Presidential Duty

This morning at the salle it was ladder day when everyone engages in mortal combat to increase their standing in the academy rankings. (OK it's not really mortal - although that depends on who you're fighting). I was presiding the A group and then delegated this responsibilty so I could observe the fights whilst judging. It seemed that a lot of the fencers did not enjoy the prospect and task of presiding and it got me wondering as to why this aspect of the sport always seems onerous. I admit that there is pressure on when you are presiding; the two fencers are relying on you to recognise what they are doing and to fairly adjudicate the fight and award points to the correct person. It is quite a responsibility, not least when called upon to make decisions about what happened. Paradoxically (as usual in fencing) presiding a match can also be quite liberating as it is one of the few sports at present where you don't have to make a decision if you're not sure. Imagine you're a referee in a game of football where someone is brought down on the edge of the penalty area (and I'm talking in a situation where there is no assistive technology like replays, third referees etc) and you just don't know if it was in or out of the box. Or a rugby game where you're right on the spot for a try but just can't tell if the ball was grounded or held up and the linesman was unsighted. Imagine the fuss if you turned round and said "Sorry, I haven't a clue let's start afresh"! The incredible thing about being a fencing president is that in certain situations you can say just that. This really bugged me when I first started presiding and in some ways my brain always struggled to give a decision one way or the other. We're just not programmed in sport or our society to not make a decision; there has to be an outcome, an ending, some closure.. You can't just leave it hanging!!
Ah, Grasshopper, but in foil fencing you can. If there have been hits scored by both fencer all the president has to do is decide who had the right of way and award the point (or restart if it was off target) accordingly. If you can't decide then just don't. Bring the fencers back to on guard and start all over. I'd personally prefer to be presided over by a President who has the moral courage to say "I'm sorry I simply can't make a decision there" than one who mentally tosses a coin when he's not certain. The thing with fencing is that it's fast; it's meant to be fast and sometimes the human eye simply can't keep up. You're human Mr President- deal with it!

One thing I do strongly suggest is that you become a President who can string a phrase together though. You must be able to clearly explain your decision and the reasons behind that decision to the fencers. Don't just mumble "no hit, on guard". Clearly tell the fencers what you saw. Bear in mind that they will likely have completely different views of what happened, mostly biased towards themselves! But at least make sure that they understand what you saw and the reasons you have interpreted it that way. Also remember that presiding is not a democratic activity; you are in charge and you make the final decision. The judges don't make it (If you're fencing non-electric) they're just there to tell you what the hit was or even if there was one. The box can't tell you (unless you're severely delusional) and you sure as heck can't rely on the fencers! (Although some are commendably honest as demonstrated by some of my students today). So you need to be the benevolent dictator that holds it all together. It's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it....

The other good thing about presiding is that you get to watch some fights and hone your perception of what goes on within them. It's all good practice in the end.... honest!