$64,000 question

[Phrogger]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

The strike zone in baseball is explicitly defined, but every ump's strike zone is different.

The rules for charging/blocking calls in basketball are clearly defined, but every ref calls it differently.

The rules for ROW are actually pretty well defined all things considered. There will still be referees whose window is a little more open and referees whose window is a little more closed.

There is little need for this rewrite you propose, nor would it improve the situation. Frankly, the thought that the rulebook could be rewritten in such a fashion as to eliminate disagreements on interpretation is laughable.

-m

I don't think anyone expects to eliminate disagreements, just to clarify ambiguities.

The best analogy I can give is the tactics manual for a military aircraft. In this manual are procedures on how to execute certain maneuvers. This manual is constantly amended and re-written as what the author thought was perfectly clear is misinterpreted by many and creates undesirable results or hazards. (I'm actually thinking here of a specific Blue Angels incident, but it's only one of many) Now, to say "Well, anyone can see it's perfectly well written and those who don't read it correctly are just dumb and there will always be dumb people so why rewrite it?" is misguided, backwards-thinking, and dangerous (with regards to aviation, in this example).

The proof that there is room for improvement is the fact that there is such contentious debate over right-of-way. I don't see how clarification could hurt.

[Phrogger]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

The disagreements I've seen in that thread are in the vein of downunder saying "this is how it's interpretted internationally" and Peet saying "Well, that's unfortunate, I rather like the other way."

That's not disagreeing about what the interpretation IS, it's disagreeing about what it SHOULD be. There are a few interpretations I disagree with, but I call them the way they're called by international convention, and will continue to do so until and unless that convention changes.

If there IS an international convention, and the powers agree that it is the "right" way to make the call, why not put it in writing?

[noodle]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

The disagreements I've seen in that thread are in the vein of downunder saying "this is how it's interpretted internationally" and Peet saying "Well, that's unfortunate, I rather like the other way."

That's not disagreeing about what the interpretation IS, it's disagreeing about what it SHOULD be. There are a few interpretations I disagree with, but I call them the way they're called by international convention, and will continue to do so until and unless that convention changes.

-m

mm i forgot i had conversations outside that thread, about that thread. my bad.

doesn't change the fact that an olympic sport shouldn't be judged upon what a group of people come together to agree upon are the way to read the rules this year.

gimmie something in writing, in the rulebook that tells me how to make this call this season, and if we want to change how the call is made, change the written rule.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Phrogger

If there IS an international convention, and the powers agree that it is the "right" way to make the call, why not put it in writing?

Having spoken to quite a few international referees and watched plenty of video, I can say with a high degree of certainty that there certainly IS an international convention, but codifying such in a written rule (beyond those already written) is extraordinarily difficult.

It is an exercise in futility.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by noodle

mm i forgot i had conversations outside that thread, about that thread. my bad.

doesn't change the fact that an olympic sport shouldn't be judged upon what a group of people come together to agree upon are the way to read the rules this year.

gimmie something in writing, in the rulebook that tells me how to make this call this season, and if we want to change how the call is made, change the written rule.

please give an example of the type of rule you'd like to see codified in the rulebook that isn't.

I think you'll find it hard to codify.

-m

[TooLoftheDeviL]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

please give an example of the type of rule you'd like to see codified in the rulebook that isn't.

I think you'll find it hard to codify.

-m

Just from the recent topic, the requirement that PIL threatens a high-line target? If it's true -- why not say exactly that? It leave it open to interpretation still whether or not the action was executed correctly, but still specifies a detail which most people are accepting as truth that's listed nowhere it seems.

[TooLoftheDeviL]

bump chicka wow wow

[rocky]

Originally Posted by TooLoftheDeviL

Just from the recent topic, the requirement that PIL threatens a high-line target? If it's true -- why not say exactly that? It leave it open to interpretation still whether or not the action was executed correctly, but still specifies a detail which most people are accepting as truth that's listed nowhere it seems.

How would you have PiL threatening a low line target without breaking the straight 90° of the PiL?

[Dev]

Originally Posted by rocky

How would you have PiL threatening a low line target without breaking the straight 90° of the PiL?

Bend your knees.

[TooLoftheDeviL]

Originally Posted by rocky

How would you have PiL threatening a low line target without breaking the straight 90° of the PiL?

That's the point.. the 90 degree requirement, the one were the blade is parallel to the floor, is the interpretation of the rule, it's not explicit IN the rules. The question is if we all agree this is the way it is, why does the rule not say it when it would appear to clarify the issue without being so specific that it would cause further unintended consequences.

[jeff]

I would bet dollars to donuts that this was sprung in some Cup event years ago for the advantage of one country's team over another, and became semi-official later...

[wbowman]

Aside from the main question, my understanding is that the "official" rule book is the one written in French, and the one we usually deal with in the U.S. is just a translation.
So on top of the question of writing the rules more clearly to begin with, you then have translation issues.

[Stormbringer]

Originally Posted by wbowman

Aside from the main question, my understanding is that the "official" rule book is the one written in French, and the one we usually deal with in the U.S. is just a translation.
So on top of the question of writing the rules more clearly to begin with, you then have translation issues.

I was under the impression that there were the original French-language rules, with the BFA's rule set being the official English-language translation of the FIE rules (with the FIE site directing one to the BFA site for a translation into English), and that the USFA rules were more-or-less, but not exactly, modeled on the BFA's...

EDIT: The link to the BFA site only shows up ig you select "EN" near the upper-right corner of the FIE page...

[Emfuser]

Originally Posted by noodle

mm i forgot i had conversations outside that thread, about that thread. my bad.

doesn't change the fact that an olympic sport shouldn't be judged upon what a group of people come together to agree upon are the way to read the rules this year.

gimmie something in writing, in the rulebook that tells me how to make this call this season, and if we want to change how the call is made, change the written rule.

Makes too much sense, therefore the FIE and thus the USFA will not do it.

[peet]

Those who feel that more precision in the rulebook regarding ROW will reduce confusion and argument might consider:

The saber section of the rules is much more specific than the foil section about what constitutes a correct attack, and we all know how much less confusion and argument there is in saber!

-p

[Inquartata]

But that's just because we like it that way.

[Bryn Ralph]

According to a recent NASA report (excerpted): ...complex systems most always fail in complex manners." Perhaps this analogy is not to far removed from the USFA rulebook, conceptually and cognitively speaking.

[peet]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

But that's just because we like it that way.

QFT!