I. About Judging in General
Item
-
Title
-
I. About Judging in General
-
Date
-
March 5, 1936
-
volume
-
1
-
issue
-
6
-
page start
-
3
-
page end
-
3
-
content
-
en
I. ABOUT JUDGING IN GENERAL (Page 3)
Much of what I am going to write is "old" stuff to experienced fencing officials. But we must start at the beginning for the benefit of our vast array of neophytes in the mysteries of judging and directing. I must therefore request the indulgence of the reader when comments seem a little obvious and pedantic.
Let us suppose that for the first time you are called upon to judge... and you know nothing about it. In order to find out your duties, you should look into the rule book. In fact, it would not hurt if our more experienced officials opened their rule books more frequently. Rule I C-1, the first on the method of judging the bout, emphasizes your duty (1) to know and enforce the rules, (2) to be scrupulously impartial, and (3) to give your closest attention to the affair at hand.
We might write volumes on the question of impartiality. There was a time in the history of our knightly sport (unless stories have been grossly exaggerated), when you did not have to fence very well in order to win, provided you belonged to the right club or were good friends with the judges. Today we believe these days are gone forever... even if this ancient phantom occasionally haunts our modern (and, we trust, fairer) competitions.
But, essentially, impartiality is the sine qua non of a good official. As between the incompetent but impartial, and the expert but biased judge, the choice is difficult... but the former is undoubtedly preferable. With him, the fencer is gambling on his calling hits correctly according to the mathematical laws of chance. With the latter, the dice are loaded, and the fencer is what is charmingly known as a "sucker."
Therefore, we proceed to the next point. If you are to judge at all, you must always do your best, paying the strictest attention to the progress of the bout. Perhaps because of the relative scarcity of officials, many of us tend to abuse our privileges as judges. We sometimes judge indifferently, now and then gazing at the ceiling, or at the occasional pretty face in the audience. Naturally such insouciance, no matter how effective as a social grace, is a perversion of the sport. As Bela de Nagy (sabre stylist) often has said: "These judges seem to think the fencers are in competition for the benefit of the judges, instead of vice versa. We can still fence without judges... but where would the judges be without the fencers?" (At this point I am sure Chips Cantor would answer "At Home.") (Editor's Note)
This, of course, is not intended to detract one iota from the value of a good official. But the point is that the officials can make or break a tournament, and you are doing a great damage to your sport if you are ignorant of the rules and indifferent in your judging. Beyond a certain point, the competitive game cannot improve without competent officials. You can, therefore, contribute to the improvement and popularity of fencing by becoming a competent official.
My first practical suggestion, when you are called upon to judge, in any weapon, is that you stand where you will have the greatest range of visibility... about 4 or 5 feet to the side, and a little behind, the opponent of the fencer you are watching. You should maintain this relative position by walking back and forth as the fencers move up and down the strip. The director of the bout has to watch the play of the blades in order to determine the validity of touches according to the fencing conventions. Therefore, as a judge, you should never interfere with his ability to see the play of both fencers. This is one reason for standing a little behind the opponent of the fencer you are watching.
There is also another and very practical reason. In this position there is little danger that you will be hit by a wild swing of the blade, since you are always a little behind one of the contestants. I have seen judges injured in tournaments in all weapons... including the ladies' foil events... because they stand too close to the blades of the fencers. In fact, I speak from painful personal experience, which may or may not add to the wisdom of this sermon.
Remember, also, that in the recommended position you are well placed to see the defensive action of one fencer and the offensive game of the other. You are well able to follow the play and the touches, and you may, if the director should request it, assist him in the reconstruction of a difficult phrase d’armes.
In the next issue, I shall hope to discuss with you the problems of judging foil touches. Meanwhile, suppose you read over the rules on the subject. Until then, au revoir.
M. A. de C.
