Developing Referees

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 01:56:20 GMT, Carol <ca.donohue@verizon.net>
wrote:

> To people who are not coaches to draw upon as referees is a whole other problem
> -- mostly, they are parents, and have not ever fenced. We have some who have
> passed the referee exam, but they do not work out well in actual situations.
> Hence, coaches are a better source for refereeing. I can't even recall an actual
> parent who has passed the referee exam that we would consider a good referee.

There are *fencers* who have passed the referee exam, but are not good
referees. I do not believe the exam alone is sufficient to judge a
prospective referee's abilities. It's just a bare minimum.

There are several skills that a good referee needs to have, e.g.
understanding of the rules, ability to see the action, ability to
translate the action to words correctly, ABILITY TO MAKE ONESELF HEARD
IN A NOISY GYM, ability to maintain order on the strip, ability to
withstand heckling from the coaches, and technical knowledge of the
equipment. (Although hopefully with sufficient technical staff
present the last is not so important.)

Which skills are the parents missing? Do we know why? How many
parents are we talking about here--three, or three hundred? If it's
only three, then I'd chalk the negative results up to statistics. If
I picked three fencers at random, I wouldn't expect to come up with
one really good referee, either.

Several years ago, I was told that professional American Football
referees are bankers, executives, and so forth in real life, and not
football players at all. (I don't know if this is true, but it's what
I was told.) The question was asked, why can't we do that in fencing
as well? I didn't have an answer then, and I still don't.

Does anyone else?

-Mark-

In rec.sport.fencing on Sat, 12 Jul 2003 03:35:46 GMT
Mark C. Orton <ortonmc+rsf@erols.com> wrote:
>
> Several years ago, I was told that professional American Football
> referees are bankers, executives, and so forth in real life, and not
> football players at all. (I don't know if this is true, but it's what
> I was told.) The question was asked, why can't we do that in fencing
> as well? I didn't have an answer then, and I still don't.
>

I think part of it might be the being able to tell what just happened.

way back in the Dark Ages when I was doing foil, as soon as we knew
which end went in the other guy we had to take turns being a judge,
watching for hits. Once you got some kind of clue we then had to learn
to be what we called the President, the one who watched the whole bout
and was able to say "this happened then that happened, so this fencer
indeed scored".

That ain't easy!

Football happens quickly but not that quickly. Seeing who pushed who
isn't too hard, and things like offside and so on you have people to
help with.

Fencing happens very rapidly and is full of weird language, and you have
to be able to recite a couple of moves to say why you decided that one
scored and that one didn't.

Maybe they need to go back to corner judges? As in train up people step
by step so they get used to watching and being able to describe what
they have seen.

Zebee

>
>I think part of it might be the being able to tell what just happened.
>
>way back in the Dark Ages when I was doing foil, as soon as we knew
>which end went in the other guy we had to take turns being a judge,
>watching for hits. Once you got some kind of clue we then had to learn
>to be what we called the President, the one who watched the whole bout
>and was able to say "this happened then that happened, so this fencer
>indeed scored".
>
>That ain't easy!
>
>Football happens quickly but not that quickly. Seeing who pushed who
>isn't too hard, and things like offside and so on you have people to
>help with.
>
>Fencing happens very rapidly and is full of weird language, and you have
>to be able to recite a couple of moves to say why you decided that one
>scored and that one didn't.
>
>Maybe they need to go back to corner judges? As in train up people step
>by step so they get used to watching and being able to describe what
>they have seen.
>
>Zebee
>
I started fencing two years ago and my son started 2 1/2 years before that.
I've watched THOUSANDS of bouts and listened to the calls... I get
approximately one out of five or six correct... MAYBE. I want to be able to
referee, but I simply cannot tease apart the flurry of action. I know the
rules and know how to call things, but I can't SEE the action. I'm always
amazed at how anyone can. My son will be testing for all three weapons
sometime in the fall. He'll have to be "my" contribution to the solution...
: )

Debbie B.

"Mark C. Orton" <ortonmc+rsf@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3f0f79e4.14961224@news.verizon.net...
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 01:56:20 GMT, Carol <ca.donohue@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> > To people who are not coaches to draw upon as referees is a whole other
problem
> > -- mostly, they are parents, and have not ever fenced. We have some who
have
> > passed the referee exam, but they do not work out well in actual
situations.
> > Hence, coaches are a better source for refereeing. I can't even recall
an actual
> > parent who has passed the referee exam that we would consider a good
referee.
>
> There are *fencers* who have passed the referee exam, but are not good
> referees. I do not believe the exam alone is sufficient to judge a
> prospective referee's abilities. It's just a bare minimum.
>
> There are several skills that a good referee needs to have, e.g.
> understanding of the rules, ability to see the action, ability to
> translate the action to words correctly, ABILITY TO MAKE ONESELF HEARD
> IN A NOISY GYM, ability to maintain order on the strip, ability to
> withstand heckling from the coaches, and technical knowledge of the
> equipment. (Although hopefully with sufficient technical staff
> present the last is not so important.)
>
> Which skills are the parents missing? Do we know why? How many
> parents are we talking about here--three, or three hundred? If it's
> only three, then I'd chalk the negative results up to statistics. If
> I picked three fencers at random, I wouldn't expect to come up with
> one really good referee, either.
>
> Several years ago, I was told that professional American Football
> referees are bankers, executives, and so forth in real life, and not
> football players at all. (I don't know if this is true, but it's what
> I was told.) The question was asked, why can't we do that in fencing
> as well? I didn't have an answer then, and I still don't.
>
> Does anyone else?
>
> -Mark-

I went through the referee exam for foil and epee about 10 years ago,
written, oral, and watched by 3 other referees while refereeing. Sense the
USFA has enacted there new rules of recertification, I have had to let my
refereeing qualifications laps. I just don't have the time nor the money to
spend 1 to 2 weeks every 2 years at a referees camp to recertify myself as a
referee. I will still ref bouts for our club practices but that is going to
be about all I do. I think you will find that there will become a shortage
of good referees in the next couple of years because others are in the same
boat.

The latest group of referees that I have seen are a dreadful lot. They
strut around referring to themselves as gods of the fencing world, ordering
this and that to be done, and it has to match this or that exactly or they
will deem it unusable and cancel the event. Then when the fencing does
begin, they are blind to what happens on the strip. They are miscalling
actions, not carding infractions, failing acknowledge right-of-way and so
on. It is frustrating to teach someone the proper way to fence and then get
to a tournament and the referees are blind to what is happening on the strip
or don't care about anything but their egos.

fencer91162@aol.com (Fencer91162) wrote

> I want to be able to
> referee, but I simply cannot tease apart the flurry of action. I know the
> rules and know how to call things, but I can't SEE the action. I'm always
> amazed at how anyone can.

I think you have pointed out a crucial factor here: the speed, or the
perception of speed.

I remember my first couple of years of fencing. I'd watch a bout at a
competition, and I'd look at one of the fencers and think "Damn, that
guy is fast! I'll never be able to keep up with that!" Then my turn
would come and suddenly the same guy seemed slow as molasses---because
fencing alters your perception of time, I think.

Nonfencers lack this ability to "slow down time" while refereeing, I
believe. Thus it looks bewilderingly fast to them, no matter how well
they know the rules and even the subtleties of things like ROW and
preparations and the like...

>
>I think you have pointed out a crucial factor here: the speed, or the
>perception of speed.
>
>I remember my first couple of years of fencing. I'd watch a bout at a
>competition, and I'd look at one of the fencers and think "Damn, that
>guy is fast! I'll never be able to keep up with that!" Then my turn
>would come and suddenly the same guy seemed slow as molasses---because
>fencing alters your perception of time, I think.
>
>Nonfencers lack this ability to "slow down time" while refereeing, I
>believe. Thus it looks bewilderingly fast to them, no matter how well
>they know the rules and even the subtleties of things like ROW and
>preparations and the like...
>
>
Just wanted to re-iterate... I've been fencing, myself, for 2 years. It
doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. It's a skill that you either
have or don't have. I don't ...

Debbie B.

fencer91162@aol.com (Fencer91162) wrote in
news:20030712172506.29038.00000412@mb-m28.aol.com:

> Just wanted to re-iterate... I've been fencing, myself, for 2
> years. It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. It's a
> skill that you either have or don't have. I don't ...

Ahh, have some confidence in yourself. It takes TIME and PRACTICE to
get the hang of seeing actions and understanding them (whether you're
fencing or refereeing). Two years isn't all that much in terms of time
-- some people do pick it up more quickly than others, but that
doesn't mean you won't start eventually (it took me a long time to
start seeing actions).

Also, it's important to note that it's the *combination* of time and
practice that really helps - just spectating, or just fencing, will to
some degree build up your awareness of what's going on, but nothing is
quite like actually being in the referee's spot and directing the
bout. If you actually force yourself to call *something* (right or
wrong!) you will eventually start discovering ways to figure out what
really happened (especially if the fencers help you out).

I'm a firm believer that in any club/practice situation, inexperienced
referees should be *made* (well, strongly encouraged/arm-twisted to
referee at times. The easiest way to do this is, when you're doing a
round-robin or king-of-the-hill bouting session, that the next person
to fence is the one who referees. Period. Of course, the more
experienced fencers have to put up with some bad calls, but so what?
It's *practice*, and in the long run everyone benefits from having
more people who can referee.

Personally, I've found refereeing to give me a better grasp of fencing
actions, which I can then apply to my own fencing. I'd definitely
encourage you to "just do it", and I bet you'll find that even if you
aren't a "natural" you certainly will be able to manage!

--Holly

Holly E. Ordway wrote:

> I'm a firm believer that in any club/practice situation, inexperienced
> referees should be *made* (well, strongly encouraged/arm-twisted to
> referee at times. The easiest way to do this is, when you're doing a
> round-robin or king-of-the-hill bouting session, that the next person
> to fence is the one who referees. Period. Of course, the more
> experienced fencers have to put up with some bad calls, but so what?
> It's *practice*, and in the long run everyone benefits from having
> more people who can referee.

We always do this. If you don't referee then you can't fence. You
don't have to be good, you just have to try. And the more you try the
better you get, usually.

If you end up refereeing a pair who are far beyond your skill then
either the fencers themselves will help you out, or you can ask someone
else who is better to help you out, but you still have to make *your*
call first.

gary hayenga

"Holly E. Ordway" <OUTordwayWITHTHIS@comcast.net> wrote


> It takes TIME and PRACTICE to
> get the hang of seeing actions and understanding them (whether you're
> fencing or refereeing). Two years isn't all that much in terms of time
> -- some people do pick it up more quickly than others, but that
> doesn't mean you won't start eventually (it took me a long time to
> start seeing actions).
>
> Also, it's important to note that it's the *combination* of time and
> practice that really helps - just spectating, or just fencing, will to
> some degree build up your awareness of what's going on, but nothing is
> quite like actually being in the referee's spot and directing the
> bout. If you actually force yourself to call *something* (right or
> wrong!) you will eventually start discovering ways to figure out what
> really happened (especially if the fencers help you out).
>
> I'm a firm believer that in any club/practice situation, inexperienced
> referees should be *made* (well, strongly encouraged/arm-twisted to
> referee at times. The easiest way to do this is, when you're doing a
> round-robin or king-of-the-hill bouting session, that the next person
> to fence is the one who referees. Period. Of course, the more
> experienced fencers have to put up with some bad calls, but so what?
> It's *practice*, and in the long run everyone benefits from having
> more people who can referee.
>
> Personally, I've found refereeing to give me a better grasp of fencing
> actions, which I can then apply to my own fencing. I'd definitely
> encourage you to "just do it", and I bet you'll find that even if you
> aren't a "natural" you certainly will be able to manage!
>
> --Holly

An excellent explication, and I couldn't agree more.

Although I still maintain that a person who has never fenced will
never make a really first class referee, because they have not had
their speed perception honed by fencing.

William Marshal wrote:

> Although I still maintain that a person who has never fenced will
> never make a really first class referee, because they have not had
> their speed perception honed by fencing.

Although in principle, I totally agree with you with this in principle, I
have found, within the ranks of the FIE referee cadre, that there are quite
several referees that HAVE refereed in other martial arts, but yet, haven't
been fencers, and DO make quite very good referees.

-Carol

>
>> It takes TIME and PRACTICE to
>> get the hang of seeing actions and understanding them (whether you're
>> fencing or refereeing). Two years isn't all that much in terms of time
>> -- some people do pick it up more quickly than others, but that
>> doesn't mean you won't start eventually (it took me a long time to
>> start seeing actions).
>>
>> Also, it's important to note that it's the *combination* of time and
>> practice that really helps - just spectating, or just fencing, will to
>> some degree build up your awareness of what's going on, but nothing is
>> quite like actually being in the referee's spot and directing the
>> bout. If you actually force yourself to call *something* (right or
>> wrong!) you will eventually start discovering ways to figure out what
>> really happened (especially if the fencers help you out).
>>
>> I'm a firm believer that in any club/practice situation, inexperienced
>> referees should be *made* (well, strongly encouraged/arm-twisted to
>> referee at times. The easiest way to do this is, when you're doing a
>> round-robin or king-of-the-hill bouting session, that the next person
>> to fence is the one who referees. Period. Of course, the more
>> experienced fencers have to put up with some bad calls, but so what?
>> It's *practice*, and in the long run everyone benefits from having
>> more people who can referee.
>>
>> Personally, I've found refereeing to give me a better grasp of fencing
>> actions, which I can then apply to my own fencing. I'd definitely
>> encourage you to "just do it", and I bet you'll find that even if you
>> aren't a "natural" you certainly will be able to manage!
>>
>> --Holly
>
>An excellent explication, and I couldn't agree more.
>
FWIW, since I posted my reply(s), I've discussed the problem with my coach,
AGAIN, and he decided that it would be a good idea to have another class where
everyone referees and he corrects/critiques.

I'm so driven by a sense of justice that I couldn't possibly referee in a
situation where I might rob someone of a victory because of my inability to see
the action properly.

I love epee... <sigh>

Debbie B.

In article <20030713204713.03232.00000280@mb-m12.aol.com>, fencer91162@aol.com
(Fencer91162) writes:

>I'm so driven by a sense of justice that I couldn't possibly referee in a
>situation where I might rob someone of a victory because of my inability to
>see
>the action properly.

Believe me, and I expect there will be many in agreement, I would rather have a
referee who may make an honest mistake than have suspicions that someone very
competent was shading things.

Bill Hall

Why can an insurance broker (or a parent) be a football ref and not a
fencing ref?

1) Because the fencing ref has to read minds, except in epee. The ref has to
understand what each fencer was trying to do and interpret that within the
structure of the rules. Probably you can ref one or two levels above the
level that you've fenced, but that's about it.

2) Because the football or baseball parents have spent a lifetime watching
football or baseball on TV.

"Mark C. Orton" <ortonmc+rsf@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3f0f79e4.14961224@news.verizon.net...
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 01:56:20 GMT, Carol <ca.donohue@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> > To people who are not coaches to draw upon as referees is a whole other
problem
> > -- mostly, they are parents, and have not ever fenced. We have some who
have
> > passed the referee exam, but they do not work out well in actual
situations.
> > Hence, coaches are a better source for refereeing. I can't even recall
an actual
> > parent who has passed the referee exam that we would consider a good
referee.
>
> There are *fencers* who have passed the referee exam, but are not good
> referees. I do not believe the exam alone is sufficient to judge a
> prospective referee's abilities. It's just a bare minimum.
>
> There are several skills that a good referee needs to have, e.g.
> understanding of the rules, ability to see the action, ability to
> translate the action to words correctly, ABILITY TO MAKE ONESELF HEARD
> IN A NOISY GYM, ability to maintain order on the strip, ability to
> withstand heckling from the coaches, and technical knowledge of the
> equipment. (Although hopefully with sufficient technical staff
> present the last is not so important.)
>
> Which skills are the parents missing? Do we know why? How many
> parents are we talking about here--three, or three hundred? If it's
> only three, then I'd chalk the negative results up to statistics. If
> I picked three fencers at random, I wouldn't expect to come up with
> one really good referee, either.
>
> Several years ago, I was told that professional American Football
> referees are bankers, executives, and so forth in real life, and not
> football players at all. (I don't know if this is true, but it's what
> I was told.) The question was asked, why can't we do that in fencing
> as well? I didn't have an answer then, and I still don't.
>
> Does anyone else?
>
> -Mark-

Carol <ca.donohue@verizon.net> wrote

> Although in principle, I totally agree with you with this in principle, I
> have found, within the ranks of the FIE referee cadre, that there are quite
> several referees that HAVE refereed in other martial arts, but yet, haven't
> been fencers, and DO make quite very good referees.
>
> -Carol

Ah, well, another martial art might serve the same purpose, I guess. Point taken.

Out of curiosity, which referees do you mean? Which weapons do they ref?

fencer91162@aol.com (Fencer91162) wrote in
news:20030713204713.03232.00000280@mb-m12.aol.com:

> I'm so driven by a sense of justice that I couldn't possibly
> referee in a situation where I might rob someone of a victory
> because of my inability to see the action properly.

So don't referee in a tournament (yet) - but you could referee perfectly
fine in a practice environment. To take even more pressure off, you
could referee when the fencers are free-fencing, ie. not keeping score;
that way, you'd clearly be practicing just as they are practicing.

Don't be afraid to throw things out and say "I don't know, no touch
awarded." (Well, if they're fencing electric and there's only one light,
clearly you can give the touch.) When in doubt, it's the fencer's
responsibility to make his or her actions clear enough for the referee
to see and understand!

--Holly

In article <3F10A294.9040309@speakeasy.org>, gary hayenga <vandg@speakeasy.org>
writes:

>If you end up refereeing a pair who are far beyond your skill then
>either the fencers themselves will help you out, or you can ask someone
>else who is better to help you out, but you still have to make *your*
>call first.
>
>gary hayenga

This is a tried and true training technique:
In the club, People should also remember that, "Hey, relax, it's just the
club!"

In article <20030712172506.29038.00000412@mb-m28.aol.com>, fencer91162@aol.com
(Fencer91162) writes:

>
>>I think you have pointed out a crucial factor here: the speed, or the
>>perception of speed.
>>
>>I remember my first couple of years of fencing. I'd watch a bout at a
>>competition, and I'd look at one of the fencers and think "Damn, that
>>guy is fast! I'll never be able to keep up with that!" Then my turn
>>would come and suddenly the same guy seemed slow as molasses---because
>>fencing alters your perception of time, I think.
>>
>>Nonfencers lack this ability to "slow down time" while refereeing, I
>>believe. Thus it looks bewilderingly fast to them, no matter how well
>>they know the rules and even the subtleties of things like ROW and
>>preparations and the like...
>>
>>
>Just wanted to re-iterate... I've been fencing, myself, for 2 years. It
>doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. It's a skill that you either
>have or don't have. I don't ...
>
>Debbie B.

Debbie,

Don't sell yourself short, at least not quite yet!

You must remember that

A. To begin with, at best, people USUALLY need 2-3 years to really start
getting that abilities we are talking about, and that is with high exposutre
frequency; 3 times a week, or more; this frequency hasss a great effect on
learning and retention

B. you are an adult learner; so, you learn differently than your younger
progeny;

C. Additionally, older people are often operating in lower risk-taking modes
than youngsters, including the emotional risk of being wrong; this can also
have an effect on learning and retention;

D. Furthermore, as an adult, you probably have a lot more experience
controlling your emotions, and state of mind, and therefore probably don't let
yourself get too excited about what you are doing, fencing-wise: while this is
good in many ways, a hightened state of mind, or hightened state of awareness
that can come with moderately intense state of excitement can also have a
significant effect on learning and retention...Part of this comes from (even
slight levels of) adrenaline, which directly stimulates the heart rate, which
basically helps everything speed up, even your 'thinking' and image processing.
Adittionally, the adreniline (or other hormone reaction - I am not a doctor,
nor do I play one on TV...) does have an effect on memory retention...

SO, when you get all excited, you can see things faster, and remember them
better; ultimately, this results in your percieving actions with considerably
less stimulus: You comprehend the first motion, and second motions more
quickly, and become free to see the rest of the action, without 'stopping' in
your mind to actually think about, thus missing the remainder of the action...

That being said, refereeing is still another skill set: fencers have to (try
to) be 'on their game' for a few minutes, (and even to win, they often don't
really have to be 'on' for the entire bout), then they get a 5-10 minute break
before they have to do it again, four or five times, and then get an hour or so
before the DE's start; if they make a couple mistakes in a bout, well that
doesn't mean they have totally blown their day!

Referees, on the other hand, are trying to be 'on their game' for the entire
bout, and then they get a 15-30 second break, and have to be right back 'on',
and do it 15-20 times, and then while DE's are getting sorted out they get a
pool of something else to do, and here we go again!

If you make a couple mistakes in the wrong bout, now you are under the
microscope, it's your reputation at stake! If you don't finish strong, it may
take you a good year, or more, to 'recover' peoples' confidence in you.

So it is understandable that you don't feel ready to stick your neck out, and
it will probably still be a while before you do, if ever, but practice your
refereeing at the club, it WILL help your fencing, and Hang in there, you may
still get it yet!

;-)

William Marshal wrote:

> Although I still maintain that a person who has never fenced will
> never make a really first class referee, because they have not had
> their speed perception honed by fencing.

Although in principle, I totally agree with you with this in principle, I
have found, within the ranks of the FIE referee cadre, that there are quite
several referees that HAVE refereed in other martial arts, but yet, haven't
been fencers, and DO make quite very good referees.

-Carol

Carol <ca.donohue@verizon.net> wrote

> Although in principle, I totally agree with you with this in principle, I
> have found, within the ranks of the FIE referee cadre, that there are quite
> several referees that HAVE refereed in other martial arts, but yet, haven't
> been fencers, and DO make quite very good referees.
>
> -Carol

Ah, well, another martial art might serve the same purpose, I guess. Point taken.

Out of curiosity, which referees do you mean? Which weapons do they ref?

fencer91162@aol.com (Fencer91162) wrote in
news:20030713204713.03232.00000280@mb-m12.aol.com:

> I'm so driven by a sense of justice that I couldn't possibly
> referee in a situation where I might rob someone of a victory
> because of my inability to see the action properly.

So don't referee in a tournament (yet) - but you could referee perfectly
fine in a practice environment. To take even more pressure off, you
could referee when the fencers are free-fencing, ie. not keeping score;
that way, you'd clearly be practicing just as they are practicing.

Don't be afraid to throw things out and say "I don't know, no touch
awarded." (Well, if they're fencing electric and there's only one light,
clearly you can give the touch.) When in doubt, it's the fencer's
responsibility to make his or her actions clear enough for the referee
to see and understand!

--Holly