Directing at the Summer Nationals

[DieterS]

After spending a few pleasurable hours watching the foil action in the Summer Nationals, I'd have to say that the directors exhibited the crisp professionalism that you would expect from such an event! The calls were very clearly indicated and usually accurate (yes, there always seems to be an error here and there). In general, my feeling is that the directing in foil has improved over the last few years.

There are two general exceptions that bothered me. I'd be interested in your comments.

1. Calling a halt. It seemed to me that when the fencers come together, directors should call a halt after one unsuccessful remise attempt by each fencer and before it degenerates into a close-range remise war. Right-of-way would be very difficult to judge in those circumstances. Furthermore, I saw several instances when a fencer in a remise war scored clearly after (not with) the halt, but the director still awarded the touch.

2. I noticed several fencers dangle their non-weapon hand loosely in front of their chests, very much covering target. In one case, the fencers hand was held palm-forward almost at bell-guard level and distance in front of him. How can directors be certain that in such cases, off-targets were not the result of a clipped sleeve or finger on the way in?

Am I being too critical?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by DieterS

1. Calling a halt. It seemed to me that when the fencers come together, directors should call a halt after one unsuccessful remise attempt by each fencer and before it degenerates into a close-range remise war. Right-of-way would be very difficult to judge in those circumstances. Furthermore, I saw several instances when a fencer in a remise war scored clearly after (not with) the halt, but the director still awarded the touch.

'

First, there's no such thing as "with" the halt. Either the action (not the touch, the action) started before or after the halt. Which one it was is up to the director.

Good refs generally seem to allow a great deal of infighting as long as both fencers stay in control and do not commit a penalty. I entirely disagree with your one remise rule, and in fact I think you're taking out a substantial part of the game with such a call. This is more true with new timings foil, where it often takes a few tries just to get a light on.

Originally Posted by DieterS

2. I noticed several fencers dangle their non-weapon hand loosely in front of their chests, very much covering target. In one case, the fencers hand was held palm-forward almost at bell-guard level and distance in front of him. How can directors be certain that in such cases, off-targets were not the result of a clipped sleeve or finger on the way in?

Am I being too critical?

I don't know, I didn't see it. (That applies to the above as well). It's possible to have a hand in front of your chest from the spectator's point of view and not cover target, as long as it's not blocking the other fencer.

But on the other hand, I think that covering target has become very, very common and isn't always called. It can be very difficult for a ref, especially if the fencer is on the wrong side of the referee.

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by DieterS

1. Calling a halt. It seemed to me that when the fencers come together, directors should call a halt after one unsuccessful remise attempt by each fencer and before it degenerates into a close-range remise war. Right-of-way would be very difficult to judge in those circumstances.

There's no particular reason, and no justification in the rules, for calling a halt just because the fencers are in an infighting situation. To do so would disadvantage the fencer who is better at infighting, wouldn't it?

In my experience, most of the time, infighting actions between skilled fencers show a clear sequence that makes seeing right of way rather easy.

Furthermore, I saw several instances when a fencer in a remise war scored clearly after (not with) the halt, but the director still awarded the touch.

That would be a mistake, like other mistakes that happen -- assuming that the halt occurred when you think it did. If you mean the referee called halt, and then awarded a touch that arrived after that, I agree it was wrong.

2. I noticed several fencers dangle their non-weapon hand loosely in front of their chests, very much covering target. In one case, the fencers hand was held palm-forward almost at bell-guard level and distance in front of him. How can directors be certain that in such cases, off-targets were not the result of a clipped sleeve or finger on the way in?

I've seen that, and don't like it. Some fencers hold their off hands in a way that makes the referee watch them much more carefully than the ref should have to. Not having seen the fencers you're describing, I can't say whether I would call them for covering target or not. If the hand is actually in front of target, from the perspective of the opponent's weapon, then a card should be given.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Goldgar

There's no particular reason, and no justification in the rules, for calling a halt just because the fencers are in an infighting situation. To do so would disadvantage the fencer who is better at infighting, wouldn't it?

yes. yes it would.

-m

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by DieterS

1. Calling a halt. It seemed to me that when the fencers come together, directors should call a halt after one unsuccessful remise attempt by each fencer and before it degenerates into a close-range remise war. Right-of-way would be very difficult to judge in those circumstances.

During a referee seminar, when someone once suggested that a halt should be called when the fencing became "confused" (cf. t.18), George Kolombatovich said, "The fencing is always confused and difficult to follow."

He went on to say that if the fencers could wield their weapons safely and no penalties were committed (corps-a-corps, covering target, etc.), referees should generally let them fence. (But see Mr. Scaggs's response below.) That includes remise wars at close distance. It's the referee's job to sort out that mess. Actually, if you get in the habit of not calling halt, it does become easier to see ROW during the infighting.

Of course, if the fencers don't want to be hit by the third or fourth remise at that range, I'm sure that the referee would be happy to have them fence at a more sane distance or pass each other instead of standing there and remising repeatedly.

Originally Posted by DieterS

Furthermore, I saw several instances when a fencer in a remise war scored clearly after (not with) the halt, but the director still awarded the touch.

Since I didn't see it, I can't help you on any particular call. It may be helpful for you to read the referee handbook's section on starting and stopping the bout.

Originally Posted by DieterS

2. I noticed several fencers dangle their non-weapon hand loosely in front of their chests, very much covering target....Am I being too critical?

Again, impossible to say without seeing it. Note that many fencers position their off hand in a way that covers target when out of distance and then swing it out of the way as distance compresses.

If you're fencing someone who you feel is repeatedly covering target, you could try pointing it out to the referee. If he's still not seeing it, just forget the hand is there and go for the hit. You'll either hit target, or you'll hit the hand. I find that both the referee and the opponent are more likely to notice that he's covering target if I hit him on the hand that's covering.

[Joe biebel]

Personally, I despise any ref that "chickens out" and calls halt when the fencers are close. I happen to be competant at infighting and do not like it when an opponant steps in close and the ref "bails them out" with a premature halt. Many fencers will purposely close to the point that they almost touch their opponent in the hope that a "weak-minded" ref will save them. Unfortunately, they often do.

The other stuff, as others have mentioned are "a visual judgement call", and you may well have witnessed mistakes. On the other hand, there can be mitigating circumstances when the word "halt" is said. Say a fencer's attack is parried just before halt is called for some infraction. The riposte would be valid even if you heard the word "halt" before the light came on.

[Damon Scaggs]

The rules allow you to call a half if you cannot follow the action. If you can't follow the close infighting action, don't guess and call a halt.

But, and this is a big but, you should be training yourself to see these actions. Some fencers are very good at infighting. They can do much more than remise at close distance. By not allowing the action to continue, you are penalizing the person who is good at infighting and favoring the person who stops fencing once the distance is close. Neither is your job. There really isn't much difference in what is going on. If you can call a close attack counterattack from 10 ft apart, you can probably call it from one foot apart.

[seak]

I'm trying to become better at calling action in infighting situations, but I still don't call halt. A lot of times those actions will results in one light. If there are two lights and I couldn't see the action I'll be honest and abstain. But given the chance of one light or that I can follow the action, I prefer to let the action go as long as possible and not call an early halt.

[Mr.MightyMouse]

I agree with the "halt" comments; now directing overall at Nats - that's a different $1.25

Surprisingly after the 1st day - Saber REALLY improved - the best refs seemingly got even better; and some younger ones look like they keep progressing.
FOC did a terrific job of assigning the best ones to DE's - so not a lot of headaches or blatantly blown calls. IMHO there 2 FIE level directors who mail the results in once in a while, and they kept doing so; making me kringe; yet again this was one of the best directed events that I recall.

Foil in the words of a deprived teenager - OMDG - I have not seen such blatant cluelessness (yes I know that is is not a word) in quite some time, especially with kids - which had to frustrate the living essence out of them.

Epee - much better than last year, for some reason there is a lot less body contact it seems.

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by Joe biebel

On the other hand, there can be mitigating circumstances when the word "halt" is said. Say a fencer's attack is parried just before halt is called for some infraction. The riposte would be valid even if you heard the word "halt" before the light came on.

I disagree with this statement. Once the referee has actually called "halt", it would be unfair to allow a touch that landed thereafter, because the referee has instructed the fencer to stop defending himself. Therefore, the referee should not actually call out "Halt!" immediately when the infraction occurs, but only after the completion of the last action that the referee intends to allow.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Joe biebel

Say a fencer's attack is parried just before halt is called for some infraction. The riposte would be valid even if you heard the word "halt" before the light came on.

Originally Posted by Goldgar

I disagree with this statement. Once the referee has actually called "halt", it would be unfair to allow a touch that landed thereafter, because the referee has instructed the fencer to stop defending himself. Therefore, the referee should not actually call out "Halt!" immediately when the infraction occurs, but only after the completion of the last action that the referee intends to allow.

A few comments that are relevant to this side-discussion.

Joe- If the halt occurs before the riposte begins then the riposte should not be allowed. It's not quite clear from your description if this is what you are envisioning.

Dirk- If an action is in progress when the referee calls halt (assuming the referee calls halt at the moment that the halt-causing incident occurs), for the vast majority of halts, the action(s) in progress should be allowed to continue to conclusion. Failing to defend oneself against such an in-progress action is a poor decision. There are a few exceptions -- a halt due to a broken blade, due the the expiration of time, due to the fencer making the action being off the strip with both feet -- to this general rule. The referee is NOT instructing the fencers that they should stop defending themselves. S/he has announced that no new actions may begin. Very different things.

-B

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Joe- If the halt occurs before the riposte begins then the riposte should not be allowed. It's not quite clear from your description if this is what you are envisioning.

Of course, we've had this whole discussion on halts and the start of the riposte recently in the context of passing or leaving the strip. It triggered a long and dull discussion. Let's not do that again.

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Dirk- If an action is in progress when the referee calls halt (assuming the referee calls halt at the moment that the halt-causing incident occurs), for the vast majority of halts, the action(s) in progress should be allowed to continue to conclusion.

Correct, of course. I'll just make another plug for the referee handbook's section on starting and stopping the bout.

referees should realize that hesitation in announcing the halt must be avoided to prevent misunderstandings.

It also talks about the fact that the timing of the "halt" command is important, but that timing does not determine whether an action is counted. That is, we don't care whether the action started before or after the word "halt." We don't care whether the touch arrived before or after th word "halt." We care whether the scoring action started before the action or incident that caused the halt.

At the referee seminars, they teach referees to call halt when they see a situation or action that requires a halt. You should not be waiting until the end of the action that you intend to permit. There should be no delay in calling the halt, but the referee should not be so primed to call a halt that he accidentally calls it too soon (e.g., calling halt because they're going to corps-a-corps, just before one fencer manages to stop short and make a remise).

[DieterS]

Thanks for all of your perspectives about about infighting--your points are valid and I now agree. I did see some infighting that was pretty spectacular, contrasted by others in which the fencers repeatedly stepped in and flailed around ineffectually for a long time, which is what set me off. Plus, if either fencer wanted to halt the action, all either fencer would have to do (hopefully) is step past the other fencer.

Regarding the touches awarded immediately after the halt, the context was almost always an infighting situation: a halt followed by an immediate behind the head remise that landed. I could see that I might be tempted to award the touch if I called halt because nothing was really happening. Nevertheless, once a halt has been called by the director, all fencing should stop and fencers should not be rewarded for continuing.

The hand covering the target situations were *really* obvious and I could see it from several angles. In one case, the fencer's hand flopped up and down in front of the *center* of his chest like a bizarre fishing lure. He would move it away only in his own offensive actions. I almost decided to bring it up with the director (I had no personal connection with either fencer), but thought he would not appreciate the interruption and I wasn't sure about the leeway given in the rules. That's why I'm asking.

In the other case that I mentioned, the fencer really did have his other hand almost even with his bell guard! His covering hand alternated between palm forward and palm down as if he were ready to do a hand parry. I was really surprised that the director allowed this!

Other, less blatant, versions of these situations occured with several fencers and several directors, not just one.

Again, in my opinion the foil directing has improved significantly over the years especially in honoring right-of-way. The fencers seemed much happier with the directing than in the past. My youngest son has just recently begun to fence and is hoping to follow in the footsteps of his older brother, was really impressed and motivated by the bouts that he saw, so I don't want to disparage the directing. It was a fabulous and fun event!

[Inquartata]

Prepare yourself for more change: According to George K. as soon as the USFA ratifies the FIE change the fall of the front foot of the lunge will end the attack just as in sabre.

[telkanuru]

Oh dear.


PS- refs that call halt too early are the bane of all epeeists.

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

If an action is in progress when the referee calls halt (assuming the referee calls halt at the moment that the halt-causing incident occurs), for the vast majority of halts, the action(s) in progress should be allowed to continue to conclusion.

Originally Posted by tbryan

At the referee seminars, they teach referees to call halt when they see a situation or action that requires a halt. You should not be waiting until the end of the action that you intend to permit.

Interesting; the official interpretation has changed since the last time I attended a referee's seminar. It's been a few years, so I'm glad you called this to my attention. Way back in the dawn age, I was taught by high-ranking officials that nothing can be allowed after the referee's call of halt, in the spirit of the implied understanding in t.63: "the Referee should not call ‘Halt’ too soon, in order not to annul a possible riposte".

I have in fact read the Referee's Handbook many times, but plainly I didn't notice that. I stand corrected, and will amend my refereeing and fencing accordingly.

That said, I don't like this interpretation. When the referee calls "Halt!", it's reasonable for a fencer to stop fencing. If the referee tells me to halt, I obey that command and halt. If the referee allows my opponent to score on me after that, I'm going to be severely annoyed.

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Failing to defend oneself against such an in-progress action is a poor decision.

Not a decision; obedience to the referee. Do we want to encourage fencers to disobey the referee?

The referee is NOT instructing the fencers that they should stop defending themselves. S/he has announced that no new actions may begin. Very different things.

Yes, I can understand that distinction. Whether it's reasonable to expect fencers to understand it in the heat of battle is another matter.

Oh, well. Clearly this is the current interpretation.

[Stormbringer]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Prepare yourself for more change: According to George K. as soon as the USFA ratifies the FIE change the fall of the front foot of the lunge will end the attack just as in sabre.

What is your source for this information?