The state of directing

[kuroutesshin]

I had a (very amusing) conversation with Jim Vesper, one of the FOC examiners and referee trainer for Michigan, about George K's letter- which he, by the way, didn't recieve at all.

In any case, he very specifically indicated that the condition of PiL is rarely called, simply because of the difficulty in maintaining the position, and he reaffirmed the ability to derobe or coupe as long as the arm itself does not move. So we're good on that point.

But the most interesting thing was his blank look when I mentioned that the actions of "parry by distance" and "male parry" officially don't exist. He simpyl said "of course, it's attack no counter attack valid." He also had some choice words for the FIE and Roche in general regarding timing and other rule changes, but those arent' exactly germane.

This raises another question in my mind- who, exactly, is the FOC communicating this material to? If the FOC examiners (the others being Mike Cho and Jerzy Radz in Michigan) and ref trainers (of which Jim is the only in our division) aren't getting the memos, who is? If the referee trainers understand the rules and the correct intrepretations, where the hell is break in communication?

I think this speaks to a larger problem with certifying competent refs- Michigan has only one referee's seminar a year, and Jim is the most highly rated, involved, and competent director we have in Michigan. Is the problem only in Michigan, or do other divisions have problems getting numbers of competent refs to officiate? Who else has a problem in their division getting directors to help run tournaments? Also, how many people have considered taking the tests and seminars, but can't because they either can't attend or they cost too much?

[Delta]

I was actually thinking the same thing.
I can't tell you anything about Michigan refereeing, but just wanted to add that with any organization that requires certification, the efficiency and fairness of promotion is how archaic or not a method in use is and how diplomatic you can be to get where you (as a ref, in this case) want to be.
I'm not sure if referees always do understand the correct interpretations, hence the rating system, but often referees fall into the trap of consistency, correctness, fatigue of long days on feet, and in general, pressure. I'm not saying it's acceptable, but it's something that has been tolerated and probably will be at least until the apocalypse.
I suppose this messiness is largely due to the fact that the rules have room for interpretation. I don't think the problem is always in one spot. The "break" in communication, I think is that nearly every link of communication gets muddled somewhere.

[KD5MDK]

but just wanted to add that with any organization that requires certification, the efficiency and fairness of promotion is how archaic or not a method in use is and how diplomatic you can be to get where you (as a ref, in this case) want to be.

I can't parse this sentence.

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I can't parse this sentence.

"Its not always what you know, but who you know" ?

[Allen Evans]

Referee shortage at the Division level is often chronic. But I see a pattern: those Divisions that make referee development a priority tend to have fewer problems than those Divisions that don't. I've seen an increase in the number of referees in the Virginia Division in the last three years due to persistent and constant work on referee development...not just in official seminars, but in unofficial clinics in how to parse actions, discussions of the new (or published) interpretations of the rules, referee mentoring and so forth.

I don't think anyone can wait for the FOC or the USFA to solve local problems -- both National Organizations are up to their necks with problems of their own.

Allen Evans

[Peach]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I can't parse this sentence.

Oh, good, it isn't just me. I tried to diagram it and it has more than six clauses in it. I tried to summarize it, reducing it to essential clauses and infinitives, and came up with:

Efficiency and fairness is (method is how archaic) and (you can be how diplomatic) (to get where) (you want to be)

[mdstasinos]

George's article was released in the FOC newsletter. Those who are registered for the newsletter received the article that George wrote for the newsletter. Not all referee's, examiners, etc are automatically sent the newsletter unless they register to receive it on the FOC website. They are released 4 to 5 times a year. It was not a breakdown of information or communication, simply it was who was signed up for that service. If you want the information and articles, then go to the USFA website, link over to the FOC site and register.
Mark Stasinos
FOC Member

[jeff]

Excessive clauses the same as excessive actions in compound attack?

Unless you're Henry James...

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by mdstasinos

Not all referee's, examiners, etc are automatically sent the newsletter...

It sounds like a breakdown in communication if not all referees get the information necessary to ref.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

It sounds like a breakdown in communication if not all referees get the information necessary to ref.

How would you do that? Whenever you pass the reffing exam you are forced to give the FOC your email address so that they can send you email? I'd say the system works fine. Someone like Jim Vesper (examiner etc) should know about fencingofficials.org, and should probably be registered for the email. I wouldn't say it's a breakdown by the FOC at all.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

How would you do that? Whenever you pass the reffing exam you are forced to give the FOC your email address so that they can send you email? I'd say the system works fine. Someone like Jim Vesper (examiner etc) should know about fencingofficials.org, and should probably be registered for the email. I wouldn't say it's a breakdown by the FOC at all.

All I'm saying is that if there are refs not getting relevant information, there's a problem. I'm not saying there's an easy solution. I'm not even saying that it's entirely the FOC's problem to solve.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by kuroutesshin

He simply said "of course, it's attack no counter attack valid."

Except it isn't that, either.

Once an attack is finished, it no longer exists. You can't make a counterattack if there's no attack to which it can be counter.

The call is just "Attack no; attack yes".

[jeff]

What Inq said. There, I said it!

[kuroutesshin]

Originally Posted by mdstasinos

George's article was released in the FOC newsletter. Those who are registered for the newsletter received the article that George wrote for the newsletter. Not all referee's, examiners, etc are automatically sent the newsletter unless they register to receive it on the FOC website. They are released 4 to 5 times a year. It was not a breakdown of information or communication, simply it was who was signed up for that service. If you want the information and articles, then go to the USFA website, link over to the FOC site and register.
Mark Stasinos
FOC Member

I understand this; I just registered recently to recieve the newsletter myself. But it raises the question- who are you trying to communicate this information to? the people who are training the referees, or any number of the yayhoos who can just put down their email and say they're on the mailing list?

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

How would you do that? Whenever you pass the reffing exam you are forced to give the FOC your email address so that they can send you email? I'd say the system works fine. Someone like Jim Vesper (examiner etc) should know about fencingofficials.org, and should probably be registered for the email. I wouldn't say it's a breakdown by the FOC at all.

If you pass a referees exams and become a member of the FOC you should absolutely be required to give your current address and email to keep in contact with the national body of directors. When you join the USFA you are required to give current information- why are directors, the people that officiate the sport, any different? I'm sure Jim knows about the website- he's listed there. But people aren't required to use the 'tubes, you know.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Except it isn't that, either.

Once an attack is finished, it no longer exists. You can't make a counterattack if there's no attack to which it can be counter.

The call is just "Attack no; attack yes".

That's probably what he said. We were making jokes at the expense of Rene Roche, so I probably misheard him. And despite the interpretation now swirling around in my head, I'll leave the argument for another thread

[bigdawg2121]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

All I'm saying is that if there are refs not getting relevant information, there's a problem. I'm not saying there's an easy solution. I'm not even saying that it's entirely the FOC's problem to solve.

So you're asking me to assume that this information is necessary to ref and that there's some chance I'm already a referee and am simply unaware of it?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Except it isn't that, either.

Once an attack is finished, it no longer exists. You can't make a counterattack if there's no attack to which it can be counter.

The call is just "Attack no; attack yes".

Possibly more correct, but it's really just semantics. I've heard high level referees call both, and certainly all the fencers and knowledgeable spectators know what's going on either way.

[kuroutesshin]

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

So you're asking me to assume that this information is necessary to ref and that there's some chance I'm already a referee and am simply unaware of it?

So... when the head of Arbitrage sends out a letter to people on the correct interpretation of a certain action, and members of the US reffing community (the ones who are expected to train refs and examine others) don't recieve those new rule changes, we are to assume this is acceptable?

Again, I'm not sure if this is just a problem in Michigan, or Jim just got left out of the loop... maybe there is some sort of mechanism for distributing new information to the referees that I'm unaware of. It would certainly make sense, so that the FOC community is on the same page.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

So you're asking me to assume that this information is necessary to ref and that there's some chance I'm already a referee and am simply unaware of it?

I have no idea what you're asking or how you got there with respect to what I wrote.

[bigdawg2121]

Originally Posted by kuroutesshin

So... when the head of Arbitrage sends out a letter to people on the correct interpretation of a certain action, and members of the US reffing community (the ones who are expected to train refs and examine others) don't recieve those new rule changes, we are to assume this is acceptable?

Again, I'm not sure if this is just a problem in Michigan, or Jim just got left out of the loop... maybe there is some sort of mechanism for distributing new information to the referees that I'm unaware of. It would certainly make sense, so that the FOC community is on the same page.

It's not a rule change. It is a clarification of interpretations but for all intents and purposes most people should understand what the rules are being interpreted as, especially those that are active as referees. If one is an active referee, one is working and reffing tournaments at least occasionally and should probably see someone around that knows what's going on. The example you gave with Jim is a great example; he saod, "of course it's attack no, attack yes". Incidentally, that's what it is and that is exactly what the interpretation is. The newsletter is clarification but is also, largely semantic. Ultimately, with good referees about 90%+ of calls go the same way even if they see the action slightly differently. You can change the formal language of the interpretation, but that doesn't necessarily change the perception of the action (e.g. now that everyone knows for sure that there is no distance parry, the referee may say attack no, attack arrives but still do so for the same action). How well they're able to parse the action often has more to do with how well well developed their sense of timing/tempo/etc is more so than an understanding of the rules. Refs may tweak the way they call things in terms of hand signals/wording or even make small adjustments to what they award but ultimately, even if we all have the same understanding of what the interpretation should be developing refs will still be developing and good refs will still be good refs, and this isn't a magic pill that's going to make reffing better or more consistent. At the end of the day, it's a useful letter and I'm glad George wrote it, but it's not a, "low line attacks no longer have priority" or even a "we've redefined the defined the actual meaning of the word parry". It's a clarification (although apparently one of questionable clarity if responses on this thread are any indication) that was readily available to those parties that were/are interested enough to be signed up for the newsletter. It's not a major change whose distribution is vitally important to the reffing community and greatly impacts the quality of our referee cadre. Those usually get sent out to the entire USFA list serv.

Originally Posted by tchwojko

I have no idea what you're asking or how you got there with respect to what I wrote.

Your post, assumed that this information is "necessary to ref". I don't think it is, or at least I don't think the newsletter it was presented in is necessary to ref. Most refs theoretically passed a test and should know the rules. Assuming they know the rules, clarifying them will only go but s