Does Sabre Need Fixing? | Fencing Refereeing
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ค. 2022
- Refereeing is hard. It's even harder when the rules do not align with how people want them to be applied.
Follow Slicer Sabre on Instagram for more fencing highlights, memes and more:
/ slicersabre - กีฬา
![เบิ้ล ปทุมราช - อ้ายกินดอง น้องลาบงัว ft. สแน็ก อัจฉรีย์ [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-OK--KaSPcI/mqdefault.jpg)
I think that the modern refereeing is too forgiving as an over-correction of the unforgiving and biased / unjustified refereeing of the past generations. Back in the 80's-00's there was clearly a bias in refereeing to particular fencing styles...Italians and Russians got a lot of freebies. Now the cadre is super fair and professional / unbiased in practice, but their application of the rules can often fly in the face of the official rulebook (which is what most coaches are teaching by, although you'll notice the exceptionally successful modern coaches teach to the current active refereeing cadre's dynamic rules/application, not strictly the book). I think that Szilagyi's 2 actions contextually were slightly different, even if his execution of them seemed 95% identical, and so these calls were actually correct. The window in time between foot-hand on the 1st call was larger than the 14-14 call, relative to contact with Pianfetti. But the real issue isn't the consistency in the calls, but how loosely and subjectively attack no/attack compose is being called, seeming to subjectively ignore the foot or not when it suits the referee. I really think Sabre refereeing needs to be unanimously stricter and more consistent in this particular action, for sure.
From what I see, the top referees apply the book. The trouble is that often fencers don't know the book. Personal correspondence, has confirmed the best referees basically apply the rules, with the glaring exception of counting the flunge as an attack. Correspondence with members of the rules committee confirmed it.
I think both calls were correct in the final. The simultaneous video at 3:06 illustrates this well, in the 13-11 hit, he's fully landed and not hit the target, but in the 14-11 hit he has made the hit when his foot lands. Pause it, go frame by frame and see how much earlier the second hit gets the light by comparison. Of course this is all opinion, but this isn't the only area where we have a great amount of interpretation, simultaneous attacks in the box are worse than this (and frustrating the hell out of me at the moment), it's all on the referee on the day. Until we have an AI making decisions for us, the human factor will always come into the equation. Also consider 99.9% of fencing has no video replay available.
If you actually pause it and go frame by frame, you notice just how similar the actions are.
On both actions, the foot lands at exactly the same time, and the hit either 3 (for the 13-11) or 2 (for the 14-14) frames after.
(Not my analysis, credit to Cyrus of Chaos)
@@cptn_n3m012 Right, but that one frame in 30fps video is about 33ms difference, which is a huge amount considering we've got a 170ms blockout time.
They say a week is a long time in politics, well a frame is a long time in sabre!
@@stevep1762 This isn't how the game should be played
Obviously it needs fixing! Must consider that every referee can judge simply without video, for example when we play in clubs, there is no video review, so there must be a simple and clear rule
A start would be to actually implement the rules as written now. The immediate problem is that referees and fencers at lower levels believe they should apply what they take to be the fashionable decision based purely on watching videos or hearsay.
2:08 that OOOH VIDEO is so funny XD
I think a better way to go about it is for FIE referees to communicate their changes in convention annually in the form of stuff such as “Patch Notes”, highlighting certain calls and points as ways to show how and why they gave the call.
It would give insight as to which calls we should see as “mistakes” and which as “changes to convention”, while possibly encouraging higher-level discussion among even High-Ranking FIE referees to discuss different aspects of a call outside of daily meetings in an open environment. Just having it be an annual conference, perhaps even in the form of a livestream with a QnA, could make for a relatively convenient yet easily-accessible way for referees to illustrate these convention changes.
Not only would it be more flexible than mere “rulebooking”, but it’d encourage more consistency and cooperation not only between referees but with fencers, while being a great learning aid to learn about thought processes for a referee and his relationship with the fencer. The featured tight-call clips can be training points for all fencers to study, and raise awareness for oft-forgotten rules. Not only that, it’d allow for FIE referees to become friendly personalities beyond just appearances, allowing us to understand and interact with them, encouraging a level of sympathy and empathy - possibly inspiring future fencers and referees.
Fantastic idea!
I think this is the biggest thing hurting our sport.
Either the rules should be enforced as they are written. Or re-write the rules to reflect current conventions.
I think I’m one of the few people who liked the old (middle?) tight timing. It took the referee out of the equation more.
I’m for the rules being made as simple and less subjective as possible.
There will always be marginal calls. Sabre is the best it's been in my long lifetime.
Back to the Future?
I believe it was up until 2008 that these calls would be considered correct, provided the arm was extending at all. That is, the front food did not have to land with or before the touche. After 2008, that hand after foot was considered Attack No, Remise. And it stayed that way till around 2016, 2017, when you started hearing refs call Attack Compose, aka Compound attack. That is, the attacker did not have to finish with the hand with or before the foot, provided the defender was searching for the blade. Traditionally, this is correct. But in the majority of the calls shown in this video, the opponent is not searching for the blade, they are just waiting for the attackers front foot to land, and getting burned for assuming they could go. Have we come full circle?
It would appear the refs are now counting that delayed hands the same as part of a legitimate attack.
Does anyone remember the 45 degree cutting edge rule? On all these attack, the fencer is purposely pulling the blade tip way behind the hand, making it impossible to parry. The reason that old 45 degree rule was there was to force the fencer to actually risk getting parried. Now, the attack can put the defender in the position of waiting and waiting until he decides when to finish.
And yes, I do remember the story of the ref who said he is not a protractor. No, he's not, but he does have to see that someone is committed to attack and when someone is in preparation. A blade tip behind the hand has to be preparation. Has to be.
So, Slicer Sabre, you are asking if sabre needs fixing. I have to point out that the high level, FIE refs keep doing this to sabre. It's the refs who need fixing. No one from the FIE is going to call the ref on not following the rules. They never did before, so why start now?
Edit: replaced "coaches" with "refs". Sorry.
As with any kind of video like this it's hard not to cherry pick clips to some extent, so take everything with a grain of salt.
Edit: People pointing out that the rule is already fairly objective. The problem is we have got to the point where the rule book is largely ignored as it doesn't reflect how the game is currently played. My point was that rather than going back to playing the game as it was intended to be played decades ago when these rules were written, it would make sense to update rules to match current conventions and keep them up to date.
Anything with a specific amount of time after the foot landed wouldn't really work in close calls, but the idea of, like you said the same continuous attack would be fair and really easy to convey. To be honest I think my smaller club was under that impression anyway as it's the most intuitive way of saying "this is my attack"
The thing is, the way the refs call it today is not the same as they did last year, or the year before that. And the bigger elephant in the room is what you pointed out about the calls being subjective. Szilagi incorrect first time, correct second time. And it was the same ref! That's what really kills me.
So you change the rules and write it down, and the refs will ignore it before the FIE publishes it.
The problem is that the refs are not called on the carpet for ignoring the standards they themselves set just last year. And really, do you ever hear of an interview with any of these refs where they explain why things have changed? It appears to me they keep this to themselves, and expect it to trickle down to the lower refs.
Simple: Just add a button under the front foot, when its pressed the hit doesnt count anymore, or atleast after a certain time 😂 (s)
Honestly, i was never a fan of the "footfall rule" for me the attack is still going on. When someone only steps back half commited and lets himself get hit just to get a fast riposte its not enough for me. But i also totally get its a balancing thing, fallshort allready is hard enough, and no footfall rule might lead to everyone do kims crazy forward lean after lunging?
Appreciate the video. I don't mind that the way things are called changes over time, but I really do wish it was communicated better. The rulebook is clear on this one, but it wouldn't be hard to change the rulebook to reflect the new convention (it's already written slightly differently for foil). I remember when I used to have a coach who was also a high level referee, he would often come back from the latest tournament with some high-level directive that referees were now to start calling things a particular way. But this was never something that was shared publicly, either with updated rules or even unofficial guidance. I think that's a problem. Now I have to watch a lot of videos of high level fencing and try to reverse engineer what the new refereeing directives. Videos like this are useful, but they're no replacement for official communication.
@@prototoast , the last "directive" I heard from the FIE was in 1998. This was before the changeover to the stiffer 2000 blades, and whipover was a thing. In fact it was such a thing that fencers would purposely attack 4 with the guard pointed down, so that the thin portion of the blade could contact the parry and whip over to score on the opponents' arm.
The directive to the refs was as follows. If you see an attack and a parry riposte, two lights, and you cannot tell, from your very own eyes, it the attack landed or if it was whipover, you were to call it for the riposte and call the attackers' light a remise. This is still with us to this day, but with a lot less whipover of course.
See I am going to go with what I am sure will be a unpopular opinion. To me the problem is the rule is being softened to fit what people want it to fit.i don't see the rule being subjective but how it is being interpreted or applied .The rule states basically hit must arrive by the time the front foot lands. Period. Not in the same continuous action , not within x number of seconds. foot and blade should arrive together or blade slightly before. I fully agree how it is being enforced is all over the place but that's an entirely different series of videos*s*
I agree. For me there is no ambiguity with how it is written in the rule book, but these attacks have been called differently for years now already. I remember many years ago seeing tons of the attacks from the Koreans and always wondering why they were given the attack even though at my club my coach would have said that it was considered 2 attacks. Its really quite annoying actually and I dont even understand how or why they started breaking their own rules.
Well the problem with that interpretation is determining when the foot and touch land. With and without video review it is very challenging and so it is natural that the reffing would become lenient. Also I think it is somewhat ambiguous. Does the whole foot need to touch or just the heel? It’s also arbitrary and biases toward lighter/more flexible fencers that can hang their foot in the air longer/further.
@@atom1496 some very valid points and actually the lack of video review was imho the driving force to the lenience of the rule and as someone else mentioned how strict it was being called. My counter argument would be its swung to far the other way. I don't actually see it as ambiguous the foot is the foot...you are not off the back of the strip if your heel is off...its the foot..as to biased I would argue there are numerous rules that are the same and benefit one group over the other...we just have to coach around it. The Korean sabre squad going taller was a perfect example of using the rules in their favor.
@@hannostanley well that's a whole different conversation not to hijack Slicer's thread. lol
Part of it, at least from my perspective, is when do you say the foot has landed? Most fencers roll their foot from heel to toe, and I've had people tell me that obviously once the heel lands attack is over, and obviously when the toe lands the attack is over. I personally think a natural lunge has some 'follow through' that is correct form. It's also worth noting that if you are looking at the lights from the stream vs the lights on the actual box, your gonna have a bad time. Timing was way off on the stream.
It's when the heel (the first part) touches the ground, according to historical sources of how to correctly do a lunge. The rest of the shift forward to the toe helps driving the cut through the target in the final extension of the cut, but it has to touch exactly when the heel touches, or imediatly preceding. This comes from the martial context of fencing.
There's a couple of ways to approach this. Firstly though, it only matters when there's two lights. If I attack and hit after my foot lands and there's only one light, who's going to quibble. Of course "after my foot lands" is subjective but I'd say we're not talking about seconds later.
If we approach this from the point of view that the right-of-way convention is attempting to simulate sharp weapons, then who cares when the foot lands, you'll still bleed. And so the foot rule is bogus from that perspective.
Perhaps the answer is for refereeing to go a back to concentrating on what the arm is doing? AFAIK the FIE have never altered the definition of the attack wrt the threat to target.
I think it really is an issue with the continuing forward movement after the foot lands. If you think the basic definition of an attack is that it continuously threatens the valid target and keeps moving forward. With these more athletic lunges it clearly is a case that the blade still progresses in one action to the target, it continuously threatens and there is no stop in forward motion. So when you then approach sabre right of way as a question that requires an effective answer. The opponent must either successfully parry, evade or make a counterattack in time. If they didn't successfully defend they have no right to respond.
Absolutely correct calls after review. No need for correction.
Hi, care to explain please why you think so? I also feel the same, but i can't technically explain it
My first reaction with both actions in the Szilagyi Pianfetti bout--before i saw the call--was actually with the ref both times. 😅 But I agree that in general the reffing of these touches has not been great
Great side by side comparison.
Calls like this are so subjective they need to be fixed. I think another example of a call that needs to be fixed is reprise versus attack no repost. I don’t know how this would be fixed though
I've noticed this frequently when watching world class competitions.
Gu is definitely the first fencer I think of who uses this to his advantage. He can hold his arm even until after his foot lands but it's quite hard to call the touch
Smart observation. I noticed this too and thought it was a typical Guism in the name of looking good at all times but then I realised what you pointed out. It's pure gamesmanship and exploitation of a subtle weakness in referee calls.
You guys got it all wrong. (Former FIE referee here.) If the foot lands before contact is successfully made with the blade, it’s a faulty attack, so it’s ruled as “attack no”. BUT! here’s the thing. If the defender happens to attept a parry in the meantime (like basically do a defensive motion with the arm against an attack not even coming) they miss their chance of a “reposte”. Therefore most of these ones here are actually 1.: attack no, 2.: reposte no, 3.: attack touche. But, since fencers themselves know damn well what happened, the referees often shorten this whole thing and only call “attack compose” / “repriesed attack”
It's just like the lady at Sydney Sabre said. You don't just look at the video frame by frame. It's the overall momentum of the fight, which leaves a lot for the ref to interpret the flow of the game.
It’s not a subjective rule: must hit before foot lands. That is as objective as it comes. Its just sometimes hard to make that call when it is close. We just need to do better.
Plus, these rules need to be applicable to those competitions without video playback, so measuring by “frames” does not work.
I think the biggest visual difference between the two points is that for the 13-11 one although his arm is extended at the same time as the 14-14 one, he blade is still back and he still performs a swiping action. As for the 14-14 touch, the timing is the same but his blade is already in a swiping motion when he extends his arm. I agree that the rules are so subjective and hard to define but I think it definitely passes the eye test. The 14-14 point seems like the touch and the feet land at the same time (Or at least is up for debate) whereas the 13-11 clearly has him land his feet before extending his arm.
Cool video though.
As an epeeist who fences saber, 80% of my hits are one light. Sometimes I fence saber just to throw my opponent off.
The rule is not subjective. It's as clear as it can be made. It was changed to make it so - it used to say when the foot lands "or immediately thereafter", they eliminated that phrase to make it clear. The referee community has just decided they don't like it, they know better and they are going to call the attack the way they want regardless of what the rule says.
But it is also one of the harder things to see happen given the speed of sabre.
I think this is what they call "following the spirit, not the letter of the law" i.e. it looks like Szilágyi's attack even if *technically* his foot touched the piste milliseconds before his hit landed.
It has to be made in such way that it is easy for the non-expert audience to understand.
The Olympic saber can be anything but fencing...
What is the reason for this rule originally? I do not meant to discredit it, but I do not see why sabre has it to begin with
One thing hits me as I watch those: whatever happened to parry-riposte? Or am I missing them?
What about in line rules?
Simplest solution: change the rules.
At the moment it's being applied really inconsistently. I've had particularly keen eyed club mates apply the rule as written on myself and others and call an attack no if your foot lands first. If FIE referees are letting pros get away with doing the same thing, it feels kind of ridiculous.
Make it a million times simpler. Forget all this bullshit about when the foot lands. Define an attack as one smooth motion from when the arm is extended properly. Come forward, start extending your arm towards target and as long as you hit with your first arm action (that is you don't misjudge distance and have to extend a second time) it's your attack.
Under that rule, the first one would still be Pianfetti's cause Szilagyi missed by a whisker with his first arm movement, but we can do away with being picky about the feet.
I dunno it just seems really stupid to me to say your attack ends when your front foot lands. I mean in a hypothetical real bout you wouldn't be any less dead if an attack hit you before or after the foot had landed. If the arm keeps going forward as one fluid motion as part of the same lunge, then just give them the damn attack
With image/video recognition, we might eventually get to a more "objective" referring. In this particular case, I can easily see the difference between the first touch where the foot clearly lands before and the second where the tip of the sabre is just a little bit behind (but the arms is already full extended), so I'd make the same calls as the referees. It's better for everything to be clear cut, but not sure if it'll ever be possible.
NB: On compound attacks, the rule is clear (and it was enforced that way in the Bazadze v Szilagyi Olympic final): t.101.4b)
"in a compound attack (cf. t.10) when the
beginning of the straightening of the arm for the
first feint (Cf. t.103) precedes the step-forward,
followed by the lunge, and the hit arrives at the
latest when the front foot hits the piste."
A downloadable crib sheet of all the two light rules can be found here:static1.squarespace.com/static/5a4b948e268b966898de942e/t/5cc8a3dff4e1fcb1e71ad257/1556653023327/Sabre_Double-Hit_Guide_A4_V2.pdf
Absolutely needs to be changed or at the very least made consistent between all refs. The rulebook clearly states the attack must land before the foot lands. Referees need to decide on one consistent ruling, otherwise you’ll have bouts where one ref calls it attack no and the next ref calls it a hit. Even worse, you’ll have situations like this where a call is made on one touch and then the exact opposite call is made on a diffirent identical touch. Competitors need consistent rulings in order to compete
Obviously needs to be fixed and rules must not be subjective, must be objective. And I think that more than 2 video appeals must be available as it was seen that some referees needs more videos to take the correct decisions.
What you don't want is lunge, front foot lands, then cut. That would clearly be two actions. What should be permissible to be considered as a single action (and this has been debated since, oh, 1998, if not before), is if the cut has already started. That is, the weapon arm is extending while in the middle of the lunge, and then the front foot lands and the continuation of the cut arrives. Then that should just be called a single action or phrase.
Wholly in agreement! (BTW: Hi Eric!)
@@petergustafsson1670 Hi back, Peter.
This foot landing thing is only one from many rules which can be interpreted "this way or that way". Im my opinion the issue is taht we do not judge according to the rule book, but based on our own opinion, which is mixed with what other, more experienced referees say, and this will lead to subjective judging. And the rulebook has never worked like it should. The rules changed, fencers changed only the rulebook has stayed.
I noticed a lot of sabreurs confused by/angry at calls in Cairo. I only watched one stream/piste though (the one with bazadze)
"I watched saber" - shorter version of your comment
I always wonder what would happen if sabre has no ROW rule, and just has doubles like epee...
My guess would be it would turn into a messy sort of epee. Messy because there's no need to fix the point in sabre. Ripostes would have to be with opposition and rubbing the blade on the target would replace any need to make a cut.
Another idea would be to take away ROW, but count double hits as lost points for both fencers. One light: One point in favor. Two lights, or one light against you: one point against you.
An example: Match starts with 4 consecutive doubles. Score is 0-4 for both fencers. Then, fencer A scores a single light. Score is now 1-4 for A, while it is 0-5 for B. B has now lost the match, but the match is not over since it is not clear yet whether A has won or lost. Next phrase: Fencer A scores yet another single light. His score is now 2-4, while it is 0-6 for B. Last phrase: Double light. Score is 2-5 for A, and 0-7 for B. Both have lost, and the match is over.
One would have to restructrure the papers on which poule results are noted, but that would not be a big issue. After poules, fencers are ranked on 1: win percentage and 2: point index, just like they are now.
A bigger issue would be the box. One box would not be sufficient, since the score under this proposed system requires 4 digits, not 2. That can be solved by having a central box which shows the materiality of the hits, and two side boxes which show the scores of the respective fencers. Since there is no input from ROW under this proposed system, the side boxes could be programmed to take input for the central box, and automatically transform them into scores for the respective fencers.
Foot landing needs to be clarifed to mean if the heel of the foot is in contact with the ground or the toes.
Both are part of the foot, so it's either barring any specific qualification. The last thing we need is something else about which to quibble.
@@johnrohde5510 I think you missed my point, but I didn't make it clearly. I think some refs already count it as the heel landing, but then others will give the point if the heels' on the floor but not the toes, so it's already something else being quibbled.
@@timothydevenport2878 if they are doing that, they are making a rod for their own backs: the foot is any part of a foot except to the most desperate of smart*rses.
I haven't fenced in decades, but I used to compete and instruct (sabre). No matter how one slices it (lol), refereeing any match is TOTALLY subjective. End of story. You fence your director. If you cannot figure what the bloody hell THEY call an attack, remise, reprise, riposte, etc., then you have three options: [1] = Hit and don't be hit WAY more often. This is obviously very difficult. #duh [2] = Make any double-lights *so* clean on the riposte or whatever, any bloody fool could see who's point it was. [3] = Lose and review the footage later on to see how THAT PARTICULAR REFEREE calls things. Option 3 sucks, and it might not matter next time if you face a different referee, but... "thems the breaks" #Boris
Oh. The fourth option is to just fence recreationally, and give zero sheetz about the outcome, win or lose. ;) After all, it's just a stupid sport. Stupid like golf, like tennis, like badminton, baseball, football, soccer, etc. LOL ALSO... I guess a 5th option is to pick a sport where the rules are straight up mathematical and completely invulnerable to subjectivity--such as chess. You either DID or DIDN'T make the right moves. Video games are basically like this as well, because they're bound by computer code, not personal opinions or biases.
I think that rules are very very stupid.Could anyone explain me why did they decided, that attack isn't correct, if hand hits later than front foot?
I think what they want to avoid is attacks where the arm is held back -but is in fact slowly extending- and it looks like a lunge followed by a cut. The idea is that the attack should be executed in one tempo so it should land with or before the end of the lunge. The problem is that the rule doesn’t really capture that idea. Clearly both of Szilagi’s attacks are in one tempo.
Personally I believe both strikes should count and full body targets are in order. Is it a sport or a game?
As a sport it should seek to emulate actual combat and as I see it no one normally wishes to exchange a mortal wound for the sake of giving the opponent the same.
All the rulings have seemed to serve is to obfuscate, making preferential victories more ready.
Why should a sport seek to emulate actual combat? Do tennis, basketball, soccer, etc.. do that?
Fencing is descended from ritual combat to settle affairs of honor, not a street fight. Duels in the old days had rules, such as allowed target, and yes even a referee ("director") - look it up.
That said, modern saber is a complete invention, there was never a combat weapon like the Olympic games saber (unlike epee which was actually called "dueling sword" in early Olympics). This is a game not a fighting simulator. You're thinking of hema.
It needs fixing. Should be more like epee rules.
me, a szilágyi fan: “oh no! anyway”
It needs corrections.
Change referees to AI bots. It sometimes depends on the player's yelling. 🤣
👏🤣 I agree!!
Fucked up foot fall rule from 2008ish days. Along time ago a compound attack was allowed to finish just a bit after the front foot landed on the lunge but what the hell is a just a bit. Go have a look at some of the fishing stuff on the lunge Kothny was doing to get a medal in juniors before they changed this or Nemcsik's sort of lean into a drawn chest cut well after his foot had landed. Then they came up with footfall rule and went too far. Dudes literally doing skyhooks or sweep 5's but not getting blade were getting touches cause of milisecond fucked up footfall rule, so refs started allowing a bit more. For me both touches in this bout are attack left. What needs fixed is not running proper scientific tests with orginal Russian box of death or giving the kangaroo attack with retreat the ROW. Things that could help: call AIP outside of box, put lame material on back of hand making it valid target giving more power to counter attack, or just reduce timing to 90ms and allow running.
TIL, they just give a point to whoever celebrates... but when both plyers celebrate then they have to call in a judge to figure out wtf happened..
This clearly needs fixing.
Make the sabres heavier? Go back to the whole what a man can do vs what a man will do concept?
I'm not really sure which problem making the sabres heavier solves?
@@SlicerSabre seems like the 1800's gymnasium sabres were easier (slower) for refs to track. They were heavier but not weapon weight. Obv the rules changed and became more abstract than martial since then. The sport is fun but there are many kids turned off by the abstract nature of it when they tried it because they thought they would be learning the art of defense. Now enter hema and we see a problem of not enough athleticism. Double touches will always look silly to the practical and uninformed spectators as I'm sure you know.
Sabre is so screwed up lol
ρяσмσѕм
Rulebook has to be adjusted so we can't allow subjective things like this to happen
Close calls will always be subjective to some degree.
@@johnrohde5510 Close calls should just be awarded as 0 points to both sides. If pointy bit hits you, no point for you. Ditch the Ref, and let the lightbox make the calls. No more arguments. No more pumping your arm to convince the ref.
@@Centauri902 good referees already just put fencers back on guard if it's too close to call. The problem with just going with the lights is it's too easy to get a defensive double. At best you'll end up with epee; at worst you'll have defensive slashing. The ideal solution is to define the attack in terms a scoring apparatus can apply. I've had a go at it and achieved a clunky solution using bits from Maplins and a breadboard but I'm sure it could be done better.
I don't think there's much of a problem as it is at the top level; it's in the lower depths where most of us fence that the chaos reigns.
Vendu l’arbitre
It seems that every year, the calls get further and further away from the rule book. Inconsistency from official to official is the hardest part of fencing. I love new refs. Their calls are based solidly in the rules. Calls are predictable. And personal preferences are easy to discern.
The more experienced the official, the more likely to have unintelligible, counterintuitive, or even calls that are flat out in opposition of the rules. At that point, you're just flopping around like it's your first tournament, with no idea what the rules are.