FOC Opinions WRT “Rules of Referees”

[Stormbringer]

So… the original thread had drifted far enough, and was long enough, that it seemed worth it to start a new thread so the following might be more likely to be addressed.

With so many people going to SN, and the resurgence of the “Kolombatovich: Rules of Referees” thread, I came to the realization that some, if not all, of the members of the FOC – including, perhaps, George Kolombatovich himself – might be in attendance (at least, at some point).

So, would anyone be willing to approach one or more of the FOC members in person and inquire about *their* opinion(s) regarding the content of the Kolombatovich letter, and post the response(s) here?

Specific points of interest include:

1.) Is this something that had been planned for a while, and finally came up, or was there some specific event (or set of events) that brought these issues to the forefront?
2.) To what degree does each FOC member agree or disagree with the contents of the letter? What rationale is given for agreeing or disagreeing with specific points?
3.) How, if at all, is this affecting fencing and referring at SN, and how might it affect the Olympics, and the next USFA fencing season?
4.) What long-term effects, if any, does each FOC member see the contents of the letter having on fencing and refereeing in the US and abroad?

[bigdawg2121]

Yes, most of them are here, George included. I rather imagine that no one really wants to endure the stream of sarcasm that would accompany having to talk to George about why they don't understand basic rules' interpretions. It would be entertaining no doubt but I plan to spend any chunks of time at the venue large to accomplish such a task and not devoted to reffing either sitting, eating, or playing "is the cute girl old enough to talk to".

[telkanuru]

playing "is the cute girl old enough to talk to".

This is a game which is both difficult and dangerous.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

I'll do one better--- I'll interview one here.


Hey Brad!

What do you think?

[HDG]

playing "is the cute girl old enough to talk to".

When in doubt, avert your gaze and keep walking…

[bigdawg2121]

When in doubt, avert your gaze and keep walking…

Ehhhh, the fun is actually in figuring out the answer. Time spent talking to them is wasted time that could have been used to knock out another 2-3 rounds

[counterattack]

Ehhhh, the fun is actually in figuring out the answer. Time spent talking to them is wasted time that could have been used to knock out another 2-3 rounds

Oh how easily a thread gets hijacked.

[Stormbringer]

I'll do one better--- I'll interview one here.


Hey Brad!

What do you think?

Oh how easily a thread gets hijacked.

Well, how about asking three of them to share their thoughts?

That should generate some enlightening discussion and help bring the thread back-on-track...

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Well, how about asking three of them to share their thoughts?

That should generate some enlightening discussion and help bring the thread back-on-track...

Greg sometimes reads here. Also... Damon?? Anyone else I'm missing?


Honestly, I'm not at Nationals, and I won't be. I also have the feeling that most of the FOCs are a bit busy, and that the people who could reasonably get a useful response out of them at Nationals aren't spending most of their time posting on f.net.

You might get something right after nationals, but I think that even just having thread drift will keep your thread where people can find it in the meantime.

[Stormbringer]

Greg sometimes reads here. Also... Damon?? Anyone else I'm missing?

I asked Bill Oliver (BOliver), Brad Baker (oiuyt), and Greg Dilworth (Greg_D).

Honestly, I'm not at Nationals, and I won't be. I also have the feeling that most of the FOCs are a bit busy, and that the people who could reasonably get a useful response out of them at Nationals aren't spending most of their time posting on f.net.

You might get something right after nationals, but I think that even just having thread drift will keep your thread where people can find it in the meantime.

Well, I did explain that I understood that they were busy, and I, for one, am a patient guy...

Additionally, I suppose that your point about the functionality of the thread-drift is a good one...

[jjefferies]

I asked Bill Oliver (BOliver), Brad Baker (oiuyt), and Greg Dilworth (Greg_D).

I would suggest after the SN. After the congress I suspect they are both either reffing or busy with board issues. They were both there though.

[BOliver]

So… the original thread had drifted far enough, and was long enough, that it seemed worth it to start a new thread so the following might be more likely to be addressed.

With so many people going to SN, and the resurgence of the “Kolombatovich: Rules of Referees” thread, I came to the realization that some, if not all, of the members of the FOC – including, perhaps, George Kolombatovich himself – might be in attendance (at least, at some point).

So, would anyone be willing to approach one or more of the FOC members in person and inquire about *their* opinion(s) regarding the content of the Kolombatovich letter, and post the response(s) here?

Specific points of interest include:

1.) Is this something that had been planned for a while, and finally came up, or was there some specific event (or set of events) that brought these issues to the forefront?
2.) To what degree does each FOC member agree or disagree with the contents of the letter? What rationale is given for agreeing or disagreeing with specific points?
3.) How, if at all, is this affecting fencing and referring at SN, and how might it affect the Olympics, and the next USFA fencing season?
4.) What long-term effects, if any, does each FOC member see the contents of the letter having on fencing and refereeing in the US and abroad?

Hello,

I struggled with this article for several reasons. While nothing that is stated in George's article is incorrect, there is much possibility for incorrect interpretation. It is important to bear in mind that the context of George's article is about World-Class fencing. Distance measured by centemeters. Actions so closely and accurately executed that even slowed down by 1/4, it can be impossible to distinguish who is correct. The presence of video replay at Grand Prix and World Championship competitions has significantly improved the way world class referees are calling certain actions.

That being said, I will respond to the questions....

1.) Is this something that had been planned for a while, and finally came up, or was there some specific event (or set of events) that brought these issues to the forefront?

Nothing new. Periodically, the Arbitriage Commission of the FIE decides to wade in when internationally certified referees are starting to wander from the agreed upon interpretation of specific rules. This is determined by reviewing much video footage of World Cup competiton, and subsequent discussion at the highest levles. George, being the US representative to the Arbitrage Commission (as well as it's chairman,) has elected to pass these observations along.

2.) To what degree does each FOC member agree or disagree with the contents of the letter? What rationale is given for agreeing or disagreeing with specific points?

All points are clearly supported in the rules. All members of the FOC agreed to this. What is somewhat difficult to determine is how to apply these clear rules to the relatively unclear actions that most of us see at local and regional competitions. It's often easy to see George's points demonstrated in the finals of the World Championships. It's rarely possible to see them demonstrated in the early rounds of a local open.

3.) How, if at all, is this affecting fencing and referring at SN, and how might it affect the Olympics, and the next USFA fencing season?

I fear that these simple statements will have a dramatic effect on local and regional fencing. I don't think there will be any impact on international fencing. These principles have been applied at the highest levels for some time.

There will be some adjustments at the middle-level of USFA National competions, as our National referees become more comfortable with the concepts, and gain more skill in identifying the actions in question. The top-level fencers will have already become accustomed to the actions and the way they are being called at World Cup competitions. The entry-level participants won't have the experience to distinguish the difference.

4.) What long-term effects, if any, does each FOC member see the contents of the letter having on fencing and refereeing in the US and abroad?

The long-term effects of having an American on the FIE Rules Commission are profound. We have the advantage of "first hearing" on many topics. The real question will be: "can our referees rise to the occasion?"

Many of the interpretations of the rules that George examined came about as a result of video replay at Grand Prix and World Championship competition. This technology will be available at US NACs in the coming seasons. Making the right call with a video camera looking over your shoulder is stressful for the most experienced. Our referee corps needs to become used to this kind of pressure.

What's more, our athletes need to be aware of the subtle difference between correct and incorrect actions. The smallest hesitation will be immediately apparent in video replay, and, as our referees become more accustomed to these actions, they will become apparent even without replay.

For example, there has been a tendency for the past several years, to allow the offensive response to a failed attack (i.e. the "distance parry and repost") a large measure of fencing time to begin. This is incorrect. If the offensive response is delayed or evidences hesitation, then the immediate reprise of the attack (or the establishment of the point in line) can regain the priority. Video replay makes this action obvious. Repeated exposure to video replay makes this action obvious without replay.

There is nothing new in George's article. Just bear in mind that just because you throw out a line in the face of a wild compound attack, doesn't mean that you have have the priority..... Good, agressive fencing will still have a significant advantage over bad, passive fencing.

[noodle]

thanks for the input, bill, its always great and informative when you contribute.

[deadender]

Thanks for an excellent and much needed clarification.

Just bear in mind that just because you throw out a line in the face of a wild compound attack, doesn't mean that you have have the priority..... Good, agressive fencing will still have a significant advantage over bad, passive fencing.

If Fencer A is attacking with multiple Coupés, and Fencer B establishes a point in line, what is the criteria for determining when Fencer B’s line has priority? Would the interpretation of these kinds of calls be likely to be influenced by the growth of video replay?

[Guymelef]

I think we need more information. If the situation is that A is doing coupes and B thrusts the PIL right out there, I'll call for B. What A is doing is prepatory, not aggressive.

On the other hand if A is doing coupes and B follows them for a little bit and then decides to PIL, then the call should go for A. A, in this case, is being the aggressor.

I don't think video will change the fact that Right of Way is relative. George loves opening every seminar and meeting by sticking his (weapon) hand out and lunging then asking what he just did. Most say that he attacked. The savvy ask what the other fencer is doing.

[kuroutesshin]

I was just discussing the reinforcement of interpretations the other day, and we came to the thing that's called "mal parry," or "parade insufficiante." The letter seems to say that this doesn't exist- that the correct action is simply "attaque, touche."

I wonder, though- the phrase "insufficient parry" exists to define an action where the attack (at least in sabre) strikes the guard/forte as well as the target at the same moment. The call would still be "attaque, parade insufficiante, touche." The insufficient parry has been a part of orthodox fencing instruction and theory for many years. The other concept, "parry by distance," is an aborted fetus of interpretation.

My question is- what is the harm in the action being called "insufficient?" I see this only applicable in sabre, where attacks landing on the guard are counted as being parried. Can someone clarify it for me please?

[MyrddinsPrecint]

My question is- what is the harm in the action being called "insufficient?" I see this only applicable in sabre, where attacks landing on the guard are counted as being parried. Can someone clarify it for me please?

This is the difference between coaching and reffing.

There are plenty of things we talk about to explain how to do an action, how an action feels, why an action works. Take, for example, the word "tempo", and its many many meanings.

When it comes to reffing, there is a set vocabulary. There are words and hand signals. They are programmable. If we had a perfectly programmable robot, (*cough*Mauler), it could do the job. {edit: well, there are some issues of judgement that would be difficult to program when you get into sportsmanship cards and the like. But ignoring that stuff...}

"Mal-Parre", or any other translation or pronunciation thereof, does not exist in reffing vocabulary. It's superfluous.

And the more words that come out of your mouth when you ref, the more chances you have to screw up.

[AndrewH]

My question is- what is the harm in the action being called "insufficient?" I see this only applicable in sabre, where attacks landing on the guard are counted as being parried. Can someone clarify it for me please?

Simpler is better. Either the attack landed (because the parry was unsuccessful or otherwise), or it didn't land (because the parry was successful). No need to get any more complicated than that.

The other problem is that "mal parry" is often used to describe two different situations. One is when the attack hits the blade and the target almost simultaneously. The other is when the attack is parried, but the fast remise locks out any chance of a riposte. The former I would simply call attack, the latter I would call attack parry, riposte no, remise. There's an important distinction there, they are not the same action and shouldn't be called as such.

[keith]

My question is- what is the harm in the action being called "insufficient?"

The harm is that the character of the RoW weapons means that pretty much all parries are insufficient - compare and contrast the parries and lines of riposte in foil and epee

There is the secondary practical problem of adjudicating sufficient vs insufficient. Some folk may tutt disapprovingly but the world is a much better place for refs not being allowed to make such deductions.

[kuroutesshin]

*snip*

I like the way you put this- we have used terms like "parade insufficiante" in practice, but have always prohibited the term from being used in actual bouting. The term serves much better as an instructional tool- "this is what we call a bad parry. Don't do this."

Simpler is better. Either the attack landed (because the parry was unsuccessful or otherwise), or it didn't land (because the parry was successful). No need to get any more complicated than that.

The other problem is that "mal parry" is often used to describe two different situations. One is when the attack hits the blade and the target almost simultaneously. The other is when the attack is parried, but the fast remise locks out any chance of a riposte. The former I would simply call attack, the latter I would call attack parry, riposte no, remise. There's an important distinction there, they are not the same action and shouldn't be called as such.

The second action I think is what George K. was referring to, rather than the first action. It's unfortunate, IMHO, that the terms became so confused as to necessitate elimintation of the term.

The harm is that the character of the RoW weapons means that pretty much all parries are insufficient - compare and contrast the parries and lines of riposte in foil and epee

There is the secondary practical problem of adjudicating sufficient vs insufficient. Some folk may tutt disapprovingly but the world is a much better place for refs not being allowed to make such deductions.

This makes no sense to me. A parry is a defensive action that removes a threat to your body- and it's either sufficient to deflect a blade or insufficient. If it's insufficient, you just found a point in your chest. If it's sufficient, your opponent is now open to your own attack.

It's certainly easier for referees not to make such distinctions-because it is difficult to do so, especially at the highest levels of fencing. Is it hard to make the call between sufficient/insufficient? Of course. Should refs be allowed to make that distinction? I hardly see why it's any different or less subjective than any other RoW call. The problem lies in uniform application and interpretation, that's for sure.