You make the call: Foil (oh god no make it stop, oh please make it stop)

[Purple Fencer]

So you're telling me that regardless of what the consensus is in a sport, a referee should just call whatever they want? That's very I'm-going-call-traveling-in-the-NBA of you.

It should be called in accordance with the official rules of the sport...which I have posted and pointed out relative to this action several times. If I made this call, explained it to the losing fencer, and was asked to show him the rule, I'd be able to do so.

How do you think the length of an epee blade you're citing (which isn't remotely the same thing as a RoW call) even came to be? A bunch of dudes sat around and said "so what do you think?" and then they wrote down the consensus. But apparently there's a rogue group of international armorers taking a page from PF's book and just doing whatever they want and allowing 91cm blades into competition, regardless of the consensus.

I'm not responsible for armoers at other events -- regardless of the level of the tournament -- who don't know how to properly run the gabarit or other control checks, or who let weapons slide because they just barely fail. I'm only responsible for the control tasks I am given. The rules state the blade length from the front face of the tip to the guard is max 90cm. I give the blades every chance to fall into the slot on the gabarit, but if it doesn't fit, it's a fail. I don't particularly care if you're a first timer or a world champ/Olympic gold medallist.

Ask Dan DeChaine if I was wrong to reject any of the weapons I rejected for length, guard, or grip offsett...he'll tell you I wasn't.

[Purple Fencer]

You're actually saying you don't care what the current interpretation is, you're going to call it the way YOU want to call it.

I'm going to call it in accordance with the published rules of the sport...the ones in black & white. What's so difficult about that concept?

[Purple Fencer]

I asked Dave Sach why there are so many ( sabre ) attacks which clang on the opponent's guard and yet don't get called "parried" these days. His response was that it's to balk the tendency of fencers to try to get a parry and attack at the same time. "Oh", I said," so you have to make it look like you intended to parry" ( as I made a little rotate-the-guard pantomime ). "Basically".

BS....an attack that hits the guard is blocked by the guard and is parried....the hard part sometimes is determining if the hit on target was before the hit to the guard if they're close together.

[Foil.Leicester]

BS....an attack that hits the guard is blocked by the guard and is parried....the hard part sometimes is determining if the hit on target was before the hit to the guard if they're close together.

Umm, that sounds like exactly what Inq was saying? That in order to make that "hard part" easier benefit of the doubt is going to the attacker.

[vivoescrimare]

I'm going to call it in accordance with the published rules of the sport...the ones in black & white. What's so difficult about that concept?

You have a tendency (whether this is your intent or not) to present yourself as someone saying, "I don't care what current trend is, I will continue to cling to my dated concept of right of way and award touches as such!" Now, I'm not saying that the people on this forum are "The Authority" (Though they frequently are,) but take a look at the Referee Code of Ethics and note the part where it instructs all referees to stay familiar with current trends and nuances within the rules. If the way things are currently being called disagrees with your perception of the rules, and you continue to call things "By the Book," you are doing yourself, and, more importantly, the fencers a disservice.

I do understand calls are seldom so black and white - but when 99% of the top foil refs available for question say "This is touch left," that is probably the best supporting evidence you can hope for.

BS....an attack that hits the guard is blocked by the guard and is parried....the hard part sometimes is determining if the hit on target was before the hit to the guard if they're close together.

"Is blocked by" is the hard part. The tricky calls are the ones that connect with the guard but "simultaneously" make contact with the opposing fencer's arm. Since the referee corps tries to stay away from calling Malparé (sp) these touches are frequently called simply as the attack. (Clearly the parry failed or there wouldn't be a light from it, right?) Obviously, if its apparent that the contact with valid target was definitively after the contact with the guard, then its a remise. I assume however this is addressing the tendency of sabre fencers to counter attack into the attacking fencer's line, rather than actually attempting a more dangerous parry/riposte. So...does "counter with opposition" still exist?

[Purple Fencer]

You have a tendency (whether this is your intent or not) to present yourself as someone saying, "I don't care what current trend is, I will continue to cling to my dated concept of right of way and award touches as such!" Now, I'm not saying that the people on this forum are "The Authority" (Though they frequently are,) but take a look at the Referee Code of Ethics and note the part where it instructs all referees to stay familiar with current trends and nuances within the rules. If the way things are currently being called disagrees with your perception of the rules, and you continue to call things "By the Book," you are doing yourself, and, more importantly, the fencers a disservice.

I'm still waiting for someone to parse the video out like I did and explain how Guyart could be attacking when he did nothing to establish an attack AND got hit while doing so. Haven't seen it yet. Right or wrong, at least I attempted to defend my position.

I do understand calls are seldom so black and white - but when 99% of the top foil refs available for question say "This is touch left," that is probably the best supporting evidence you can hope for.

Slught more than half, per the poll results, actually...not 99%.

"Is blocked by" is the hard part. The tricky calls are the ones that connect with the guard but "simultaneously" make contact with the opposing fencer's arm. Since the referee corps tries to stay away from calling Malparé (sp) these touches are frequently called simply as the attack. (Clearly the parry failed or there wouldn't be a light from it, right?) Obviously, if its apparent that the contact with valid target was definitively after the contact with the guard, then its a remise. I assume however this is addressing the tendency of sabre fencers to counter attack into the attacking fencer's line, rather than actually attempting a more dangerous parry/riposte. So...does "counter with opposition" still exist?

It'd probably be called a simple parry/riposte...you might get some older guys wh would use the "counter w/opposition" phrase, tho.

As for malparre...I'll agree that more often than not that's going to go to the original attacker, unless there's a noticable break between teh hit to the guard and the hit to target...AND the director seeing/recognizing that break.

The director seeing ANYthing in question is always the hard part.

[KD5MDK]

Slught more than half, per the poll results, actually...not 99%.

You did see the part where he said "top foil refs", right?

[epeemike81]

You're telling me to make a call based on what others would do....THAT'S not good.

I'm not gonna stand there during a tough, tight bout and think "Hmmm.....what would Derek Cotton do?" when it's MY job to make that call. I'm gonna make it based on my understanding of the rules, because that's the job I accepted.

And this is not only why you're a terrible referee but why you have no hope of improving as a referee.

If your call based on your understanding of the rules is contrary to what all the top referees call, then you should adjust your interpretation.

-m

[edew]

a.) At that apparent distance (I say apparent because it could well be the angle of the camera making it seem they were closer than they actually were), if Guyart wasn't threatening, Ota wouldn't have needed to move nearly as quickly to get through an attempted parry, using any sort of angulation.

b.) Good point, but as I mentioned, I don't recall Ota being one of the shouty ones, hence he must have known the timing was tight.

c.) If he was so sure it was his hit, he wouldn't have needed to go for the block out. Guyart didn't, after all...

I think (c) is the key: Guyart knew he had RoW and had no compunction to defend while Ota knew he didn't have RoW so needed to close the 4-line (unsuccessfully, though).

[edew]

Since a feint-disengage is by definition a compound action, the action never stops with the disengage, provided it was executed against an attempted parry

A simple disengage (say, 6-8 disengage) keeps RoW, and immediate attack by opponent during the feint to 6 that lands in 8 will not have priority. A compound disengage, like 6-8-6 or double, where the immediate attack by the opponent that occurs during the first feint to 6, traveling down to 8 and back up to 6 should give the point to the opponent making the AIP. In reality, not too often.

[mrbiggs]

I'm still waiting for someone to parse the video out like I did and explain how Guyart could be attacking when he did nothing to establish an attack AND got hit while doing so. Haven't seen it yet. Right or wrong, at least I attempted to defend my position.

There are several people who explained exactly why this can (and IMO should) be called Guyart's attack, myself included. They did not include references to still video frames as looking at still video frames is not helpful to making a call, and is in fact oftentimes very harmful. Note that everyone in this thread who looked at still frames called it for Ota--not a coincidence. And while your call is not wrong, the way you're presenting it as being so clearly Ota's attack makes me think that you're not giving Guyart sufficient credit for his extension.

Along the same lines, I don't think you should call foil right of way with references to the rulebook in mind, as the rulebook gives only vague guidelines as to how to call things, and actually showing fencers rules leaves lots of opportunities for useless protests from them. Plus whether or not you show the rule, everyone knows you were looking for whether or not Guyart extended in time, and that's your opinion as a referee that exists independent of the rulebook.

[Purple Fencer]

You did see the part where he said "top foil refs", right?

The only three I recognize are formerfencer, Omar Bhutta, and Notalent....2 vs 1 is not statistically significant...you need a bigger sample of FIE or close level refs to make your argument convincing. Otherwise if only Downunder made a poll selection, you could say 100% of refs agree....which is not the case.

[Purple Fencer]

And this is not only why you're a terrible referee but why you have no hope of improving as a referee.

Given that you've not seen be direct in person recently, you're in no position to claim that.

If your call based on your understanding of the rules is contrary to what all the top referees call, then you should adjust your interpretation.

-m

ALL the top refs?? Not even the one in the vid who gave the touch to Ota??

There is no interpretation here...this is not a case of Guyart visilbly extending his arm and Ota still getting it in prep. He never DID extend to any degree....thus it does not meet the definition of a properly executed attack.

If the rules aren't followed, why even HAVE them?

[D'Art]

The only three I recognize are formerfencer, Omar Bhutta, and Notalent....2 vs 1 is not statistically significant...you need a bigger sample of FIE or close level refs to make your argument convincing. Otherwise if only Downunder made a poll selection, you could say 100% of refs agree....which is not the case.

You can add in Mike Ross, pinkelephant and possibly super macman as well off the top of my head...

[mrbiggs]

He never DID extend to any degree

This is definitely not true--even if you think Guyart's extension was not in time, he did in fact extend to hit. And as I said, pretty much the entire motion of his arm falls under a single "extension" in my book, which is why I called it for Guyart.

[Omar Bhutta]

The only three I recognize are formerfencer, Omar Bhutta, and Notalent....2 vs 1 is not statistically significant...you need a bigger sample of FIE or close level refs to make your argument convincing. Otherwise if only Downunder made a poll selection, you could say 100% of refs agree....which is not the case.

Let's not forget Mr. Michael Ross and pinkelephant, who are also FIE referees, nor forget that notalent (no offense intended, my friend) is not an FIE referee.

Edit: dart beat me to it. But Super Mac is not FIE.

[edew]

I'm going to call it in accordance with the published rules of the sport...the ones in black & white. What's so difficult about that concept?

Purp, what we're all saying is that the reality of what occurs does not jibe with what you're reading. Guyart is extending. On the first relevant advance by Guyart, Ota just stood (or bounced) there. That was the moment for Ota to attack. He didn't. By virtue of making the first step of his advance-lunge (albeit, very short lunge due to Ota closing distance), Guyart established RoW (his extension need not precede the advance, merely precede the finishing lunge). At that moment, already, Guyart is starting his extension by dropping the point into position. On his advance, the blade goes up. That's the moment for Ota to HIT (not start a lunge). Guyart's blade starts down maybe before or after Ota starts his lunge, but that's irrelevant, because the advance, combined with the continuous, unhesitant and decisive follow-through makes Guyart's attack START with that first advance.

You don't see that. You think the advance is just an advance. We foil refs see the advance as part of the attack. BECAUSE that's what the rules say: a simple attack may include an advance-lunge provided that the extension...

So yeah, I can bait my opponent into attacking into my attack by pulling my arm real far back while advancing, so long as my opponent isn't already starting an attack then. If he hesitates (as Ota did) and now I'm more than half way beyond my advance, with my blade pointing that the wall behind me, I've got RoW because that blade is now moving forward, extending if you will, towards my opponent. People don't do such actions anymore because the counter-attacking fencer will close the body quickly AND will close out the line after the hit so the success of the attacking fencer drops.

I'm old and slow and when I fence a Jerry Chang or such, they do exactly what Ota does. And I'm nowhere near as good as Guyart, but if I manage to bring up a light, colored or not, we both know it's my RoW.

[Purple Fencer]

This is definitely not true.

Point it out then....I've asked several time and no one's done it....give me a time reference where he extends before he gets hit.

[vivoescrimare]

I'm still waiting for someone to parse the video out like I did and explain how Guyart could be attacking when he did nothing to establish an attack AND got hit while doing so. Haven't seen it yet. Right or wrong, at least I attempted to defend my position.

You're willfully ignoring several explanations because you're looking for something much deeper than exists. The operative factor is mostly as simple as "Guyart started first." All this discussion is basically defense of referees (US in particular, though I doubt we've got a monopoly on it) desire to over complicate calls - particularly attack in preparation. Additionally, this call presents a classic example of over-analysis. The more (and slower) replays you watch, the more you want to find something infinitesimally wrong with Guyart's action.

Guyart starts forward, his arm movement is slow and even 'late' but he is distinctly making an attack. Ota shoots in. Ota even tacitly admits it wasn't his RoW by trying for the closeout. (Not that attempting to close a line automatically forfeits RoW, IMO. It is certainly a bad sell to the ref though.) Guyart has to shorten his extension and hit without a "straight" arm because Ota has collapsed the distance.

Edit : Late - got distracted midpost. I agree with what several above said.

[Alexander Kai]

I have a question, we've talked a lot about the way no talent voted, but I also noticed that he has not yet posted here.

For that matter, neither has Catwood given his opinion.....

And I for one, am F***ing curious.