-
Title
-
V. Judging Foil Touches - Part 4
-
Date
-
May 7, 1936
-
volume
-
1
-
issue
-
10
-
page start
-
6
-
page end
-
6
-
content
-
en
V. JUDGING FOIL TOUCHES - Part 4
In this, the last of the present series of articles on judging foil, I wish to summarize some of the points suggested previously and to add a few new ones. Let us assume that you have taken your position for judging—remember, a little behind and to the side of the contestant whose opponent you are watching. The director has given the command “play” and the bout begins.
You see a touch and raise your hand (that is better than calling “touch”). The director calls “halt” at the conclusion of the phrase. You must not call “halt” except in case of an accident. The director will then turn to you, and you must tell him “good hit” or “foul” as the case may be. If there are four judges, he will ask your judging partner on the other side whether his opinion is the same as yours, and will render the decision accordingly.
Now, suppose that, with four judges, your partner raises his hand and calls a good hit. You have not seen the touch. What should you do?
If you are not in a position to see the point land, you must abstain. His opinion, in the absence of a contradictory view on the part of the director, will govern the decision. BUT, if you are in position to see the hit, and in your opinion the point is short, or flat, or has passed, you must say “no touch.” A disagreement between your partner and yourself gives rise to the benefit of the doubt mentioned in Rule I-C-8.
Please note: You must in all cases give your honest, independent opinion. You must not say “I agree with the other judge” unless you actually have a positive or negative opinion in agreement with his. You must not be influenced by the other judge or by the director, and most important of all, you must be impervious to suggestion, by word or by conduct, on the part of the contestant.
My best advice to you is to call the hits (or their absence) according to your first, immediate impression. The more you hesitate and think things over, the greater the percentage of possible error. The poorest officials always hem and haw and can’t seem to make up their minds. They are frequently wrong, and their indecisive attitude loses for them the confidence of the fencers and is a handicap to the contestants. In 90% of the cases, your first impression will be correct.
Some fencers, especially the French and Italian, make an art of taking advantage of indecisive judges. By gleeful shouts of “halal” and a rapid pulling-off of the mask with a triumphant gesture, they succeed in influencing judges in their favor. They regard this as part of the game, but they can’t get away with it when the officials are good. If a fencer finds that you do not react to this form of suggestion except when he actually hits, he will have greater respect for your ability, and he will resort to such tactics with decreasing frequency.
The same principle applies when a fencer expresses displeasure at your decision by muttering, or by looking at you, or by shaking his head. There is always the possibility that you have made a mistake—consequently, you must not hold his actions against him. But never let the behavior of the competitor affect your judgment, either for or against him. Always try to do your best, and you will find that the “dirty looks” get fewer and fewer.
It may be, however, that you become conscious of having rendered an erroneous decision after it is too late to change it. Then your natural impulse would be to favor the grieved fencer on a subsequent touch. Don’t do it. In the first place, your original impression may have been right, and the percentage is with you on that point. In the next place, two wrongs do not make a right in judging. If you make one mistake, and no more, both fencers will regard it as one of the “breaks” of the bout. If you try to even things up, you will be calling touches wrong several times and you will lose the confidence of both contestants. In an ordinary contest, the law of averages will take care of possible errors in judgment. You must not try to control it.
Sometimes your first impression may be indefinite, so that you do not honestly know whether the touch landed. According to Rule I-C-6, you should have only three alternatives: to say Yes, No, or Abstain. However, when there are only two judges, and in exceptional cases even when there are four, I suggest that you may also say “I am in doubt.” The benefit of the doubt is not technically an invalidation, and therefore does not come within the prohibition of Rule II-E-2.
As a general proposition, you should always try to have a definite opinion whenever you are in position to see the point. In cases where the action is unusually fast, or where the touches flick the jacket and you have an honest doubt, the fairest thing to do is to express this doubt. You will not lose judging prestige thereby unless you become a chronic doubter.
There is one last point which is important: when there are only two judges, you may have to render an occasional judgment by inference. If a thrust is directed toward the flank of a fencer, you see the blade bend high enough to be on valid target, but the point itself is beyond your range of vision, you should not abstain, and you should not say you are in doubt. Use your plain common sense and call a good touch.
There are other questions which we might trace, but they are intimately connected with the job of the director, so I shall reserve them for later articles on directing. Let me say in closing, however, that you cannot be a good official unless you understand the game thoroughly. You should be familiar with the terminology of fencing so that you may call the sequence of movements with their proper names. The more expert you are, the better judge you will be, and unless you are fairly expert, you cannot be a good director.
M. A. de C.
