Slow Mo or not Slow Mo: Italian experts debate the use of video replay

[gladius]

An interesting discussion took place on Schermaonline.com some time ago stimulated but what I first saw here

A Dream Video Library

regarding the NBA Video Rulebook and relative link http://www.nba.com/videorulebook posted by Agent_V and the subsequent comment by eac

My opinion is that refereeing in fencing, in particular for the conventional weapons, needs to be substantially improved to make fencing anything more than a niche sport. If referees and experts can't agree on quite a number of important calls, whether using the naked eye or with the assistance of video replay, the credibility of the bout--and the sport--becomes questionable. Imagine something like this in football or indeed basketball.

Other sports have taken a definite interest in and full advantage of modern technologies to help both in the visuals (think of all the cameras used to show you a touchdown from almost any imaginable point of view or the flight of a golf ball) and the adjudication of difficult calls due to speed of the action (photo finish in races) or of the implement (tennis ball).

Sports with larger audience have pushed the technology envelope and one of the most interesting "new" things is computer generated replay to determine whether the tennis ball hit the line or not. The visuals are striking and argumentation during big events has diminished. Tennis uses the HawkEye system even though its acceptance is by no mean universal http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/ten...ory?id=3452293

Fencing seems to attract a large group of ardent misoneists determined to protect against any type of change just because it represents a change. And it is a well known fact that the most difficult challenge is knowing when to change and how.

Seeing that the OP on Fencing.net had not generated an active debate, I proposed the same topic on Schermaonline.com. There several experts commented about the pros and cons of video replay and how to use this tool. However, for me at least only Maestro Giancarlo Toran went to the core of the problem, a problem which in my personal opinion represents the biggest obstacle for fencing to attract a large number of spectators.

This is the original article and discussion in Italian: http://www.schermaonline.com/scherma...ticle&sid=2526

Here is a summary in English of the more interesting comments with the closing remarks by Maestro Toran:

enricodiciolo
This [the NBA Video Rule Book] could be something interesting to inform and illustrate fencing situations rather than describe correctly what happens during an action. I stress the fact that when you play in slow-mo you totally distort the convention. Therefore, I find counterproductive the use of slow-mo video replay during a bout to confirm or change the referee's opinion.

I would recommend instead that referees review the action in replay at regular speed more than once if necessary and then decide whether they were right or not after reviewing it at the natural speed.

giusetrive
Please explain. Why would slow-mo completely distort the convention?

enricodiciolo
In my opinion the touches when seen in slow-mo don't give the true feeling of the fencing tempo, the right moment to throw your thrust when you have the right to do so. You can see the action better when it is slowed down in the replay but you can't see if the fencing action happens in fencing tempo which can or cannot be recognized. One thing is to see the thrust strike before that of your opponent. Another thing is to see if the thrust was in tempo or not. The velocity in execution must respect the fencing tempo. With slow-mo you slow down the action but you can't understand who is right because the action is distorted.

marchinux
I agree with Enrico. In my opinion the fencing action must be evaluated at its real speed. Playback can be useful for a whole lot of situations, e.g., judging parries, taking of the blade, attacks which did or did not land on target, but NOT to evaluate the fencing tempo. Marco Siesto during the saber stage in Formia in 2008 said something similar when he acknowledged that often the use of the video replay can be misleading.
Marco Danero

lucamagni
Absolutely true. "Tempo" involves the movement of the entire fencer's body, not just the simple progression of the tip. The video replay leans toward concentrating on the tip or the arm.

Take for example the famous touch in Beijing in WF (team) semifinals. At normal speed it shows that it was Valentina's attack form start to finish. In slow-mo you see that the arm of her Russian opponent starts a fraction of a second earlier. But this cannot be enough to completely distort a fencing action which should be examined in its totality.

esedra
I remember Andrea Magro's angry protests in Beijing after the WF team semifinal against Russia. Other than hitting the bench he had something to say against video replay declaring that the slow-mo replay could not be used to eliminate the doubt because, he said, fencing is based on tempo and measure and slow-mo distorts everything...

I also remember the MS team quarterfinal against Hungary at Turin World Championships. If I remember correctly it was after the slow-mo review on 44-o that Tarantino's touch against Nemecek was annulled and the latter then got the following final touch.
...

enricodiciolo
The best referee in the world, Marco Siesto, uses video replay parsimoniously, to increase his level of objectivity in reconstructing the fencing action.

I believe the use of the video is a modern solution and in some cases an intelligent solution. However, the use of the video replay is sometime inappropriate. By "intelligent" I mean:

• to review the same action at normal speed can help justify the decision
• to see the same action in slow-mo can help you to see if the touch hit outside the strip, who indeed took the blade, if the attack touches immediately or is parried...

marchinux
I totally agree. Furthermore--but here we open a discussion which could go ad infinitum--video replay distorts the perception of the fencing phrase.

If you check the rule book you'll see that in the part about touch assignment attack and defense are analyzed individually and separately in great detail. The rules even specify the the angle between arm and forearm (135 degrees) is the discriminating factor between attack and preparation.

The problem is that we DON'T take in consideration the fencing phrase which for me in the end is the most important thing to keep in mind. Unfortunately, to evaluate the fencing phrase is not easy for one who did not practice the specific weapon. In my case, as a sabreur I have difficulty in judging the rhythms in foil for example. To judge a fencing action without taking into consideration the interaction between the two fencers means to denature the fencing of conventional weapons.
Marco Danero


Giancarlo Toran
This discussion is an interesting example of how easy it is to have divergent opinions when the subject is not well defined.

Fencing tempo is a chimera and I'm sure that if everyone defined it in his own way we would have very disquieting results. And yet, this is the essential starting point, lest we want to take as the starting point the definitions in the FIE Rulebook which instead of defining, muddle things ever more.

The length of time of the execution of a simple action--simple according to the French terminology, i.e., in "one single move"--is something that makes no sense because even if one has better defined what we call "simple action," the fact remains that the speed of execution is not the same for everybody. Therefore, the fencing tempo changes between fencers and it seems to me unacceptable and a paradox that we could have "two [different] fencing tempos" in the same bout.

When you have confused definitions you open the door, once more, to free interpretation.

Video playback was born to limit the latitude of subjective interpretation by the referee since the rulebook as it is written is something quite different from that which is applied. And it is exactly on this difference where the winning tactics of the strongest athletes in the weapons which follow the convention are based. The top athletes apply the "true" rules of the game, not the dead rules on paper.

If we oppose the video replay today, this means to go back and increase the discretion and free judgement of the individual referee. Therefore, it would be better if we improve the use of video replay. In case of doubt, if you don't use the video replay when a fencer protests the final judgement would depend more on the interactive power and influence of the referees rather than being based on an analysis which adheres strictly to the accepted rules.

I read the comments that the video playback in slow-mo would distort the convention. Some are convinced this to be the case, some do not understand why this would be so. But nobody explained clearly and logically his opinion. If there is a rule--based on times--just by stretching the time the application of the convention by the referee would have a lesser chance to be incorrect. Otherwise we trust other sensations/feelings which as such are very subjective.

[InFerrumVeritas]

I think video replay is a boon to the objectivity of making calls, especially in conventional weapons, but that slow-motion replay should not be used in conventional weapons, such as foil and saber. If it is, it should only be used to determine the order of specific things, such as if the blade was parried before the point arrived, if the fencer was off the strip, etc. To determine actions that are largely based on tempo (attack-counterattack, riposte-remise, etc), slow motion should not be used as it distorts it. One may ask how tempo is distorted: by viewing things in slow motion, our eyes are able to focus on things that are not normally perceptable. If these things are not perceptable, they should not matter as the fencers would be unable to see and thus react to them. Case in point: a continuous action can look like a fencer stops if played slow enough.

[eac]

You can't be honest with yourself and say that you shouldn't look at another view of the exact same action because it'll look different and then you'll make a different decision. The action is what it is; either you think it's one way, or you think it's the other. The action doesn't change when you slow it down. Your intuition does. What that means is that you need to pin down what it is that makes you intuit it the way you like it when it's at full speed, write that down, and then apply it on the slow-motion. Right of way doesn't need to be a dark art. You can write it down. People haven't so far, because the truth is sometimes far away from the rules, and people have such a strong reflex to bullsh!t a connection between the rules and the truth, but I'm convinced it can be done. I'm also convinced that the distance between the rules and the truth is larger in saber than in foil, but that could be because I'm less well versed in the doublethink patterns of saber than those of foil.

[downunder]

I'm one of about 5 people on this board that have refereed under the FIE video replay for foil and it is a wonderful asset. I have also seen it misused. We watch it in full speed, at 30% and then full speed again. The small screen in front of us gives it at full speed then at 30%.

I believe that affordable video replay is essential to modern fencing. I don't think foil suffers from this issue as much as it is portrayed to be.

[ddavis]

Take for example the famous touch in Beijing in WF (team) semifinals. At normal speed it shows that it was Valentina's attack form start to finish. In slow-mo you see that the arm of her Russian opponent starts a fraction of a second earlier. But this cannot be enough to completely distort a fencing action which should be examined in its totality.

I found this comment rather intriguing. Kind makes the definition of an attack similar to the definition of obscenity ("I know it when I see it"). I don't think this is a good thing...

[downunder]

I found this comment rather intriguing. Kind makes the definition of an attack similar to the definition of obscenity ("I know it when I see it"). I don't think this is a good thing...

Perhaps slightly rose tinted glasses?

This is the hit in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TfmpT9-xdY Does Vezzali ever extend her arm?

[KD5MDK]

Perhaps slightly rose tinted glasses?

This is the hit in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TfmpT9-xdY Does Vezzali ever extend her arm?

Do you mean to imply that rule applies to Italians?

[NGV]

lucamagni
Absolutely true. "Tempo" involves the movement of the entire fencer's body, not just the simple progression of the tip. The video replay leans toward concentrating on the tip or the arm.

Take for example the famous touch in Beijing in WF (team) semifinals. At normal speed it shows that it was Valentina's attack form start to finish. In slow-mo you see that the arm of her Russian opponent starts a fraction of a second earlier. But this cannot be enough to completely distort a fencing action which should be examined in its totality.

This makes no sense to me.

I'm not sure why we should agree with the assertion that some unspecified aspect of the "totality" of the action justifies awarding the attack to a fencer who began extending after her opponent.

But, even if we do accept that claim, why would watching a slow motion replay prevent a referee from correctly making that judgment about the entire action? Why would watching the action only once at full speed make a correct judgment more likely?

[downunder]

This makes no sense to me.

I'm not sure why we should agree with the assertion that some unspecified aspect of the "totality" of the action justifies awarding the attack to a fencer who began extending after her opponent.

But, even if we do accept that claim, why would watching a slow motion replay prevent a referee from correctly making that judgment about the entire action? Why would watching the action only once at full speed make a correct judgment more likely?

It's complicated. If you slow it down then a feint or change in line can look like a pause. My personal view is that if you understand what both fencers are doing then it's not a huge issue. Obviously there are some situations where the intuitive call needs another look (see the above video). My experience comes from being both overruled and upheld on the video replay.

[Sean Butler]

I like Enrico's idea about when the use of slow-mo replay is intelligent. Could the use of slow-mo be limited to only certain kinds of challenges?

* The fencer left the strip during the touch
* The fencer parried the initial attack
* Other cases of disputes which involve not the tempo of the action but the existence or sufficiency of an action

Thus if the referee calls attack in preparation for the right fencer and the left fencer challenges the call, the referee would not be allowed to see a slow-mo replay of the action. If however the call was that the fencer was off the end of the strip at the time his touch landed, this could be reviewed in slow-mo if challenged.

The default replay could always be at normal speed and only if a challenge was issued which implied the need for slow-mo would the referee have recourse to it. Would this defeat the purpose of the instant-replay; would it actually help with calls?

It sounds reasonable...

[NGV]

It's complicated. If you slow it down then a feint or change in line can look like a pause.

That makes sense - and I'd certainly accept the idea the the slow-motion replay shouldn't be too slow, for that reason. The most important aspect of the replay is the ability to watch things a second time, not the ability to drastically slow down the action.

What I don't understand is the argument that I quoted, in which Magni seems to be saying that Vezzali should have been awarded the attack despite beginning her extension after her opponent, and that relying on instant reply led to an incorrect call.

[oso97]

It seems to me that no one has bothered to address what I feel one of the crucial points of the commentary - the difference between the written rulebook and the rules by which fencers actually compete with on strip.

Video playback was born to limit the latitude of subjective interpretation by the referee since the rulebook as it is written is something quite different from that which is applied. And it is exactly on this difference where the winning tactics of the strongest athletes in the weapons which follow the convention are based. The top athletes apply the "true" rules of the game, not the dead rules on paper.

We've all encountered examples of this: George K's famous instruction that the rulebook doesn't even discuss which arm must be extending, discussions about "convention" vs "written rules" and so forth.

So, let me pose a question here - should the rulebook be regularly updated to include the current conventions? Maybe make some attempt to codify what happens when fencers are operating at different tempos, or when a feint becomes a pause, etc (just to reference some of the issues discussed above).

American football - one of the most heavily arbitrated sports in the world, with multiple camera angles, and extensive use of replay - regularly updates its rules to deal with emerging conventions. For example, "recent" rule updates with regards to protecting quarterbacks, or the amount of contact allowed between an receiver and a defender, etc. While these do have an impact on the game, it is an impact that is across the board, and it is possible to adapt one's style of play to operate under the circumstances. Fencing has also regularly undergoes dramatic sweeping revisions in how the game is played (and adjudicated), but our rulebook has most assuredly failed to keep pace with the changes.

Some might see a static rulebook (with regards to the conventions) as a good thing - it allows for more creativity on the part of the fencers, allows the referee to use his judgement in gray areas, and promotes a more rapid development and shift of the sport. But there are also potential disadvantages, and I think the largest one is that it creates a tier of competitors, coaches and referees who are literally operating off of a different playbook than everyone else. Breaking into that elite group can be extraordinarily difficult, it does have substantial ramifications for the whole sport in that if you wish to participate at a higher level, you essentially have to change ... everything. Couple that with the ongoing development of convention at the elite level, and its like trying to hit a moving target.

[Mihail]

I'm not really a fan of slow motion replays for judging tempo either. But it's funny that the discussion panel calls for less vagueness in the FIE rules, while at the same time they want to keep the wiggle room offered by looking at the "true nature" of an action.

[InFerrumVeritas]

It seems to me that no one has bothered to address what I feel one of the crucial points of the commentary - the difference between the written rulebook and the rules by which fencers actually compete with on strip.



We've all encountered examples of this: George K's famous instruction that the rulebook doesn't even discuss which arm must be extending, discussions about "convention" vs "written rules" and so forth.

So, let me pose a question here - should the rulebook be regularly updated to include the current conventions? Maybe make some attempt to codify what happens when fencers are operating at different tempos, or when a feint becomes a pause, etc (just to reference some of the issues discussed above).

American football - one of the most heavily arbitrated sports in the world, with multiple camera angles, and extensive use of replay - regularly updates its rules to deal with emerging conventions. For example, "recent" rule updates with regards to protecting quarterbacks, or the amount of contact allowed between an receiver and a defender, etc. While these do have an impact on the game, it is an impact that is across the board, and it is possible to adapt one's style of play to operate under the circumstances. Fencing has also regularly undergoes dramatic sweeping revisions in how the game is played (and adjudicated), but our rulebook has most assuredly failed to keep pace with the changes.

Some might see a static rulebook (with regards to the conventions) as a good thing - it allows for more creativity on the part of the fencers, allows the referee to use his judgement in gray areas, and promotes a more rapid development and shift of the sport. But there are also potential disadvantages, and I think the largest one is that it creates a tier of competitors, coaches and referees who are literally operating off of a different playbook than everyone else. Breaking into that elite group can be extraordinarily difficult, it does have substantial ramifications for the whole sport in that if you wish to participate at a higher level, you essentially have to change ... everything. Couple that with the ongoing development of convention at the elite level, and its like trying to hit a moving target.

I think the rulebook needs to be rewritten to include conventions. Yes.

[catwood1]

I think modernizing the rulebook to include conventions would be a very good thing.

The vagueness of the rules allows the top fencers and top referees to work in tandem with few disagreements. Both of these groups have a strong grasp of whats going on on the strip, which allows these refs to make calls that agree with what these top fencers* think is going on on the strip.

The problem, as oso said, is effectively getting into that elite tier. The ambiguity of the rules allow for plenty of leeway for the top refs to referee along with modern convention. However, it makes it harder for younger refs to "get it." For new referees, the rulebook isn't a very good guide for refereeing. Certainly, a referee should know the rules, but reading the rulebook provides almost no guidence on how to make calls. In fact, a strict reading of the rules can have a very adverse effect on the development of a referee if they don't have experience with mentor referees.

A vague rulebook makes it easy for the top refs, but makes it harder for the green refs to get to that next level.

*Obviously, there are disagreements here, but I'm speaking in general.

[dramamine]

I think modernizing the rulebook to include conventions would be a very good thing.

The vagueness of the rules allows the top fencers and top referees to work in tandem with few disagreements. Both of these groups have a strong grasp of whats going on on the strip, which allows these refs to make calls that agree with what these top fencers* think is going on on the strip.

The problem, as oso said, is effectively getting into that elite tier. The ambiguity of the rules allow for plenty of leeway for the top refs to referee along with modern convention. However, it makes it harder for younger refs to "get it." For new referees, the rulebook isn't a very good guide for refereeing. Certainly, a referee should know the rules, but reading the rulebook provides almost no guidence on how to make calls. In fact, a strict reading of the rules can have a very adverse effect on the development of a referee if they don't have experience with mentor referees.

A vague rulebook makes it easy for the top refs, but makes it harder for the green refs to get to that next level.

*Obviously, there are disagreements here, but I'm speaking in general.

Not only just difficult for new referees, but for new fencers as well. Regardless of the level of the club that a fencer is taught at there are bound to be discrepancies - sometimes significant ones - when it comes to interpreting calls about tempo. Imagine that one fencer steps forward without extending, with her point out of line, the other does a direct attack with a lunge and an extending arm, and then the first fencer finishes her step and lunges, extending her arm during her step but after the other fencer began extending.

Now take the top 5 points holders in MF/WF and have them referee the action. No way you get 10 identical calls - you'll probably get some for each, and one or two cop out simultaneous calls. Change the speed of each fencers' actions and you'll get different calls still.

So then you get a young fencer who goes to X competition, and is used to having the action called in X way (either in the club, in their section/province, in their country, w/e) and when he does his nice big direct lunge into someone who is moving forward but not extending his arm the referee says "attack, counter attack" and awards the hit against him. Lacking sufficient competitive experience to know that calls like this are completely inconsistently interpreted, the fencer gets discouraged/loses confidence in his coach, or his own understanding of the sport, etc. Not good IMO. This weekend in Pittsburgh I noticed that in my poule the referee I had was giving me lots of attacks in the preparation, even when I probably didn't deserve them, then in my first DE I could have walked forward with my hand up my own ass and then hit behind my head and I was doing a direct attack in the ref's eyes, and then my next DE we basically fenced with sabre timing (from the little I know about sabre haha).

The thing is, all three judges were pretty consistent which is basically my only criteria for a judge being "good", so I don't really feel like a complaint about any of the three would be justified on my behalf. That being said, I don't see why fencers should have to constantly adjust to how a referee interprets an action that is highly likely to occur in virtually every single fencing bout. Some sort of clarification, either in the form of videos that are made widely available to referees everywhere with actions happening in real time, or in the form of explanations of certain rules (i.e. the FIE explains what is meant by the rule about a correctly executed step lunge re: extension of the arm) would really make things a lot easier for everyone.

[erooMynohtnA]

It's complicated. If you slow it down then a feint or change in line can look like a pause. My personal view is that if you understand what both fencers are doing then it's not a huge issue. Obviously there are some situations where the intuitive call needs another look (see the above video). My experience comes from being both overruled and upheld on the video replay.

When you changed your call (or change was recommended by the replay official, whatever), would you say it was more because of a different perception of the action on the replay like blade control or a tempo change or because you missed something concrete like a beat, parry, or early extension that you saw in the replay?

I'm sorry, this is a bad question. I hope you understand what I'm asking.

[shlepzig]

Originally Posted by downunder
It's complicated. If you slow it down then a feint or change in line can look like a pause. My personal view is that if you understand what both fencers are doing then it's not a huge issue. Obviously there are some situations where the intuitive call needs another look (see the above video). My experience comes from being both overruled and upheld on the video replay.

Based on the above arguments against Slo-Mo and Downunder's post quoted above it seems that the arguments against seem to me only to apply if the replay is viewed in a vaccume. Having watched the original action, and being able to replay the action in full speed also you already have a fine sense of the tempo, and can review it if need be. The change in speed of the film allows you to review specific aspects of the action within your current understanding of the tempo.

When I have wanted to have access to a replay, is when I think that there is some detail that I have missed. I already have a fair sense of the tempo and the action. If I have a question, or am questioned about an action, there seems to be a particular aspect, or subtle shift in the action I am asked to consider. It seems that finding those points in replay, slo-mo or otherwise would make things clearer.

One other part of the argument I don't buy is that only "perceptible" actions count. I don't think it is fair to assume that a detail seen in slo-motion replay couldn't be perceived by the fencers

-Shlep'

[Joe biebel]

I've watched a lot of video recently from the FIE website, paying particular attention to video replay and whether the call was upheld or not. I was surprised at how many times a call was overturned or changed.

I can't really tell what is going on with the replay and would love to know in some detail how it works with the referee. Downunder's brief description was fascinating regards the speed of playback. What about general application? Who can ask for a replay? Is it the "right" of the fencer to ask? Is there a penalty for wasting time with an appeal that is not upheld? It seems there are times when the ref goes right to the replay without anyone giving the signal.

What are the replay rules? How many challenges are allowed? Is there a set "thing" that the replay is limited to, such as covering target, right of way, leaving the strip? corps a corps? Touching the electrical apparatus with the unarmed hand? Starting before the command fence? What are the limits? Are there instructions somewhere regarding the particulars of using replay?

[oiuyt]

The referee may choose to go to replay on his or her initiative.

In individual bouts each fencer has up to two failed challenges (upheld challenges don't count against the total). In team matches there's one failed challenge allowed per fencer per encounter.

-B