On Differences in Epee Refereeing Conventions at the FIE vs. USA Fencing Level

In the 2003 film Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, Keira Knightley’s Elizabeth Swann makes a bargain with Captain Hector Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) which he betrays within seconds. When Swann turns to Barbossa and urges him to follow the Pirate Code and uphold his end of the agreement, Barbossa responds: “the code is more what you call guidelines than actual rules.”

In Fencing, as CyrusOfChaos recently pointed out, we’re one of the only sports where our rules as written don’t reflect the current conventions, and we rarely update our rulebook to reflect changes in convention. Our rules, as Barbossa said, are more guidelines than actual rules.

The manner in which our conventions overpower the written rules can often make refereeing (and competing) hard to keep up with and open the door for our athletes to have a disparate experience ref to ref and bout to bout, varying depending on the level of competition.

As I’ve now analyzed 8,000+ touches as part of my analytics role, and refereed domestically for ten years, I’ve now noticed significant deltas in how the game is called internationally versus how we do it here in the USA. These differences are hardly subtle, and significant enough that I feel the experience our athletes are getting domestically may be completely different at the FIE level.

Through my thesis work and watching hundreds of hours of Epee footage, I’ve had my hypotheses on differences between our calls and the FIE’s calls, and in fact, having now refereed at the national level for a decade or so, I can honestly say that I’ve helped perpetuate a lot of these differences, making calls that were out of odds with the FIE level, because that’s how I was instructed, that’s how I was trained, and that’s what I was told to do.

During Summer Nationals, we were graced with a large FIE referee presence, and I took advantage of having this group there, following them around like a puppy dog, asking for opinions on calls, requesting feedback, and sitting down to have discussions on the delta in our conventions. Those conversations and my thesis work inspired this post.  

There are a few major caveats and qualifications (or lack thereof) that we need to talk about before getting into the details.

1. This opinion is to be read as a discussion-starter, not as the gospel. I am an N2-rated referee and do not even possess the highest obtainable ref rating in the United States. I am not a member of the Referees’ Commission (RC). I am not a Certified Ref Instructor (CRI), nor am I a Certified Ref Observer (CRO).  I do not have an FIE license. I am not an authority on refereeing and rules and thus should not be regarded as such. What I have done, is analyzed 8,000+ Epee touches in Men’s and Women’s from the last 5 years and developed an understanding of international epee based on that. So what I’m getting at, is don’t change your behavior after reading this, just consider it and discuss it.
2. As much as I’d like to provide specific domestic video examples, doing so would be a violation of our referee code of conduct to “question or criticize the calls of the referee,” (that code is very much not a guideline like the pirate code) thus, the video examples I’ll be using will be those of the FIE level to illustrate some of their conventions.
3. Mark Segal has already begun writing newsletters and instructions on some of the conventions I mention below. Segal in particular, is doing God’s work and providing excellent and clear guidance on how we can close some of these gaps. The Referees’ Commission (RC) has also been taking pre-NAC referee calls to discuss these conventions and is educating the cadre well.

So as you read this, I urge you to not change any of your reffing behaviors until an authority instructs the cadre to do so. What I want to do here is get a conversation started and open the door for some considerations in how we all referee.

It Seems Like we Often Punish the Fencer Receiving the Action

One FIE referee at Nationals told me something simple that absolutely blew my mind: “Epee needs to be treated like a right of way weapon, in some ways,” he said. “At all times, you have to know who’s starting the action and who’s responding.”

This idea is a big part of the reason many opine that Epee is the hardest weapon to referee. You often see long periods of bouncing and preparation that can lull the referee into a hypnotic trance, followed by an explosive action in the blink of an eye that can break down quickly into infighting, corps-a-corps, and sometimes accidental floor or self-touches when in a tangle.  

But the single biggest delta I’ve seen in convention between the FIE level and USA domestic fencing is that we often call a hard halt in the US for corps-a-corps without giving the fencer on the receiving end an opportunity to respond.

Perhaps the confusion here lies in the fact that rule t.25.1 which states: “Corps a Corps is said to exist when two competitors are in contact; when this occurs, the Referee must stop the bout” (more on corps a corps later, because the FIE seems to have a different convention too!).

t.25.1 in a vacuum makes it seem like a halt must be called immediately and anything that happens thereafter is invalid, but rule t.23.3 states “as soon as the order “Halt” has been given, a competitor may not start a new action; only the movement which has begun before the order was given remains valid. Everything which takes place afterwards is entirely non-valid.”

In other words, if you fleche at me, I take the parry, you barrel into me and cause corps-a-corps, and then I riposte, my touch is good, because my action begins prior to the corps-a-corps. In my opinion, we seem hyper-focused on rule t.25.1 without factoring in its interaction with t.23.3.

Give the fencer an opportunity to riposte if they’re on the receiving end of an action. Video examples below.

Examples in Action of how the FIE looks at this:

We Sometimes Call Halt too Early

Perhaps as a subset of the above, I notice a propensity to sometimes call halt too early before a phrase d’armes is allowed to truly play out. Halts are called before a true corps-a-corps has occurred, or before a fencer has an opportunity to riposte after a pass.

From numerous FIE refs at Summer Nationals, they talked about the “breath measurement” standard to determine when to call halt. What that means is, when an action plays out, consider taking a deep breath before calling halt. That one breath is (often) equivalent to that of a responsive tempo, and an opportunity to allow the fencer subjected to the action to respond. Calling halt too soon after pass, or too soon after corps-a-corps often deprives the receiving fencer the right to a riposte.

This is one of those scenarios where the rules are somewhat at odds with the conventions.

On the one hand, you have t.25.1 that says a halt should be called at corps-a-corps. But then, you have t.26.2 which states “…the Referee should not call “Halt!” too soon, in order not to annul a possible riposte…” (though this is admittedly related only to the fleche)

In my opinion, we must let the chaos of an Epee touch unfold until the responding fencer can riposte following a received corps-a-corps, a pass from the opponent, or when the other fencer goes off piste.

What Exactly is Corps a Corps?

The literal French translation of “corps-a-corps” is “body to body.” So what exactly constitutes “body to body?”

At the FIE level, it sure seems as if a collision of the torsos is where the halt is called. Incidental contact through the legs while infighting, contact of the (weapon) arms when jockeying for inside position, these are rarely things that are called “Halt” for internationally.

Here, I seem to see a mix of referees who believe in body to body as corps a corps, versus those who will call it for incidental contact.

We Allow too Much Leeway Getting Back to the En Garde Line Here

At the FIE level, there is an inherent understanding that upon awarding of the touch, the Fencers must return immediately to the en garde line without dillydallying around with a tennis walk to their two-meter zone, equipment adjustments, taking the mask off, or taking the time to kick your legs up and read a Tolstoy novel.

Rule t.43.2 reads that: “Any fencer who attempts improperly to cause or to prolong interruptions to the bout is penalized…” These kinds of cards are rarities at the FIE level, mostly because Fencers at that level are professionals and very much understand that they can’t take a “f*** around and find out” approach with referees.

In the United States, I think we give far too much leeway with delays in the bout. I see this manifesting in two ways:

1. We allow the Fencers to walk a country mile, take their masks off, and fritter about before they get back en garde.  
2. When coaches give advice in between touches (which is totally cool, of course), I sometimes see the referee wait for the coach to finish their relaying of advice before setting the fencers en garde. Interruptions are awkward, but sometimes you just have to keep the bout flowing.

Two Feet off the Piste Annuls a Touch Whether Scored in the Air or Not

The off the piste rules are strange, because you can score with one foot going off piste, but not both feet for some reason. You have t.33.3 which states “…a hit scored by the fencer who leaves the piste with one foot only is valid provided that the action was started before the ‘Halt!’” This part of the rule’s application I feel we call with a strong degree of consistency and we typically seem to award the attacking fencer going off the piste with the touch so long as the action begins before they go off piste.  

Now, I’ve always been told, and even perpetuated the myth, that if I jump off the lateral boundary of the piste with both feet airborne, that the touch is good so long as it’s scored before my feet hit the ground. That is in fact, incorrect, and it’s even stated in the rules. I conducted an informal poll on Instagram just to illustrate how deeply ingrained this myth is, asking the question: “True or False: If I jump off the lateral boundary of the piste and score with both my feet airborne before they hit the ground, then that touch is valid.”  ~65% said “True,” and only ~35% responded correctly.

What’s interesting, is that t.33.2 states “If the fencer goes off the piste with both feet, the referee must annul everything that has occurred after the boundary has been crossed, except a hit received by the competitor who has crossed the boundary even after he has crossed it, provided that this hit results from a simple and immediate action.”

You have t.33.4 which affirms the latter part of t.33.2, which states “if one of the competitors leaves the piste with both feet, only a hit made by the fencer who remains on the piste with at least one foot, and at epee only, can be counted valid, even in the case of a double hit.” (Notice a trend here? Many rules seems to point to an opportunity for the non-offending fencer to respond) The following video example with an explanation from Balashov shows this convention in action:

One thing to consider in the event you’re unsure if the fencer if off the side of the piste with both feet, is to err on the side of giving the touch. It can often be difficult to observe the volume of the piste from certain angles, so it’s my opinion that one should annul only if absolutely certain.

We Sometimes Fetishize Carding…But It’s Important to Interpret Intention in Some Contexts

This one may be more of a cultural issue than a conventional one, but I often feel like we’re looking for cards (or being told to look for cards) that aren’t there.

Based on my analysis, determining fencer intent appears to be a huge part of what referees are looking for at the FIE level before issuing cards, and that is especially true of “corps-a-corps to avoid the touch,” which is one we look for far too often here. Corps-a-corps to avoid, I’ve seen this penalty issued a grand total of four times in the touches I’ve looked at, and yet, in nearly every podium bout I’ve reffed domestically, I’m often asked “why didn’t you card for corps-a-corps to avoid?” Let’s look at some examples below:

You’ll notice a common theme among these examples. There seems to be a lightbulb moment when a fencer initiating the action realizes: “Oh man, my opponent is about to hit me. I better draw a halt before they get the light.”

Intent though, is relative to the circumstances. If a fencer intended to present a weapon with two tip screws but only arrived with one, you issue the yellow. If the fencer intended to get a riposte but accidentally bell-punched their opponent in the face, you issue the red. If the fencer intended to fleche but instead lands a tackle that yeets their opponent back five meters, you issue the card.

But in general I feel like we’re sometimes focused on awarding cards instead of awarding touches.

More Minor, but Maybe not so Minor Things

1. When being observed, I’ve sometimes gotten the feedback that I didn’t put the fencers in the center of the piste when they’re at the en garde line. But observationally, the only time refs at the international level appear to emphasize putting the fencers back to the center of the piste is following a halt without an awarded touch where they reset the fencers.
2. Unlike the FIE, we do not require FIE homologated gear domestically. As told to me by Sam Cheris, this exception was made mostly to save smaller, local clubs money on more expensive gear, but, I dunno, safety is important, and maybe that’s a requirement we should have a discussion about for the national level?
3. Ahhhh t.109. Good old t.109. We obviously have the well-debated exception to that domestically which allows coaching during a bout. But, where we overlap with the FIE (but selectively enforce) is with rules of disturbing order. The FIE referees seem to allow for simple relaying of advice during a bout (e.g. “watch your distance!” or “one foot over!” or “move your feet!”). What almost no referee is going to allow is a coach’s diatribe and stream of consciousness during fencing (e.g. Screaming instructions constantly and endlessly in a distracting manner).

What do you think of these differences I’ve identified? What do you think I’ve missed? What do you disagree with? Sound off in the comments.