Fencing.net Instructional Videos - Foil Point in Line

[FrSpike]

What I think, every time I read one of these threads, is that my fencing future definitely lies in epee.

[catwood1]

The referee also doesn't want to give so much information to the fencers that he's coaching them.

For example, if your opponent is late with his arm, and the referee says, "preparation, attack" and gives you the touch, do you want the referee to give a lot of detail to your opponent? Your opponent thinks that the referee isn't interpreting the rules right. So, he starts asking, "Preparation? Didn't I start first? Wasn't I extending? Did I extend continuously?" What if the referee now explains exactly the details to justify his call? "You start with your feet a little first, but you didn't start extending. He started with both his hand and foot before you started extending. Thus, you were still in preparation when his attack started." OK. Now your opponent decides not to appeal. But he has also turned the referee into a coach. I don't think that you want that either, do you?

I think you bring up a good point here. Personally, if there is a 1 or 2 word explanation for a call, I will usually give it, but not much more than that. You're late. You break your line. You stop. You're holding. He starts first. And occasionally "Not even close to in time " I don't know, maybe that falls into coaching, but I haven't gotten yelled at for it yet, so I figure it can't be TOO bad.

That said, I've also seen plenty of top refs that do not explain anything at all?

Preparation, Attack.
Sir why is it not my attack?
Preparation, attack.
Was I holding, did I not start first.
Preparation attack.
Oh ok (gets engarde).

[mrbiggs]

There's a distinction that needs to be made in terms of realizing you're wrong. If you immediately realize that a call you just made, or are in the process of making, is wrong, you can reverse it. Whether or not you do is a judgment call based on a bunch of factors, but it's perfectly acceptable. I see very high-level referees do it on a fairly consistent basis. It takes some skill and experience to do it as a referee and still maintain the fencers' confidence in your calls, but it's done fairly commonly.

On the other hand, there is a certain point where you can't reverse a call. It doesn't happen often, but I've seen several exchanges very similar to this:

Ref: Attack left.
Right Fencer: I didn't parry?
Ref: Oh yeah. Parry riposte right.

That referee is screwed as long as he's reffing anyone who is fencing in or watching that bout. Normally, arguing calls serves to express disapproval or to encourage the referee to make a different call on similar actions in the future. Now, it's something that can actually win touches. If I was a fencer on that strip, I would probably argue every vaguely questionable touch. It is really, really bad.

Obviously, there's an in between where it's still somewhat acceptable to change calls, but being able to determine that comes with experience. That's why it's important that referees are encouraged to not change calls. Admitting to being wrong is similar--it's very common in some situations, but knowing when they are takes experience. It makes sense to encourage new referees to play it safe.

[Inquartata]

If your referee were to consistently put things in terms that could be appealed what you would wind up with would be either A) a bout that's constantly micromanaged by a bout committee (can't imagine an entire event where every bout was like this) or B) a bout that's ultimately controlled by the side with the most effective arbiters (really, really, not what you want).

With respect, this resembles a straw man to me. I did not say anything about "consistently".

Look, even bad referees are not going to make a call that will permit an appeal very often, as the vast majority of calls are on matters of fact, not on matters of a rule. Good referees who know the rules will very seldom even get the chance to making an appealable call. Their rules-based calls will almost always be unassailable, and the rest will be fact-based and unappealable in the first place...

And of those which are appealable, the vast majority won't BE appealed, either because the fencer doesn't know the rule, either, or because he's too afraid of an unjustified appeal penalty or of ticking off the referee.

In 20+ years of fencing, thousands of bouts, I've done it exactly twice. How many times have you seen it? I don't think that a little honest humility in refereeing is going to open the floodgates here...

Putting something in terms that aren't open to appeal and lying/altering the call are not synonymous.

OK, explain the difference to me...I see one thing, and I say another thing. How is that not dissembling?

But, it seems like its often the FOC line that if you make a call and people argue, you CANNOT change the call, even if you know you were wrong.

This is not really what I'm talking about. As a referee, IF you experience an honest misunderstanding of a rule, how are you even going to know that your call may run afoul of a rule, so that you even need to change the call to make it into an unappealable matter of fact?

I'm talking about making the call, getting appealed, and THEN changing your call so that once the BC rep gets there and questions you it's now an unappealable matter of fact.

If, on a rules call, one makes a mistake, one MUST ( IMO ) change the call if one is an honest ref, because one will see and discuss the rule and KNOW that one erred. No?

Well, the referee is balancing multiple priorities here.

The referee wants to describe the action so that the fencers know who got the touch and why.

The referee also doesn't want to slow things down with questions after every touch.

The referee also doesn't want to give so much information to the fencers that he's coaching them.

Yeah, I realize all of that.

However, you left out of that list:

The referee should be truthful and objective, and adhere to the Code of Ethics.

The referee should not risk disadvantaging a fencer in order to achieve one of the above desiderata.

Do you disagree with these?

For example, if your opponent is late with his arm, and the referee says, "preparation, attack" and gives you the touch, do you want the referee to give a lot of detail to your opponent?

Frankly, I don't mind so much. I'm usually fencing without a coach, against opponents who HAVE coaches there. I'm already at a disadvantage, if that's a factor. I don't really feel that it's much of one.

And if a ref does this, he's likely to do it to/for both fencers. Like bad calls, these tend to even out over time.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

OK, explain the difference to me...I see one thing, and I say another thing. How is that not dissembling?

Because they're nearly one in the same. "Preparation" for example includes many different types of actions by a fencer. Instead of describing the action such as, your hand was at your hip, or you pulled you blade back and they started the attack, or you searched for the blade etc., are all different types of preps. But it makes the job of the referee easier, and keeps the bout speed up, if all you say is "preparation, attack." There's no lying there, there's no altering the call, but it makes it tougher for a fencer to argue with you and you won't misstep while trying to describe the action using "non-refereeing phrases".

Again, I don't know of any ref, FOC or not, who condones making a call and then when it's appealed changing the call to cover their ass. When an appeal happens, if you're a good enough referee, you should have a pretty good idea if your call is going to hold up or not because you should have a very good understanding of the rules. If you do blow a call, and it is overturned, then it's a learning experience and you move on, and I think that's how most refs feel. I honestly have never heard anyone condoning lying, or claiming that not being successfully appealed is more important than getting the call right.

[Inquartata]

Because they're nearly one in the same.

Er---what?!

The truth and the almost-truth are interchangeable?

Let me give the example of my last ( and hopefully last! ) appeal.

My opponent attacks, I parry and riposte, two lights. The call is "Attack, parried, riposte, parried, riposte, yes." I ask if there were two blade contacts. Referee says "No, your parry was low on his blade". I appealed, since he specifically called it a parry, and the wording of the rules on that lower-third of the blade business applies only to beats, not parries.

The ref in this case was scrupulously honest, and in fact urged me to appeal if I thought that I was right. ( Initially I was inclined to let it go and move on. ) The appeal was upheld and the point was reversed. ( And I then went on to lose anyway. )

Now, are you arguing that the ref should simply have refused to do anything other than to repeat his initial call, thus disadvantaging me on a valid, appealable matter, as the rules permit, purely in the interest of him not letting himself appear to have made a wrong call, or in the interest of "moving the bout along", or whatever other priority he might have had?

If so, this is placing these other priorities above that of the actual fencing, is it not?

[bigdawg2121]

Honestly Inq, if you see one thing and say another then you're right; that is dissembling. However, that's not what I said. I appreciate your taking the opportunity to freely interpret my words, in a manor that you find favorable, though.


I can now give you an example of the various possibilities though.

Let us assume that we have two fencers, A and B. Fencer A begins an advance lunge; B decides to lunge right after he sees A start the attack; before completing the lunge, A converts from simple attack to an esquive/duck combination; both fencers land valid lights.

As the referee, I see the attack from A as ending as soon as A decides to esquive/duck and the action from B as valid; I could:

1) Make my honest call, while placing it in non-appealable terms - "Attack from A no (arguably non-correct but that's not what I'd choose), Attack from B yes.

2) Make the call honestly, while making it subject to appeal and possible to overturn - "A attacks but B takes over as A converts to counterattack."

This call could easily lead to A asking a string of questions in which they get the ref to inadvertently say something like "well yeah, you were continuously going forward, and I guess you were sorta threatening the target but you weren't actually attacking".

3) I can make a dishonest call that's unappealable - "Preparation A; attack for B."

4) I can be dishonest and easily appealable - "Preparation from A b/c there was an unsuccesful search since the blade changed planes during the esquive/duck; attack from B."

Note, I've now mixed appealable and non-appealable with both an honest call (i.e. A was attacking and gave up the attack therefore: attack from A no, attack from B yes) and a dishonest call (i.e. A was never really attacking therefore: preparation A, attack B). Even though all result in the same outcome, they all arrive there in different ways. The ideal for this situation would be (1), an honest ref that doesn't open up their honest calls to intepretation.

2 Interesting Pts:

1) Here you will almost exclusively find refs from category 1 or refs from category 2. 4 you might find, but rarely and not working outside of a local club/division where they might have the power to get away with it. 3 more or less doesn't exist b/c it's actually rather difficult to lie as a referee successfully and even more difficult to cheat. One of the reasons US refs have the reputation of being some of the best in the world is because we're so damned honest, and we're proud of it. The flip side of that, is that apparently most of the world doesn't think we're actually talented enough to cheat if we wanted to b/c of the ridiculous amount of skill it would take to do so.

2) Your appeal should not have been upheld. The ref's decision should have been upheld. If the ref said "yeah, he made another parry but it was low and I awarded the touch against him" then that's the ref's determination of the facts. The fact that he said parry is relatively immaterial. Then again, BC's do make mistakes just like everyone else at a tournament

[Inquartata]

in a manor that you find favorable

I would LOVE to live in a manor! "It's good to have land." Alas, I have not managed to acquire a fief as yet. Damned stingy lords!

1) Make my honest call, while placing it in non-appealable terms - "Attack from A no (arguably non-correct but that's not what I'd choose), Attack from B yes.

2) Make the call honestly, while making it subject to appeal and possible to overturn - "A attacks but B takes over as A converts to counterattack."

On what grounds would #2 be appealable? It's still a call on what happened, still a matter of fact, still totally up to the referee's interpretation as far as I can tell.

In fact, it's just a different wording of #1. One would be hard pressed to figure out what hand signals went with that phrasing, but still...

This call could easily lead to A asking a string of questions in which they get the ref to inadvertently say something like "well yeah, you were continuously going forward, and I guess you were sorta threatening the target but you weren't actually attacking".

I see that we may be talking about different things.

You seem to be talking about wording things unambiguously, so that fencers are less likely to argue with the call. I am talking about wording things so they can't be appealedby the fencer...

Your appeal should not have been upheld. The ref's decision should have been upheld. If the ref said "yeah, he made another parry but it was low and I awarded the touch against him" then that's the ref's determination of the facts. The fact that he said parry is relatively immaterial.

I disagree. The reversal was quite in order. A parry cannot parry itself because it lands on the lower 1/3 of the blade, the way a beat can, because the rules do not support that outcome. Had he stuck with his initial call---that I was parried in turn---and refused to elaborate, there would have been no grounds for appeal. Had he just called it attack-counter attack, or called my parry a beat, there would have been no grounds for appeal. Calling it the opponent's parry because of where my blade landed depended entirely on what he called my action. Since he called it a parry, that opened the door.

[notalent]

I disagree. The reversal was quite in order. A parry cannot parry itself because it lands on the lower 1/3 of the blade, the way a beat can, because the rules do not support that outcome. Had he stuck with his initial call---that I was parried in turn---and refused to elaborate, there would have been no grounds for appeal. Had he just called it attack-counter attack, or called my parry a beat, there would have been no grounds for appeal. Calling it the opponent's parry because of where my blade landed depended entirely on what he called my action. Since he called it a parry, that opened the door.

The mistake was in elaborating on the call. He doenst have to give a justification.

[Inquartata]

Which would sort of guarantee that his misunderstanding of the application of the rule was never corrected, and that he would have gone on misapplying it indefinitely, no?

This is one reason why I am opposed to the general principle of "Always phrase things so you can't be appealed". It perpetuates problems rather than correcting them...

[bigdawg2121]

If you're running around whacking the bottom third of your opponents blade you almost certainly shouldn't be given RoW. Apparently you're happy though about the fact that your appeal got you a touch that you almost certainly didn't earn b/c your ref worded poorly. Are we to take it that this is the value you seek from more refs putting things in appealable terms? That's awesome. It's definitely what I want from my refs

[nahouw]

What I think, every time I read one of these threads, is that my fencing future definitely lies in epee.

haahaaha - don't feel frightened. I feel the same way, and started to take more epee lessons... I do all three weapons. I do find that I have the best enjoyment and results in epee.

[telkanuru]

What I think, every time I read one of these threads, is that my fencing future definitely lies in epee.

Hah. Epee is so much worse, because then, the fencers actually know all the little rules and will pick apart whatever call you make.

[pinkelephant]

If you're running around whacking the bottom third of your opponents blade you almost certainly shouldn't be given RoW. Apparently you're happy though about the fact that your appeal got you a touch that you almost certainly didn't earn b/c your ref worded poorly. Are we to take it that this is the value you seek from more refs putting things in appealable terms? That's awesome. It's definitely what I want from my refs

WRONG. The bottom third of the blade thingy ONLY applies at sabre, NOT FOIL.

[mrbiggs]

WRONG. The bottom third of the blade thingy ONLY applies at sabre, NOT FOIL.

The (American) handbook for referees disagrees--or at least, it says that the part of the blade the beat occurs on is equally important in foil and sabre. I don't know whether it's a US versus international thing, if the interpretation is outdated, or what...

[bigdawg2121]

WRONG. The bottom third of the blade thingy ONLY applies at sabre, NOT FOIL.

Given that it was a comment made specifically in response to Inquartata and given that you're not new here on the forum I just mostly expected you to use your head and realize that the discussion had digressed to saber. However, I guess I can't expect that level of knowledge from regulars and hence should clarify for the n00bs - "Inq fences saber. If he says he was in a bout it was a saber bout unless unless otherwise noted."

[pinkelephant]

Given that it was a comment made specifically in response to Inquartata and given that you're not new here on the forum I just mostly expected you to use your head and realize that the discussion had digressed to saber. However, I guess I can't expect that level of knowledge from regulars and hence should clarify for the n00bs - "Inq fences saber. If he says he was in a bout it was a saber bout unless unless otherwise noted."

I may not be new on the forum, but I do not live in the States and I do not know Inq (though I suspect I would like to). I can, however, read the title of a thread...

[Inquartata]

If you're running around whacking the bottom third of your opponents blade you almost certainly shouldn't be given RoW. Apparently you're happy though about the fact that your appeal got you a touch that you almost certainly didn't earn b/c your ref worded poorly. Are we to take it that this is the value you seek from more refs putting things in appealable terms? That's awesome. It's definitely what I want from my refs

Heh. You're in a cheery mood today, aren't you?

What I'd like...is nothing more than referees who call what they see. What they actually see, rather than what they see after passing through a filter designed to serve any goal other than fairness and objectivity. That means no " I don't want to risk getting reversed" filter, and no "I want to finish this pool and get back to playing cards and shooting the breeze with my fellow refs" filter.

Just...you know...the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me Kramer.