| Few questions for coaches and referees |
 |
 |
 |
| Domenica 26 Giugno 2011 08:35 | |
 It is inevitable to think about:
- the nature of our actions and of others
- the end / our and their purpose
- if in that situation, in that moment, one can
- the ultimate Destiny .
E.L.
Gentlemen (and ladies) Lately discussions have been going on about rules and refereeing on this site, Schermaonline.org, and Fencing.net. Some comments have provoked interesting reactions both nationally and internationally.
I would like to ask your informed opinion hoping to clarify the raised issues for everybody.
On fencing.net in particular, in reply to the original article by maestro Vincenzo Castrucci and subsequent comments, downunder - a young Australian FIE B rated referee in foil and épée who is appointed to referee at Catania 2011 - posted his reply to maestro Enrico Di Ciolo who had posted his comment on Schermaonline.org (translation from the original).
Enrico Di Ciolo on Schermaonline.org replying to Giuseppe Trivelli, as posted on Fencing.net http://www.fencing.net/forums/thread54875.html "Exactly, Giuseppe, difesa di misura (retreating to avoid being touched) does not give any right to a riposte. This is what should be told to foil and saber referees who often are wrong and give ROW to the defender irrespective of the fact that he touched before the fencer who executed the first attack which ended being short. In theory one can execute several lunges and his opponent avoid being hit by moving back each time, but the ROW remains ALWAYS for the fencer who attacked first. Here is a quiz for you: · A advances and threatens the valid target of B while he touches ground with his forward foot. · B attempts to parry A's threat but misses. · A & B hit simultaneously. Who has ROW? The referees say B. OK, then I adapt and persuade my students to make "flying" feints (i.e. before touching the ground with the forward foot). But this is an unheard of prevarication for ALL those who know fencing and, if possible, I'd like to spare these "obscenities" in the future. What do you think? Is there a referee around who can tell me that there is a convention among the referees on the convention?"
Here is downunder comment on Fencing.net: "Mr Di Ciolo or the referees clearly haven't been lectured by Marco enough. The attaque composée is a pretty standard part of the Siesto seminar."
Reading the comments both here and on Schermaonline.org, my understanding is that there is nothing written which actually clearly explains this attaque composée in order for the maestri to be in a position to correctly teach/coach, so that the students can learn it correctly, and the referees make calls which are correct and consistently uniform. These are the questions I have for all of you. · Absent written updates in the Règlement technique for a weapon or when the [old] Rules don't cover certain situations [which have evolved since the Rules were initially codified] can the referee make calls by analogy so to speak, i.e. by giving his interpretation when he must evaluate a certain situation possibly following general [established and accepted] principles? · That interpretation, once accepted, could/should evolve into a norm? · What are the steps in the procedure to update the refereeing rules with written norms which have not yet been codified? Lastly, who detains the knowledge of fencing? The maestri who teach people how to fence or the referees who judge people how they fence? And if both and together, how? Thank you, Ella Loescher |
Commenti
Since I was named by this referee I never had the pleasure to meet or talk to, here is my point.
The convention rules are written rules. We all know that an attack is an offensive action which starts with a threat to the valid target and ends with the full extension of the weapon's arm. Therefore, I said and say it again that many referees today avoid respecting the convention in an attaque composee. They give ROW to the fencer who attempts to parry the feints (by the attacker) and touches the original attacker as soon as the attacker's forward foot touches the ground. In other words these referees say that when the attacker touches the ground with the front foot the attack is "over". This is not correct and it has become a "convention by the referees" on the "fencing convention."
Translated by gram
Dear Ella,
You are raising a number of interesting questions in your open letter.
The first three which are more technical in nature offer reasons to reflect and at the same time raise further questions.
The last two ("in conclusion") if taken literally stray into metaphysics!
I would like to address your question: who are the retainers of fencing knowledge?
This "simple" question is not an easy one to answer. We must bring in specific technical issues you raised above.
Let's consider the relations between Maestri (fencing coaches) and referees but let's also include the students/fencers in this very important triangle of interrelations.
I believe it is necessary to first clarify some basic concepts which relate to teaching and learning involving Maestri and students.
It is important to start from three concepts:
• PROGRAM
• SYLLABUS/PROGRAMMING SCHEDULE
• TECHNICAL RULES
PROGRAM
By this I mean the working plan a teacher (for example a schoolteacher) or the Maestro (fencing coach) intends to develop and accomplish and which the controlling authority (principal/board of education or "fencing authority"--more about this later) decide that must be followed in the various school levels (elementary, middle, and high school, etc.) or in fencing categories (from Under 14 to Under 20 to Senior).
The school authority requires that teachers present to their students what their educational program/curriculum entails within a defined period of time.
In fencing there is no supreme authority to request that maestri act like in a school environment since everybody is practically free to select whichever way he wants to teach fencing.
However, if we want to point to a form of fencing authority, we the maestri could find it in our fencing treatises from which everybody learns specific fencing concepts, techniques, definitions, etc., and which constitute the essence of fencing that has produced a considerable number of Italian maestri of international renown over the years.
SYLLABUS/PROGRAMMING SCHEDULE
This is the natural development process of many didactic activities which include the "obligatory" teaching/mastering of the steps necessary to learn a discipline. This process is personalized, is the characteristic of each teacher, and translates in:
• methodology and
• didactics
For example, when school starts in the fall, the teacher tackles at his discretion his programming schedule to achieve the established goals within the program, which is what we fencing coaches do every year at the beginning of a new fencing season.
TECHNICAL RULES
The Technical Rules (Règlement technique) is the bread and butter of the referee. The Règlement disciplines and regulates sport and competitive fencing using many concepts, conventions in the combat, terminologies, sanctions, directives, technical terms, how to call an action, etc.
We the Maestri promote and teach the sport of (competitive) fencing from the standpoint of the "treatises" which we study and refer to all the time, our individual methodology, basic knowledge, and experience. In Italy, this means that we continue in the traditions of our own Maestri, those who taught us how to fence and how to teach fencing, monitored us during our training period as instructors (regional and national), and helped us at the beginning of our career as Maestri.
The difference with the referees is that we Maestri rely for everything or most everything concerning fencing to our own "totems" which we have learned to worship (treatises and our own Maestri). Referees don't have a direct contact with our "totems" and as is often the case they have no connection at all with or knowledge of our "totems," especially the fencing treatises to which we always go back to during a discussion.
One should always remember Note 1 in Chapter 2 of the Règlement: EXPLICATION DE QUELQUES TERMES TECHNIQUES EMPLOYES LE PLUS SOUVENT DANS LES JUGEMENTS D'ESCRIME (1) (t.6 – t.14) (EXPLANATION OF SOME TECHNICAL TERMS COMMONLY USED IN THE JUDGING OF FENCING)
Il est précisé que ce chapitre ne remplace pas un traité d’escrime et qu’il n’est placé ici qu’en vue de faciliter la compréhension du Règlement
Let's now bring our fencing students who learn fencing from us, the Maestri. The students have obligations to their maestri and to themselves;
• to the Maestri: they must trust them because in their profession they do everything they can to put their students in the best possible situation, making sure that they have the best experience possible to achieve the highest goals in competition;
• to themselves: they ought to get more and more involved in the dynamics and various aspects which concern their fencing, e.g., knowing the "rules of the game" and the Technical Rules. How many fencers, young and even elite know at least in part the Technical Rules, regardless whether the rules are clear and right or not?
From these general considerations I believe the following applies to the three actors in this game.
FENCERS
Students learn (they don't "research" information, or "study" from textbooks) the parts of a club's/maestro's program through the programming schedule/plan set by the Maestro. The relation student-maestro imply that the student must commit to learn, among other things, the rules of the sport by asking questions, being active and proactive, showing interest as an individual and as part of the group.
MAESTRI
From his part, the Maestro will try his best to explain all this to the student. Important questions:
• Where do the explanations of the rules which the maestro gives to the student come from?
o From the principles in a treatise,
o From the "Règlement technique", or
o both?
• What if/when there is disagreement between the two?
The example provided by Maestro Enrico di Ciolo of the “distance parry” is very important in this discussion because he says that he ADAPTS to teach his students to execute a feint “on the fly” i.e., when the attacker’s front foot is still in the air.
He must do so because many referees, in the precise situation cited by Di Ciolo as an example, tend to call the attaque composée by A—feint by A for which B attempts a parry which misses, followed immediately by A’s attack, which does not touch B because B is moving back (“distance parry”)—thusly: “Attack [by A] No” and they give the riposte to B who, as Di Ciolo points out did nothing to earn it according to the treatises..
He must do so because many referees, in the exact situation cited by Di Ciolo as an example, tend to call the attaque composée i.e.,
• A feints an attack and follows immediately with a true attack • B falls for the feint and attempts a parry which obviously misses
• A's true attack continues and touches B
• B touches A
Many referees reconstruct this action thusly:
• “Attack [by A] No”
• "Riposte [by B] - Touch [by B]"
This is wrong because as Di Ciolo points out B did nothing to earn the riposte according to all treatises.
Even if we accept what Di Ciolo calls the "convention on the convention invented by the referees" that the attack by A is over [in saber] when his foot touches the piste and B takes the initiative executing his attack, the referee should call this action thusly:
• "Attack [by A] No"
• "Attack [by B] Touch"
The general concept is much better explained in the treatise where it states that
• a parry with blade contact gives the right to a riposte,
• a “distance parry” does not give right to any riposte, it only prolongs the action, i.e., it makes the attack action by A last longer.
Regretfully, some referees continue talking of "distance parry" because they are convinced that both the concept of the "distance parry" and its practical execution exist. A serious error!
The Règlement technique on the other hand is a text which is updated and modified--not by maestri--which contains rules which we must adhere to, which are often not very clear to us the teachers and to our students, because they are subject to applications/interpretations by the referees which we the maestri often consider questionable, as we always feel when something goes against our “totems.”.
REFEREES
The job/role of the referee is to make sure that a set of technical rules is enforced and that the bout is fought according to the rules applied uniformly and impartially for all. The referee has no functional role/part in the teaching program of each maestro because the referee is not present in the salle when the maestro teaches his student--the referee in general only enters the relation triangle in a competition bout. But the referee can very much influence the end result of the maestro's teaching as far as the competitive results are concerned. These in turn are considered a kind of fundamental feedback to the fine tuning and improvement of our profession, when we have misunderstandin g (let's call them so...) with the referees.
If my student in competition hears a reconstruction of the action by the referee which is different from what he has learned in the fencing salle from me, what should he do? Whom should he ask? The referee for sure at least then and there, avoid getting in a frozen state because of the for him incomprehensibl e reconstruction of the action be the referee, he should change actions/way of fencing, and do what the referee wants him to do if he wants to have a chance to save the bout.
But when he gets back to the salle to continue train and work with his coach, how can we solve this problem? Is his Maestro right because he continues to see things his way (following the treatises), or is the referee right to apply the Technical Rules the way he knows them or was told to interpret them?
CONCLUSION
Who holds the real ultimate knowledge in fencing?
Today nobody has the wisdom of the Fencing Sphinx. I think that maestri and referees should be considered as children from the same mother (fencing=scherma, feminine in Italian) born at different times AND from different fathers. In the sport of fencing maestri and referees are institutional figures linked and bound together. They need to confront openly the issues they have. They may not be aware of these issues for many reasons one being that some don’t want to acknowledge that there are differences as is apparent from the comments of some referees who think everything is honky dory. Unfortunately, maestri don’t think so and I hope I pointed out at least some of the reasons why.
Let me quote what Maestro Bonsanto wrote, "Coaches must have a technical debate with the Referees' Commission because all coaches think the same way, i.e., they base their knowledge on the [same] fencing treatises!" I must say that Michele in his personal way is not wrong on this.
If we don't look at all this in a direct and open discussion [maestri and referees] and all we do is talk in private, face to face on the side of the strip, we may presume to know everything (both maestri and referees), make accusations or off color remarks against each other, but on the strip we will continue to witness regretful scenes and theatrics where in the end the ones who will lose in terms of results and total confusion will be the fencers.
My simple conclusion is that I agree with those who think that at least in an open dialog and by sharing information we can find the beginning of a solution. I look forward to see what will happen...
Maestro Alessio Bonino
Reply from Michele Bonsanto
Bravo Alessio! I liked what you wrote a lot. Just one correction: I am not a Maestro and would not like to be charged according to article 498 of the penal code, with "usurpation of professional title."
.
.
.