Bad referees

[fencinman89]

i had a meet on sunday where in epee for my first bout my ref wouldnt let me start the bout with a point-in-line position. After the bout i told my coach and she said that if i really wanted to i could talk to the bout commitee. i personally look through my rule book and foun on page 9 last sentance that i was right. So before my next bout i calmly told her that she was wrong, but didnt believe me so she asked another referee and she also agreed wiith me and was allowed to do it. The problem is i dont think she likes being proved wrong, and may hold a grudge against me in future meets (shes a local ref)and was wondering, did i do the right thing?

[westcoastsabre]

i dont know, because im not sure how important PIL is in epee, however you'll want to move this to the Fencing Discussion

[prototoast]

I don't know about epee, but I do not believe you are allowed to do that in foil and sabre.

[damianip]

It's an easy mistake to make. It is prohibited in foil and sabre but not epee.

I made this mistake myself recently. I went home and checked the rule book. I won't make it again.

You made the right choice. If you didn't, you would have had to live with her incorrect interpretation each time she directed one of your bouts.

The key is to be calm. Don't shout, "You're wrong!!!!". If the discussion is calm and about the rule, rather than a personal attack, there shouldn't be any lingering rancor.

The rules do change at times and sometimes refs forget. The ref in question probably won't make this mistake again.

Paolo

[Regret d'Vie]

Though you were technically correct, fencinman89, you may have done yourself no favors by taking this issue up with the director. ("All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient . . ." 1 Cor. 6:12 KJV)

Consider: As westcoastsabre pointed out, how important can establishing PIL with en garde be to epee in light of the absence of ROW conventions? I can't imagine that it matters. If there <i>is</i> a reason for establishing PIL ASAP, simply do so immediately after action begins, as it is unlikely your opponent will attempt to do the same.

I agree with everything damianip wrote, but with caveats. Yes, fencers should stand up for themselves when the director is obviously or critically incorrect: when he or she has forgotten or consistently badly enforces clear regulations. If you are unemotional and otherwise polite when confronting a director concerning an objective aspect of a regulation -- and you attempt to do so discreetly -- he or she <i>should not</i> hold a grudge; and many won't.

However, many people in authoritarian positions react in unhealthy and unreasonable ways when contradicted in any form, so if you are unfamiliar with the director and the matter in question isn't truly integral to your strategy or other aspects of your performance, it's may be best, IMO, to simply accept the offending circumstance and adjust to the director. Shrug it off, in effect.

With rare exception (whether in marriage, a professional relationship, a friendship, etc.), the more a person objects, the less seriously that person's objections will be considered. ("Don't pay any attention to him: He's always complaining about something. He'll never be satisfied.", etc.) Make discriminate judgments when considering whether to engage a director in conflict. And if you ever sit down on the strip and insist on protesting to the bout committee, don't ever expect to get the benefit of another close call from that director in your entire career.

In summary: Some issues are so important that no consequence can justify keeping your mouth shut; but temper your desire to set the record straight with common sense and wisdom.

[danp]

Extremely well said. Thanks for the thoughtful insight.
-Dan

Originally posted by Regret d'Vie
Though you were technically correct, fencinman89, you may have done yourself no favors by taking this issue up with the director. ("All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient . . ." 1 Cor. 6:12 KJV)

Consider: As westcoastsabre pointed out, how important can establishing PIL with en garde be to epee in light of the absence of ROW conventions? I can't imagine that it matters. If there <i>is</i> a reason for establishing PIL ASAP, simply do so immediately after action begins, as it is unlikely your opponent will attempt to do the same.

I agree with everything damianip wrote, but with caveats. Yes, fencers should stand up for themselves when the director is obviously or critically incorrect: when he or she has forgotten or consistently badly enforces clear regulations. If you are unemotional and otherwise polite when confronting a director concerning an objective aspect of a regulation -- and you attempt to do so discreetly -- he or she <i>should not</i> hold a grudge; and many won't.

However, many people in authoritarian positions react in unhealthy and unreasonable ways when contradicted in any form, so if you are unfamiliar with the director and the matter in question isn't truly integral to your strategy or other aspects of your performance, it's may be best, IMO, to simply accept the offending circumstance and adjust to the director. Shrug it off, in effect.

With rare exception (whether in marriage, a professional relationship, a friendship, etc.), the more a person objects, the less seriously that person's objections will be considered. ("Don't pay any attention to him: He's always complaining about something. He'll never be satisfied.", etc.) Make discriminate judgments when considering whether to engage a director in conflict. And if you ever sit down on the strip and insist on protesting to the bout committee, don't ever expect to get the benefit of another close call from that director in your entire career.

In summary: Some issues are so important that no consequence can justify keeping your mouth shut; but temper your desire to set the record straight with common sense and wisdom.

[The0ne]

Directors like good, helpful fencers on their strips, the thing to do is forget it, start without PIL, then after fence go into it. The director will realize you are willing to work with them, you get a good reputation.

[nahouw]

Originally posted by damianip
It's an easy mistake to make. It is prohibited in foil and sabre but not epee.

Like Paolo said, it is an easy mistake to make, since it is prohibited in 2 out of the 3 weapons due to the rules of priority. I have also seen referees who have refused to commence a bout when 1 fencer had their point dropped in invitation and not in the en guarde position, so you do have to listen to and respect your referee.

Although you were technically right, I don't think that if I was in your position that this would be the battle to choose against the referee by calling the bout committee. Think about it: upon the command to fence, and before your opponent even finished an advance, you could put your point-in-line and still be out of distance. The downfall in persisting strongly to the bout committee in your position would be that you would then gain a reputation as somebody who complains. Not only does the referee in question sees this now as your reputation, but also all the members of the bout committee and all the other fencers in your pool, and any other observers who happened to be watching.

Although you were right in this situation, that reputation will still follow you. Fencers should appeal to the bout committee when there is a misapplication of the rules, HOWEVER, the fencer better know the rule down cold, since if the bout committee determines that you have an unjustified appeal, you will be carded. Also, in a case like this, you have to weigh what is the worth of taking on the battle, versus your other options available versus the effect to your reputation.

It just goes back to the old war adage, that sometimes it is better to lose a battle (or not even take one on) in order to win a war.

[pkt]

As some of the previous respondents pointed out,
~ do not let a wrong call throw you off your game - which it appears it has [you didn't mention if you won that bout or not, I am interested to know];
~ do not antagonise the ref; after all he/she can intentionally make some wrong calls against you;
~ as a fencer, you are supposed to adapt to the ref's interpretation of the rules, not he/she yours;
~ if you think that's a bad ref, you ain't seen nothing yet - try fencing the other two weapons. Then you should female dog.

PK

[edew]

Actually, both fencers are supposed to be "ON GUARD" which is bent arm in sixte (or tierce) position. There is no difference among the weapons (the FOC and the FIE is trying to make as many of these rules consistent across all weapons).

There's no need to piss off the referee. You're lucky to get a touch for the rest of the day. "Uh, I called halt before you hit. No touch..."

[Tireur]

Actually, both fencers are supposed to be "ON GUARD" which is bent arm in sixte

Did they change the rule to specify that? I thought it just said, "In the common fashion" or something like that.

[pkt]

Originally posted by Regret d'Vie
..."All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient . . ." 1 Cor. 6:12 KJV)

It is at times like this that, as an agnostic, I appreciate the 8 years I spent studying the bible - New Testament mostly.

The rest of that quotation:
"All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient:
all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any."

Maybe that's fencingman's sentiment when he challenged the ref's call...


The power of using a quotation to refute another quotation. YES! [...as he pumps his arm.]

PK

[pkt]

Originally posted by edew
...

There's no need to piss off the referee. You're lucky to get a touch for the rest of the day. "Uh, I called halt before you hit. No touch..."

To add insult to injury, the ref adds, "I called a mental "Halt!" way before I called it; and that's three moves back."

PK

[walrus418]

Actually, rule t.17 says in part:


The fencers must come on guard correctly and remain still until the command 'Fence' is given by the Referee. In foil and saber fencers may not come on guard in the 'in line' position.


The implication here is that in epee it is allowable to come on guard in the'in lne' position.

[damianip]

Originally posted by walrus418
Actually, rule t.17 says in part:


The fencers must come on guard correctly and remain still until the command 'Fence' is given by the Referee. In foil and saber fencers may not come on guard in the 'in line' position.


The implication here is that in epee it is allowable to come on guard in the'in lne' position.

True, but once again, there are contradictions in the rulebook (what a surprise!!). It seems that being in a proper on guard prevents one from being in line.

In the 2000 OG ME team final, one can repeatedly hear the director telling the fencers to come on guard, even when they are at the line and not moving. At one point, he even tells Milanoli to be "en sixte" on guard.

The point is, as Carol and others have pointed out, choose your battles with the director carefully, even when you are correct.

Paolo

[Regret d'Vie]

Originally posted by pkt
It is at times like this that, as an agnostic, I appreciate the 8 years I spent studying the bible - New Testament mostly.

The rest of that quotation:
"All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient:
all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any."

Maybe that's fencingman's sentiment when he challenged the ref's call...


The power of using a quotation to refute another quotation. YES! [...as he pumps his arm.]

PK

For those of you that avoid theological debate, bear with me and I'll bring this back around to the original referee question in a moment:

Actually, pkt, I nearly cited the entire quotation, as the remainder further <i>supports</i> my point. I ultimately chose to abridge it because I intended it to be a subtilely clever comment, and thought brevity contributed to this end.

Theological consensus (which, granted, does not always equate to a "correct" interpretation) is that this passage is a general principal governing decision-making that more specifically exhorts followers of Christ to avoid abusing God's grace and "liberty in Christ."

In plain language, it simply means: "Just because I <i>can</i> do something doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it. I won't become a slave to something -- or otherwise allow something to hurt me -- that I'm legally allowed to do."

Practical examples:

"I can drink alcohol, but it may not be the wisest thing to do, and I'm certainly not going to give it the chance to consume me."

"I can golf, but it may not be the best use of my time and money, and I'm certainly not going to allow it to take time away from my children."

or, in the case we're discussing:

"According to fencing regulations, I am right, the director is wrong, and I have a legal avenue of protest. But protesting this particular call may not be good for my fencing career. I'm certainly not going to allow my desire to protest a trivial call destroy my reputation with directors."

DISCLAIMER: Drinkers and golfers, please withhold flames: I simply needed common examples.

[Regret d'Vie]

Originally posted by The0ne
Directors like good, helpful fencers on their strips, the thing to do is forget it, start without PIL, then after fence go into it. The director will realize you are willing to work with them, you get a good reputation.

Agreed, but the director won't realize that you are working with them if he doesn't realize he made an incorrect call in the first place. Granted, there are times when a director makes a call and then a moment later realizes he botched it. ("Make-up" calls, anyone?) But generally, a director is unlikely to recognize an incorrect call if you (or someone else) doesn't inform him of it.

So, I suppose you can either convince a third-party to point out the director's inaccuracy between bouts (which won't help you in the current bout), or you could arrange a secret signal with the director before the pool begins: "Okay, if I scratch my nose then pull my left earlobe, it means 'You made a bad call, but being the forgiving soul I am, I'm letting it slide this time.' Got it?"

[Regret d'Vie]

Originally posted by nahouw
The downfall in persisting strongly to the bout committee in your position would be that you would then gain a reputation as somebody who complains. Not only does the referee in question sees this now as your reputation, but also all the members of the bout committee and all the other fencers in your pool, and any other observers who happened to be watching.

Although you were right in this situation, that reputation will still follow you. Fencers should appeal to the bout committee when there is a misapplication of the rules, HOWEVER, the fencer better know the rule down cold, since if the bout committee determines that you have an unjustified appeal, you will be carded.

Two great points, nahouw -- the first of which I failed to make clear in my post, and the second (carding) didn't even cross my mind.

To elaborate on nahouw's first point (I guess you guys have figured out by now that elaborating is one of my "strong" traits. ), the fencing community is a small one, and fencinman89, you can bet that the members of the bout committee, most every director present, and many of the stronger fencers in the competition will one day be presiding over your bouts (assuming you continue to pursue a competitive fencing career). This situation is even more pronounced in a rural area such as mine, where we see the same people over and over again at most tournaments in a 150 mile radius. If you fence in such an environment, making a scene in front of a bunch of these guys would be particularly unwise.

[Artisan]

It does indeed seem to me to be a case of debating the point for the sake of debate.

Why start with PIL anyway? Pose for cameras? Intimidate your opponent? Too slow to get it out there in time after the "fence" if your opponent flesches right off the line?

I'd add that the referee's command is usually On Guard, Ready, Fence. One is not required to answer "Yes, Ready" Some people say "Sir" as a reply, but usually it is sufficient to stand still ON guard and wait for the command to Fence. By assuming the "conventional" onguard stance you signify to the ref that you are "ready" so he may commence the bout. This is clear and easily understood.

Some people stretch out their arm to situate the body cord, or loosen up, or sort out their clothing. This can look like taking up PIL. Would you have the ref start you while you are stretching - clearly you are not "ready"

Seems more sound to focus on the bout, your fencing and opponent than to wrestle with the referee over an irrelevant issue.

[Rolls]

Originally posted by Artisan
Why start with PIL anyway? Pose for cameras? Intimidate your opponent? Too slow to get it out there in time after the "fence" if your opponent flesches right off the line?

I've seen some people in epee who prefer to fence the entire time with point in line, which is probably why they would want to start with point in line. I personally wouldn't want to fence this way, but if it works for a fencer and is legal who is to tell them not to.

I'd add that the referee's command is usually On Guard, Ready, Fence. One is not required to answer "Yes, Ready" Some people say "Sir" as a reply, but usually it is sufficient to stand still ON guard and wait for the command to Fence. By assuming the "conventional" onguard stance you signify to the ref that you are "ready" so he may commence the bout. This is clear and easily understood.

But one is also required to be completely still. So, isn't it also enough that even if you are not in this so called "conventional" guard stance that by being still and not moving and not objecting, it is enough for the ref to know you're ready. If not, then just say, "Ready".

Some people stretch out their arm to situate the body cord, or loosen up, or sort out their clothing. This can look like taking up PIL. Would you have the ref start you while you are stretching - clearly you are not "ready"

But if they're doing this, then they're moving. The rules require the fencers to start without motion. So, the ref SHOULD know that you aren't ready. But if that's not enough, then a simple, polite "One moment, I'm adjusting my body cord" should be enough.

Seems more sound to focus on the bout, your fencing and opponent than to wrestle with the referee over an irrelevant issue.

But if you want to start out fencing with PiL and the rules clearly state that it is acceptable, then why not object. What's the worse thing that could happen? The ref holds it against you? Well, fortunately, it is epee and there is not too much room for the ref to enter his judgement. And if you don't ever get hit, then you don't ever get hit.

If the ref forever holds a grudge, the person should not have been reffing because they are obviously not objective. Granted some refs are biased, they only have so much power over the bout (they can't make lights go on and off). So, be a better person and ignore it, if they decide to retaliate. But fear of swaying a referee, should never be the cause for you not to stand up for yourself.

Rolls.