Ref Bias

[jspierre]

Hey, do guys known as better fencers get the benefit of the doubt in the way ref's call bouts?

Say at your typical NAC a top ranked guy goes against a relative unknown guy, and the call is a little uncertain, are ref's giving points to the 'name' fencer, for whatever reason?

How about at the intl level?

[achilleus]

Originally posted by jspierre
Hey, do guys known as better fencers get the benefit of the doubt in the way ref's call bouts?

Yes.

Originally posted by jspierre
Say at your typical NAC a top ranked guy goes against a relative unknown guy, and the call is a little uncertain, are ref's giving points to the 'name' fencer, for whatever reason?

Yes.

Originally posted by jspierre
How about at the intl level?

Yes.

[Inquartata]

Yes. Refs are human beings, not automatons programmed for perfect objectivity. They are subject to the same tendencies we all have, including this sort of bias. One hopes that most of it is subconscious and unintentional, but sometimes that hopefulness is sorely tested...

[edew]

Our top junior foilist, Dmitri Kirk-Gordon, was at a Junior World Cup in Bratislava (or wherever it was). Came out of the pools seeded #1. First DE, was leading, before reaching 12-12. Three red cards for "covering" target gave his opponent the bout.

When did he cover target? When he was on guard, the referee called, "fence" and the side judge, who happened to be from the same country as Dmitri's opponent (on Dmitri's side, the "side judge" was some other kid fencer), immediately raised his hand and claimed covering target. Three times.

Now, I know Dmitri has a bad habit of reversing shoulders and covering target with the back arm. But usually, it's called when there's a possibility of the covering affecting the phrase. He was on his on-guard line, as was the other fencer. His arm was where he usually puts it. (I imagine that he could have amputated his back arm and they still would have called something on him.)

Would that be an example of referee bias?

[edew]

Another one: At the Div I Nationals in Louisville, KY this past April, Paul Friedman was fencing against Jason Rogers. A Mr. <....>, top-rated referee in all three weapons, international level referee, blah-blah-blah was presiding.

If there were two lights (and in sabre, that's invariably the case), Jason got the touch. Incredible how Paul was screwed. I watched many actions where, even to my "untrained sabre" eye, it was Paul's attack into prep, and the call would go to Jason. On the flip side, when Paul made an attack and Jason just counter-attacked, it was Jason's stop cut in time. Parry ripostes by Paul were late parries, parry ripostes by Jason were never late.

It's unfortunate that I just finished reading Jeff Bukantz's commentary in the latest American Fencing magazine saying that it's rude and unproductive to blame the referee for a loss. Paul didn't blame the referee, and his coach (Atillo Tass) wasn't there to watch it, but it was clearly a case of biasing for the "better" (named) fencer. Paul also whoops up a lot of extra antics when calls go against him, so it didn't help matters that he did that. But from my watch, it was probably a case of the referee being bored and didn't really want to be there, and wanting to get things over with ASAP.

[Sabresque]

Yeah, poor Dimitri was really messed with in Brataslava. I heard the "hand judge" was a like 12 year old kid. Anyways... Yeah, it happens. Unfortunatly, sometimes you have to fence to 25 to win a bout to 15.

[nahouw]

Short answer: yes

Long answer: no, not really. Amongst the referees (national or international) there is a knowledge of who those referees are who do call the action appropriately -- if both fencers exute actions but neither is not technically correct, and under that there is no way within the rules to award a touch, they will abstain, and not give preference to the "name" fencer.

Now, to be counted within this group, you must be a referee with a keen eye. You also have to be a referee in which peers and the bout committee have observed, and have the same commentary on you. Being a referee and showing bias reflects badly on you as a referee and will be remembered for a long time by those who are watching (and there is always somebody watching -- especially at international events). Only the very best referee get assigned to referee the bouts from the 32 and onward. At this point, you can be rest assured that there is no bias and favoritism occuring, at least at the international level -- USFA may vary.

However, for the round of 64 and the pool rounds, they have to assign the available referees. This is relatively safe ground for new referees, and especially if they are being observed for their rating. Under this scrutiny, they would be inclined to be in favor for the higher seeded fencer.

Advice for the fencers would be to make sure you execute one-light actions -- in that way, you assure that you get the touch, and for future competitions referees will remember that you can do so, and will give you the benefit of the doubt the next time.

As to Eric's relaying of Dmitri Kirk-Gordon's experience in the last Junior World Cup, this brings another issue that the USFA has to address. The referees in NACs allow many infractions of the rules without penalty -- how can we prepare our fencers for International competition when we permit these infractions? Why are we surprised when the International refereeing community enforces the rules? Why are we are undermining our own fencers? The FOC assigns referees that are part of their clique, which all ignore these infractions. The referees that do not allow these infractions are not invited to referee at NACs. The fact that Eric acknowledges that Dimitri has a bad habit of both reversing shoulders and covering target (which are bad habits that are expelled in French fencers by the time they are 12), which he has apparently been able to use to his advantage throughout USFA NACs without penalty, has now been called out as wrong , in accordance with the rules, on the World Stage of a Junior World Cup. The fact that he got red carded for infractions after the bout score was 12-12 only shows how much the European community is graceful for considering the "American style" of fencing and not calling for infractions earlier.

[Mo]

In Jeff Bukantz's article he said that coaches want to show videos of what happened to their fencers in bouts and why they were dismayed at the calls.
This is an excellent idea. It would be wonderful if the bout committee could sit down with referees and other coaches reviewing video and spend time getting some explanations. This is an excellent way to learn.
It is not necessary every single time but perhaps a few hours at major meets could be set aside for some viewing and explaining. The sport would truly benefit.
We have coaching camps. weapon camps, individual weapon national training camps, armorer camps, why not referee camps? Call it a meeting, not a camp.
Coaches need to be able to coach their fencers so they will get the calls they need to win. Everyone feels better when their complaints have been recognized and taken seriously. Perhaps the cure to alleged bad sportsmanship by coaches is in communication, not just ignoring them.
It is high time.

[Catlady]

Yes, there is the ocassional Better Fencer Point or BFP as my club is wont to call it. However blatant bias is unusual and virtually non-existent, especially at the national level.
Also what you did or what you were trying to do/thought you did and how it looked are often entirely different. Then of course the view from the sidelines is different from the view from the director's spot and different from the view from the strip. Case in point: A friend of mine was complaining about the quality of the directing at a local event, apparently she really did get "screwed", in addition she mentioned what she thought was clearly an intentional and unsportsmanlike hard shot to the crotch that happened to another , male, fencer. In her mind it was unnecessarily hard and the opponent showed no remorse for having done it. Later the fencer who had supposedly taken the hard shot was talking about that bout with another club mate. I was waiting to see what he was going to say about that particular action. He mentioned that his opponent hit him in the crotch. He and the person he was talking to agreed that the opponent seems to do it a lot, but the person who was the recipient of the shot clearly thought it was an accident. Go figure.

[edew]

Originally posted by nahouw
[...]
As to Eric's relaying of Dmitri Kirk-Gordon's experience in the last Junior World Cup, this brings another issue that the USFA has to address. The referees in NACs allow many infractions of the rules without penalty -- how can we prepare our fencers for International competition when we permit these infractions? Why are we surprised when the International refereeing community enforces the rules? Why are we are undermining our own fencers? The FOC assigns referees that are part of their clique, which all ignore these infractions. The referees that do not allow these infractions are not invited to referee at NACs. The fact that Eric acknowledges that Dimitri has a bad habit of both reversing shoulders and covering target (which are bad habits that are expelled in French fencers by the time they are 12), which he has apparently been able to use to his advantage throughout USFA NACs without penalty, has now been called out as wrong , in accordance with the rules, on the World Stage of a Junior World Cup. The fact that he got red carded for infractions after the bout score was 12-12 only shows how much the European community is graceful for considering the "American style" of fencing and not calling for infractions earlier.

Welll, that is a load of BS. Dmitri certainly knows he reverses shoulders. And he's frequently called for that, as well as covering target, when the action warrants the call.

Being on guard with your arm near your side does not warrant a card for covering target. That same thing happened to Ann Marsh at the 2000 Olympics where she was given two red cards for reversing shoulders and covering target. There has been much more egregious actions by fencers everywhere (internationally and nationally) which did not merit a comensurate call.

That Dmitri was called for covering target was clearly a case of bending the rules to excise a potential threat to other fencers. They knew they can't beat him fencing-wise, so they had to bring in the legal team. Last year, he had that happen where the only calls for him were one-lighters. And even then, with a single-light, he told me some were thrown out.

[sallearmourer]

I have seen more and more calls for reverseing the shoulder at the last two NACS then last year. The referees are getting tighter on the rules. I was watching my daugther at Orlanda throw six cards in a row for reversing shoulders. I thought the red card was attach by a rubber band to her hand. All the calls was correct. The fencer should had realize by the second one what he was doing wrong and correct it.


Tim

[damianip]

A different take on this situation is provided in an anecdote from Rudy Volkmann's book (which you can purchase right here on fencing.net).

There is the famous example of well-established Tibor Nyilas fencing a then-young Alex Orban; Nyilas attacked, and Orban parried and riposted. The jury and referee all agreed that the attack landed. And while it was close, both fencers knew that it had not done so.

"You got that touch on your reputation alone," jibed young Orban in friendly fashion.

"Fine, go get your own reputation," Nyilas shot back (which, of course, he did).

Paolo

[edew]

Originally posted by sallearmourer
I have seen more and more calls for reverseing the shoulder at the last two NACS then last year. The referees are getting tighter on the rules. I was watching my daugther at Orlanda throw six cards in a row for reversing shoulders. I thought the red card was attach by a rubber band to her hand. All the calls was correct. The fencer should had realize by the second one what he was doing wrong and correct it.


Tim

Some people can't help it. Many are those who learned fencing prior to the reversing shoulder rule change (around 1988 or so), and then took time off from fencing, and have recently returned to fencing, after the rule's in place.

Dmitri, as I mentioned above, is a habitual reverse shoulder turner. I fence him all the time at club and see him doing it. (He doesn't do it often with me because there's little reason for him to do so: lefty-righty thing.) He's aware of his problem, but he's also aware of what's legal.

We have another fencer at our club who is a persistent shoulder turner. I could imagine your daughter having him in that bout with the six red cards. He might come to me and complain, but as I'm a referee, all I'll tell him is don't turn your shoulders, because I'd card him as well.

In the case of Dmitri, I can see why the other fencer at the world cup tried to beat him with legalese BS: Dmitri can be overwhelmingly intimidating. He comes at you like a locomotive, but with a fine-tuned hand-control and quick reflexes. I can't ever get my riposte to start before he counter-parries and ripostes me back. If I try and choose to hold back the riposte a bit, he hits with the remise and runs away. He's fast and very intimidating against those he's familiar with (or doesn't still respect with unnecessary awe).

[peircer]

Originally posted by Catlady
Yes, there is the ocassional Better Fencer Point or BFP as my club is wont to call it. However blatant bias is unusual and virtually non-existent, especially at the national level.
Also what you did or what you were trying to do/thought you did and how it looked are often entirely different. Then of course the view from the sidelines is different from the view from the director's spot and different from the view from the strip. Case in point: A friend of mine was complaining about the quality of the directing at a local event, apparently she really did get "screwed", in addition she mentioned what she thought was clearly an intentional and unsportsmanlike hard shot to the crotch that happened to another , male, fencer. In her mind it was unnecessarily hard and the opponent showed no remorse for having done it. Later the fencer who had supposedly taken the hard shot was talking about that bout with another club mate. I was waiting to see what he was going to say about that particular action. He mentioned that his opponent hit him in the crotch. He and the person he was talking to agreed that the opponent seems to do it a lot, but the person who was the recipient of the shot clearly thought it was an accident. Go figure.

Last I checked, the crotch is legal target area in two weapons. Why penalize?

[135711]

I hate to bring this up, but do you think it's that the classical engarde has fallen to the wayside? now we all do this sort of tightrope thing.

[damianip]

Originally posted by 135711
I hate to bring this up, but do you think it's that the classical engarde has fallen to the wayside? now we all do this sort of tightrope thing.

I'm not sure I follow you.

This will bias a referee?

Paolo

[135711]

maybe, but not sure, what i thought of, was that the classical engarde keeps your non-fencing hand out of the area of coverning target, while the 'modern' engarde does not. in fact, a modern en-garde is sorta 'covering target', you have to really demonstrate clearly to the director that your hand is not covering target.

[damianip]

Originally posted by 135711
maybe, but not sure, what i thought of, was that the classical engarde keeps your non-fencing hand out of the area of coverning target, while the 'modern' engarde does not. in fact, a modern en-garde is sorta 'covering target', you have to really demonstrate clearly to the director that your hand is not covering target.

OK, gotcha.

We're back on the covering target issue.

Yes, you may have a point especially if you get a ref who's a stickler.

I seem to remember that Cliff Bayer had an en guard which covered target. I wonder if they gave him much trouble for it.

Paolo

[achilleus]

Originally posted by nahouw
Short answer: yes

Long answer: no, not really. Amongst the referees (national or international) there is a knowledge of who those referees are who do call the action appropriately -- if both fencers exute actions but neither is not technically correct, and under that there is no way within the rules to award a touch, they will abstain, and not give preference to the "name" fencer.

Now, to be counted within this group, you must be a referee with a keen eye. You also have to be a referee in which peers and the bout committee have observed, and have the same commentary on you. Being a referee and showing bias reflects badly on you as a referee and will be remembered for a long time by those who are watching (and there is always somebody watching -- especially at international events). Only the very best referee get assigned to referee the bouts from the 32 and onward. At this point, you can be rest assured that there is no bias and favoritism occuring, at least at the international level -- USFA may vary.

However, for the round of 64 and the pool rounds, they have to assign the available referees. This is relatively safe ground for new referees, and especially if they are being observed for their rating. Under this scrutiny, they would be inclined to be in favor for the higher seeded fencer.

Advice for the fencers would be to make sure you execute one-light actions -- in that way, you assure that you get the touch, and for future competitions referees will remember that you can do so, and will give you the benefit of the doubt the next time.

As to Eric's relaying of Dmitri Kirk-Gordon's experience in the last Junior World Cup, this brings another issue that the USFA has to address. The referees in NACs allow many infractions of the rules without penalty -- how can we prepare our fencers for International competition when we permit these infractions? Why are we surprised when the International refereeing community enforces the rules? Why are we are undermining our own fencers? The FOC assigns referees that are part of their clique, which all ignore these infractions. The referees that do not allow these infractions are not invited to referee at NACs. The fact that Eric acknowledges that Dimitri has a bad habit of both reversing shoulders and covering target (which are bad habits that are expelled in French fencers by the time they are 12), which he has apparently been able to use to his advantage throughout USFA NACs without penalty, has now been called out as wrong , in accordance with the rules, on the World Stage of a Junior World Cup. The fact that he got red carded for infractions after the bout score was 12-12 only shows how much the European community is graceful for considering the "American style" of fencing and not calling for infractions earlier.

What a unique view of US refs vs. FIE refs you have.

In the first paragraph, you state how both national and international refs are handpicked and have to be able to perform and that's why no bias happens. Then later you state how in the US, it's nothing but the FOC allowing bad refs to continue. Those 2 comments are contradictory.

Really, the same method round the world is used to pick qualified refs. A select few pick the refs they like as officials or friends to officiate at tournaments. Yes, in selecting a ref a lot of bias occurs.

Second, you have the US refs tend to enforce the rules in a much stricter fashion than any international ref I have ever seen. In fact, many of the thop US coaches have pleaded with the FOC to tell the refs to try to call actions and apply rules more like the Euros. For a recent example read the past couple of issues of AF where Jeff Bukantz discussess the coaching rule.

Third, I've known many french fencers who are trained to cover target so the ref won't notice. Same with the germans. It's a highly developed skill that can be used on demand.

[Inquartata]

The target-covering issue is a vexed one. I mean, your weapon arm is covering target, is it not? I you do a deep lunge, your knee will cover target. Your mask bib also covers target. How the back arm dangling in its normal ( modern ) position is any different escapes me.

As to the belief that there is no bias at higher or international level, I suspect that impression is merely due to those refs being better and more experienced at doing it subtly instead of blatantly...