Brutality

[whtouche]

To the OP, whether it's a black card or a red card or whatever I would say you need to work on your maturity. The things you describe are not the reasons you did what you did - they're excuses.

[Inquartata]

Actually, it is the good refs who are much more likely to recognize retying shoes as the stall tactic that they really are.

And to allow it ayway. ( Or . )

I once watched a bout between two top sabre fencers, way back in the "dry" days. First one had to tie his shoe. When he was done and ready, the other was at the back end of his end of the strip, and took his time coming back to the guard line---at which time he decided that he needed to fix his socks. Now the first guy was dawdling around the end of the strip, and finally ambled to the guard line, only to discover that he had hair in his eyes. And the other went back to the far end of the strip and hung out. This went on until they had exhausted the entire known repertoire of delaying actions.

The ref just smiled and went along with the joke, which had the audience in stitches.

Of course, that was before the card system was invented, giving referees superpowers.

according to t.87 you MAY give a yellow card for a touch made with brutality (see the penalty chart...none of this is in the text). If it is felt that the action is dangerous or vindictive, you may give a group 2 red card. If it is felt that it is intentional, you may give a black card.

OK, if I can be serious for a minute now---there is no such thing as "vindictive by accident". There can be no vindictive act without intent; if it's vindictive, it is intentional, by definition:

Main Entry: vin·dic·tive
Pronunciation: \vin-ˈdik-tiv\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin vindicta revenge, vindication, from vindicare
Date: 15th century
1 a : disposed to seek revenge : vengeful b : intended for or involving revenge
2 : intended to cause anguish or hurt : spiteful

How can the rules, then, enable a referee to decide that an act was unintentionally vindictive?

If in fact this is the way it's done, maybe the referee corps need a refresher class in basic English...

[Insipiens]

....

according to t.87 you MAY give a yellow card for a touch made with brutality (see the penalty chart...none of this is in the text). If it is felt that the action is dangerous or vindictive, you may give a group 2 red card. If it is felt that it is intentional, you may give a black card.

OK, if I can be serious for a minute now---there is no such thing as "vindictive by accident". There can be no vindictive act without intent; if it's vindictive, it is intentional, by definition:

Main Entry: vin·dic·tive
Pronunciation: \vin-ˈdik-tiv\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin vindicta revenge, vindication, from vindicare
Date: 15th century
1 a : disposed to seek revenge : vengeful b : intended for or involving revenge
2 : intended to cause anguish or hurt : spiteful

How can the rules, then, enable a referee to decide that an act was unintentionally vindictive?

If in fact this is the way it's done, maybe the referee corps need a refresher class in basic English...

Maybe you could have a brutal but unintentional action? so then you would have:
brutal, non-dangerous, non-vindictive = yellow card
brutal, vindictive, non-dangerous = red card
brutal, non-vindictive, dangerous but not-intentional = red-card
brutal, dangerous and intentional (whether or not also vindictive) = black card.

That way I think you could have the distinction Omar is making.

[kmwong]

To the OP, whether it's a black card or a red card or whatever I would say you need to work on your maturity. The things you describe are not the reasons you did what you did - they're excuses.

Did I ever say that I was correct? No.

I don't make excuses. The rules are there for when things like this happen, and they wouldn't make a rule about it if it *didn't* happen.

I made this thread as a clarification for the rules, because I wanted to be more informed.

Now, I have gotten the information I needed, a moderator, please close this thread, because there isn't much more to discuss.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Did I ever say that I was correct? No.

I don't make excuses. The rules are there for when things like this happen, and they wouldn't make a rule about it if it *didn't* happen.

I made this thread as a clarification for the rules, because I wanted to be more informed.

Now, I have gotten the information I needed, a moderator, please close this thread, because there isn't much more to discuss.

Actually, I disagree with this. There has been thread drift, but a very good discussion was going on between Mr. Bhutta and MP.

On that note, I, having been on the wrong side of a director deciding that an E and Under was a time to warn before carding (which bothered me, as a yellow card is precisely that warning), fully agree with Mr. Bhutta. But, I do have a caveat. With something subjective, like brutality, I do feel that a warning that someone is getting close (thus, they have not committed the offense, but look as if they're about to) is okay. This is because what one ref would call brutality, another would let slide. Of course, this depends on the level of the tournament a bit more. For something with clear cut parameters (such as covering target, foot crossing in saber, corps a corps, etc), however, this is unnecessary.

[prototoast]

I don't make excuses. The rules are there for when things like this happen, and they wouldn't make a rule about it if it *didn't* happen.

I made this thread as a clarification for the rules, because I wanted to be more informed.

"I was fencing a bout yesterday when all of a sudden blood starting rushing into my lungs. I was having difficulty staying alive and it took all my concentration just to not die. I guess at some point my sock slipped down a little bit and the director gave me a yellow card because he said 'your sock slipped down.' Is that actually what the rule says?"

We're all using our collective wisdom to determine that the emotional issue you described is significantly more important than the details of the penalty. You don't have to face that reality if you don't want to, you're free to only hear what you want to hear.

[kmwong]

I should have made the original post excluding the details of the circumstances, and just to phrase it as, "Say a fencer does this...and the ref says this...what would it be etc etc etc".

I mistakenly posted more details about my actual bout than was appropriate regarding the action to the point where I am being judged now. People have answered my question, and for that I am grateful. Thanks.

Beyond that, it's none of your business.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Omar, I will be getting back to our conversation, but I want to actually read a few things first, so I'm gonna finally fix my pdf reader first. But I will get back to that.

I should have made the original post excluding the details of the circumstances, and just to phrase it as, "Say a fencer does this...and the ref says this...what would it be etc etc etc".

I mistakenly posted more details about my actual bout than was appropriate regarding the action to the point where I am being judged now. People have answered my question, and for that I am grateful. Thanks.

Beyond that, it's none of your business.

.... You're right that if you don't want people to know personal information about yourself, you shouldn't post it in a public forum. That seems to be common sense. It becomes our business when you make it our business by telling us about it.

.... Initially, I don't think you were being judged as much as you think you were. But, whatever. You have a right to be just as offended as you wish to be.

What I will suggest is that you really don't so much get to control a thread once you start it. It's not just for you, it's also for everyone else. If you now have an answer to your question, and aren't interested in the side conversations and flatly don't want people's advice on sports psychology, stop reading the thread.

[telkanuru]

Beyond that, it's none of your business.

Hi. Welcome to the internet. Stop being stupid.

[kmwong]

Hey everyone,

I've acted horribly through this thread. (I made the mistake of posting it in the first place, I think).

My question about the card and the FIE rules itself was answered sufficiently, so I thank you guys for your wisdom. But, with the rest of it, I think I'm going to just let it go and move on. I don't have any more tournaments until Thanksgiving. Ample time to just chill out after 5 weekends of consecutive crazy tournaments.

Sorry for being super-***** on the forums today, as I am not normally under the amount of stress I am now, and I will take your advice, and sign off now. I hope my apology may be accepted, I do not mean to offend anyone, and I'm sorry if I did. I am not clicking on this thread at all from this point on, so, anything you may have to actually say to me can be directed through PM.

Have fun,
Kat

[stillchris]

this is fnet the soap opera where more can be attributed to a few letters on the screen than grains of sand through the hour glass.

[jjefferies]

GADS am I glad I fence epee!

[Omar Bhutta]

Maybe you could have a brutal but unintentional action? so then you would have:
brutal, non-dangerous, non-vindictive = yellow card
brutal, vindictive, non-dangerous = red card
brutal, non-vindictive, dangerous but not-intentional = red-card
brutal, dangerous and intentional (whether or not also vindictive) = black card.

That way I think you could have the distinction Omar is making.

Inq and Insipiens,

That would be one way to apply a logic to the rules. I guess the only distinction I am making is that the rules provide for degrees of penalization based on degrees of severity (whatever those degrees are). What is the difference between a brutal action, a violent action, a vindictive action, and an intentionally brutal action? Only the penalty applied, but practically is there a way to define them, I don't know. I don't think so. It is what the referee says it is.

In this situation, I think it important to not get caught up on the words (brutal/violent/vindictive/dangerous) and instead focus on the intent of the rules. None of those terms are defined with respect to fencing, and by dictionary definitions, they often overlap. I don't have much guidance to give on the difference other than to encourage everyone to think about it as a spectrum instead of discrete differences.

OJ

[Omar Bhutta]

Actually, I disagree with this. There has been thread drift, but a very good discussion was going on between Mr. Bhutta and MP.

On that note, I, having been on the wrong side of a director deciding that an E and Under was a time to warn before carding (which bothered me, as a yellow card is precisely that warning), fully agree with Mr. Bhutta. But, I do have a caveat. With something subjective, like brutality, I do feel that a warning that someone is getting close (thus, they have not committed the offense, but look as if they're about to) is okay. This is because what one ref would call brutality, another would let slide. Of course, this depends on the level of the tournament a bit more. For something with clear cut parameters (such as covering target, foot crossing in saber, corps a corps, etc), however, this is unnecessary.

First off, please call me Omar. Mr. Bhutta sounds so stiff.

On the topic of subjectivity, let me pose this scenario to you. Both fencers make an action. You are the referee and see the fencer on the left make an attack, and the fencer on the right starts after that, making a counter-attack. But it's really close. Another referee behind you who is not reffing the bout thinks it's attack from the right. Instead of calling "Attack from left, touch," you tell the guy who counter-attacked, "You were really close to having right of way, but not quite, and this other guy would have given you the attack, so I'm going to throw that action out even though I think it was the other guy's."

Hopefully, no one would ever do that.

The point I want to make with that example is that refereeing is full of subjectivity - in fact, much of the job is interpreting actions that are subjective within the framework of the rules. The job of the referee is to make those decisions as to what transpired, regardless of what anyone else in the room thinks. If you think an action is close to being illegal, then by definition it is legal. Why should you warn the fencer for doing something legal? In the case of brutality, if you feel the need to warn a fencer, the rules provide that you may warn them with a yellow card (as you note above, a yellow card IS the warning).

I still maintain the level of the tournament does not matter. If it is a tournament, the rules should be applied equally, at all times. The referee's job is not to decide which rules apply to the level of fencing, their job is to apply the rules fairly and consistently.

Cheers,

OJ

[Empty Wallet]

There can also be the difference between the officiating function and the educative function of the referee. To me it depends on the experience level of the fencers and what is to be achieved.

Watching my kids and other novice fencers at events, the refs have been more lenient. I have seen them say to beginners that they are getting close to corps or covering or whatever. Not actually doing it, but for them to learn without transgressing.

I have also seen them card beginners when the transgression occurs without other warning -- often to be met with bewilderment.

[Omar Bhutta]

There can also be the difference between the officiating function and the educative function of the referee. To me it depends on the experience level of the fencers and what is to be achieved.

Watching my kids and other novice fencers at events, the refs have been more lenient. I have seen them say to beginners that they are getting close to corps or covering or whatever. Not actually doing it, but for them to learn without transgressing.

I have also seen them card beginners when the transgression occurs without other warning -- often to be met with bewilderment.

Agreed, and the two are not mutually exclusive, but the officiating function must take precedence - after all, that's what the rules say the referee must do. Much better for a fencer to be taught that the penalty will be applied (and have the referee explain why) at a local event, than to show up at a National event and be bewildered there.

Sometimes receiving an appropriately earned penalty is the best education to correct this behavior. If I know can always get away with it once, I am less likely to invest time in correcting the behavior. If I start to give my opponent touches, I am much more likely to want to change my behavior. And if it occurs early in a fencer's career, it is much easier for them to break habits.

Besides, the time for the education is not at the competitive events, but at practice beforehand where a coach/teammates can correct and identify problems in a constructive manner.

[erooMynohtnA]

Sorry for being super-***** on the forums today, as I am not normally under the amount of stress I am now, and I will take your advice, and sign off now. I hope my apology may be accepted, I do not mean to offend anyone, and I'm sorry if I did. I am not clicking on this thread at all from this point on, so, anything you may have to actually say to me can be directed through PM.

Nobody in this thread is out of line, and you weren't a *****. People gave comments you didn't want and you told them you didn't want them. This is not a huge deal. I'm sure no one thinks less of you as a person.

However, good call on no longer posting in this thread. That's how this will go away. I didn't bother with a PM, because you'll obviously still be reading it despite your assertions.

[Joe biebel]

Agreed, and the two are not mutually exclusive, but the officiating function must take precedence - after all, that's what the rules say the referee must do. Much better for a fencer to be taught that the penalty will be applied (and have the referee explain why) at a local event, than to show up at a National event and be bewildered there.

Sometimes receiving an appropriately earned penalty is the best education to correct this behavior. If I know can always get away with it once, I am less likely to invest time in correcting the behavior. If I start to give my opponent touches, I am much more likely to want to change my behavior. And if it occurs early in a fencer's career, it is much easier for them to break habits.

Besides, the time for the education is not at the competitive events, but at practice beforehand where a coach/teammates can correct and identify problems in a constructive manner.

This is almost the exact sentiment and advice I give my students, both in training, and while refereeeing during training. We card for everything. You learn what is accepetable as a fencer and what is expected as a referee. One of the more difficult aspects to being a good referee, is the ability to see things without worrying about "what will people (the fencers, the coaches, the audience) think?" about your call. This is learned. You have to give cards (earned of course) to learn to do it correctly and without prejudice.

Habits, both technical and behavioral are learned. Changing them can take a lot longer to fix than gaining the original habit. That's why Omar is so right about learning "early in a fencer's career" being important. I want my fencers to be "bulletproof" on the strip. Being very strict on the rules helps them survive even the strictest referee. The most common complaint I hear from my fencers, since they play so cleanly, is that a particular referee is not carding for whatever. If you have bad habits (cardable offences) you can't suddenly decide to change. Habits are learned. It's important to Learn good ones right from the beginning.

[CaptainA]

You fenced hard (maybe too hard), got warned, stopped it, lost, saluted, went off, cooled down, and apologized. We've all been there. After digesting all the good advice here about the various psychological aspects of the game (which MP pretty much covered in #2), why not give yourself some props for doing the right thing? Lots of people wouldn't have apologized, and blamed it all on the ref. Recognize what you did right, as well as what was wrong.

[InFerrumVeritas]

First off, please call me Omar. Mr. Bhutta sounds so stiff.

On the topic of subjectivity, let me pose this scenario to you. Both fencers make an action. You are the referee and see the fencer on the left make an attack, and the fencer on the right starts after that, making a counter-attack. But it's really close. Another referee behind you who is not reffing the bout thinks it's attack from the right. Instead of calling "Attack from left, touch," you tell the guy who counter-attacked, "You were really close to having right of way, but not quite, and this other guy would have given you the attack, so I'm going to throw that action out even though I think it was the other guy's."

Hopefully, no one would ever do that.

The point I want to make with that example is that refereeing is full of subjectivity - in fact, much of the job is interpreting actions that are subjective within the framework of the rules. The job of the referee is to make those decisions as to what transpired, regardless of what anyone else in the room thinks. If you think an action is close to being illegal, then by definition it is legal. Why should you warn the fencer for doing something legal? In the case of brutality, if you feel the need to warn a fencer, the rules provide that you may warn them with a yellow card (as you note above, a yellow card IS the warning).

I still maintain the level of the tournament does not matter. If it is a tournament, the rules should be applied equally, at all times. The referee's job is not to decide which rules apply to the level of fencing, their job is to apply the rules fairly and consistently.

Cheers,

OJ

Fair enough. I suppose I hadn't thought to equate it with a ROW call, which, when done makes it ridiculous. For a moment, I sought to show a difference, but there isn't one. Penalties and touches are both awarded, sometimes with subjectivity.