The coaching staff was again shocked by the pervasive use of fear as a coaching technique for motivating fencers. On the first day FEAR was what our coaching staff struggled with most, trying to dislodge in our fencers! Fear causes resistance to change. Even when change is necessary to win, fear is immobility in fencing. Fear caused fencers to avoid attacking, or to be secure in only an attack and avoid taking the risk of parry riposte.
Apathy was our other blocking emotion, and I learned a new coaching technique for handling weak referees. One of my fencer’s pools had a referee that sucked the life energy out of the fencers. This referee thought of himself as very knowledgeable- he is an “old-timer.” I show my respect to him, but it is sad to see his eyesight fail and to see fencers in this pool frustrated with their actions not being seen and awarded. Some coaches were very upset and tried to “teach” this referee, yelling “Let the fencers fence!” This pool experience made an example of how a referee’s ego and inability to referee with reverence and humility wreak havoc on the sport. It interferes with the fencers’ creativity and ability to obtain pleasure in their creations on the strip. The pool was wilting with hopelessness, except for one higher level fencer who seemed impervious to the mood of the pool (he won). My fencer was assigned this referee again for his first DE in the round, and with dread, I watched him hook up. Having a referee like this for a DE is like flipping a coin: who knows what he will call, or why he calls it. It’s confusing to the fencer and frustrating to the coaches to see their work disrespected, and depressing to the parents, who say aloud “I am paying how much to get refereeing like this?” This time, the referee had no understanding of the phrase “attack no, attack,” or when a fencer’s attack fails, and the other fencer has the right to begin their own attack. My young fencer was, of course, frustrated, and apathy set in. How could he put energy into this bout when his “earning” the point was not being rewarded? I understood completely, but that is not an acceptable excuse for me.
As I discussed with George K. the concepts of “attack no and attack” his ego began to show front and center. He proclaimed, “But Naz said I was the best referee in the room!” Oh my. “Naz” is a former national coach. I left the discussion unsatisfied. It wasn’t until 6am this morning that I realized how this former national coach had worked this poor referee who was a a very prominent figure in the Northeastern part of the US. MOST coaches complain to referees and to their supervisors in some hope of the referee learning or adjusting. This approach is to teach the referee and overall to and help fencing. The referees can teach the coaches too… it works both ways. Since we have so few adequate referees in this country, the sport is “alive” and always evolving- the coaches and referees must engage in dialogue. It has to happen, and this dialogue is poorly facilitated by our governing organization.
Anyway, if Naz’s comment is indeed true, this coach took a very different approach to dealing with referee inadequacy – flattery. If this referee believes he is right with “Naz,” standing behind him, then that coach has a lot of power to influence the outcome of many bouts. Ultimately, this man is being manipulated, in a bad way. The worst way? Such a hopeless situation when a referee approaches his job “ego-based.” Could this be a valid way to deal with this type of person? Would I manipulate referees at some point in my career to increase the odds of an outcome for my fencer? Other coaches engage in this play, shouldn’t I? This coaching “technique” to dealing with inadequate referees of this caliber was enlightening for my naive self. I would never have thought to manipulate a referee in this way. Now, I have that thought. I pity this situation, am sad that human manipulation takes place in this sport to this degree. But looking back, hasn’t it always? A one sentence lie that creates self-importance of this nature damages the spirit of competitive sport between athletes. Most importantly, it saps the joy of the fencing experience. For a young coach like myself, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
There’s a distinct need for the FOC to bring up the stronger referees, and to find the right place for the weaker/non-current ones. My experience on the “other side” has been to be the recipient of derision, flattery, and sincere thanks. Some referees will justify their opinions with “But so-and-so likes me,” which has merit, in some cases.
The best referees have approval outside of one or two coaches. The best referees can rely on more than simple flattery and puffery to back up their opinions. The best referees get peer-to-peer feedback from coaches, like professional discussions.
I think that only when there is an opportunity to have that type of professional discussion can we improve our refereeing cadre, and get beyond the referees that are deaf to feedback, the ones that put their ego out front for the sake of protection. I firmly believe that the FOC is trying to change that, slowly. Very slowly.
How do we as younger coaches and referees take the reins and create this dialogue at a more productive level?