New, almost approved FIE rule changes regarding foil.

In reading through the below rule changes, it seems to me that the FIE is
looking in the wrong places to make changes. I have been fencing Foil and
Epee for about 17 years. The problem that I am seeing is the lack of good
referees. I have refereed Epee for about 11 years, but I have had to give
up refereeing in tournament because I do not have the time (work and family)
nor the money to spend several weeks every 2 years to be recertified.

The one thing that keeps cropping up in the discussion is the referees can't
see this or they can't see that, they don't know what this means or what
that means. My response to these words are the referees need to be first
fencers and second have fence the weapon that they are refereeing for at
least 5 years before ever allowed to apply for a referees certificate. In
the Division that I am in, I have seen fencers that have not been fencing
more that 6 months to a year refereeing in major competitions. I have also
seen parents of fencers refereeing, never having held a weapon other than to
carry it into a tournament. They may be able to answer the questions on the
test, but still not know what it is they see when it is played out in front
of them. This is where changes need to be made, not with the equipment, but
with the people. If a fencer covers target area with their non-weapon hand
or presents their non-weapon shoulder forward then they need to be penalized
for it. You don't change the rules to compensate for poor fencing, poor
instructors and poor refereeing. You make sure that the rules you do have
are being taught correctly by instructors and are being enforced correctly
by properly trained the referees.

I have ranted enough, now, and will yield the floor to someone else.

Richard Garner

=====================================

This is from the FIE website:
http://www.fie.ch/download/letters/2...0HOC%20ANG.pdf

And it is a proposal discussed and approved by the committee.
Apparently it hasn't been completely approved yet...but it sounds as
though it will. When it will be enforced is anyone's guess.

This means more equipment expense for foilists. Conductive mask bibs,
a sleeve for your weapon arm down to your elbow(conductive) as these
are proposed new target areas.

Also, the letter i think describes a method of precluding flick
actions by increasing the time the tip is in contact with the lame
before it registers a hit.

Also, they've decided to do away with the fleche for foilists...sad as
i like this action.

Finally, they are also going for something in re the box that makes it
dificult for the lights to come on simultaneously.

Thankfully they arent going for the idea that white lights dont stop
the action. ICK.


I really wish I knew when they plan to ratify this and enforce it....

Thought yall should know....

Magni

--

Richard Garner
rgarner@vidnet.net

In article <bp200h01b9m@enews1.newsguy.com>,
"Richard Garner" <rgarner@vidnet.net> wrote:

> The one thing that keeps cropping up in the discussion is the referees can't
> see this or they can't see that, they don't know what this means or what
> that means. My response to these words are the referees need to be first
> fencers and second have fence the weapon that they are refereeing for at
> least 5 years before ever allowed to apply for a referees certificate.

Can you please explain to us--when there is a major *shortage* of
referees--how making it *much* harder to become a referee is going to
help anything? If you can't get x referees with the current
requirements, you'll have a hard time getting 0.1x with your proposed
requirements. You're also asking an awful lot of people that get paid
less than migrant farm workers.

> In
> the Division that I am in, I have seen fencers that have not been fencing
> more that 6 months to a year refereeing in major competitions. I have also
> seen parents of fencers refereeing, never having held a weapon other than to
> carry it into a tournament. They may be able to answer the questions on the
> test, but still not know what it is they see when it is played out in front
> of them. This is where changes need to be made, not with the equipment, but
> with the people. If a fencer covers target area with their non-weapon hand
> or presents their non-weapon shoulder forward then they need to be penalized
> for it. You don't change the rules to compensate for poor fencing, poor
> instructors and poor refereeing.

True, but you do apply the princinple of advantage/disadvantage and only
apply a penalty if the infraction actually gives one fencer an advantage
(unless it's a line call or a safety call, in which case you need to
make the call all the time).

>You make sure that the rules you do have
> are being taught correctly by instructors and are being enforced correctly
> by properly trained the referees.

If you have any ideas for how to do this, we're all ears.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

I don't think that, it is all of the human problem here, I mean if all the
refeering system would be done with computer sensor and a good program to
follow to the rules of the FIE to the letter, wouldn't it be wonderfull I
mean no human refeering error. But this is not the only problem they want to
solve. The biggest part is to keep the true spirit of fencing its origin an
to allow the watching spectator to follow more easilly the game. Ok, i know
that we, fencers, dont care about who's watching us but for the survival of
the sport... and would give more money then better ref .... sadly , it is
vital. Think of a rule like to augment the contact between the point and
lame for 10 ms. It fould make all flick obsolete, and isn't it flicking that
give much ref problem, and is flicking something true to the spirit of
fencing, its origin. Not only touching is important, the quality of the game
is too.

Agleos

In rec.sport.fencing on Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:24:41 -0600
Richard Garner <rgarner@vidnet.net> wrote:
> see this or they can't see that, they don't know what this means or what
> that means. My response to these words are the referees need to be first
> fencers and second have fence the weapon that they are refereeing for at
> least 5 years before ever allowed to apply for a referees certificate. In

So how much refereeing are you doing?

What about the people in your club?

Where are these referees to come from?

Zebee

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:24:41 -0600, "Richard Garner"
<rgarner@vidnet.net> wrote:

>The problem that I am seeing is the lack of good
>referees.

In total agreement. Presidents in Open events here in the UK can be
any member of the pool in the first round and anyone who can be
collared to do the job in the second. In team competitions I have
seen team members presiding their team mates' bouts.
IMHO returning to a more easily spotted standard of priority would
help by making presiding easier.
The proposal to reduce the distance between fencers in foil at the
on guard, could well make presiding still harder.
The root problem is the mirage of a mass tv audience. It is not
going to happen. Fencing is a popular participation sport and
participation is what sport as opposed to showbusiness is about.
The closer on guard, like the bent-arm attack, does favour the
offence and., so should produce more apparant action. The same was
true, and to some extent always so, of sabre. The fleche was then
banned to slow the action down again and give the defence a chance!
In Sumo there are frenetic simultaneous attacks but one usually
knows who has won by who stays in the ring or last leaves it. In
fencing, two lights leave the layman none the wiser. In epee there
are more preparations on the blade, feints, fleches and lunges, binds
and graizes.
The one change that I would recommend in epee and perhaps all three
weapons, is to abolish the 1 minute rest between 3 minute sessions in
DE. If the opponent could be continuously worn down by preparations
one would IMHO see more results and less standing and staring. I
realise that the opposite could be contended but if two fencers want
to give themselves an easy time then nothing is going to save the bout
from tedium.
Cordially,
John (Rohde).

grbr25235@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>
> The one change that I would recommend in epee and perhaps all three
> weapons, is to abolish the 1 minute rest between 3 minute sessions in
> DE. If the opponent could be continuously worn down by preparations
> one would IMHO see more results and less standing and staring. I
> realise that the opposite could be contended but if two fencers want
> to give themselves an easy time then nothing is going to save the bout
> from tedium.

> John (Rohde).
The one minute rest, seems to me, should be optional, i.e. if both fencers
desire it. Rather than required.

J.

Can you please explain to us--when there is a major *shortage* of
referees--how making it *much* harder to become a referee is going to
help anything?
========
I don't think I would apply this logic to architectural school or pilot
training, but otherwise, it makes perfect sense to me that it is far better to
have lots of bad referees than to have a lesser number of good ones.

I just hope they don't come to my strip, as I saw enough of them already at
this past year's Nationals. It seems to me that requiring referees to know
something about the rules and the sport is not an overly onerous requirement.

B.C. Milligan

remise@aol.com (Remise) wrote in
news:20031114225457.08302.00000214@mb-m24.aol.com:

> I don't think I would apply this logic to architectural school or
> pilot training, but otherwise, it makes perfect sense to me that it
> is far better to have lots of bad referees than to have a lesser
> number of good ones.
>
> I just hope they don't come to my strip, as I saw enough of them
> already at this past year's Nationals. It seems to me that
> requiring referees to know something about the rules and the sport
> is not an overly onerous requirement.

As for me, I don't want any more *bad* referees, but I agree with the
poster whom you quoted that making it *harder* to become a referee
isn't going to help things along. I think the original post suggested
that referees had to *fence* for at least 5 years, which would
automatically disqualify any interested parents or any motivated fast
learners among the fencers. (I had a referee or two at Nationals for
whom 5 years appeared to represent a significant percentage of their
whole lifespan, and they did a fine job.)

The USFA could take steps to make the testing process for referees
easier. How about making the written part of the exam online? You
could take it online whenever you were ready, and not have to worry
about finding someone to give it to you. Then if you pass, you could
print out some sort of certificate and take that with you to show to
whoever was going to give the practical exam.

--Holly

In article <20031114225457.08302.00000214@mb-m24.aol.com>,
remise@aol.com (Remise) wrote:

> Can you please explain to us--when there is a major *shortage* of
> referees--how making it *much* harder to become a referee is going to
> help anything?
> ========
> I don't think I would apply this logic to architectural school or pilot
> training, but otherwise, it makes perfect sense to me that it is far better to
> have lots of bad referees than to have a lesser number of good ones.
>
> I just hope they don't come to my strip, as I saw enough of them already at
> this past year's Nationals. It seems to me that requiring referees to know
> something about the rules and the sport is not an overly onerous requirement.


I don't think there's any doubt that referees should have to know the
rules, and I can't imagine anyone wanting to officiate if they don't
know the rules (or at least think they know the rules).

However, it is much harder to judge people's judgment. This does get
done in some sports: higher-level officials watch less-experienced
officials work and coach them on how to improve, let them know what
calls they missed, etc. This is only practical when you have enough
officials so the experienced people can devote time to this, so it's not
an option for fencing right now.

Thus, probably the best option for fencing is to get a lot of people
involved, let them learn by experience--and some seminars and coaching
when possible--and let the best people rise to the top.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

I don't disagree with you Holly, but from my perspective, the problem is that,
at present, it is far too easy to become a ref. When you see fencers' parents,
and children, refereeing at a national championship, or people you know from
your own region who are notoriously bad refs and fencers, it is very dismaying.

I only fenced in the vets' foil and Division 1-A foil this year, but at least
half a dozen people I spoke with agreed that rarely have they seen -- in
general, as some were good -- worse refereeing at a national event. That is
why I am not keen on lowering the standards even further.

B.C. Milligan

"Remise" <remise@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031117220209.17343.00000274@mb-m19.aol.com...
> I don't disagree with you Holly, but from my perspective, the problem is
that,
> at present, it is far too easy to become a ref. When you see fencers'
parents,
> and children, refereeing at a national championship, or people you know
from
> your own region who are notoriously bad refs and fencers, it is very
dismaying.
>
> I only fenced in the vets' foil and Division 1-A foil this year, but at
least
> half a dozen people I spoke with agreed that rarely have they seen -- in
> general, as some were good -- worse refereeing at a national event. That
is
> why I am not keen on lowering the standards even further.
>
> B.C. Milligan

This is the point I was making. You don't lower the standards for referees
by making adjustments to the equipment, or dropping or reducing the
offenses, you hold the referees to a higher standard and make sure they know
what they are doing.

One of the things that will make good referees stop refereeing is the over
use of them at tournaments. I quit going to tournaments for about 4 years
because I could not just fence in the tournament, everyone wanted me to work
the tournament. I wasn't having fun any more at tournaments because I was
always expected to referee, be the armorer, work up the bout sheets as well
as fence. I still practiced, but did not go to tournaments because I was
not having fun. I have started going back to tournaments now, but not as
many and only to fence.

remise@aol.com (Remise) wrote in
news:20031117220209.17343.00000274@mb-m19.aol.com:

> I don't disagree with you Holly, but from my perspective, the
> problem is that, at present, it is far too easy to become a ref.
> When you see fencers' parents, and children, refereeing at a
> national championship, or people you know from your own region who
> are notoriously bad refs and fencers, it is very dismaying.

No argument there. And it's dismaying on the local level as well... I
was at an open sabre event this weekend and it was self-directed
(which I expected). Two out of three of the experienced fencers who
directed did a fine job. The third clearly did not understand the
concept of right of way. After a bunch of peculiar calls, one of the
fencers asked him to explain, and he said that moving forward gives
you right of way, and if you are retreating, the only way to get right
of way is to parry and riposte or let the other guy miss before you
attack. In elaboration, he even claimed that what you are doing with
the arm (extending, not extending) had nothing to do with it. Aiiiiii.

So regardless of how hard/easy it is to become a *rated* referee
(which I would argue seems to be an excessively complicated *process*
that still seems to be ineffective in weeding out ineffective
potential referees), I think we need to work on getting better
knowledge and practice on how to referee *at the local level*. After
all, this is where fencers' techniques and tactics get shaped on a day
to day level. And there are practical ways of doing this, too.

I would like to see LOTS MORE referee clinics in all divisions and
local clubs. And reasonably-priced ones (at most, the price of an
entry to a tournament, not $50!) so that more fencers are encouraged
to attend. I thought the referee course at Nationals was great -- why
not have a mini-course *every* evening at Nationals or NACs, to
encourage lots and lots of people to become more familiar with the
rules and with correct calls? (and actually ADVERTISE the thing and
put signs up so people can find out about it....) I'd gladly pay a bit
more in entry fees to help subsidize it.

--Holly

I would like to see LOTS MORE referee clinics in all divisions and local clubs
========
Just for the record my division (yours!) is planning such a clinic in the
fairly near future -- right now we are just looking for the best date.

B.C. Milligan

remise@aol.com (Remise) wrote in
news:20031118104530.03434.00000412@mb-m29.aol.com:

> Just for the record my division (yours!) is planning such a clinic
> in the fairly near future -- right now we are just looking for the
> best date.

Yes, I saw the announcement and was very pleased. That's exactly the
sort of division-level action that's helpful, and it'll go on my
calendar as soon as I hear when and where it is! (It sure would be nice
if it were at BFC... :-) (This is Maryland Division, btw)

Do you know if the written referee exam will be given, or is it purely
informational?

--Holly

Do you know if the written referee exam will be given, or is it purely
informational?
=========
About this I am not sure.

Bruce