SNs this year. Wonder how long before the second round of hiring begins...also, I'm absolutely amazed that it's a SNs and there's even the hint of the possibility that we already have enough refs; when's the last time that happened?

[edew]

They're trying to get more locals to decrease the airfare expense. I'm happy to help, but not if they don't make the first move of some sort. Even then, I'm coaching 5 days and fencing 3.

[KD5MDK]

Well, we've probably decided to expand the competition schedule to 6am-12am. That would require fewer referees for the same events.

[seak]

Well now I know why I'm still waiting to hear whether or not I'm going to SNs this year. Wonder how long before the second round of hiring begins...also, I'm absolutely amazed that it's a SNs and there's even the hint of the possibility that we already have enough refs; when's the last time that happened?

same here, and yeah that slightly shocked me, must be part of their new money saving policy...epee self reffed and saber one ref for every two strips. Enjoy!

[darius]

The other problem exists because some coaches and some referees believe that since Sue's attack was "No," and, even though there was no action by Mary, Mary now has the priority. An action, not a movement, is what is important in determining priority.

I don't disagree with this premise.

But here's my question: If an attack is "No," and absolutely no leeway is given to the fencer who caused the attack to miss, why wouldn't we train fencers to do endless series of remises? After all, the original attacker has momentum on their side, they should be able to remise before the original defender can change directions and take over the attack.

Clearly, in practice, there is a window given to somebody who makes an attack to miss to begin their own attack.

darius

[Inquartata]

Everything hangs on the word "immediately", which, alas, does not mean the same thing to every referee. I suspect that it doesn't mean the same thing to ANY two referees...

So George is not wrong, but the Devil is in the details.

The PIL thing especially wants more explication. As written it sounds as though he means that it exists after a failed attack even if the defender starts an attack "immediately". Which would mean a "twofer" for attackers...

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Another "devil in the details" is this quote from George:

"...it is obvious that the referees are correct when one fencer finishes an attack that is short in the position of point in line, that fencer continues to have the priority."

Does that mean it has to finish exactly in a classic PIL mode, point exactly at the target, arm straight? What if you are in full extension, but pointing just six inches under or to the side of the target area? If you move the point directly on target before the opponent begins an attack, is it still PIL, or do you have to land the end of your attack precisely in an alignment with the target to get the benefit of the PIL after failed attack call?

Not that I'm arguing, of course...just looking for illumination...

[bigdawg2121]

Everything hangs on the word "immediately", which, alas, does not mean the same thing to every referee. I suspect that it doesn't mean the same thing to ANY two referees...

So George is not wrong, but the Devil is in the details.

The PIL thing especially wants more explication. As written it sounds as though he means that it exists after a failed attack even if the defender starts an attack "immediately". Which would mean a "twofer" for attackers...

I've always come up with the belief that that the fencer is allowed some time to change momentum however that change has to be immediate. If I can see a fencer take another step or so and they don't look to be motivating their body forward immediately then the attack isn't starting.

The PiL thing as a legit "two-fer" is relatively difficult to actually come by. For the most part if a PiL breaks in any way after the attack I don't think many refs will award it; they'll wait until it's been re-established.

[edew]

Derek Cotton gave a saber refereeing seminar last night (before I got this email from George K and the FOCs -- cool rock band name) at HFC in SF when this exact PiL issue was brought up.

However, in the example in the seminar, the action was clearly an attack that fails (the defender eluded by retreating), then recovering without withdrawing the arm, with the possible exception of moving the arm into PiL position, while the defender steps forward commencing his attack. Cotton's bottom line answer is: "attack no, attack yes, PiL is not in time". There really has to be some tempo or obvious hesitation for the PiL to take over.

Cotton's explanation (and I agree) is that making the PiL after an attack is just being lazy. You lost RoW, work at it to retake it, not flail around hoping something sticks. He also gives a lot of time for the evading party to make the turn from backwards to forwards. Of course, each referee has his or her own preference as to what that amount of time is. What it shouldn't be, however, is some absolute chronological moment of elapsed time.

The hypothetical that George K seems to be making is more akin to this:
I advance at my opponent as he retreats. I extend to put out a line while lunging. My opponent takes a bigger retreat when seeing my lunge (obviously, to avoid being hit). I finish the lunge, but really, I'm completing my PiL, albeit in a lunge position. My opponent, who thinks he has successfully evaded an attack, proceeds to advance lunge into my PiL (which could, possibly, be maintained while I'm sneakily recovering from my the lunge, thereby making it more like I'm just recovering from a failed attack). My opponent hits me while impaling himself on my blade. I can see this whole phrase as a point for me (not just because it's me): I set up my opponent to attack into my PiL that I deftly concealed in establishing by blustering through an attack-like motion. Might meet the letter of the law, but I wouldn't argue with the ref if he calls it against me.

I might just tell my fencers, on the other hand, to make an attaque of fer (beat on the blade) when going forward if the attacker's arm is not clearly being pulled back after an attack, or if the attacker's blade movement is not clearly a big swipe plus replacement (which would not steal time).

[kuroutesshin]

Doesn't PiL have to first be established, or has the interpretation on that changed? t.10 and the relevant sections don't specify how PiL is established, just what exactly it entails. George K. does say-

If the point in line is correctly established before an offensive action by an opponent, it has the priority.

Suggesting it has to be correctly established. Is this just the straightening of the arm in line with the shoulder and blade? Or must it be in the course of one fencing action?

It seems common sense, though, that one would make an attack on the blade in any respect. I've heard running oneself through is rather painful.

[unwittingvolunteer]

Points of Emphasis on Referee Payment for the FOC and USFA as determined by the Unknowing Volunteer Referee

First, please do not argue with this material. This is all instructions given by the labor laws of all 50 states of the U.S. This is the way it is. Our FOC and the USFA need to understand that they must be pragmatic in how they pay their referees. There has been extensive discussion of about "deferred payment" and "application to annual membership" and "lunch." These terms are incorrect, even though the USFA insists on using them (if you can have a "deferred payment," then you have to have "payment", and "lunch" doesn't occur at 10am or 4pm). Some of the concepts of payment that have been given could be called "Non-Payment" and some of the concepts of lunch could be called "breakfast" or "supper."

If I work a NAC, do I get paid? Sadly, lately the answer has been "No." Yet, it is a very important concept that work leads to payment. Non-payment only serves to make the referees surly and recalcitrant. Payment, on the other hand, is reasonable given the work undertaken.

If the USFA fails to pay me or short-pays me, do I have a legal claim? That likely turns on whether an agreement to referee for payment is binding. But if the USFA hasn't paid me and I still referee, do I have a reasonable expectation of payment? Perhaps, but was that expectation realistic. The problem very often comes up after NACs. The referees work at an event. The USFA waits a month or two (or three) before paying. And then, the checks only come out slowly. All too often the referees simply go to another event and do it all over again. Another example is at Nationals, where there are too many events and too few referees. There cannot be referees without payment. The basic rule of business is that "the payment is made to services that are rendered."

The other problem exists because some in the FOC and USFA believe that the "working" staff of the event are the ones who should "share in the sacrifice." Sacrifice is not what is important in determining propriety, especially when such sacrifice includes floating hundreds of dollars in airline tickets. What we have in the first example, after the referees are not paid or are short-paid, and the USFA promises payment without making any payment action whatsoever and while that is going on, the referee works another event. Does the referee deserve payment for either event?

With all this in mind, it is obvious that the referees are correct to complain that they have not received payment. When one referee finishes an event with short pay, and continues to work, that referee continues to deserve payment, and the USFA must make payment. Something that had confused almost everyone was the very brief period where payment could be used to offset a lifetime membership. Fortunately, that entire concept was unanimously rejected by the referee cadre.

[edew]

Doesn't PiL have to first be established, or has the interpretation on that changed? t.10 and the relevant sections don't specify how PiL is established, just what exactly it entails. George K. does say-



Suggesting it has to be correctly established. Is this just the straightening of the arm in line with the shoulder and blade? Or must it be in the course of one fencing action?

It seems common sense, though, that one would make an attack on the blade in any respect. I've heard running oneself through is rather painful.

In my George K hypothetical, the PiL is established at the end of the faux lunge, just as the defender is jumping away, thereby clearly being established before the initiation of the attack by the erstwhile defender.

[KD5MDK]

Does Mary or Sue fence for Columbia?