Brutality

[kmwong]

I read the thread in the archives, but it wasn't quite answering my question.

Let's say, you are hypothetically at a fencing competition, and hypothetically really pissed off during a match. It's the type of day where you can't even *see* your opponent through the tears and you are physically shaking.

The ref warns about brutality after the first touch, citing something about moving the weapon at the level of your ear (sabre) and then attacking from there. What is this rule about brutality being lifting the weapon higher than the ear? (I read the entire section in the FIE rules and I can see no mention...I figured it was just prepping like a mother****er). The so called brutal actions were not premeditated against the opponent, and not intended to happen. But let's say you are kind of blinded by emotion.

Is this a red or black card?

-

Of course, this is strictly hypothetical.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Brutality is NOT defined specifically in the rulebook. It is to the ref's discression. This hypothetical ref was not under any obligation to explain why he felt an action was nearing brutality. The hypothetical ref was not under any obligation to give a warning at all.

Depending on *exactly* what the ref sees and thinks, it could be either a red or a black. If you're fencing in a violent/dangerous way, but the ref doesn't see intent, it's red. If the ref thinks there is intent, it's a black.

If your sabre ends up near your ear before a cut, and that cut ends up anywhere other than the top of the mask, it's probably going to hurt like a mother****er. Cuts ought to be done with your fingers. If your sabre is near your ear, you are at least traveling, what, almost 180 degrees with your elbow, and possibly getting your shoulder involved. You hit the mask, it's a loud noise. You hit the collarbone? Ouch. Definitely violent, probably dangerous. Intent not necessary for the red.

But after the ref has warned you, and you do not change your action, you have to hope that you look like such a pathetic newb that the ref is concerned you'll fall over and can't possibly understand how to do a propper attack in the first place. Because if you look generally like a propper fencer who understands what an attack is, and you've been told you're about to cross the line, and you CONTINUE? There seems to be intent there.


But possibly most importantly, if a hypothetical person was so upset they were crying and shaking during a bout, and had not, say, sustained a head injury during that bout, one should look into some sports psychology strategies to prevent that from happening again.

[RebelFencer]

I read the thread in the archives, but it wasn't quite answering my question.

Let's say, you are hypothetically at a fencing competition, and hypothetically really pissed off during a match. It's the type of day where you can't even *see* your opponent through the tears and you are physically shaking.

The ref warns about brutality after the first touch, citing something about moving the weapon at the level of your ear (sabre) and then attacking from there. What is this rule about brutality being lifting the weapon higher than the ear? (I read the entire section in the FIE rules and I can see no mention...I figured it was just prepping like a mother****er). The so called brutal actions were not premeditated against the opponent, and not intended to happen. But let's say you are kind of blinded by emotion.

Is this a red or black card?

-

Of course, this is strictly hypothetical.

First off: Take deep breaths.

MP already covered pretty much everything rule-wise, but it sounds like you need to really work on your composure on strip. If you're losing, getting frusterated, etc. you are not going to help yourself by crying and losing it on the strip. If you seriously want to compete then one of the best assets you can have is a strong mental game. I've seen good fencers fall apart after getting scored on a couple times by someone not as good and end up losing a bout that was easily redeemable because of it. Also, although the ref is not required to explain the brutality call, if you genuinely don't understand it because you're new or whatnot you can still ask why. Just make sure it's in a nonconfrontational manner.

[Phrogger]

I'd like to point out if you are fencing unsafely, and someone is in danger of getting hurt, whether you "meant to do it" or not is kind of besides the point. The ref must do what he has to do to ensure fencing continues in a safe manner or not at all.

[mrbiggs]

Let's say, you are hypothetically at a fencing competition, and hypothetically really pissed off during a match. It's the type of day where you can't even *see* your opponent through the tears and you are physically shaking.

This shouldn't happen.




Really, that's the answer as far as I'm concerned. If you were actually that upset it's not at all surprising to me that you're doing violent actions, even if they're unintentional.

Brutality aside, I guarantee that you're not fencing as well when you're that upset--it's in your best interest as a competitor to practice keeping it cool even when you're fencing badly. I can't tell you the number of bouts I've lost, much less touches, when I was concentrating too much on what happened earlier in the tournament instead of the actual bout I was fencing.

[prototoast]

Is the unstable emotion being caused by fencing, or is it leftover from something outside of fencing?

[Superscribe]

I'd like to point out that your responsible for your actions, regardless what your boyfriend did to piss you off, or anything other unfortunate events that may happen to you before fencing. Getting on the strip in a state where you're likely to hurt someone is not as extreme, but similar in principle to getting behind the wheel when you're drunk.

[kmwong]

Is the unstable emotion being caused by fencing, or is it leftover from something outside of fencing?

I'm not saying that I had any right to let them get out of control, but wouldn't asking for 10 minutes to chill out result in my disqualification anyways? (something about refusal to fence or something, idk) I'm not at liberty to say what was upsetting me. It had to do with the event, and how it was run, and being ditched by someone that was supposed to be moral support while I was fencing a very hard match.

And for the record, after the warning, I essentially, just did basic advance-advance-lunge which resulted in her parry-riposte for the next 4 touches; she won, I saluted, shook hands, removed myself from the gym for several minutes, regained composure, and came back to apologize to her. I wasn't *trying* to be a *****.

I only made this thread to ask if this was a black or red card had he decided to give it, and whether the rulebook actually said anything about bringing the weapon to the ear-level (which I have no recollection of me doing). Please don't judge me, we all have bad days, and there was no harm done in the end.

[Superscribe]

I'm not saying that I had any right to let them get out of control, but wouldn't asking for 10 minutes to chill out result in my disqualification anyways? (something about refusal to fence or something, idk) I'm not at liberty to say what was upsetting me. It had to do with the event, and how it was run, and being ditched by someone that was supposed to be moral support while I was fencing a very hard match.

And for the record, after the warning, I essentially, just did basic advance-advance-lunge which resulted in her parry-riposte for the next 4 touches; she won, I saluted, shook hands, removed myself from the gym for several minutes, regained composure, and came back to apologize to her. I wasn't *trying* to be a *****.

I only made this thread to ask if this was a black or red card had he decided to give it, and whether the rulebook actually said anything about bringing the weapon to the ear-level (which I have no recollection of me doing). Please don't judge me, we all have bad days, and there was no harm done in the end.

That really sucks. Fencing's a real mental game, so i can imagine how it affected you.

For what it's worth, usually the first hard hit is always a warning. I've never seen a girl hit somebody hard enough or with enough malice to get a cold black card.

I don't think "ear level" is a point of reference for anything in the fencing rule books.

[kmwong]

That really sucks. Fencing's a real mental game, so i can imagine how it affected you.

For what it's worth, usually the first hard hit is always a warning. I've never seen a girl hit somebody hard enough or with enough malice to get a cold black card.

I don't think "ear level" is a point of reference for anything in the fencing rule books.

The "issue" that caused the upset in the first place has been thankfully resolved. This is an open forum, which is obviously why I don't mention specifics. It's not pertinent to the question.

Feeling EXTREMELY betrayed and then going up against a varsity team while you're one person short is not a good combination for happy bouting. Of course that was not an excuse for me to hit hard. I do hope it NEVER happens again. I'd rather forfeit next time than let it happen again.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

I'm not saying that I had any right to let them get out of control, but wouldn't asking for 10 minutes to chill out result in my disqualification anyways? (something about refusal to fence or something, idk) I'm not at liberty to say what was upsetting me. It had to do with the event, and how it was run, and being ditched by someone that was supposed to be moral support while I was fencing a very hard match.

This is why many of us have suggested gaining experience in how to deal with this sort of thing. You will go to poorly run events again in the past. You will assume someone will be there to coach you or watch you, and they will forget, or have to use the bathroom, or have to fix an epee, or something else. And even if those things don't happen again, other things will.

If it's something from not-fencing, you have to learn how to compartmentalize. If it's from fencing, it will be harder to compartmentalize, and you'll probably just have to learn how to deal with it. Ideally, no matter what your mental state is off strip, you have to learn to let it all go when you get on strip, at least when you have to. This is hard to do. It is usually a learned skill (although some learn it earlier than others.)

What you have to do is create routines in which you let go of the negative emotions, find your "center", and fence from there. Practice centering during practice, when you're not upset, when it's easy. Give yourself a physical cue (my favorite, blatantly stolen from a friend, is to touch my thumb and first finger together-- thumb and middle finger is to increase intensity when lagging.)

When you just need an extra second in a bout, that's when you ask the director if you can re-tie a shoelace or fix your socks. Do it too often, risk the ire of the director. But your shoes probably legitimately need to be retied a couple times during the day anyway.

Fencing, especially college fencing, is an endurance sport. And there's so much downtime that life often intervenes between touches. One of my teammates once walked out of the building with a guy she had met off OKCupid for the first time that day without telling anyone where she was going. We do understand the difficulties that are involved.

You still have learned you need to work on it.

I only made this thread to ask if this was a black or red card had he decided to give it, and whether the rulebook actually said anything about bringing the weapon to the ear-level (which I have no recollection of me doing). Please don't judge me, we all have bad days, and there was no harm done in the end.

If the ref has warned you without a card, they may even start with a yellow card with some justification that's not "brutality"... like, perhaps, "abnormal fencing action" or whatever it's called. They may go directly to red. But honestly, a director is unlikely to go from warning without any card to a black card, unless the behavior in question were to get significantly worse.

[garyhayenga]

I only made this thread to ask if this was a black or red card had he decided to give it, and whether the rulebook actually said anything about bringing the weapon to the ear-level (which I have no recollection of me doing).

The rulebook says nothing specifically about ear level, that's entirely up to the judgement of the referee.

Whether it's a red card or a black card (for the first offense) depends entirely upon if the referee decides it's brutality (red card) or unsportsmanlike conduct (black). Either one is a possibility from your description.

[mrbiggs]

I'm not saying that I had any right to let them get out of control, but wouldn't asking for 10 minutes to chill out result in my disqualification anyways? (something about refusal to fence or something, idk) I'm not at liberty to say what was upsetting me. It had to do with the event, and how it was run, and being ditched by someone that was supposed to be moral support while I was fencing a very hard match.

And for the record, after the warning, I essentially, just did basic advance-advance-lunge which resulted in her parry-riposte for the next 4 touches; she won, I saluted, shook hands, removed myself from the gym for several minutes, regained composure, and came back to apologize to her. I wasn't *trying* to be a *****.

I only made this thread to ask if this was a black or red card had he decided to give it, and whether the rulebook actually said anything about bringing the weapon to the ear-level (which I have no recollection of me doing). Please don't judge me, we all have bad days, and there was no harm done in the end.

No one's saying you're a bad person. But none of us saw the action, so we only have your story to go on. From your description of the situation, it's pretty reasonable to assume that the way you were fencing was, at the least, more "brutal" than normal and clearly the referee picked up on it.

So in other words, it (probably) wasn't because you lifted your weapon arm so high that you got the card, it (probably) was because of the emotional state you described and the way it affected your actions.

[bigfirststep]

Feeling EXTREMELY betrayed and then going up against a varsity team while you're one person short is not a good combination for happy bouting. Of course that was not an excuse for me to hit hard. I do hope it NEVER happens again. I'd rather forfeit next time than let it happen again.[/QUOTE]

It sounds like you were in a really difficult situation and that you are likely to recognize a similar situation next time and act differently. Before you feel like a complete ****, at least give yourself credit for being able to take the director's warning in a constructive way, so that you didn't hurt anyone or do anything that you will be ashamed of later. We all have seen too many instances of fencers behaving badly, getting a warning, and then behaving worse.

[Omar Bhutta]

When you just need an extra second in a bout, that's when you ask the director if you can re-tie a shoelace or fix your socks. Do it too often, risk the ire of the director. But your shoes probably legitimately need to be retied a couple times during the day anyway.

They probably do need to be retied a couple of times during the day, and the time for that is in between bouts. If your shoelace comes untied during a bout, the referee should allow you to retie it. If it is tied (loose or not), it is up to the referee to decide if you may retie it - the fencer is not entitled to retie it. If you do it without permission, this is delay of bout. As relevant to this discussion, I would encourage you not to rely on this method of stalling to compose your thoughts (even though a majority of fencers utilise it).

If the ref has warned you without a card, they may even start with a yellow card with some justification that's not "brutality"... like, perhaps, "abnormal fencing action" or whatever it's called. They may go directly to red. But honestly, a director is unlikely to go from warning without any card to a black card, unless the behavior in question were to get significantly worse.

For the referees reading this thread, it would be inappropriate to give a yellow card for the described action under the rules. The action described is a normal fencing action, just one that is possibly made with violence/brutality. The only appropriate penalty is Group 2 red (t.87) or Group 4 black (t.105).

The rulebook says nothing specifically about ear level, that's entirely up to the judgement of the referee.

Whether it's a red card or a black card (for the first offense) depends entirely upon if the referee decides it's brutality (red card) or unsportsmanlike conduct (black). Either one is a possibility from your description.

Gary is quite right, but to complete the discussion, the referee may alternatively award a Group 4 Black Card for Intentional Brutality or for an Offence against Sportsmanship. The practical difference being that a G4 Black for Intentional Brutality (t.105, t.120) results in exclusion from the competition, and an Offence against Sportsmanship (t.87, t.105, t.120) may result in either Exclusion from the competition OR from the entire Tournament (see the footnotes on the penalty chart).

I only made this thread to ask if this was a black or red card had he decided to give it, and whether the rulebook actually said anything about bringing the weapon to the ear-level (which I have no recollection of me doing). Please don't judge me, we all have bad days, and there was no harm done in the end.

Remember that the referee only applies the rules; there is no judgement of character. In this case, a rule was applied, you recognized what transpired and adjusted. It is not a statement of who you are or are perceived to be.

Hope your original question was answered,

Cheers,

[MyrddinsPrecint]

They probably do need to be retied a couple of times during the day, and the time for that is in between bouts. If your shoelace comes untied during a bout, the referee should allow you to retie it. If it is tied (loose or not), it is up to the referee to decide if you may retie it - the fencer is not entitled to retie it. If you do it without permission, this is delay of bout. As relevant to this discussion, I would encourage you not to rely on this method of stalling to compose your thoughts (even though a majority of fencers utilise it).

I did specify that one should "ask". Even the pattern involved in ASKING to retie a shoe may be helpful to someone, as part of a routine of getting back to center.

A loose shoelace is such an obvious potential safety hazard that all sane and good refs will lean toward allowing the retie unless given a good reason to believe otherwise. Asking to retie both shoes several times in a 5 touch bout is a good reason. Asking once or maybe twice over the course of the day is not.

For the referees reading this thread, it would be inappropriate to give a yellow card for the described action under the rules. The action described is a normal fencing action, just one that is possibly made with violence/brutality. The only appropriate penalty is Group 2 red (t.87) or Group 4 black (t.105).

Please tell me where the rule book defines a normal fencing action? Wouldn't a violent fencing action, by definition, be an abnormal fencing action?? And if a violent action is NOT, by definition, and abnormal fencing action, what exactly does that say?

I'm not suggesting that it's the most appropriate card. But it's also not strictly part of the rules to warn someone that what they're doing might be getting close to brutality-- if we're going strictly by the rule book, you give a card or you don't. But in the real world, there are plenty of situations in which a non-card based warning is the most appropriate intervention, and there are refs who will want to card, but not escalate to a red yet, and that might be the justification.

[Omar Bhutta]

I did specify that one should "ask".

I never debated that point.

Even the pattern involved in ASKING to retie a shoe may be helpful to someone, as part of a routine of getting back to center.

That is correct, the point I want to make to people reading this thread is that you are not entitled to that right. If you are doing this to gain some psychological calm, then a referee saying "no" may serve to wreck that calm. If you rely on it (note my underlining for a second time), then it has the potential to backfire on you and send you spiraling out of control.

A loose shoelace is such an obvious potential safety hazard that all sane and good refs will lean toward allowing the retie unless given a good reason to believe otherwise.

(I will resist the natural tendency to take the comment about sanity and quality personally). Actually, it is the good refs who are much more likely to recognize retying shoes as the stall tactic that they really are. In the situation you propose, where a fencer is mentally getting out of control, tying a shoe to slow the bout down and change the momentum of the bout puts the other fencer at disadvantage. Yes, I agree with you that safety is a prime concern. As a referee, I have no idea if you lace is too loose to be safe or not. That does not mean that the fencer can claim "it's too loose, you must let me retie it."

There was a nice article on this very subject in American Fencing about 5 years ago by Jeff Bukantz, I wish I could find it.

Asking to retie both shoes several times in a 5 touch bout is a good reason. Asking once or maybe twice over the course of the day is not.

As the referee you have no idea how many times someone has asked over the course of the day. All you know is that bout (or if you had that fencer previously, a few bouts).

Please tell me where the rule book defines a normal fencing action?

You and I both know the rulebook does not state this.

First, I am mistaken, 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. I apologize for the misinformation.

Having said that, the purpose of the rule "Abnormal fencing action" is not to have a way to give a yellow card when you don't want to give a more severe penalty. Yes, it is poorly defined, which allows the referee to invoke it. In this situation, it should not be done. Can I back that up with anything more in the rules? Other than the fact that there are specific rules to cover this situation we are discussing, no.

And if a violent action is NOT, by definition, and abnormal fencing action, what exactly does that say?

We just decided (as you noted above) that there is no definition given for a normal and thus an abnormal fencing action. The rules provide for a penalty for a violent action, that is a Group 2 red card.

I'm not suggesting that it's the most appropriate card.

I am suggesting it is not appropriate at all.

But it's also not strictly part of the rules to warn someone that what they're doing might be getting close to brutality-- if we're going strictly by the rule book, you give a card or you don't. But in the real world, there are plenty of situations in which a non-card based warning is the most appropriate intervention, and there are refs who will want to card, but not escalate to a red yet, and that might be the justification.

This is the behavior I am getting at that is not appropriate. You are correct, you either card or you don't. That's because the job of the referee is to apply the rulebook, not to decide when to override the rules (t.1). If someone covers target, you don't say, "Hey you're getting close to covering target." You apply the rules. Otherwise, you are putting the other fencer at a disadvantage. If fencers get in close while infighting, you don't call halt and say, "You guys are getting close to causing corps-a-corps, watch it." Either they conform to the rules, or they don't. What is the difference between "brutality" or a "dangerous/Violent" hit? There's your grey zone to decide to give a yellow/red/black. But referees should not give verbal warnings to fencers. It's either legal or it's not.

Sorry for the rule error previously. Thanks for making me go back over the rules and re-read them.

Cheers,
OJ

[MyrddinsPrecint]

This is the behavior I am getting at that is not appropriate. You are correct, you either card or you don't. That's because the job of the referee is to apply the rulebook, not to decide when to override the rules (t.1). If someone covers target, you don't say, "Hey you're getting close to covering target." You apply the rules. Otherwise, you are putting the other fencer at a disadvantage. If fencers get in close while infighting, you don't call halt and say, "You guys are getting close to causing corps-a-corps, watch it." Either they conform to the rules, or they don't. What is the difference between "brutality" or a "dangerous/Violent" hit? There's your grey zone to decide to give a yellow/red/black. But referees should not give verbal warnings to fencers. It's either legal or it's not.

Sorry for the rule error previously. Thanks for making me go back over the rules and re-read them.

Cheers,
OJ

On most of this, I think we mostly agree on most of it, and are quibbling over wording. So I'm not gonna quibble anymore.

And thanks for going back over the rules-- my pdf reader is currently crashing my computer when I try to use it, so I've been avoiding having to actually read the rules for the past couple of days

In any case, are you sure that the yellow for brutality isn't elsewhere other than just the chart?? IIRC, the chart is not actually part of the rules, just a handy and very useful grouping of them, and there have been times in the past in which the rules changed and the chart did not, and the chart was thus incorrect. Again, I'm being a horridly lazy person and not looking it up myself, but I've been fighting with pdfs for a couple days now and I just can't bring myself to do it at the moment.

But the last bit I quoted gets into a topic I still haven't exactly made up my mind about-- the ref doing things other than calling the action and giving cards.

The rules do not specify that a ref has to give an explanation for a matter of fact-- so they can call brutality, and not give a reason. They do not, however, seem to indicate the degree to which one is allowed to explicate or warn. Clearly warning on a safety issue is allowed and maybe even mandated. Recounting the ENTIRE action, rather than just the last important bit, is probably also pretty kosher.

It would look silly if , at the Olympics, a ref were to walk up to a fencer and say "you're getting pretty close to fencing out of control, and that's bad, so get a hold of yourself." That said, it would be inappropriate if you had a class of middle schoolers fencing a pretend tournament against each other at the end of their season, and when one of them did something bizarre, carded them for it, and refused to explain when they had no idea what was going on. In both scenarios, the suggested ref behavior isn't very useful to anyone. I understand the ends of the spectrum fairly well. I haven't fully figured out what I think ought to happen in the middles.

[Omar Bhutta]

In any case, are you sure that the yellow for brutality isn't elsewhere other than just the chart?? IIRC, the chart is not actually part of the rules, just a handy and very useful grouping of them, and there have been times in the past in which the rules changed and the chart did not, and the chart was thus incorrect.

Rule t.120 is the penalty chart. Thus, the penalty chart is part of the rules.

Abnormal fencing action * ; touches with brutality or made during or after a fall * (t.87) Yellow/Red/Red

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, made during or after a fall) are strictly forbidden (cf. t.114–t.120). Should such an offence occur, any touch scored by the fencer at fault is annulled.

This is not the entirety of t.87.2, to be clear. The unquoted parts are not relevant to the discussion though. Although I will not quote t.114-t.120 here, t.114-t.119 are descriptions of penalty groups 1-4 and t.120 is the penalty chart. You can see that in t.87, many types of actions that represent varying degrees of severity are lumped together. The penalty chart separates them out. I suspect that is why we are quibbling though; the verbiage on that chart defines the appropriate card.

But the last bit I quoted gets into a topic I still haven't exactly made up my mind about-- the ref doing things other than calling the action and giving cards.

The rules do not specify that a ref has to give an explanation for a matter of fact-- so they can call brutality, and not give a reason.

This is true for most any rule. In this case, it is either brutal or not. No explanation is needed short of stating, "Yellow card, touch made with brutality."

They do not, however, seem to indicate the degree to which one is allowed to explicate or warn. Clearly warning on a safety issue is allowed and maybe even mandated.

If a fencer is doing something unsafe, it puts the opponent at disadvantage and potentially danger, and the rules provide for penalization (t.87), even if no other rule is being broken. A verbal warning is like giving a fencer a "get out of jail free card." t.87 provides for a Group 1 penalty (yellow card for first offence) which is a warning.

It would look silly if , at the Olympics, a ref were to walk up to a fencer and say "you're getting pretty close to fencing out of control, and that's bad, so get a hold of yourself." That said, it would be inappropriate if you had a class of middle schoolers fencing a pretend tournament against each other at the end of their season, and when one of them did something bizarre, carded them for it, and refused to explain when they had no idea what was going on. In both scenarios, the suggested ref behavior isn't very useful to anyone. I understand the ends of the spectrum fairly well. I haven't fully figured out what I think ought to happen in the middles.

Explanations are fine. I have no problem with explanations, because learning is part of all this. It is one of the reasons I try to dialogue about the rules in such detail. The issue becomes one of the appropriate time for teaching. A middle school pretend tournament may be a reasonable time for that. A sanctioned tournament (even a local E & under) is not the time for that. That is the time for application of the rules evenly and fairly - which means no "get out of jail free" cards. As a competitor, if I am paying to compete in a tourney, I want the best referees I can find, and I want the rules applied fairly and consistently. And if I am successful in getting inside my opponent's head, the last thing I would want is to see my referee calming the other fencer down.

Anywho, once you think about what you think about the middle of the spectrum, let's chat.

OJ

[kalivor]

If your shoelace comes untied during a bout, the referee should allow you to retie it. If it is tied (loose or not), it is up to the referee to decide if you may retie it - the fencer is not entitled to retie it. If you do it without permission, this is delay of bout. As relevant to this discussion, I would encourage you not to rely on this method of stalling to compose your thoughts (even though a majority of fencers utilise it).

True, but sometimes getting the short break provided by the delay of bout is worth the cost of a yellow card ...