How some foil referees break rules

Discussion in 'Rules and Referee Questions' started by Malicia, Mar 28, 2019.

  1. Malicia

    Malicia Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    21
    Our official international Technical Rules

    - Article T83-2-a : "The simple attack, direct or indirect, is correctly executed when the straightening of the arm, the point threatening the valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge or the flèche".
    - Article T83-2-d : "Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations, laying themselves open to the initiation of the offensive or defensive/offensive action of the opponent".
    - Article T89-5-a : "Only the fencer who attacks is counted as hit If he initiates his attack when his opponent has his point in line without deflecting the opponent’s weapon".
    - Article T46 : "By accepting a position as referee or judge, the person so designated pledges his honour to respect the Rules and to cause them to be respected"



    Sergei Golubisky, Ukrainian fencer who won three straight world championships in Men's Foil, etc.
    I'm very sad […]. I start to check out on the world's referee and I’m not happy about it at all because practically attack in preparation rapidly vanished. So there is a new way I would, call it new wave of a performing an attack. So basically it becomes marching and dancing on the spot.
    […] Many fences did actually in different countries but this is quite sad because they just stayed standing on the spot and pretend to advanced […]
    So fencing in the way has changed so since opponent doesn't finish his attack you can not take the blade, so you cannot parry it. So in the end if you try to make correct attacking preparation they won't give to you anyway. So in the end you have to do only some weird squirmy counter-attacks and then but people complaining all: “look at these these guys just squirmy and ugly fencing” …


    Few examples:
    Referee have said that right fencer has attacked (video 3h41min39s)
    [​IMG]

    Referee have said that right fencer has attacked (video 1h29min33s)
    [​IMG]

    Referee have said that left fencer has attacked (video 1h12m23s)
    [​IMG]

    Referee have said that right fencer has attacked (video 16m23s)
    [​IMG]

    Referee have said that left fencer has attacked (video 2H9m6s)
    [​IMG]

    Referee have said that left fencer has attacked (video 1H45m16s)[​IMG]

    Those referee should learn : Attack on preparation !
    (and... rules.... and fencing...)

    Be serious, be rigourous, read and quote the rules.
     
    ccadet and Michael Comte like this.
  2. keropie

    keropie Podium

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,530
    Likes Received:
    202
    t.7 It is stressed that this section in no way replaces a treatise on fencing and is only included in order to help the reader understand the rules.
     
  3. Allen Evans

    Allen Evans Podium

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,884
    Likes Received:
    937
    I was curious about this so I spent a few minutes looking at the last video in the post by Malicia (touch at 1H45m16s). I had two observations:
    1. Context is important. Before the touch in question occurs Garozza beats Avola's blade and starts to step forward to make an advance lunge attack. Avola attempts to steal the time by lunging into the attack, but (in my opinion) doesn't steal enough time. He rightly asks for a replay, the referee does so and upholds the call. Avola doesn't seem to have a problem with this. He thought he had the time, and he....didn't.
    2. The slower you run the video (I slowed it WAY down) the more it looks like an attack in prep. When you run it at full speed, though, that artifact disappears. The FIE itself cautions against running reply too slowly, since it tends to put in artifacts that don't really exist.
     
    Privateer likes this.
  4. Michael Comte

    Michael Comte Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    14
    Garozzo makes a beat on Avola's ligne, right, and Avola's comes back in garde position, but then Garozzo put his weapon down, point toward the wall and looses the priority he had just gained. This action is over.
    Then the 2 attack, but Avola is faster. He asks for the video because he feels he was faster, the referee upholds the call. Not much more he can do except trying to stay focus.
     
  5. Allen Evans

    Allen Evans Podium

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,884
    Likes Received:
    937
    Well, I suppose what we have is a difference of opinion, then. I think it's a good call. But I would add two things:

    1. Since we're relying on the rules, I must point out that in foil, the rules don't exactly specify when the attack is over, just what the defender has to do to take priority away from the attacker (find the blade or completely avoid the attack, which becomes a problem when rules don't define when the attack ends).

    2. I think you should avoid the word "faster". Perhaps "sooner" might have been a better choice (but then, see 1, above). If you make a lunge with a slowly extending arm and I make a faster extension of my arm (but after you've started your lunge) do I have priority?
     
  6. Michael Comte

    Michael Comte Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    14
    1- You're right, it is not clear in the rules when the attack ends.

    Still I read:
    Respect of the fencing phrase
    t.101
    2 The attack is correctly carried out when the straightening of the arm, with the point or the cutting edge
    continuously threatening the valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge.


    So my assumption is that when you stop threatening the target, your attack ends. But right, this is not 100% clear in this case.

    2- Yes, sooner is the right word.

    In the case you mention I would say that the one extending his arm first would have the right of way.
     
  7. Allen Evans

    Allen Evans Podium

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,884
    Likes Received:
    937
    So, wait a minute. Your "assumption"? You can't really get on a public forum and accuse people of breaking the rules because of their commonly held assumptions about how to interpret the rule book, and then make your own assumptions about the rules. That seems a little, well, duplicitous to me.

    But let's look at that rule again about continuously threatening the target. Think of your reaction to this call: Fencer lunges and hits off target in the thigh. The opponent extends (without moving) at the same time and hits valid. The referee gives the touch to the opponent since the fencer was obviously not "threatening target" since they hit the thigh?

    I don't think you would be happy with that call. Yet, that -- by the rules -- it is a correct interpretation and if I was the fencer scoring in this case, and I didn't get the call, I could certainly make an argument that the referee wasn't "following the rules".

    Another example: I make an advance lunge, extending my arm all the way through the phrase, with the arm fully extended by the time I hit. My opponent, as soon as they see me start my approach, stands still and immediately extends the arm ahead of my lunge. Is this his touch? I suspect you would say yes, that the attacker had ignored the threatening point and lunged anyway. But this simply becomes a matter of perspective as I would argue that the defender ignored the start of the attack and decided not to parry. So the interpretation of the rule comes down to a point of view, alone.

    The rules were written as a general guideline for fencing -- at that time. That's been said before on this thread. The danger in following the rules exactly as they are written is that you have two fencers standing still with their arms extended, hoping the other one does something foolish first. That makes for some pretty damn boring fencing.

    It seems that you want priority to be iron clad, and I can understand the frustration of dealing with rules that can be fluid and open to interpretation as they go through periods where that interpretation is hard to discern. There are fencing groups out there (the "Classical" fencing movement) that see priority more like you do. Have you explored them? I mean this in all seriousness. You'd be happier.
     
    DangerMouse likes this.
  8. Malicia

    Malicia Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    21
    Oh, I’m so glad that you have finally read rules! But this “section” is just about technical terms.
    Try to read the section VALIDITY OR PRIORITY OF THE HIT about foil (art. T82 to T89), you will know how to judge fencing phrase.

    Absolutely not.
    Rules are written, quite clear, and rules give you the important facts that you have to focus on, in order to determine the priority.
    The “context” is just another facts that referees use to break rules.
    What those referees called “context” is just used to justify bad calls : that’s not to judge fencing phrase with rules.

    [​IMG]
    Everybody can watch a quite long extract (time for two retreats and a lunge)
    Everybody can watch the whole fencing phrase, and there is not any beats.

    - Article T83-2-d : "Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations, laying themselves open to the initiation of the offensive or defensive/offensive action of the opponent".
    [​IMG]

    Serioulsly, I don't really thing we can judge foil, with sabre rules (t101) ?
     
  9. Allen Evans

    Allen Evans Podium

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,884
    Likes Received:
    937
    You're that guy that gives a yellow card for one sock being down and a red card for the other sock being down, aren't you?
     
    Privateer likes this.
  10. Malicia

    Malicia Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    21
    Be serious.
    Ask anybody (but not one of those referee), ask a non-fencer: who should have the hit and the point.
    [​IMG]
    In fact peope don't need to read rules to answer and understand.
    People are quite logical, our rules are logical. But those referees makes foil a non-sense.

    If those referees don't understand fencing with a foil (and the fencing time concept), they should use official rules!
     
  11. Allen Evans

    Allen Evans Podium

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,884
    Likes Received:
    937
    I am being serious. As I pointed above, when you insist on rules being the rules without fail, things lose their nuance and the ability for interpretation. You are forced into giving a yellow card and then a red card when both socks are down.

    Without context and interpretation, the sport becomes boring and tired.

    You very much seem to be in the wrong branch of the sport (see my note about Classical fencing, above). Why are you working so hard to be so unhappy when there are alternatives out there?

    Waiter? The check, please.
     
    DangerMouse likes this.
  12. Michael Comte

    Michael Comte Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    14
    Personally, I am happy to fence every week, following the rules. In Germany it is easy, if a rule is written, we follow it, in my club we don't care about the international referees trends and fashion. To beginners who want to understand the right of way, I tell to watch the first one who extends his arm toward the target, it works most of the times.

    I fence sometime with people who want to fence like in the olympics, it is even more ridiculous than the video posted in this forum, because they don't have the same athletic condition, so they are 2 times slower. When you see a guy pointing his weapon to the sky and running to you until he gets your weapon in the belly, and then extending his arm to flick on your shoulder half a second later, it is so ridiculous... Fortunately, most people don't fence like that.
     
    Stellan likes this.
  13. keropie

    keropie Podium

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,530
    Likes Received:
    202
    And here's the thing: that's all fine. I have no problem with that. Everyone should enjoy their hobbies (and for almost all of us, the actual activity of fencing is a hobby; even those of us who are paid as coaches, or referees, or whatever, we're not generally making a living by fencing). And if the way you enjoy your hobby is what I would consider more 'classical' fencing, cool. But leave mine alone, and stop stating that 'some referees break the rules' just because you're position is the absolute reading of the rulebook, and the FIE's position is a different interpretation. That's offensive.

    And should some day we stand face to face, I will happily restate this opinion.
     
  14. Michael Comte

    Michael Comte Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    14
    Sorry, I didn't want to offend you.

    But one thing is clear: the referees decisions in foil have never been so debated than today. I have been fencing since 40 years and I never saw such a situation. When Sergei Golubisky says he he not happy with that situation, you shouldn't just say that he is just an old fashion guy, it means something.
     
  15. Malicia

    Malicia Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    21
    What you call classical fencing is, in fact, the french foil in the 19th. So we know better than you what classical fencing was.
    At the end of the 19th, french people hated classical fencing, because this kind of fencing was a non-sense (...so they has invented the epee).
    Nowadays, some people from anglosaxon countries like classical fencing. It's quite romantic, but it's still a non-sense fencing.
    French people don't bear classical fencing.

    So, we are talking about actual foil fencing with actual official rules from december 2018.
    Rules from december 2018 ! Not december 1879 !
    So let's come back in present.

    Welcome in 2019.
    CIP 2019. Referee has said that left fencer was attacking (priority, but no valid target) - Video 23min28sec
    [​IMG]
    - Article T83-2-a : "The simple attack, direct or indirect, is correctly executed when the straightening of the arm, the point threatening the valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge or the flèche".
    [​IMG]
    Who has straighten his arm ?
    Who has maked a lunge ?
    Who has attacked ?
    Who has the priority ?
    Who has the point?

    Ask anyone, a non-fencer. Anyone would say, the right fencer should have the point!
    Read rules (art t83-2-a and t83-2-d), the right fencer should have the point!
    Read a fencing treaty : the right fencer has won the fencing time.

    But the referee has said the opposite, the referee has broken rules - and the logic.

    Some referees seem to read rules and to understand it. For example:
    Jeff Bukantz: "The attack is not determined by the footwork but rather by the hand, the point threatening the opponent valid target, watch the hand, not the feet"
    [/QUOTE]
     
    ccadet likes this.
  16. ChrisL

    ChrisL Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    16
    For context:


     
  17. Michael Comte

    Michael Comte Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    14
    It's more than 2 hours of video, please tell me what you mean by, I don't understand.
     
  18. downunder

    downunder is a Verified Fencing Expertdownunder Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,876
    Likes Received:
    495
    I think we should make foil about who can straighten their arm fastest, regardless of context or footwork. This would be great to watch and great for the sport...........
     
    Privateer and ccadet like this.
  19. wwittman

    wwittman Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    23
    so you are 'teaching' and reinforcing a manner of fencing that is relegating your fencers to do poorly in international competition?
     
  20. wwittman

    wwittman Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    23

    yes, he does SAY that... and 'point threatening the valid target' doesn't say 'with extended arm'.

    there are in fact many instances of bent arm attacks being given right of way (including by Jeff in the commentary) in that video
     

Share This Page