Referee unsolicited announcing time or time remaining

[vivoescrimare]

The same could be said of providing un-asked for elaboration about the calls. ;-)
Preparation left. Attack right. Fencer on the left was a little late with his hand.

Not to necro this post, as it were, but... :

I've always been informed that when refereeing (outside of the club/practice, of course) this is ALSO a big no-no. Your method of calling should be consistent and, generally, stick to the actual refereeing terminology. Don't elaborate on why it was attack no, remise, or why it was preparation.

If my opponent and I come together in the middle of the strip and you call it my AiP, then explain to my opponent that he was holding, I'm going to be annoyed. IMO, you're perilously close to coaching the opposing fencer. Now, you may legitimately be in the habit of explaining your calls after EVERY touch, but I can almost guarantee that this will eventually get you in trouble. (Not only b/c one fencer will cry foul on your "coaching" of his opponent, but because the more detailed explanation you offer, the more likely that some clever fencer will find a valid reason to appeal your call.)

Just my two cents. Also an interesting topic and possibly worth its own thread...if it hasn't been given one or two already

[kalivor]

If you're 'actively staring at the timer' you're not 'actively watching the fencing.' Minor detail, that.

Semantics.

Alex (if I may call him Alex) was clearly referring to the fact that referees tend to completely ignore the stopwatch during the fencing phrase, unless time is nearly run down, and referred to the attention paid in the dying seconds of the bout as "actively staring at the timer". And he suggested that such activity be hidden from the fencers.

Which is what I was responding to.

If you are reading his statement by thinking that "actively staring" at the timer precludes watching the fencing, you're reading it wrong.

I suspect you can choose to understand what he meant, though, and are merely picking out words -- words that are not even mine! -- to try to argue with what I'm saying ... which is that the referee should not actively hide the fact that it's the end of the bout, and not let the time remaining interfere with refereeing the final moments of the bout properly.

[tbryan]

I've always been informed that when refereeing (outside of the club/practice, of course) this is ALSO a big no-no.

Um...yes. That was the point of that comment. I hope that no one here provides that kind of elaboration to their right-of-way calls.

One argument for providing the time was that giving the time at unsolicited intervals may disadvantage one fencer while not volunteering it disadvantages the other fencer, so it doesn't really matter which way the referee decides to do it. The details about why the referee called preparation is another bit of information that the referee has that he could volunteer to the fencers. I just thought that the same argument could be made about giving more clarification for all right-of-way calls, and I don't think that anyone here believes that providing *that* information would be a good idea. So, I don't know whether that argument makes much sense since the referee has a lot of information that he could provide. Withholding it hurts one fencer. Providing it hurts the other. In general, as a referee, I just try not to insert myself into the bout, and providing unsolicited announcements of the time feels like I'd be doing that.

Disclaimer: I do not think that volunteering the time will get the referee into as much trouble as volunteering that kind of detail about his calls. I do not mean to equate those two things.

But now we've definitely spent more time discussing the issue than it merits.

[oiuyt]

But now we've definitely spent more time discussing the issue than it merits.

A unique situation in the history of FdN!

-B

[parrythis]

If I am up 3-2 in a pool bout against an opponent that has exhibited a clear disinterest in attacking, the last thing I want is for the referee to point out to them that time is running out and therefore they had better get their act together and do something constructive or their opponent will win by being ahead when the time expires, REGARDLESS of whether the scoring machine has a visible timer or not.

It is each fencer's responsibility to be aware of their tactical situation, including how much time they have left to do what they intend to do.

[Alexander Kai]

Semantics.

Alex (if I may call him Alex) was clearly referring to the fact that referees tend to completely ignore the stopwatch during the fencing phrase, unless time is nearly run down, and referred to the attention paid in the dying seconds of the bout as "actively staring at the timer". And he suggested that such activity be hidden from the fencers.

Which is what I was responding to.

If you are reading his statement by thinking that "actively staring" at the timer precludes watching the fencing, you're reading it wrong.

I suspect you can choose to understand what he meant, though, and are merely picking out words -- words that are not even mine! -- to try to argue with what I'm saying ... which is that the referee should not actively hide the fact that it's the end of the bout, and not let the time remaining interfere with refereeing the final moments of the bout properly.

Yes, you may call me alex.

---

That is what I was referring to. I do watch the fencing as it happens and glance at the timer at varying intervals. My question was not how to ALERT the fencers that the end is near, though keep in mind that I watch them as much as I can.

[VorpalCat]

Semantics.

Alex (if I may call him Alex) was clearly referring to the fact that referees tend to completely ignore the stopwatch during the fencing phrase, unless time is nearly run down, and referred to the attention paid in the dying seconds of the bout as "actively staring at the timer". And he suggested that such activity be hidden from the fencers.

Bad me. I read AK's post one day and yours the next and the context of your quote fell into the gap in between. The limited text of his that you quoted brought to mind the occasional refs I have seen 'actively staring at the timer' to the exclusion of paying attention to the last few seconds of fencing so that's what I had in mind when I replied. (No, that's not a dig at your quote selection or a complaint about it or anything else umbrage-inciting so relax. But I'm also not the only one who fell into that gap. )

[Alexander Kai]

Bad me. I read AK's post one day and yours the next and the context of your quote fell into the gap in between. The limited text of his that you quoted brought to mind the occasional refs I have seen 'actively staring at the timer' to the exclusion of paying attention to the last few seconds of fencing so that's what I had in mind when I replied. (No, that's not a dig at your quote selection or a complaint about it or anything else umbrage-inciting so relax. But I'm also not the only one who fell into that gap. )

Cat:

It's quite alright, I don't get defensive unless I think you're trying to insult me. You were fine, mistakes happen, and if I should so make one please call me out on it.

That being said, I do remember one ref who hardly even kept time. The stop watch in his hand meant nothing. To him, a 1 minute break was a 30 second phone call.

Of course, I wonder what happened to him now. He was amusing to watch, as there was a method to his madness. *sigh* I miss those days.

Kai