Do you know the rules?

[Craig]

Take a quiz and see. It's short, just 10 questions.

http://www.fencing101.com/vb/quiz.php

Cheers,
Craig

[DHCJr]

It showed I know all the material rules, but the Technical and the Operation rules needed for referees, I still need to work on. I don't know those well enough. I'll stick with being an Armorer. The referee has to know all 3 sections.

I going to study.

[Peach]

It showed that I got the same ones wrong I got wrong LAST time, which should tell me something but I forget what.

Gnrf.

.

[Zelda]

Well considering I dont know the USFA rules 8/10 has gotta be ok.

[oiuyt]

Craig- Does the quiz 10 out of the 100+ and present them or did you pick 10 and it always uses those same 10 questions?

Zelda- What question did you have where the USFA rules were different from those used in Australia? For pretty much everything we use an Americanized version of the British translation of the FIE rules. There are a few US-specific adaptions, but I'd be surprised if they affected the rules in the quiz.

-B :)

[sallearmourer]

I miss the last question because I listen to a National ranked referee. Namely my daughter.

Tim

[edew]

First off, what was the last question? It may not be the same as the ones we saw.

[Zelda]

Ouiyt, the none working weapon being bought to the strip. If a weapon (say a foil) doesnt pass weight testing at the beginning of a bout its a yellow card and change weapon. If the next one fails it is a red card and change weapon. Then its continual reds until you find one that works. I have seen people get 2 red cards and a yellow as the shims the ref was using in epee were slightly thinner then the ones the armourer was using to fix them!

[Inquartata]

9 out of 10 this time---that's more like it!

Missed the first question, only because I thought that "a renewed attack after a return to guard' was a redoublement, not a reprise. So I chose the only remaining answer, which seemed vaguelt worded enough to be possible.

Glossary seems to indicate that "reprise" and "redoublement" are virtual synonyms, but the way I learned it was that a remise was a renewed attack in the same line as the original attack, a reprise was a renewed attack in a different line, and redoublement was the renewed attack after a return to guard....

[a517dogg]

Originally posted by Inquartata
9 out of 10 this time---that's more like it!

Missed the first question, only because I thought that "a renewed attack after a return to guard' was a redoublement, not a reprise. So I chose the only remaining answer, which seemed vaguelt worded enough to be possible.

Glossary seems to indicate that "reprise" and "redoublement" are virtual synonyms, but the way I learned it was that a remise was a renewed attack in the same line as the original attack, a reprise was a renewed attack in a different line, and redoublement was the renewed attack after a return to guard....

i learned same. but reprise still made most sense.

i thought that if you launch attack, are parried, step outside the line with both feet, that the opponent gets immediate riposte? same as going past them? hmm. so this would give me a new tactic. giggle giggle.

[edew]

This question about stepping off the side (the last question, I believe -- at least it was for me) was discussed quite thoroughly by George K at the Columbus OH NAC.

Basically, if A makes and attack and is parried. During the parry, A steps outside the lateral boundaries (one or two feet), B's riposte is NOT allowed, even if it's immediate. Of course, it's up to the referee to declare that the passing the lateral boundaries occurred prior to the initiation of the riposte. If the riposte has commenced prior to the side-stepping, then the riposte should count.

In reality, it's usually pretty clear when a person steps out.

The basic premise of George K's description of the action is that a parry-riposte is a two-action phrase: a parry, followed by a riposte. If something happened during the parry, and a halt was called, then the halt is called during the parry. The riposte is an action that began after the halt.

[Craig]

They're the same 10 questions asked every time.

Since there were a few questions that I had the incorrect answer for in the "beta" of the quiz, I decided to set up a number of quizzes over time, but only choose from questions that I was 100% sure of the answer.

One question was the ripost question, which I had wrong in the beta and talked to some officials about and got the same explanation as Eric did.

Each quiz will have 1 or 2 of those questions that tend to trip up most people, but I'm making a point of researching the answers and getting an explanation before putting a question on the quiz.

Over the next month there are a couple of referee seminars in my area (southeast section), so I'll get a chance to hear the current interpretations and how the newer ref's are being taught.

Cheers,
Craig

[oiuyt]

Craig- What's your definition of random? As in "Randomly selected questions from the general portion of the Referee Study Guide."

Tim- I repeat Eric's question, do you remember the question?

Zelda- I'm not sure I understand. I agree with what you say, that's the way it's done here. What was the question and how did the answer change from what you expected it to be?

Craig (again)- Is there any way for people that have already completed the quiz to be able to go back and see what the questions were? I understand why one can't take it multiple times, but just being able to review it would help with discussions like these (I don't know about other people, but "the last question" or "the non-working weapon question" just aren't enough to jog my memory all the time (the "reprise of the attack question" was enough)).

I also noticed that on the high-scores list originally the older a score was the better (ie for tie-breaking purposes an identical score taht was older beat out a more recent score) whereas that's no longer the case. Am I misremembering or was that changed for some reason? If so, why?

-B :)

[Zelda]

Oiuyt,
In Australia, the weapon is not confiscated (to me confiscation of weapon means you dont get it back, someone else takes it away). Its just discarded until you can either 1) convince a mate who is not fencing to fix it, or 2) frantically fix it yourself between bouts.

[edew]

Originally posted by Zelda
Oiuyt,
In Australia, the weapon is not confiscated (to me confiscation of weapon means you dont get it back, someone else takes it away). Its just discarded until you can either 1) convince a mate who is not fencing to fix it, or 2) frantically fix it yourself between bouts.

Confiscate in the context of malfunctioning equipment means for the referee to control the equipment for the duration of the bout. Of course, confiscate in American English also means keep and hold for an indeterminable time. But in the context of fencing (and I think the same word would be used in any English speaking nation), it means the referee obtain control over the equipment for the duration of the bout.

Once the bout is over, you are free to retreive the equipment and fix it. It is, unfortunately, a major source of losing equipment when the fencer forgets to retreive the said equipment.

[Zelda]

Gotcha. In Australia the weapon is not held by the ref for the duration. Its either passed to supporters for someone to fix, or chucked back into the pile of weapons the fencer bought to the strip.

[Craig]

Originally posted by oiuyt
Craig- What's your definition of random? As in "Randomly selected questions from the general portion of the Referee Study Guide."

Means that I randomly selected 10 questions to put on the quiz.

Originally posted by oiuyt
Craig (again)- Is there any way for people that have already completed the quiz to be able to go back and see what the questions were? I understand why one can't take it multiple times, but just being able to review it would help with discussions like these (I don't know about other people, but "the last question" or "the non-working weapon question" just aren't enough to jog my memory all the time (the "reprise of the attack question" was enough)).

I also noticed that on the high-scores list originally the older a score was the better (ie for tie-breaking purposes an identical score taht was older beat out a more recent score) whereas that's no longer the case. Am I misremembering or was that changed for some reason? If so, why?

I'll get a list of the questions posted. As to the ranking/high scores, I didn't change anything in terms of how it is calculated.

Cheers,
Craig

[Methix]

Originally posted by Inquartata
9 out of 10 this time---that's more like it!

Missed the first question, only because I thought that "a renewed attack after a return to guard' was a redoublement, not a reprise. So I chose the only remaining answer, which seemed vaguelt worded enough to be possible.

Glossary seems to indicate that "reprise" and "redoublement" are virtual synonyms, but the way I learned it was that a remise was a renewed attack in the same line as the original attack, a reprise was a renewed attack in a different line, and redoublement was the renewed attack after a return to guard....

I believe a redoublement does not go back to guard. The way I was taught a redoublement was something along the lines of lunge, arm stays extended, close distance between your feet and lunge again without ever coming up into guard. That's just how I was taught though, don't know if that is necessarily the definition.

Only one I missed was about stuff sticking out beyond the guard. "No stuff extending beyond guard" just seemed to obvious and I thought I remembered something about they can extend beyond provided it still fits through the jig. Mainly geared toward italian ricassos.

[Gav]

Zelda: I believe that the quiz is a supposed to be a strict (ie FIE grade) interpretation of the rules. We have the same attitude in the UK except at the high levels where if there is an equipment infringement and you're unlucky enough to have a properly qualified FIE president he WILL confiscate your weapon or take some other equally punitive action (it all depends on the infringement).

For that matter her in the UK (as in OZ) there is very little need to go through the whole rigarmarole of weapons checking. I've always found it interesting (amazing?) that some posters, and some americans I've spoken to, get so hung up on equipment checks. I guess it all has to do with the the claims culture prevalent in the US.

[Zelda]

Fair enough Gav. We still have weapons control before national comps (foils, lames, mask and body cords) but state comps??? I aint ever seen it!!!