$64,000 question

[noodle]

should the rulebook be rewritten in order to clearly and precisely define right of way?

[Shi no Tenshi]

It would be nice to not have multiple interpretations, all of whom are firmly convinced theirs is the correct call. Having to hope your ref agrees with the way you were taught ROW or you have to change for a bout is obnoxious.

[catwood1]

I think rewriting it may be good, but it won't eliminate controversy. For example, beat vs parry, its pretty explicit, however its still a lot of controversy.

[dcrocket]

There are many rules which can be clarified. ROW issues are not in this category. Or, in another sense, regardless of how clear the definition is, every ref will see the same ROW action differently...

[noodle]

Originally Posted by dcrocket

There are many rules which can be clarified. ROW issues are not in this category. Or, in another sense, regardless of how clear the definition is, every ref will see the same ROW action differently...

its one thing to argue with the ref about what they saw vs what you thought you did.

its another to argue with the ref about what you think the rules say vs what they think the rules say as applied to an action you both agree upon.

[Shi no Tenshi]

I'm not as worried about the beat vs parry sort of issue; I'm concerned about point in line, extension, not feet, determining an attack, and that sort of thing. It's very aggrivating to have blatant point in line, and be told it 'expired', or that 'they made the aggressive movement', with not beats or binds involved.

[catwood1]

Yes, but thats my point. No matter how well something is worded, it will still be controversial.

Rewording the rulebook will also not fix blatantly incompetent refs that don't know the rules, which seems like its what you are describing.

[jeff]

Rewrites would never solve all problems, but things could be much, much better than they are now.

[Shi no Tenshi]

Originally Posted by catwood1

Yes, but thats my point. No matter how well something is worded, it will still be controversial.

Rewording the rulebook will also not fix blatantly incompetent refs that don't know the rules, which seems like its what you are describing.

Ah, but then I could directly challenge the rule on the incompetant ref. If it was written more precisely in the rulebook, I could actually challenge it. I can't challenge a bad interpretation.

[catwood1]

If my ref said that my PiL "expired," I would ask them them specifically "So did my line lose RoW because it expired and ran out of time?" If they said yes I would appeal it as misapplication of the rules. I think any good BC would affirm that appeal.

Also, if they said "he made an aggressive action." "Sir, before the aggressive action was it a valid line?" (yes) "Did he ever deflect my point?" (no) "BC please..."

[noodle]

Originally Posted by catwood1

Yes, but thats my point. No matter how well something is worded, it will still be controversial.

Rewording the rulebook will also not fix blatantly incompetent refs that don't know the rules, which seems like its what you are describing.

incompetent refs are irrelevant. there are very competent refs in the PIL thread disagreeing on PIL. i can show you internationally rated refs that disagree on interpretations.

[Shi no Tenshi]

Originally Posted by catwood1

If my ref said that my PiL "expired," I would ask them them specifically "So did my line lose RoW because it expired and ran out of time?" If they said yes I would appeal it as misapplication of the rules. I think any good BC would affirm that appeal.

Also, if they said "he made an aggressive action." "Sir, before the aggressive action was it a valid line?" (yes) "Did he ever deflect my point?" (no) "BC please..."

Sadly, the person reffing the bout was half the BC......It was a smaller tournament, so I just lived with it there, and tried to get a different ref from then on.

[Phrogger]

The rulebook should be as clear and precise as possible without turning it into a legal document that only a person with a law degree can read. And that is the risk, I suppose, but I think it would improve the situation.

A fair sport should have as much objectivity as possible. That's why the scoring of sports like figure skating and rhythmic gymnastics baffle me. Sure, they are athletic, sure, keep them in the Olympics but maybe they're an "athletic art" instead of a sport. The subjectivity of sabre and foil are primarily why I stick to epee. I think more objectivity would improve everyone's experience.

[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

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by noodle

incompetent refs are irrelevant. there are very competent refs in the PIL thread disagreeing on PIL. i can show you internationally rated refs that disagree on interpretations.

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

[catwood1]

The one thing that I think WOULD help the situation greatly is if the FIE/USFA released interpretations with specific video examples. That could do wonders for streamlining many calls.

Whether or not that would be a good thing is debatable, but thats the only way to get more consistent calls. Especially with things like attack vs prep in foil.

[mrbiggs]

It'd be nice if it were. Not for the way things are called, nor for making calls more standardized, but simply so that beginning referees have a chance of learning something from the rulebook. Right now we give prospective referees a rulebook and the ref study guide and they're told to figure out the answers. This is nearly impossible without a thorough outside knowledge of the rules. I think that this confusion and difficulty makes it even harder to become a decent referee without the specific mentoring and guidance of a better ref.

However, I don't think it will ever happen. The rules are written badly because the fact is that everyone calls things differently, and half the time no one knows what's going on even for straightforward answers. Go up to a bunch of FOCs and knowledgeable fencers and ask some fairly obscure, but supposedly standard questions, such as whether or not the lateral boundaries of the strip extend past the endline, or whether part or all of the foot is necessary to be considered off the strip, or any number of questions about PiL. For these rules to be written, the referees need to first figure out what the actual rules should be. 99% of the "official" interpretations I've heard which are supposed to be taken as gospel are some iteration of "some referee who's REALLY good said that _______", which are contradicted weeks later by another REALLY good referee. Just look at the infamous reffing DVD the FIE released, which was considered to be an official interpretation for all of what, two weeks?

We need to figure out what the rules are before we write them down.

[seven6ty]

No, who needs right of way? It's all objective anyways.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by seven6ty

No, who needs right of way? It's all objectionable anyways.

Fixed!

[seven6ty]

...Same thing.