Brutality

[piste off]

If it's who I think it is... Take his every word as a gospel. He knows what happens when people stop fencing and start fighting (literally, for life).

"I learned how to win that day."

Open up a bottle of GOOD vodka and ask him about the day.

A case of "RoW well and live?" Ironic for an epee fencer...

R-

[Inquartata]

If the ref sees it, it could be brutality. If the ref doesn't see it, it's gamesmanship.

Man, suddenly I find myself hoping never to have to fence either of you.

This is probably the attitude Bernie Madoff and the guys at Enron took. Hey, as long as we don't get caught it's perfectly legal...

[tchwojko]

Man, suddenly I find myself hoping never to have to fence either of you.

This is probably the attitude Bernie Madoff and the guys at Enron took. Hey, as long as we don't get caught it's perfectly legal...

I don't condone it, but it's there. There are people who inflict pain without the ref being aware. All I was saying is that it makes sense to have tactics to deal with fencers like that.

[CaptainA]

You have to know those tactics, such as the hip check, or the subtle elbow to the mask, so that you don't have to use them. Once you've established that you know that game, the other fencer stops using it, and has to fence.

None of which addresses Margaret's original question, which was "how do you respond as a ref?", and was fully addressed by Oiuyt. There's no limit on the Group II cards, Margaret, just keep using them. Well, there's a limit of 15, but you get the drift...

[annacattiva]

However, an action that leaves a bruise (on someone that doesn't bruise easily) for more than a month is brutal, even if the individual did not mean it.

Too bad we don't have time lapse refereeing "Halt!" *referee checks time machine to see if fencer B will have a bruise next month* "Red card to fencer A for dangerous action".

(And based on the notion of watching the "replay", I almost wanted to say that the referee checks the "foreplay" to see what will happen in the future...)

If you're wincing as you watch the hit, that's a good indication that a card ought to come into play.

I don't quite agree with this one- especially reffing local and collegiate low-level sabre. I wince all the time (and even much of it about how hard people are hitting each other), but nobody should be getting cards for it. I've seen two cases where the fencer was hitting so hard that I've done something about it. I probably should have given both of them cards, but just gave them friendly warnings that they needed to get their fencing under control.

Anna

[sanadika]

I thank all of you. This gives me a better understanding. The problem really does stem from the fact that i dont really see it as a ref other than the opponent having to be given time to deal with the resulting blow and if i didnt know the fencer I could say, oh well it was a stout blow.But i know the fencer, have fenced in the club with the fencer and have seen at other tournament the exact same thing happen when more is on the line and the opponent is giving the fencer a harder time and they fear loss. The other problem is i dont want to seem like it is a vindictive call against the fencer and that i can justify it. I really do appreciate the input.

[fektovat]

I've always felt that like hockey, sometimes it's up to you to inforce the rules. I remember one time this guy kept running into me (in foil) and the ref never did anything about it. The next time he tried, I caught him with a two perry and dropped him with a reposte to the groin. He didn't charge again.

[tchwojko]

Man, suddenly I find myself hoping never to have to fence either of you.

This is probably the attitude Bernie Madoff and the guys at Enron took. Hey, as long as we don't get caught it's perfectly legal...

Maybe a better way to say what I meant is:
There are things that are illegal but not enforced. If your opponent is using tactics that fall in that bucket, then you must be prepared to do deal with those.

Using the Madoff example:
Going into an investment, I use due diligence to reduce my risk in the individual investment, and use diversification to reduce my risk in the portfolio. I would hope that all my investments are on the up-and-up, but I can have tactics and strategies in place to deal with people doing illegal, but not enforced, things with my money.

Just want to make clear I don't condone use of physical gamesmanship. Please don't "send a message" if we ever fence!

[alvin]

One person related this following anecdote:

Female epeeists. Older, wiser, more sure fencer against young, up and coming peppy gal. Peppy gals get a touch and screams like she won the powerball lottery. Older one lifts masks stares the young'un down, puts mask back on. On "fence" comes up the purty young thing, powers the blade up the chest, underneath the mask, lifts it off the face, has point right under the chin, takes off masks and says, "..." (forgot what she said, make anything you think would work right here)

If you were reffing this bout, what would you call at this point? Would you chuckle at the way the older fencer "delivered her message" or would you be appalled at the reckless danger of the manuver (point under the chin, mask off)??

There seem to be a range of possiblities, what sort of response would most likely be generally accepted practice?

[phillipmj]

or would you be appalled at the reckless danger of the manuver (point under the chin, mask off)??

Older, wiser, more sure fencer

I was kinda wondering where wisdom came into play there. Maybe what he actually meant was, "older, wizened".

[Inquartata]

I resemble that remark.

[ladyofshalott99]

It seems the easiest answer would be to cite the Rulebook.

As a Certified Referee, I would think that if all else fails, fall back to the official policy on such actions. With respect to procedure, the 2008 Official Rules state the following:


t.87 (d) Fencing etiquette, paragraph two:

"All bouts must preserve the character of a courteous and frank
encounter. All irregular actions (flèche attack which finishes with a
collision jostling the opponent, disorderly fencing, irregular
movements on the strip, touches achieved with violence, touches
made while falling) are strictly forbidden (cf. t.114–t.120). Should
such an offence occur, any touch scored by the fencer at fault is
annulled.

Fourth Paragraph:
"If either or both of the two fencers refuse to comply with these rules, the Referee will penalize him/them as specifiec for offences of the 4th group (cf. t.114, t.119, t.120)."



Further, on the subject of fleching and corps à corps:

C. CORPS A CORPS AND FLECHE ATTACKS

t.63 "In épée, a fencer who either by a flèche attack or by advancing vigorously brings about a corps à corps even several times in succession (without brutality or violence) does not transgress the basic conventions of fencing and commits no fault thereby (cf. t.20, t.25). A fencer who intentionally causes corps à corps to avoid being touched or who jostles his opponent is penalized according to Articles t.114, t.116, t.120. The flèche ending systematically in a corps à corps‘ referred to in this article must not be confused with the flèche resulting in a shock which jostles the opponent‘ which is considered as an act of intentional brutality in all three weapons and is punished as such (cf. t.87, t.120).

"On the other hand the flèche which is made by running, even going past the opponent‘, and without a corps à corps is not forbidden: the Referee should not call Halt‘ too soon, in order not to annul a possible riposte; if, when making such a running flèche without touching his opponent, the fencer who makes the flèche crosses the lateral boundaries of the strip, he must be punished as laid down in Article t.28."


You might also find it helpful to review the charts on pages 32-33. It deliniates the offenses for which yellow, red and black cards may be issued to a fencer.