It is not easy to be a referee. Just think of the disproportion between the tools he has to make a call and the number of fans and people who judge his decision.

Referee Marco Siesto accepted our invitation to talk about written or interpreted rules in fencing and the interaction between referees and maestri/coaches which we proposed in Few Questions for Coaches and Referees. This resulted in two parts, first a presentation by Siesto followed by a second part in the form of Q&A.

I want to thank Marco Siesto for participating and answering all questions even the more inconvenient. Others have not, yet…

E.L.

 Marco Siesto: On Fencing Refereeing

I believe that to judge a fencing action it is never enough to discuss it—one ends up talking about theories or fencing philosophy which are very removed from the practical reality. To analyze a fencing action from a referee’s point of view one must definitely first see it, and then discuss it to be able to resolve any doubt and sanction once and for all how it shall be called.

It is implicit that Maestri teach fencing and referees must apply fencing rules and conventions.

Obviously, there must be a close collaboration between maestri and referees in the analysis phase of some peculiar cases of fencing actions to arrive to a common understanding of how such actions must be called.

International Coaches Commission

During the Senior World Championships in Antalya in 2009, with a strong support from yours truly and the FIE Arbitrage Commission the 1^st International Coaches Commission was formed (albeit for now only an unofficial commission) which elected as its president Maître Christian Bauer (photo A. Fiore). The Italian representative is Maestro Stefano Cerioni. This Coaches Commission came to be because of the very principle of collaboration which must exist between maestri and referees.

This collaboration must have the goal to assist the members of the various national and international Rules Commissions—remember that Giuseppe Cafiero, member of the FIS EC, is also member of the FIE Rules Commission—to update the Règlement technique, not to change it radically, by improving its parts to adapt to a way of fencing which in recent years, thanks also to new technologies (video arbitrage and play back in slow motion) has changed drastically.

The first question to ask is did fencing change for the better?

I was lucky to approach fencing, especially saber fencing, when there was still a referee with four side judges and then transition to electric saber with the sensors, when simultaneous touches gave a point to each fencer, when the flèche was abolished, and the lights in the signaling apparatus were reversed. And I continued until saber fencing of today which in my opinion has evolved into a better fencing and a better way to referee saber also.

The same holds for foil and èpèe.

We have today saber bouts with a very high level of spectacularity but from the referee’s point of view they are extremely difficult to judge. Just think about last year World Championships in Paris, in particular the match between Italy and China in men’s team foil, or between Italy and Russia in men’s team saber.

I repeat: very beautiful to watch but very difficult to referee.

“Again, it is possible to fail in many ways…”

In these cases the help from modern technology is fundamental because we must judge hits or technical gestures at very high speed.

Clearly, Valentina Vezzali is one in a million, just like Peter Erdei, Hungarian, the best referee in the world for more than a decade, is also one in a million.

We cannot expect/demand that the referee makes no mistakes. A referee can make important wrong calls just like a fencer can be wrong in the execution of a decisive touch or a coach can be wrong in the tactical interpretation of a decisive bout.

The common objective must be to reduce these errors through cooperation between the various parties involved when we get together to study and analyze.

“… while to succeed is possible only in one way…” Aristotle (*)  

In the last fifteen years I have had often the opportunity to meet during competitions with expert interlocutors, with many maestri of countless Olympic and world medalists. They all contributed tremendously in improving my skills as a referee and my technical/practical fencing knowledge. Just to mention few names, I remember extremely fruitful conversations with Antonio Di Ciolo (photo) and then his son Enrico which always ended with a final understanding which was clear and without doubts.

I was in Norcia recently at the training camp of men’s and women’s foil national teams, invited by CT Maestro Stefano Cerioni to video tape, discuss, and analyze together with the fencers and the maestri of the national technical staff fencing actions which are difficult to evaluate from the point of view of technique.

A good number of these videos—which are really excellent since the protagonists of the fencing actions have won countless Olympic and world medals—will be used in technical seminars and during referees’ exams to integrate the material we already have, pending obviously the approval from the FIE arbitrage commission.

We already agreed—and we will do it as soon as possible—to do the same for épée with CT Maestro Sandro Cuomo. We are all well aware of the problems of interpretation and application which the new rule of “non combativity” in épée is creating, a rule which for sure will be soon revised.

As far as saber we have frequent meetings with CT Maestro Giovanni Sirovich and the other maestri on the national staff where we discuss and analyze calmly and positively these problems.

Differences only in Italy

If I may, I find that in Italy there is a very small difference between foil/épée and saber maestri. In saber—fortunately only few coaches—there is more a tendency of not knowing how to tolerate a referee’s mistake, raising always the suspicion of “bad faith.”

I would like to remind those maestri who question the good faith of a referee that nowadays for each fencing bout at any level, from regional to Olympic games, there is always at least someone who video tapes the bout, be it a maestro, a parent, a friend... Ergo, no referee in the world likes to see himself on Youtube for all to see that he made a mistake or worse that he intentionally changed the outcome of a bout.

Appeal process

In any case, I want to remind everybody who wants to raise a serious protest—not sterile polemics to throw mud on the referees’ category as a whole because of persecution mania or similar problems—that the Italian Fencing Federation is structured to give all the necessary instruments for any appeal through its department of Sport Justice.

Speaking of organization, in the international arena the FIS is without a doubt considered a leading federation for its organizational abilities and structure. Because of this, its athletes and also its referees, the Italian Fencing Federation show unquestionable excellence in the world of fencing.

Italian referees: 11 best out of 12

Since 2008, eleven out of twelve candidates at the international referee exams presented by the Italian Referee Commission at the various sessions were considered among the best as far as knowledge of the Règlement technique and their judging calls. All this is documented in the reports of the international examining commissions filed with the FIE.

Another important consideration about fencing referees is that only if one has fenced, possibly at an elite level, can become and function as a fencing referee.

A referee must have the opportunity to continue to fence. Yes, but where?

All referees I know are former fencers “born and raised” in a fencing club. I consider both opportune and right that the referee should have the possibility to frequent his fencing club also as a referee, to train every day just like any athlete of a certain level.

Naturally, this cannot and should not prompt others to raise accusations of “bad faith” against the referee. Fencing as a sport, evolves and adapts rapidly to modern times. If we take away from a referee the right to train how can he also evolve and improve?

One last consideration on the referees as a category: a fencing referee over a weekend of competitions must be always sharp and lucid in judging very difficult touches, sometime he has to do it for more than 12 hours a day and for several days. This is quite different from a soccer referee who after 90 minutes is done with his job. Consequently, it is logical that the probability of a fencing referee to make a mistake after having judged fifteen to twenty DE bouts is much higher than in other sports.

Naturally, because of all these factors in the fencing world there will always be debates and it is here that the protagonists come to the fore: maestri/coaches, fencers, and referees.

To build/create something we must be open to exchange opinions

Let me be perfectly clear that as a matter of principle I am not against a protest. Especially when it comes from people who are well known experts and who know fencing, their complaints must be heard by those officially in charge and any criticism must be taken in a constructive way.

The parties have the right and the duty to cooperate by debating, exchanging opinions and proposals, possibly in writing, to make fencing more comprehensible to all, including TV viewers, increasing thusly the already significant number of lovers of this sport.

I am sure that the Italian Fencing Federation will organize several conferences and meetings next season between referees and maestri. These meetings will represent opportunities for constructive debates to continue improving a movement which keeps on growing.

Knowing, Understanding, Behaving

Lastly, let me conclude with a comment on the attaque composée which has been hashed and rehashed on Fencing.net. Between Enrico Di Ciolo and downunder there is no question that Enrico Di Ciolo is right.

Q&A with Marco Siesto

E.L.: Maestro Toràn in his article Referees & Maestri: Reasonable Interference writes "The true rules of the game are not the written ones but those which are effectively enforced, and they depend on those who enforce them, the referees, and those who select/appoint them.”Toràn also points out that the Règlement technique ever since its inception in 1914 makes reference to “treatises” without even naming them. On the other hand those who teach fencing have not yet produced a modern international fencing treatise.

Siesto: I said already that the Règlement technique must be updated and it is obvious that all parties involved must work at it together. It is also evident that we [referees] feel the need to communicate with the community of fencing Maestri/Maîtres.

The door is open, actually it is wide open. Italy has many representatives elected in the FIE who are spokespersons for the fencing movement. I have always told my interlocutors to send me proposals, projects to discuss together and how to make them effective in terms of refereeing, rules and regulations, and coaching. However, in reality I found only in very few cases a true will to do this.

E.L.: Toran’s comments bring up also another thorny theme: the criteria to evaluate the referees. We all know that the FIE consider only two ratings for referees: A-rating, very few, and B-rating, everybody else. Just to give an example, is it normal that a young international referee with still limited fencing knowledge and experience, rated B in èpèe and foil, be at the same level of Siesto who is also rated B in èpèe.

Siesto: In the past, international referees had three categories, A, B, and C. Then the C was eliminated and today a referee who passes the tough international exam becomes category B.

However now, following the proposal of the FIE Arbitrage Commission of which I am a member, it is no longer enough to pass the practical, theory, and rules exam. In fact, after taking the exam, if a candidate qualifies he becomes category P (provisoire—temporary); to advance to category B he must within one year referee at least two Under 20 world cups under observation of a member of the FIE Arbitrage Commission. For Europe, these two competitions are Lignano Sabbiadoro and Bratislava.

Obviously, to become an international referee Category B he must qualify also in this evaluation period. This protocol was adopted because we want to study carefully and understand the ability of everyone who aspires to become an international referee.

It is not easy to become an international referee rated B, but it is extremely difficult to become cat. A.

First of all one can become cat. A only if he has refereed a final in a world championship or in the Olympic games, but even this is not enough. The factor of “years of refereeing at very high level” is essential to become a cat. A referee. This is granted after a proposal by the Arbitrage Commission to the FIE ComEx who will decide whether the proposed referee deserves or not the top referee’s category.

It is a privilege and an honor bestowed to one or two people at the most in a quadrennial.  

E.L.: The young Maestro Alessio Bonino in the first part of his comments posted here writes:“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… >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 WHATSOEVER—if I am wrong, please correct me—with, or knowledge of our "totems," especially the fencing treatises to which we [maestri] always go back to during a discussion.” 

Let me come back on this: in view of the fact that the Règlement technique concerning a weapon has not been updated can the referee make a call “by interpreting” what is written in the Règlement?

Siesto: It is true that a referee is not required to read/study fencing treatises [like a maestro] but a referee is capable to properly judge a bout only if a MAESTRO has taught him first how to fence and if he has fenced [before becoming a referee and for quite some time]. This is exactly because of the complexity and variety of rules and fencing actions. It is unthinkable that a layman [one with limited or no fencing experience as an athlete] could aspire to become a referee at a high enough level in fencing; the knowledge of fencing must be part of the referee's DNA.

Let me also add that the way I see this it is a mistake to keep maestri and referees separate. Yes they are different people with different roles but they are connected by necessity [of their interacting roles].

As far as the interpretation, the referee cannot interpret a rule but he must judge a fencing action within the technical dynamics of the bout.

Let’s remember that fencing is a combat sport and the difficult part in refereeing is in the evaluation of a fencing action while remaining as much as possible within the canons of the rules and conventions… It’s not easy, you know!!!

Siesto: It is very true that a referee as such must be and remain impartial. Anyone who has ever refereed knows that this is necessary to perform his duties in the best possible way. But it is also true that fencing is a complicated sport. A fencing referee must be aware of many rules and conventions and in my personal opinion the best way to keep up to date as a referee is to actively frequent a fencing club to maintain his contact with the strip, fencers, and coaches.

This surely increases the technical and management confidence of a referee. Why deprive a referee of this opportunity?

I was “born and raised” fencing-wise in Circolo Schermistico Dauno in Foggia where unfortunately, because of this type of problems, I decided not to set my foot back in for some years. Someone was questioning my good faith first as a referee and then as an officer of the referees’ commission.

For me it is a paradox that I travel around the world giving courses, seminars, and exams to referees but at the same time I cannot go to the club which taught me first how to become a referee.

The last three Olympics, Sydney 2000, Athens 2004, and Beijing 2008 had three referees, Tommaso Dentico, Lucio Virgilio, and Marco Siesto, respectively; all three are from Foggia, born and raised fencing-wise in Circolo Schermistico Dauno. Today unfortunately in the fencing clubs in Foggia—with the exception of Raffaele Riontino and Antonio Traiano who have been active for more than fifteen years—there are no other internationally rated referees. And it pains me to say that the national referees who belong to clubs in Foggia are not yet at the level to referee an Italian Championship of the Under 20 category.

The level of Italian foil referees is by far the best in the world. The top ten Italian foil referees could all judge with mastery and competence an Olympic or World final. I believe this is so because they and most of the others have kept the connection with their original clubs.

Unfortunately the numbers of saber referees are far fewer than foil because the former sometime cannot continue to frequent any club. And clearly their number is getting smaller because of this. It becomes a vicious circle: if a referee cannot frequent a club how can he grow? Or even more, if an internationally rated referee cannot frequent a club how can he transfer his technical and rules knowledge and his passion to others who would like to become referees?

In fencing you don’t push a ball in the net. This is a complicated sport with rules and tactics which require continuous study and constant active practice and collaboration with the protagonists, at all levels.

The FIS which remains sensitive and pays attention to the referees’ sector has organized for the past three years at the start of the new season a seminar which involves more than 200 referees. Furthermore, from this season there will be more referees seminars ahead of the most important national competitions, and some will also include the maestri.

E.L.: Bouts with very close final scores require refereeing with little or no tolerance for errors.

This article on the FFE official web site analyses the results of this year European Championships in Sheffield. Of the six individual finals, four ended with one point difference! This demands zero errors from the referee and we all know that we are not at this level of perfection. Maestro Danao Leggio cites averages of one error in bouts to 5 points and two in bouts to 15 in the case of saber. With these stats the referee indeed becomes, whether he wants it or not, the third fencer. Don’t you think that this problem must be tackled now?

Siesto: There is no doubt that the goal of the referee is to make no mistakes. We all know though that errors may happen but what is important is not to change the outcome of a bout. There are bouts where two fencers fence at a very high technical level and others where they don’t fence “clean” with many technical errors by both.

In either case it is very easy for a referee with limited experience to make mistakes, because the bout is difficult to judge and it is here where the role of technology becomes important, but even more so the role of COMMON SENSE.

I am convinced that with the help of technology we can find out who knows how to referee and who does not, who has the right personality and common sense, and who does not.

Let me try to explain this in another way. If as a referee you concentrate on making a call but you missed the glance of the action at that moment, the video replay allows you to take a second look, and if you know fencing you can recover what you might have missed or correct a mistake you might have made on impulse. But if after watching the replay you still have some doubts, maybe because the action you must call is affected negatively by both fencers or simply you are still not sure, all you have to do is to ABSTAIN.

I personally on 44 and o decided to abstain during the team women’s saber final at the Beijing Olympics. The decisive action was too complex to be called and indeed because everybody can make a mistake I thought I could not make one myself at a final in the Olympics even more so in the case of the decisive touch.

E.L.: It seems to me that referees never comment about their own mistakes or the great calls of their colleagues. Don’t you think that they should communicate especially after a competition? Not to be subject to sterile polemics but to improve the understanding of the calls?  

Siesto: This is a wrong impression. Referees comment a lot the bouts they just refereed, what they did right but especially what they did wrong.

Obviously this moment of revision takes place in the DT or in the referees meeting rooms if made available by the LOC, otherwise the risk is to transform a constructive technical-management debate in fruitless gossip at the pub which would be counterproductive.

E.L.: When did you decide to become a referee?

Siesto: In 1994, I concluded my competitive career as a fencer after I finished third at the Italian Under 20 national saber championships. The following year (1995) I refereed the final of the same event.

I started to referee because I had many good friends in the fencing world and I did not want to miss the opportunity to see them as often as when I was a competitive athlete.

E.L.: Should a fencing referee have been a fencer in the same weapon or is it enough that he is in good physical shape? And if the latter, shouldn’t referees be monitored as to their physical condition by sport physicians just like elite fencers are?

Siesto: It is very difficult that one who has not fenced a weapon can become a referee in that weapon, not so much for a question of physical conditioning but for the general knowledge of the discipline.

Actually, the higher the level the referee achieved as a fencer, the easier will be for him to manage the stress in an important or final bout he will have to judge.  

E.L.: To referee means to be able to decide under stress, to be correct, to maintain equilibrium, but also to be well aware of the fact that to be assigned such an important role implies trust… How does a referee at your level get ready before a competition?

Siesto: I always say that the best referee in the world is not one who makes zero mistakes but one who even when he makes a mistake can make it accepted with peace of mind and without rancor on the part of the fencer who was done wrong.

Given the principle that “everybody can make a mistake” it is normal that this can happen to a referee also but it is important that the fencers

1. 1.      trust you as a referee,
2. 2.      understand and believe that you are totally concentrated on what’s going on, and
3. 3.      know that you are honest and competent.

                    Obviously, you can have all these three requisites only from experience and continuous excellent performance as a referee.

Before a competition a referee must be well rested in view of the long and taxing hours of work ahead of him the following day. In general, to be a referee—in any sport I believe—you must have a life style appropriate to your role.

E.L.: Any advice for a young colleague?

Siesto: You don’t make any money for sure by being a referee. As a matter of fact since we are not recognized as professionals, all we get is an expense refund. Actually in some world cup it happened some time that it cost me money to referee.

No question that such an important role should be well paid. To have professional referees in fencing would represent an incentive and a mean to improve refereeing in general, but unfortunately this is not what we have.

What I feel I can tell the young former colleagues who aspire to become international referees is go in to it only if your motivation is your passion and love for FENCING, our sport. Without true passion you won’t go anywhere.

E.L.: An act of fair play you witnessed in a competition

Siesto: Actually in my career as a referee I witnessed many acts of fair play. One I remember in particular was during the bout between Podzniakov and Montano at the 2004 world cup in Athens. The score was tied at 14, the referee calls “Prets, Allez!” but Aldo slips and Stanislav touches him with the winning touch.

The referee is about to declare the end of the bout but Podzniakov requests to resume the bout because Montano had slipped.

Great gesture by a great champion. [photo from Repubblica.it]

E.L.: Is there a referee you consider your “maestro?”

Siesto: Actually there are many capable referees from whom I tried to “steal” their trade secrets and learn from their experience. Among the Italians for sure I can name Andrea Magro, Sergio Angeletti, and Tommaso Dentico.

However, my greatest mentor was the Hungarian Peter Erdei, the best referee in the world for almost a decade with whom—as a young international referee, he the greatest international referee—I shared many times the hotel room during several fencing championships, trying to learn from him as many “tricks of the trade” as possible.

E.L.: A mistake you would not repeat.

Siesto: To end my competitive career as a fencer so young.

E.L.: A book you will not forget.

Siesto: The biography of Marco Pantani, the road racing cycling champion. It is incredible how a myth of the sport could self destruct the way he did.

E.L.: Your favorite song.

Siesto: “Save A Prayer” by Duran Duran

E.L.: A movie you would like to see again.

Siesto: “Braveheart” with Mel Gibson.

E.L.: How would you like to be remembered?

Siesto’s statistics as a referee:

• 23 gold medal finals at various world championships
• 100 gold medal finals until 2005 World Championships in Leipzig—stopped counting after 100
• 2 gold medal finals at 2008 Beijing Olympics
• 1995: starts his referee career
• 1996: certified as FIE international referee in épée and foil
• 1997: certified as FIE international referee in saber
• 2008: ends his career as referee
• From 2008: member of the FIE Arbitrage Commission
• From 2009: member of the Italian Referee Commission (GSA)

Siesto’s curriculum:

FIE REFEREE RATINGS: Saber A, Foil A, Epee B.

REFEREE

• OLYMPIC GAMES, Beijing (China) 2008
• World Championship Junior, Acireale (Italy) 2007
• World Championship Senior, San Petersburg (Russia) 2007
• European Championship Senior, Gent (Belgium) 2007
• World Championship Senior, Turin (Italy) 2006
• World Championship Senior, Leipzig (Germany) 2005
• European Championship Senior, Copenhagen (Denmark) 2004
• World Championship Senior, La Havana (Cuba) 2003
• World Championship Junior, Trapani (Italy) 2003
• European Championship Senior, Moscow (Russia) 2002
• World Championship Junior, Gdansk (Poland) 2000
• European Championship Junior, Viano do Castelo (Portugal) 1999
• World Championship Senior women’s saber, Budapest (Hungary) 1999
• European Championship Senior, Bozen (Italy) 1998
• World Championship Junior women’s saber, Dijon (France) 1998
• European Championship Senior, Plovdiv (Bulgaria) 1997
• World Championship Junior, Valencia (Venezuela) 1997

The 2005 Leipzig final individual men’s saber between Covaliu and Pozdniakov was the 100^th final of Siesto’s career as a referee.

NON EUROPEAN ZONE COMPETITIONS

• West Asian Games, Doha (Qatar) 2005
• Pan American Games, Rio de Janeiro (Brasil) 2007

COMPETIVE FENCER

• Military World Champion Saber Team, Moscow (Russia) 1993
• 4^th at Cadet World Championship, Foggia (Italy) 1991
• 11^th at Cadet European Championship, Gouda (Holland) 1990
• Top 8 finalist in all Italian Championships from 1987 to 1994.
• Last competitive result: 1994, 3^rd at saber Under 20 Italian Championships
•  

Translation by  gram (gladius on fencing.net)

Note: (*) Aristotle Nichomachean Ethics, Book II, 06b28-31

Post by Maestro Alberto Coltorti

Dear Marco,

Thank you for your kind participation in this interview. Even if your current role is primarily within the FIE I hope that because of your recognized moral authority and competence you will present the need also in Italy of a national commission just like the International Coaches Commission. Only from a continuous dialog and debate between maestri and referees we can get a cultural exchange of ideas which strengthen our mutual respect and can help in the growth of these essential components in our sport.

I wish especially that people in charge of our sport understand the importance to have inside the Referees Commission a maestro, elected by his colleagues, who can bring to the table as a consultant the experience of his daily work, and at the same time keep his maestri colleagues informed in real time of the changes brewing as far as rules and their interpretation "flavor."

Alberto Coltorti

Post by Maestro Alessio Bonino

First I want to thank you for your article/interview which offers a starting point to get together and compare personal ideas and opinions.

I agree with your comment about my post. I also repeat that what I wrote concerned the fact that a referee and a maestro are in a "conflict" on some problems when judging a bout (related to the reconstruction/touch assignment etc.) precisely because the education/formation and evolution in their respective roles take two paths which have some parts in common but are also "custom tailored for each."

A Maestro, at least in Italy, studies the fencing treatises and learns from them a certain set of rules (not the official Rules, since he is well aware of the difference with the Règlement) which can be deduced from studying the treatises.

A referee on the other hand (even if he has an extensive fencing background as an athlete or something else) specializes on the FIE Règlement technique which is often updated, improved, reviewed etc. and, to quote Maestro Coltorti, "only with a continuous dialog and debate between maestri and referees we can get a cultural exchange of ideas which strengthen our mutual respect and can help in the growth of these essential components in our sport."

You also say that in your opinion "it is a mistake to keep maestri and referees separate. Yes they are different people with different roles but they are connected by necessity [of their interacting roles]."

I couldn't agree more since in my post I stressed the need for a connection between referees and maestri but within a necessary debate/discussion framework to make sure that we consider all the problems we face.

I also want to reiterate another point I made in my post which fits to a T with what you said, i.e., that "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)..."

I sincerely hope that your article/interview will prompt other colleagues to pitch in with their opinion. I believe this to be the right time to do it and who knows, we may succeed in bringing a bit more... clarity?

Alessio Bonino