The following is Part 2 of a directors guide written by Frank Zamary for the Royal Arts Fencing Academy HEMA tournaments. He has generously agreed to share with the wider community, along with a few tweaks to make it read a little bit better for a wider audience.
- Part 1 – What Are We Doing?
- Part 2 – How Are We To Do It?
- Part 3 – Practical Tips
- Part 4 – How Do We Learn?
The actual process of judging or directing can be broken down into four parts:
- Observe
- Interpret Actions
- Apply Rules
- Convey Outcome
1 Observe
A Director or judge can only make calls based on that which they actually observe. This means that sometimes you will have to move to try and get a better vantage and other times, you will be unable to see an action at all. In these cases, it is important to remember to rely on your other judges and not to make too many assumptions.
We tend to see only the things that we expect to see and can become so focused on what we are trying to watch that we miss out on what might otherwise be obvious. (If you have ever taken an intro to psychology class, you have likely already seen the Basketball Gorilla experiment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo&ab_channel=DanielSimons.) What this means practically is that we cannot ignore what is actually happening in order to focus on what we are expecting to see. Practically, this is a difficult skill to learn and has more to do with both experience and exposure to various styles of fighting. For example, it is nearly impossible to see the Italian dueling saber stop cut to the wrist when you are not actively looking for the move and know what it looks like.
Where should we be looking when we are either judging and directing? My general rule is that I do not look at either fighter, rather I look at a space about ten feet past the fighters. In this way, I do not overly focus on either fighter and am able to rely on the activity occurring in my peripheral vision. The human brain can react more quickly to movement observed in the peripheral than we can activity that occurs in the center of the field of vision. Therefore, we can rely on the peripheral to notice the activity and only focus in once activity has begun. But even then, you do not want to focus so much that you end up with tunnel vision that causes you to miss other activity.
Once an attack is made, there are other stimuli that we need to look for to see if the attack was successful. Notably, some factors that you can look for would include the very obvious factors such as a depression in the jacket when the attack lands or a bend in the blade when a thrust lands. However, you can rely on other factors to determine when an attack lands. Some of the things to notice would be the different sounds of strikes made to gloves, jacket, or mask. Each of these stimuli will be different enough that you may be able to confirm your belief that an attack landed where you thought. Remember, none of these factors are absolute proof of a hit. It is possible to hear the loud sound of SPES Heavies being struck, but it may have been only a glancing blow, landed flat, or been tippy. Another potential way to confirm a hit is the reaction of the fencer. This is a less sure method, but some fencers will break off from the engagement when they know that they have been hit and others may acknowledge good blows landed against them. In both of these cases, it is possible that nothing will be acknowledged or that a fencer could acknowledge a shot that was not actually valid.
2 Interpret Actions (State what you believe you saw, repeat it in your head)
Once you have observed the actions, you need to determine what the outcome of the actions was. To do this, you will want to understand who is acting and what decisions are occurring. Finally, you will want to be able to describe what happened in the action. Remember, if you cannot explain what happened, you should not be giving points for it. Some basic fencing terminology and some basic fencing theory will help to be better able to understand what happened, describe it, and remember what happened.
What are you looking for? The first thing that you should know to look for are tactical situations where successful actions can occur. If the fencers are standing on opposite sides of the ring, well outside the range of engagement (i.e. zu Fechten) then no action can occur. But, if we take this concept further, we will find that what we are actually looking for are the correct stimuli for tactical situations. These are the same stimuli that we look for when we are fencing that let us see what our opponent can or cannot do.
Some useful concepts to apply include: a hit can only happen when the distance between fencers gets smaller; the fencer who controls when distance closes will probably be able to hit (note, controlling the distance is not the same as moving in); an attack into an opening line has a better chance of hitting than one into an already open line; the fencer who can make their final decision second has a good chance of succeeding at their action. A reminder, the most common two elements that make an attack consist of Closing Distance + Extending arms. Additionally, be sure to look at the relative positions of the fencers; a fencer who is flat footed when an opponent attacks is unable to retreat and thus more likely to be hit.
Another important set of considerations revolves around knowing what actions are available to a fencer from any given position. For example, what direct attacks can a fighter make from Pflug? In truth, there is only a single attack that comes from Pflug: a low thrust. To make any other attack, the fencer needs to make a transitional movement. This transition gives both the other fencer and the staff a chance to see the movement and to react to it. This goes back to the above point of expecting certain outcomes. If you observe that a fencer is in Pflug, you know that there will not be a cut from that fencer unless they move out of Pflug. While this may be only a momentary movement, you know what the options of the fencer are in this position. Take some time to think of what options exist from other positions and what can be done from them.
Basic Terminology
If any of these terms are unfamiliar, https://www.sportsengine.com/fencing/terms-to-know will cover most of the terminology that you will need; if not, you can easily find a MOF article or video to illustrate.
- Preparation
- Simple attack
- Parry
- Riposte
- Feint
- Continued attack, renewed attack, or Remise
- Compound Attack
- Counter Attack or Attack in Opposition
Tactical wheel. This alone could be its own full class, but I will brief. It is useful to know general outcomes of certain actions, and the tactical wheel is a useful way to simplify these situations. The most basic version of this concept is that a simple attack is beaten by a parry riposte. A parry riposte is beaten by a compound attack. A compound attack is beaten by an attack in opposition or a counter attack. (If you want a more detailed explanation, feel free to message me).
Further, it is useful to familiarize yourself with the likely outcomes of other common actions. For example, if both fencers step in straight and attack with Oberhaus, there is a very good chance that the cuts will parry each other and result in a bind. From that position, if both fencers Zuchen, i.e. pull away, and zwerch on opposite sides, they will likely double by either hitting each other in the arms or the body. Another example would be a thrust made with hands low made against an incoming Oberhau is also likely to result in a double. Being able to know what the likely outcome is will help you limit your universe of possibilities to a more manageable level and to focus on the variables that are the most important factors.
Remember, memory is imperfect. The sooner that you are able to fix in your mind what occurred in an exchange, the better your chances to accurately remember the action. Therefore, it is important that as soon as the halt is called that you are going over the action in your head and making sure that you first determine what happened and then fix the call in your mind (we will discuss calls below).
3 Apply Rules
No two rulesets are identical. Therefore, it is important for fencers, judges, and especially for directors to know the rules well and to be able to apply the rules to the actions. It is possible for the same exact action to be scored completely differently under different rulesets. Therefore, it is important to know what the major differences to look for might be. Major differences include weighted scoring, right of way, afterblows, and tempo for afterblows. This section cannot cover every single possible ruleset and variation, but the important thing to remember during this portion is to apply the rules to the actions you observed to determine the correct outcome for that particular competition.
4 Convey Outcome
Once you have observed the physical actions of the fencers, determined the outcome of the actions, and applied the rules to the actions to determine the outcome of the exchange, it is time to convey that information to the fencers, the table staff, and the spectators. For Judges, this is easy, Judges will raise the semaphore corresponding to what they believe happened when the Director calls for it. The Director will look at what the Judges indicated, compare that to what they observed and make a final determination. Sometimes, it will be necessary for a Director to conference with the judges; this may be as brief as, “neither of you saw red get hit?” to a more complex discussion about what happened when and who had angle to see what happened. It is important to remember that sometimes you need to move a fight along and if an exchange is so complex that it will require minutes of discussion and a video replay, it is probably unclear and should be thrown out.
It is important for a director to be brief, but accurate and self-assured when announcing the outcome of an exchange. As was discussed above, your credibility is bolstered by clearly, confidently, and concisely stating what occurred. A call made without certainty will mean that neither the fencers nor the audience can feel confident in the outcome of the exchange, meaning they cannot be sure that skill of the fencers is being fairly tested. The level of detail should be determined by the complexity of the exchange. In a clear case of one fencer clearly hitting the other in the hand with no complicating factors, you may not even call for judges to display their calls. You may choose the same for exchanges that end in an obvious non-scoring double. If the conclusion is foregone, it is not worth the time to dwell on it, especially if the clock is running.
We have already discussed the mechanics of making a call above, but as a reminder something like this will usually suffice: “Red shot to the arm, one point red.” If there was more action or you want to clarify why you made the call, more detail can be given such as: “Red’s initial attack was parried, Red renewed the attack and struck Blue’s arm, everything else was out of tempo; one point Red.” Even that length of detail should be rarely used and will likely need to be employed only once every few bouts. Notice how the use of fencing terminology gives the staff a schema for remembering what happened and also for conveying that information.
Sometimes, you may wish to explain a call when there is disagreement amongst the judges. If it was unclear to the judges, it was likely unclear to the fighters. Fighters may want to know why you made a call that goes against one or more of the judges, and it may help the judges to better understand what you saw and why you may have called differently.