Dry Foil Directing

[Zouave]

We recently had a dry foil competition (held once a year in our division), and there was certainly some confusion as to the responsibilities of the directors and side judges. While I know that the majority of fencers would rather not consider going to a dry tournament (one local fencer said it would be like kissing his sister - I didn't even want to inquire about past family history!!!), I was curious to know if there are any specifics as to the rules for calling the action/polling the judges/possible judges calls or indications/other trivia... Any takers on this question??? Thanks!!


BTW, we had 31 fencers show up, including 2 Bs, a D, and a slew of Es...

[PisteOff]

My first tournament was all dry foil. One director and four side judges per bout. The side judges raise their hand if they see a touch but only the director can call 'halt'.The director can overrule any perceived touch by the side judges, and typically only uses them to help see touches (instead of interpreting the action / right-of-way). I don't know of any other specifics... *shrug*

Granted dry tournaments are usually for beginners or younger fencers, or classical fencers, but the presence of electric equipment often creates as many problems as it solves.

PisteOff

[wflaschka]

Dry fencing can be much more subjective than electric, since you have to rely on the judges witnessing the action properly.

Before electric fencing, low-line attacks were almost unknown, because judges couldn't see low-line hits as easily as high-line. Crunching probabilities, old-school fencers mostly hit high. Modern technique still reflects this early high-line bias.

There are 4 judges and one director. After an action, the director calls "Halt" and recounts the action, polling the judges at every point.

Action: Attack, parry riposte, remise.

Director: "Attack, parried. Riposte?"

The judges behind the riposting fencer say Yes, No, or Abstain (didn't see). All votes (including the director's) count one point.

Judges: No, Abstain

Director: No. [That's 2 No's, 1 nothing vote] Remise?

Director turns to the other side, gets the remiser's judge's votes.

The judges should raise their hands when they see a hit. They should be quiet until asked for their view of the phrase the Director is working through. The director's vote is worth more than a judge's vote.

The judges should follow behind their fencer, one on either side of the strip. Variations include 2 judges only (these judges should have a view of the opposite fencer's chest). The judges should also watch for covering. The judges switch sides halfway through the bout.

As a competitor, land high-line hits because they will be seen. Don't try to flick. Say "eh la" when scoring, so it's clear that you scored. Bend the blade when hitting and leave the tip on for longer. Joke with your judges before the bout or during breaks if possible, so they're on your side. If you hit off target, you can still get a point if you feel like acting. If your opponent covers target, use your next halt to gesticulate in an amusing manner and say "c'mon, he was sooo covered!" to your judges (while smiling) -- they'll start watching the opponent more closely. If you want to take over the initiative, smack the floor with your foot before moving, so the spirit of the action swings your way in the officials' minds.

Dry fencing being subjective, the better your personality the more successful you'll be. Not to be unkind, but dry fencing is like a pantomime of electric fencing (which is also a sort of theater).

[wflaschka]

I just noticed I said 2 different things.

The director's vote counts 1 point, but really 1.5 points since it overrules one judge's vote. Judges can outvote the director 2-1 (actually 2-1.5). In extremis, I've seen directors overrule 2 judges.

My recollection of dry bouting rules might be shaky. I was taught all this by my first coach; never read the rules.

[typoink]

As I've had quite a bit of experience with dry bouts, I'll give my breakdown.

There are four judges and one director. The judges should stand a slight distance (~.5m) behind the fencer they are following and a foot or two away from the side of the strip. They MUST be prepared to move with their fencer, and should be watching the opposing fencers target at ALL times. The director should try to keep an equal distance between fencers.

When the director starts the action, he must watch both for right-of-way and for touches. Judges really need only concern themselves with touches.

A director should call halt for any halting activity immediately. Judges may not call halt, but they may raise their arms for a halt. The director should immediately call halt, [I believe] even if they aren't sure why the judge raised their hand.

When the action is halted, the director should explain what he saw happen. Different directors have different styles, I'm not sure if there's a "correct" way. If multiple attacks are made, the director should indicate this and check with the judges for all of them in order.

For each attack being checked, the director confers with the two relevant judges. The judges and director have four choices: Yes, on target (valid touch worth a point); Yes, off target (touch but not worth a point); No (flat or no contact seen); or Abstain. The judges' votes are worth 1, the director's is worth 1.5. Thus, the two line judges MAY overrule the director's perception. This is really just a matter of decorum, though. The director still has final say, and CAN overrule ANYTHING if he is dead certain.

Some directors find it distasteful to voice their own opinion if both judges agree and they disagree. Some directors will always say what they saw, even if they don't rule that way. Some directors will not confer with the judges on obvious calls (perfect touches or obvious off-target hits). Some directors will always confer. Again, I don't know if any way is "proper."

As I've learned it, judges do NOT switch sides during the match. The FENCERS should switch sides and shake hands when one reaches 7 points (in DE) or 3 points (in pool bouts). The only time the judges switch sides is when the fencers are mismatched (a right-hander vs. a left-hander).

wflaschka's recommendation to butter up the judges is in pretty poor decorum, and would definitely be frowned upon in my club. Because of the subjectivity of the scoring, one should respect the difficulty in maintaining impartiality to begin with. In dry fencing, it is fairly frowned upon, I believe, to communicate at all with the judges or director aside from the beginning salutes (you should salute all five, by the way) and score / rules checks. Appealing, even if lightheartedly, is cardable unless you're truly justified. Also, leaving a tip on or excessive bending is considered improper, too. A more pragmatic and "proper" way to exploit dry rules is to utilize the fact that lateral, "flat" touches will generally still be counted if the tip hits the jacket.

Misc other things to note:
Judges MAY call "Halt!" if they see a major safety issue, like a lost tip or torn protective gear. Minor issues, like slight S-curves, I will generally delay calling until action is halted.

Directors, in my experience, should not ask judges for any input regarding right-of-way.

"No" and "Yes, off target" are not simply both "No" calls. If one judge says "No," one says, "Yes, off," and the director says, "Yes, on," the director's call wins.

Judges shoud NOT be afraid to abstain from a vote, and that includes the director. Let somebody with a GOOD view make the call.

Directors may not always call every haltable action (especially tips hitting the piste), but they should try to be consistent. A dir at a recent tournament raised a bit of ire by calling that particular action VERY erratically (ignoring it the entire bout then calling it negating a crucial touch in a tight match).

Jeepers. I didn't mean to write so much. Hope this helps.

[edew]

The possible answers by the side judges are "yes (on-target)", "no (as in miss)", "yes, off-target", or "abstain".

A yes and a no cancels each other out, as well as a yes, on-target, yes, off-target.

Abstain carries zero point value in the voting.

The president has 1.5 votes and the side judges have 1 vote each.

[three_hundred_fifty_five]

The director is mainly responsible for calling actions, right of way, penalties, touches, etc. The side judges are only responsible for seeing a touch or not. That's it.

[CvilleFencer]

I was also at the tourney that Zoave is speaking of and in addition to the judges not knowing the rules, "they didn’t" I had one other problem. In my last DE match I somehow wound up with three of my opponents teammates as side judges. I was doing well until the switch when her Coach and another teammate began to watch her for hits and then guess what? I suddenly got nothing that landed.

I am not as bitter as I sound as I pretty much expected a dry tourney in our division to be akin to a Keystone Cops fencing skit! I was just wondering if you are allowed to protest side judges or if you are stuck with whoever is there.

One problem that we were having "and we always have" is that people were packing up as soon as they were eliminated, so in all fairness hand judges were scarce, but the question still stands, can you object to the selection of hand judges based on perceived prejudice?

Zoave, I was the guy in the silly demon mask. Did we wind up fencing?

[wflaschka]

wflaschka's recommendation to butter up the judges is in pretty poor decorum, and would definitely be frowned upon in my club.

Aw, shucks.

I'm not recommending you compliment the judges' ties &etc. However, if you're competitive and winning is your goal, you have to use every language and means of expression available to you. That means be likeable and interesting, don't stand there like a butler droning on about honor and the rules of encounter.

By leaving the point on longer (I'm sayin' .25 seconds longer) you're making the action into something a human eye can follow. By bending the blade, I mean bending the blade, not over-bending the blade. People will see a blade bend even when they don't see where the tip hit.

If you get carded for speaking on strip, then it's likely your director and judges are highly professional. This means that any psychological warefare you attempt will be penetrated by them; they can probably ham it up better than you. They probably know how to hit your foot with their pommel and still get awarded the touch.

Fencer1: "You got that last touch based on your reputation." Fencer2: "So go get your own reputation." Remember, you have many more tools in your toolbox than the blade-work alone. It has always been thus, and thus it shall always be.

If you have no wiggle room for psych ops, c'est las vie; if you do have wiggle room, use it or your opponent will use it against you. Upon success, you will proceed to the higher rounds of fencing, for even more fun and improvement.

[typoink]

You make a very sound argument, and I guess it really is all about individual taste. My club is a modern sport fencing club, but many of us are pretty classically-minded and regard fencing as a martial art or self-discipline, not a competetive sport. As such, I think we're generally more focused on our individual performance than on any sort of competetiveness. If I was really out to win, I could understand the logic of trying to be on a judge's good side. But it's irrelevant to my actual desires, so I don't. I guess I really can't say it's a "bad thing" to do, although it really is still poor decorum. Darn corruptibility of people.

The subjectivity of dry fencing can be troublesome, I'll definitely admit. I personally would encourage a system whereby the fencers are encouraged to admit mistakes. I've scored a couple times on totally off-target hits and really wanted to be able to admit that. Not to mention having been scored ON by some pretty wild hits. I lost a pool bout last week at our annual dry tournament to a touch on the bicep. If the match hadn't been 5-1 anyways, I mighta actually been irritated.

[edew]

The problem with self-admission is that even the person who's hit is fallible, not to mention likely to lie.

Even if it did hit your arm, in reality (i.e., via electrical scoring), it might have been the side of the blade that hit your arm, and you didn't feel the tip hitting you on a valid target.

Ok, maybe in that particular situation, it was a clear hit. But there are many times in electrical fencing where I swear I was hit on (or off) target and the lights showed that I was hit off (or on, respectively) target.

That's why I prefer to use the electrical scoring system. It takes a bit more out of the fallibility of human senses out of the equation.

It's still not infallible, as there may be dead spots on my lame or parts of my mask may be conducting through to the lame.

[dreadfoil]

It's something we should all try to know and remember. We've all become dependent upon the scoring machine. Understanding the rules will help us all develop a better eye for calling plays when we have to direct later on, so being a side judge is a great way to learn. For those people who have had 3 judges from another salle, that should be a no-no, no? Should be evenly divided, or the bout should be delayed until you can pull someone off another strip or from directing. The machine is supposed to take the place of human error and favoritism to the degree that the new movement is towards machines that tabulate scores. Is fencing going to go the way of basketball? Will the buzzer sound and all fencers head for the bench at the command of a bell? We should endeavor to fence honorably, with no time for the petty, "my team" point. If we use sports in America to foster backbone and honesty, then practice it in the salle...that is the root of classical fencing.

p.s.: yes, i like that "the judges should move behind the fencer" i couldn't agree more. the machine has led to an inertia among the director, that mean me also, i tend to stay glued in one spot, and wait for the light to tell me that i'm right or wrong, it acts as a final say on things.

here we go again! it sounds like we're in a point in fencing history, where the modern and the classical will blend, forming something else and possibly better. i'm bizarre, what can i say.

[wflaschka]

typoink, I too was raised as a decorous fencer, who (wants to) acknowledge touches, and is polite. I wouldn't want to disappoint my first coach. With my prim background, the psychological games feel naughty and fun.

I always forget that some people weren't trained like me... I shouldn't represent that street-fighting is all there is to fencing. But it's a useful part...

[jeff]

Fencer1: "You got that last touch based on your reputation." Fencer2: "So go get your own reputation."

Attributed to Alex Orban, 5 time US sabre champion.

[135711]

well, another touching story! all I can say is, I can't believe, nearly everything we discuss is in our latest USFA magazine. We, fellow fencers, rated and not rated have made contributions whether they acknowledge the touch or not, fencing101.com rules. Every morning, I wake and face Mt. Olympus and pray: "dear foilepeesaber gods, please protect us from each other, no one else will"

[typoink]

Edew, I certainly am not dismissing the advantages of electric fencing; my club is sadly just too poor and space limited to really use it. We're a club who has to duct tape our pistes onto a tennis court, for Heaven's sake.

My "honesty code" idea is pretty out there for a competetive sport, I'll be the first to admit. However, my actual [wishful] application would be a little less naive.

I would allow the traditional director / judge / judge decision to be made, but allow for either fencer to take their opponent's side. In other words, if I KNOW I'm hit on target, I can say so, override the referee, and award a point to my opponent. OR if I'm SURE I hit off target, I can say so and forfeit my point. Both of these are, AFAIK, considered "not done." In both cases, I would certainly allow for the director to suggest that the fencer mistook the action, but the fencer's forfeitures could not be overruled.

This might actually already be legal, but I've NEVER seen a fencer do it or heard it encouraged.

I would not allow fencers to HELP themselves, such as insisting their touch landed on target or that an opponent's blade landed flat. This IS already legal. It's called appealling. And you'd better be justified.

See, I would really only allow fencers to harm themselves, not take advantage of the rule. As such, some fencers may forfeit themselves out of a victory, but I think everybody will, in the end, feel more honest.

[Chris]

Originally posted by typoink
As I've had quite a bit of experience with dry bouts, I'll give my breakdown...(snip)

For each attack being checked, the director confers with the two relevant judges. The judges and director have four choices: Yes, on target (valid touch worth a point); Yes, off target (touch but not worth a point); No (flat or no contact seen); or Abstain. The judges' votes are worth 1, the director's is worth 1.5. Thus, the two line judges MAY overrule the director's perception. This is really just a matter of decorum, though. The director still has final say, and CAN overrule ANYTHING if he is dead certain.

Actually, no the President de Jury cannot overrule BOTH judges. He may be able to fudge, and claim he is calling a halt for something BEFORE the hit(s), but then, there's no reason to be polling the judges...

Some directors find it distasteful to voice their own opinion if both judges agree and they disagree. Some directors will always say what they saw, even if they don't rule that way. Some directors will not confer with the judges on obvious calls (perfect touches or obvious off-target hits). Some directors will always confer. Again, I don't know if any way is "proper."

In the interest of expediting the tournament, some referee's will rhetorically poll the judges, especially when it is an obvious hit, but sometimes when it is NOT so obvious, as well. While I respect the motive of getting things done, I feel this methid exterts an unspoken pressure on the judges to comply with the referee's perception/decision.

(snip)
Misc other things to note:
Judges MAY call "Halt!" if they see a major safety issue, like a lost tip or torn protective gear. Minor issues, like slight S-curves, I will generally delay calling until action is halted.

Directors, in my experience, should not ask judges for any input regarding right-of-way.

Concur, and Yes.

"No" and "Yes, off target" are not simply both "No" calls. If one judge says "No," one says, "Yes, off," and the director says, "Yes, on," the director's call wins.

In this case, the judges do not agree, so the referee is not overruling the consensus of 2 judges, but rather overruling each jusge separately.

If the judges both agree, the referee cannot overrule them.

THe biggest problem people have with dry fencing (other than it being hard to tell, even if you are experienced), is that it is even harder to do if the judges don't understand priority, and terminology very well.

THe biggest problem referees have is 'the doubtful touch'. IF, let's say, there is an attack; riposte; remise; remise, and there are abstentions all around regarding the attack, then THAT is a doubtful touch. However, the polling continues, and IF it is determined that the attacker paried, or otherwise abvoided the riposte, HIS remise may be allowed to count, if judged valid; however, even IF the defender paried the remise, the second remise CANNOT count, as we do not 'know' if he paried the original attack, or not.

Obviously, this can work both ways: if the attack WAS parried, but the riposte is doubtful, then the attacker's remise cannot count, even if valid, however, if judged NO HIT, then the remise of riposte CAN count (if judged valid).

Have a nice day!

[edew]

Originally posted by jeff

quote:

Fencer1: "You got that last touch based on your reputation." Fencer2: "So go get your own reputation."

Attributed to Alex Orban, 5 time US sabre champion.

Actually, attributed to Tibor Niylas (sp?).

[typoink]

Thanks for the clarification, I was always under the impression that the director could force a final say.

I understand the reasons WHY a "no" and an "off target" don't overrule a director, but I've heard it wondered before since it could be seen as two votes against a point and 1.5 votes for. It just don't work that way.

[jeff]

Originally posted by edew
Actually, attributed to Tibor Niylas (sp?).

Yes, I believe you're right - select a different Hungarian and try again! (it's "Nyilas")