How much to say when reffing?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

I saw a club beginner´s dry foil competition some time ago, and came to think of the following questions:

1. How much shall a ref say when reffing a ROW weapon?
2. What parameters, if any, shall the amount of talking depend on?

There were two situations, while simple to ref, got me thinking of this.

1st situation:
Both fencer A and B are righties. Fencer A starts a straight-line lunge attack, aiming to the right side of the chest. Well into the extension, fencer B slaps the A blade with a wide parry 4 so that it momentarily is aiming beside the body of B. B does not do any action after that, offensive or otherwise. Unfazed, A immediately puts back his blade in the original line and continuens with the attack - his body was going forward the whole time. B catches the A blad with a new parry, but this time it is to close, so he parries the blade right into his own sternum.

With experienced fencers, this would obviously only warrant a "point to A", but what would you say to two foilists who have never done a bout in which the points were counted before?

2nd situation:
Both A and B are righties. A starts a straight attack the upper chest of B. B disregards this, and starts his own mirroring attack when A is halfway the lunge. B is faster, so they hit at the same time.

Same question as above. How much more should one say to 1st-timers, in your opinion?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Mergs]

I would say that since you describe this as a beginner dry bout, I would describe the entire phrase and then poll the judges. No need to go into lengthy detail, just "attack, riposte, remise, etc". In the case of an electric bout with more advanced fencers, I would go to the final action and describe the final two or three actions.

For expample, your second scenario would be a simple "Attack, counterattack, touch for A". If the fencers question this, then you can, if you wish, explain yourself.

IMHO referee's talk too much, especially with beginners. And this tends to translate into when beginners start refereeing.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

It is not the referees job to teach fencers on the piste the rules of fencing. I say you make the call, "attack, parry, no riposte, remise" or however you want to word it. If they ask about it, just repeate your call, no need to explain to people who don't understand the game. Same thing with the second, "attack, counter-attack". More advanced fencers have questions that will affect the way they fnece, such as, "was it my hand, my foot,...that was too slow" basically gauging the ref, not the actual rules. So in that sense I think answering questions is okay.

[GGK]

Originally posted by PeterGustafsson
I saw a club beginner´s dry foil competition some time ago, and came to think of the following questions:
1. How much shall a ref say when reffing a ROW weapon?
2. What parameters, if any, shall the amount of talking depend on?

I think it depends upon the beginners. If the ref says: "attack no, remise yes, point" and "attack, counterattack" and they understand...you're done. If they don't understand I try to give beginners a more detailed description, like: "attack -parried, no repost, remise of the attack, mal-parry, touch." Let's face it they're beginners...we want them to understand enough that they know what happened. Of course it is not the refs job to teach or coach the fencers...like saying: "If you repost next time you'll get the point." That would be inappropriate for a ref to say.

G

[KShan5[PrFC]]

But at a novice tournament that would happen 3-4 times during every bout in pools alone. It would be a giant waste of time. Trying to explain the rules, IMHO, is not a refs job. Just to interpret the action. All he should have to explain is his interpretation, not explain the rules.

[viojen]

Full explanation of the action would be unappropriate in a tournament, even a novice tournament. But I can think of other instances where the "ref" would do some coaching. On my team we break into squads of 5 or so to do some free fencing for the last 1/2 hour of practice. These are mixed 1st and 2nd year fencers. So we make it the job of the ref to offer advice, particularly if someone is getting creamed. If we're going 4-0 in a 5 point bout, we call a halt and try to discuss some stuff. This helps everyone in the group to learn. But we only do this when we're bouting to learn and understand. This is certainly not something we do outside of practice.

[westcoastsabre]

To understand the question at hand we mush ask ourselves two important questions, For what purpose do beginner's tournaments exist except to give beginners the chance to get their feet wet in a tournament? And, whether a beginner gains more from having some tournament experience, but having it explained to them so that they are not consumed and confused by the frenzy of it all, or by dropping them into a tournament where they don't necessarily know what is going on, but they learn by osmosis. I would suggest that this is the purpose of a beginner's tournament and that they would learn the most by being gently exposed to the tournament experience rather than being overwhelmed by it. I suggest the latter because a beginner's tournament is useless if it discourages its participants from competing in the future.

Just my 3 cents,

Brad

[pkt]

As i posted before, there are 19 FIE-approved terms a ref should use.
Even in a novice tournament, it is not the ref's job to educate the novices, that's the task of the coaches.
Yes, i agree, there may be times when clarification may be asked and simple answers given but never in detail.
Think of it from the coahes's point of view, if the ref does too mcuh educating on the piste during a tourney, wouldn't the coach feel affronted?

As for my personal preference, at the beginning of a low level tournament, before the beginning of my pool, I gather the competitiors together and quickly explain to them the options: I can ref them with some leniency or I can apply the full force of the rules. In the first case, when they got to a regular tournament, they might be shocked about the differences int he way an action is called.

People who missed my 'opening briefing' always accuse me of being "Draconian".

these days, with the introduction of the hand signals, there's even less for the ref to say...

PK

PK

[Fechter1]

I was told once to say as little as possible. The more you say, the less confident you are with your call, or something like that. Worked for me so far. Haven't received much in the way of complaints. Then again, it's also how you say it.

[Craig]

Originally posted by PeterGustafsson
1st situation:
Both fencer A and B are righties. Fencer A starts a straight-line lunge attack, aiming to the right side of the chest. Well into the extension, fencer B slaps the A blade with a wide parry 4 so that it momentarily is aiming beside the body of B. B does not do any action after that, offensive or otherwise. Unfazed, A immediately puts back his blade in the original line and continuens with the attack - his body was going forward the whole time. B catches the A blad with a new parry, but this time it is to close, so he parries the blade right into his own sternum.

Attack; Remise - Touch

2nd situation:
Both A and B are righties. A starts a straight attack the upper chest of B. B disregards this, and starts his own mirroring attack when A is halfway the lunge. B is faster, so they hit at the same time.

Attack, Counterattack. Attack - Touch.

You only say more if you are asked for an explanation. Even then, you only expand out on the phrase. (So, the first situation expanded would be attack: No, Riposte: No, Remise: Yes)

Craig

[Rolls]

As i posted before, there are 19 FIE-approved terms a ref should use.

I think you're over looking the point. In the orignal post, he described it as a "dry" competition. So, right there, you know it's not following FIE rules. So, why stick to the FIE-approved reffing terms?

I think it's completely acceptable in a relaxed setting (i.e. not adhereing to the exact rules) to not only offer an explanation but also advice. Certainly the experience won't be exactly what you will find in other tournaments, but the exclusion of electric scoring has already insured that difference.

Also, I would say only offer explanation and advice if it will be welcomed. For instance, if the fencer's coach is standing on the side of the piste ready to advise the fencer, interjecting your own opinion might be construed as rude. But if you ARE the fencer's coach or you are a more experienced clubmate, then there shouldn't be a problem.

Rolls.

[Craig]

If it's a competition and you are a ref you should not offer advice.



Craig

[Rolls]

I agree with you for the most part, but I think a lot of these beginner tournaments are only competitions in the loosest since. I guess it depends on the situation, but it sounded pretty informal to me.

Rolls.

[jBirch]

Hey All,

Two ways to look at this:

1) You are coaching the competitors for bigger and better things. Part of the problem with a beginner comp is that the coach can't be everywhere and they need to rely on the ref to be accurate in their call (not lenient) but explain what they are doing when the action is complicated. Especially where the calls are dry you need to explain why you perceived the action the way you did.

For example, situation 1 would be, "Attack A; Parry B; No-riposte; Remise A; Mal-parry B; Touch against B; Point for A." Then you can go on to say, "I called it this way because A you were moving forward and you tried a valid attack. B you parried that attack but gave away your chance to do anything by not riposting. A then, wisely, replaced their tip from a closer range. B you parried that new attack (Remise) into your chest and committed suicide. 'Good fencers endeavour not to impale themselves on the point of their opponent's weapon.' Point A. En Guard!"

It's also important in this train of thought to be VERY stern about the etiquette involved in a bout and to make sure that all the forms are followed clearly. Especially those around sportsmanship.

2) You can ref like you were ref'ing the Olympics. The advantage is that the beginners learn not to have any time to analyse what went wrong before having to adapt. They also learn that the ref is an opponent to be deceived as surely as the person across from them with the pointy thingy. The downside is that this often leads to frustration in those fencers who don't have any idea WHY the calls are going the way that they are. This, in turn, leads to a large group of novices saying to hell with it and going back to baseball.

Situation 1 would then be, "Attack A; point A," or, even more vaguely, just the hand signals.

My advice is to gauge the competitors and their coaching, pick one and stick to it. Both work in the context of dry beginner competitions but mixing them up is a recipe for disaster.

Take it easy.

[jeff]

Among experienced fencers I try to be brief, but if it's complicated (a lot of back and forth ending in a blaze of lights ) I may say the last few actions, eg: "attack no, riposte no, remise of attack yes" adding "from my left / from my right" and gestures as needed. That way, both fencers know what I saw and that I'm not just pulling it out of the air. Otherwise, I think it best to keep it short.

For beginners I do explain a lot more (but not advise). Last month I directed a dry U14 club competition, with kids as young as 6. It's not my objective for the kids to be mystified after each call, so I do the whole rigmarole of calling each action. Otherwise they don't see the separate actions in the phrase.

Tomorrow I'm directing a high school match, and hope to not have to talk: there's so much screaming and cheering from teammates on the sidelines that you have to yell to make yourself heard anyhow!

How about this as a followup: how do you feel about directing in French?

[Regret d'Vie]

IMO, much depends on the exact nature of the competition in question.

I've directed beginners dry foil bouts in two dissimilar situations. In both cases, the director enforces all official regulations as usual, and strictly limits his comments to explanations (leaving "advice" to competitors' coaches and teammates).

1) Our local university routinely stages a "mock" tournament the week prior to its open tournaments. This tournament is composed entirely of a beginners' dry foil competition, as its purpose is to introduce fencers who have *never* before competed to the tournament process. In this setting, any phrase d'armes that may be complex, ambiguous, unusual or otherwise confusing to the fencers is explained by the director. The director will even answer questions concerning official rules. These troubles are taken to alleviate some of the frustration that I've seen from beginners who emerged from their first "real" tournament with little idea why their opponents actions were consistently given priority over their own. (Our supply of instructors and experienced fencers is usually very limited, so we can't monitor and advise every novice fencer during a tournament.) These tournaments are intended as an educational introduction to formal competition, though I must mention that the competitors always have *some* experience with informal bouting, including both the tallying of touches and penalties.

2) Our local university also often holds a beginners' foil event (sometimes electric, sometimes dry) as part of its open tournaments. The primary purpose of this event is not to educate, but to provide an opportunity for novice fencers (usually two years or less) to test themselves against those of comparable experience in a fully competitive environment. In this event, directors provide no more explanation of actions than they would when directing experienced fencers and do not field questions concerning official rules except when facing a specific protest as prescribed by official regulations.

Best Regards,

[pkt]

Originally posted by jBirch
Hey All,
...

For example, situation 1 would be, "Attack A; Parry B; No-riposte; Remise A; Mal-parry B; Touch against B; Point for A." Then you can go on to say, "I called it this way because A you were moving forward and you tried a valid attack. B you parried that attack but gave away your chance to do anything by not riposting. A then, wisely, replaced their tip from a closer range. B you parried that new attack (Remise) into your chest and committed suicide. 'Good fencers endeavour not to impale themselves on the point of their opponent's weapon.' Point A. En Guard!"

...

If we all ref like that, we'll be there till late into the ngiht...

Us the hand signals.
If the fencer(s) ask for an explantion, give the hand signals again.
How much clearer can one be?

Sorry, iBirch, on this I agree with Craig, it's a tournament. The coaches should do mock tournaments to train their students IN THE CLUB. it's more cost-effective that way too.

PK