Brutality

[catwood1]

When I started reffing, I did the same thing many low level refs do in sometimes saying "watch your back hand" to warn them about covering. A referee might use a line like that as a cop out. "I'm not really sure if I'm right, so I'm going to give them a verbal warning, because it doesn't hurt anything." In retrospect, I suspect that is what I was doing sometimes. "I'm not sure if he covered, so I'll give him a verbal warning."

I got better at applying the rules when I fully realized to not do that.

Granted, I think there ARE times when a verbal warning is acceptable, but those times are limited.

[pinkelephant]

If you give a "verbal warning" instead of a yellow card (which IS the warning) for covering, you are penalising the opponent. You MUST use the cards - but you don't have to be officious about it. To a 10-year old beginner, you just say you are going to have to card them, explain what they have done, show them the card without waving it in their face with attitude, and if they start to look upset, tell them it's a technical infingement, that it doesn't mean they're a bad person, but that it affects the other fencer and therefore has to be penalised.

There's nothing in the rulebook that says a referee can't be nice.

[Inquartata]

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.

I can see any of those being consistent, yes. My point, however, was that you could not add "vindictive, non-deliberate" to the list---calling an action vindictive and not penalizing it as deliberate may be allowed by the rules but it is not in keeping with the meaning of the words involved. ( Not that this is anything new for the rules. )

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.

Indeed. But of course, each referee is in these cases defining those action, if only in his own mind, and even if inchoately. The problem is in arriving at a single definition which would be consistent for all referees, which is as you say probably impossible.

Still, I'd like to think that we could avoid the more obvious contradictions, at least...

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.

Heh. I prefer another of your phrasings, from another thread: "The more you understand the language of the rulebook, as well as the intent of the rule, the less you need to think about in the moment and the easier it is to apply."

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

As the Bishop said to Mae West. ( Sorry, I couldn't resist. )
[/QUOTE]

[kalivor]

I can see any of those being consistent, yes. My point, however, was that you could not add "vindictive, non-deliberate" to the list---calling an action vindictive and not penalizing it as deliberate may be allowed by the rules but it is not in keeping with the meaning of the words involved. ( Not that this is anything new for the rules. )

Well, if we're getting into semantics, my Oxford English Dictionary is defining "brutal" as "savagely violent". I think it's safe to say that if something meets this definition, a yellow card is probably not the appropriate penalty.

Of course "brutality" is only mentioned in the rules as part of the group four penalty, so maybe that's OK. The yellow is for "hits made with violence", which implies that there is some sort of (otherwise valid) scoring action for the penalty to be given.

[oso97]

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

Besides, wouldn't it be Dr. Bhutta?

[Omar Bhutta]

There's nothing in the rulebook that says a referee can't be nice.

Well said.

Heh. I prefer another of your phrasings, from another thread: "The more you understand the language of the rulebook, as well as the intent of the rule, the less you need to think about in the moment and the easier it is to apply."

Indeed. Can't succeed with the correct balance of each.

Besides, wouldn't it be Dr. Bhutta?

I guess so, but only if you're a patient of mine. Otherwise, it's just Omar.