The authority to card

[Allen Evans]

But then what IS the definition of a spectator?

Well, actually, I think that's what I'm getting at, isn't it?

I'm fencing on my strip, and to one observer, I'm an active participant and subject to a certain set of rules (the rules that govern participants). While an observer one strip over at the very same time I'm fencing, does not view me as a participant, and thus has the right to interfere in my participation in the bout without recourse, because--of course--there is no bout between spectators.

*shrug*

It's no surprise to anyone that the rules aren't clear on this, and personally, while I'm a little uncomfortable with this duality, it doesn't effect my life (just as I tend to ignore superposition in general). This is mostly an Angels and Pins argument anyway (though I find EpeeMike's argument that while someone may HAVE a power, they shouldn't use it scant comfort that it won't come up in the future).

*laughing*

Frankly, I'm a little sorry I brought it up, as are most of you, I'm sure!

[Fechter1]

But then what IS the definition of a spectator?

Ah, but the rule as quoted does not refer to a spectator, simply to "any person not on the strip".

[epeemike81]

Ah, but the rule as quoted does not refer to a spectator, simply to "any person not on the strip".

This.

The only reason the word spectator comes into it is that we (not the rules, but the referees) refer to such a warning as a "spectator warning" in order to distinguish it from cards given to fencers.

-m

[Omar Bhutta]

A Couple relevant rules that have not been mentioned to date, with clues as to the proper interpretation (italics and bold mine):

t.35

All bouts in fencing are directed by a Referee who must be in possession of an up-to-date US or international refereeing license. For reasons of expedience, National category Referees who are candidates for the FIE refereeing exams are authorized to referee Junior World Cup competitions.

Thus, for a given bout, there is only one referee who may apply penalties that affect that bout. That is, this is the only person who can give a yellow card for covering target, or a red card for a vindictive hit, etc. See below though (t.96) for the applicable rule to anyone the referee is not directing at that moment.

t.81

1. Persons subject to these rules
The regulations laid down in this Part apply to all persons who take part in or attend a fencing competition, including the spectators.
Hereinafter, all these persons are described as ̳fencers‘.

So, the definition of a spectator is less material, since the rules around disturbing order use the verbiage "the fencer." The spectator is included in those rules.

t.96

(c) By reason of the right of jurisdiction which he has over all the fencers who participate in, or are present at a competition which he is refereeing, he can also propose to the Technical Directory the expulsion from the venue of the competition of the spectators, trainers, instructors and other persons who accompany the competitors (cf. t.114, t.118, t.120).

Part (c) is the relevant section to this discussion. As Mike notes, the referee has jurisdiction over all people at a competition, not just fencers in his bout. t.35 also notes that it is his responsibility to maintain order. If order is disturbed in his bout, he has cause to address that through the first half of t.118 with a Group 3 red card followed by Black. If order is disturbed not in his bout, then he can address it through the second half of t.118 with a Warning (indicated by holding up a yellow card) followed by Expulsion (indicated by holding up a black card)

It should also be noted that Superscribe is correct that one official can black card another official. Although uncommon, there are times when this is appropriate, such as a referee coaching a student in the competition. This is in clear violation of not only the rules (t.34) but also the referee Code of Ethics. The better part of valor is to pull them aside discreetly and talk to them about this, but the rules do provide for it.

[Philistine]

The biggest problem here is setting an unfortunate precedent. According to the rules, ref's can black card another ref. That wouldn't be likely, but ref's having a habit of operating out of their "jurisdiction" is one step closer to what would otherwise be a bit of a Mexican stand off.

That does raise an interesting (though far-fetched) possibility.

Ref A is ref of loud fencer. Ref B is ref of fencers on another strip who are disturbed by loud fencer.

Ref B issues yellow card to loud fencer. Ref A, incensed over this, declares that Ref B is disturbing order on Ref B's strip by this issuance. Ref B issues yellow card to Ref A. (With the then possible issuance by Ref B of a black card to Ref A if Ref A argues).

In real life--unlikely, and presumably followed by literal or figurative beatings about the head by the bout committee.

--Philistine

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Ah, but the rule as quoted does not refer to a spectator, simply to "any person not on the strip".

Uh, whoops. Good point.

It should also be noted that Superscribe is correct that one official can black card another official. Although uncommon, there are times when this is appropriate, such as a referee coaching a student in the competition. This is in clear violation of not only the rules (t.34) but also the referee Code of Ethics. The better part of valor is to pull them aside discreetly and talk to them about this, but the rules do provide for it.

.... Refs coaching students in competitions happens. Somewhat frequently, depending on our definitions of such things. There are situations in which it is more problematic than others, and situations in which it is more enforced than others, but it's a really bad example, because there is some level of disagreement about appropriateness of both the action (again, depending on how we're defining), and the various levels of punishment.

A better example of a ref who needs to be black carded is when a ref sexually harasses someone in full view of any number of others who can card that individual, and it is clear to all that the behavior constituted sexual harassment. Just, y'know, for example. Not that that would EVER happen.

[Insipiens]

Uh, whoops. Good point.



.... Refs coaching students in competitions happens. Somewhat frequently, depending on our definitions of such things. There are situations in which it is more problematic than others, and situations in which it is more enforced than others, but it's a really bad example, because there is some level of disagreement about appropriateness of both the action (again, depending on how we're defining), and the various levels of punishment.

A better example of a ref who needs to be black carded is when a ref sexually harasses someone in full view of any number of others who can card that individual, and it is clear to all that the behavior constituted sexual harassment. Just, y'know, for example. Not that that would EVER happen.

Surely in those circumstances a black card is just the beginning.

[Omar Bhutta]

.... Refs coaching students in competitions happens. Somewhat frequently, depending on our definitions of such things. There are situations in which it is more problematic than others, and situations in which it is more enforced than others, but it's a really bad example, because there is some level of disagreement about appropriateness of both the action (again, depending on how we're defining), and the various levels of punishment.

t.1

These Rules are obligatory without modification for the ̳Official Competitions of the FIE‘, viz.... (and for that matter, USFA competitions)

t.34

By accepting a position as referee or judge, the person so designated pledges his honor to respect the rules and to cause them to be respected, and to carry out his duties with the strictest impartiality and absolute concentration.

Referees may not combine their function with any other activity during the tournament, such as member of the Technical Directory, team captain, official delegate of their national federation, trainer, etc.

Taken from The Code Of Ethics http://www.fencingofficials.org/docu..._of_Ethics.pdf


Referees are present at the competition solely to officiate; it is inappropriate to coach or assist athletes during the competition.

To your comment about "really bad example," I would disagree. Just because behavior happens does not make it acceptable. If there is disagreement about the appropriateness of a referee coaching a fencer during a competition, I would be interested in hearing it. The rules and the FOC are clear that this is unacceptable behavior.

This behavior does happen at local events not infrequently, but that does not justify it. I have rarely seen referees coaching at National events and saw the referee Black Carded for it (appropriately), and also not invited back.

For younger officials, they may not even be aware of their behavior (I was once in that position and was given feedback about it). As everyone has alluded to before, simply awarding the black card out of the blue does not accomplish any of goals of the rules. In practice, pointing this out to the official in question would be a prudent first step, and if the behavior continues, removal should follow. Favoring one fencer over the other does not come in degrees of acceptableness (blatent reversing of Right-of-way calls vs. coaching a student against another fencer).

[KShan5[PrFC]]

To your comment about "really bad example," I would disagree. Just because behavior happens does not make it acceptable. If there is disagreement about the appropriateness of a referee coaching a fencer during a competition, I would be interested in hearing it. The rules and the FOC are clear that this is unacceptable behavior.

This behavior does happen at local events not infrequently, but that does not justify it. I have rarely seen referees coaching at National events and saw the referee Black Carded for it (appropriately), and also not invited back.

For younger officials, they may not even be aware of their behavior (I was once in that position and was given feedback about it). As everyone has alluded to before, simply awarding the black card out of the blue does not accomplish any of goals of the rules. In practice, pointing this out to the official in question would be a prudent first step, and if the behavior continues, removal should follow. Favoring one fencer over the other does not come in degrees of acceptableness (blatent reversing of Right-of-way calls vs. coaching a student against another fencer).

I'm pretty sure the current FOC rule is that a ref can coach in a tournament if it's in an event you didn't referee (i.e. you can coach WS if you only reffed MF).

[MyrddinsPrecint]

To your comment about "really bad example," I would disagree. Just because behavior happens does not make it acceptable. If there is disagreement about the appropriateness of a referee coaching a fencer during a competition, I would be interested in hearing it. The rules and the FOC are clear that this is unacceptable behavior.

This behavior does happen at local events not infrequently, but that does not justify it. I have rarely seen referees coaching at National events and saw the referee Black Carded for it (appropriately), and also not invited back.

I agree that many times, it is completely out of bounds, it is clear to all involved it ought not to happen, and deserves an immediate black card. But too often, those in power do it and people pretend not to see, while those without power get trampled upon.

There was an incident at Nationals a few years back (I looked for the thread and failed to find it, so this is from memory, and I wasn't there) in which a ref was done for the day, was out of uniform, and was doing something fencing related with a clubmate. Somewhere between "fencing" and a "lesson", IIRC. She was also done fencing for the day. The discipinary action was not being asked to stop, or a clarification of the rules which were unclear on this point-- he wasn't paid for that day.

Reffing was, at the time, his only job. Which meant that in addition to that money actually being important, he's also well known and well liked. This situation means that the USFA lost their most dedicated referee, almost definitely permanently, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thought that this situation was handled well by all involved.

This situation was called "a referee coaching a fencer during a competition". I do understand why the head ref standing behind a junior ref, yelling at their fencer to ignore the bad calls or whatever is a bad thing. This wasn't that. And I think it's important that we make very clear what is and is not allowed in each circumstance.


Besides, for small local events, if you told coaches that if they reffed any bout all day, they couldn't offer their fencers any advice all day, it might become very hard to find refs. If you told fencers that had to self ref that they couldn't advise their friends that day, things would break down yet further. This is a matter that needs a whole lot of context to mean anything.



.... yay threaddrift!

EDIT: Found the post/thread I was looking for! Policy about coaching when hired as a referee

[catwood1]

I'm pretty sure the current FOC rule is that a ref can coach in a tournament if it's in an event you didn't referee (i.e. you can coach WS if you only reffed MF).

This is only AFTER you have been released...

[Omar Bhutta]

I agree that many times, it is completely out of bounds, it is clear to all involved it ought not to happen, and deserves an immediate black card. But too often, those in power do it and people pretend not to see, while those without power get trampled upon.

There was an incident at Nationals a few years back (I looked for the thread and failed to find it, so this is from memory, and I wasn't there) in which a ref was done for the day, was out of uniform, and was doing something fencing related with a clubmate. Somewhere between "fencing" and a "lesson", IIRC. She was also done fencing for the day. The discipinary action was not being asked to stop, or a clarification of the rules which were unclear on this point-- he wasn't paid for that day.

Reffing was, at the time, his only job. Which meant that in addition to that money actually being important, he's also well known and well liked. This situation means that the USFA lost their most dedicated referee, almost definitely permanently, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thought that this situation was handled well by all involved.

This situation was called "a referee coaching a fencer during a competition". I do understand why the head ref standing behind a junior ref, yelling at their fencer to ignore the bad calls or whatever is a bad thing. This wasn't that. And I think it's important that we make very clear what is and is not allowed in each circumstance.


Besides, for small local events, if you told coaches that if they reffed any bout all day, they couldn't offer their fencers any advice all day, it might become very hard to find refs. If you told fencers that had to self ref that they couldn't advise their friends that day, things would break down yet further. This is a matter that needs a whole lot of context to mean anything.



.... yay threaddrift!

1) Agreed that this situation was unique and handled poorly, I remember that.

2) Agreed that local events provide their own challenges that are at the root of coaches/referees playing double duty and at the local level other considerations may make practical application of that standard challenging. That does not change the standard.

3) Agreed that those in power get away with a lot more, which is all the more reason to apply the standard to everyone.

My biggest point in all of this, is that the rules to grant the authority to card people off your strip, and the relevant rules.

Kevin - At national events, if you are still in uniform, you may not coach anyone, regardless of event. Once you have been released, I do not know what FOC's current policy is about coaching, but while the tie is on, you must remain impartial.

Agreed about threaddrift! If there's more discussion to be had, let's start a different thread.

Anddddd....I am spent.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Kevin - At national events, if you are still in uniform, you may not coach anyone, regardless of event. Once you have been released, I do not know what FOC's current policy is about coaching, but while the tie is on, you must remain impartial.

Once you're released the very first thing you do is remove your tie.

[oiuyt]

I'm pretty sure the current FOC rule is that a ref can coach in a tournament if it's in an event you didn't referee (i.e. you can coach WS if you only reffed MF).

And after being done for the day as a referee.

There was an incident at Nationals a few years back (I looked for the thread and failed to find it, so this is from memory, and I wasn't there) in which a ref was done for the day, was out of uniform, and was doing something fencing related with a clubmate. Somewhere between "fencing" and a "lesson", IIRC. She was also done fencing for the day. The discipinary action was not being asked to stop, or a clarification of the rules which were unclear on this point-- he wasn't paid for that day.

The rules were different at that tournament.

It was made VERY clear that no fencing instruction on a day where an official worked was going to be permitted. The specific sanctions (first offense: no pay for the day; second offense: sent home from nationals) were provided in the announcement given to all referees.

The activity in question was a lesson.

There are questions about what was or wasn't said individually, but the policy was clear, the questions in the general meeting that morning were clear, the answers were explicit. This really wasn't a gray area enforcement, regardless of what personal opinions about the policy might be, it was clearly applied as written.

As it turned out, the penalty was rescinded. He WAS paid for that day. And was told that the penalty was rescinded the very next day.

-B

[KShan5[PrFC]]

And after being done for the day as a referee.



The rules were different at that tournament.

Yeah, Chris got that for me.

It was made VERY clear that no fencing instruction on a day where an official worked was going to be permitted. The specific sanctions (first offense: no pay for the day; second offense: sent home from nationals) were provided in the announcement given to all referees.

The activity in question was a lesson.

There are questions about what was or wasn't said individually, but the policy was clear, the questions in the general meeting that morning were clear, the answers were explicit. This really wasn't a gray area enforcement, regardless of what personal opinions about the policy might be, it was clearly applied as written.

As it turned out, the penalty was rescinded. He WAS paid for that day. And was told that the penalty was rescinded the very next day.

-B

I dunno if that's true. I was there, and I never thought that giving a lesson to a friend after I was released would be any sort of problem; I was under the impression it was just strip coaching. Tack on the fact that it was Jay, and while you may find some rational by following the rules to the letter, it was just a ridiculous decision. Old news though...

[Insipiens]

Referees may not combine their function with any other activity during the tournament, such as member of the Technical Directory, team captain, official delegate of their national federation, trainer, etc.

If this rule were enforced in the UK I think the senior only tournaments that could take place would be the official FIE Satellites, World Cups etc which are the only ones (including the national championships) that I have ever seen where there are no fencers refereeing. I don't remember fencing an open competition in the UK without refereing several of my own poule bouts.

This kind of rule in the FIE rule book makes perfect sense for the International FIE competitions. It may make sense for NACs in the US as you seem to have a much better Referee system than in the UK; it probably makes sense for places like Italy and France.
But it cannot be implemented in many smaller competitions and really is irrelevant not just impractical for them.

This bit, however, should always apply:

[quote = t.34]

By accepting a position as referee or judge, the person so designated pledges his honor to respect the rules and to cause them to be respected, and to carry out his duties with the strictest impartiality and absolute concentration.[/quote]

[Inquartata]

If referee comity is as everyone says, I would think that an appeal by the other referee to the one with the loud fencer in his pool should carry some weight, no?

Is a request by referee B to referee A to ask his fencer to tone it down a bit more likely to be met with a defiant "It's my strip and since I am not bothered, too bad for you", or by at least a token cooperation?

[kalivor]

If this rule were enforced in the UK I think the senior only tournaments that could take place would be the official FIE Satellites, World Cups etc which are the only ones (including the national championships) that I have ever seen where there are no fencers refereeing. I don't remember fencing an open competition in the UK without refereing several of my own poule bouts.

This kind of rule in the FIE rule book makes perfect sense for the International FIE competitions. It may make sense for NACs in the US as you seem to have a much better Referee system than in the UK; it probably makes sense for places like Italy and France.
But it cannot be implemented in many smaller competitions and really is irrelevant not just impractical for them.

I also fence in the UK, but it's not the only place I have fenced. It is certainly possible to have this standard applied to all competitions. The organisation just needs to see this as important.

The BFA clearly does not.

I am regularly astounded that events in the UK which are used to select national teams fail to meet the basic standards applied to low-level competitions in North America.

One certainly does not need the infrastructure of a France or Italy to achieve it.

[epeemike81]

Is a request by referee B to referee A to ask his fencer to tone it down a bit more likely to be met with a defiant "It's my strip and since I am not bothered, too bad for you", or by at least a token cooperation?

Well, I'd like to think my tone would be somewhat more polite than that, but.... yeah. If I thought the fencer were disturbing order, I would have carded them already, so my opinion on that is unlikely to be changed by the other referee.

In my practical experience, btw, referee B tends to be somebody who has an issue with yelling in general. Since I, the rules, and the international community do NOT have a problem with yelling in general, we are unlikely to see eye to eye about what is or is not disturbing order.

-m

[MyrddinsPrecint]

The activity in question was a lesson.

There are questions about what was or wasn't said individually, but the policy was clear, the questions in the general meeting that morning were clear, the answers were explicit. This really wasn't a gray area enforcement, regardless of what personal opinions about the policy might be, it was clearly applied as written.

As it turned out, the penalty was rescinded. He WAS paid for that day. And was told that the penalty was rescinded the very next day.

-B

Thanks for the clarifications, but my point remains the same. There exist situations in which a person who refs has been found to be coaching, and there was controversy about whether or not the rule was clear to all, controversy about whether to rule was fair/a good idea/necessary, controversy on the way the rule was implemented. And this was a scenario in which it was clear that the punishment for a first offense was NOT a black card. So the idea of all refs who coach and do so within the same day has some controversy about what should be allowed, and how to properly enforce.

There is comparatively little controversy about refs sexually harassing people.