PDA

View Full Version : Something new from the FIE



Dave Hillier
-4th November 2003, 13:46
Some proposed changes to foil and sabre

http://www.fie.ch/download/letters/2003/info/08/en/Rapport%20AD%20HOC%20ANG.pdf

Opinions?



Other than being rather expensive (well for foilists any way). What do people think?

tigger
-4th November 2003, 14:16
Phew! Big changes....

Generally I think they're good. I don't have a problem with the sabre block-out time of 120 ms in principle, but I can't really visualise how long that would be in a bout. Difficult to say without seeing it in practice. With this timing a counter-attack would only count if there was one light...hmm...takes out the refs discretion a little too much I think.

The foil stuff is obviously way more far-reaching. I think the contact times, the 750mg of pressure required and the extension of the target area to include the bib is all good. I'm dubious about taking out the fleche/cross-over. I don't see that that causes any major problems in foil. But the bizarre proposal to have the non-sword arm as target only if it's in contact witht he body (ie covering the target)???? I thought one of the ideas of these proposals was to make the sport more spectator-friendly? Imagine James Chambers explaining the new foil target - "So the target is the torso, and the rear arm, unless the rear arm isn't touching the body, in which case it's the torso"...purlease....If this is considered a pre-requisite of taking out the non-valid light than leave it in for god's sake!

aao
-4th November 2003, 14:19
bearing in mind the objective seems to be to 'preserve the integrity of foil' they seem to have done the opposite. I support the making of the bib a valid target, but no forward crossovers? and the top of the leading arm becoming a valid target?? surely this is just leading to foil becoming a hybrid of epee and sabre?.

I'm not against changes but sometimes the FIE goes a little too far, I would make the bib a target and annul the off target light on the box, but would bother with the changes to footwork or target area.

Mantis
-4th November 2003, 14:24
Originally posted by aao
I support the making of the bib a valid target ...

I'm sure this has been considered before but dismissed because of safety issues. Flick to neck, anyone?

aao
-4th November 2003, 14:27
Would be very hard to execute and not really that painful as the bib is the most protected\padded area. try it at epee (with a flicky blade and a very understanding opponent!) and you'll see the difficulties

Mantis
-4th November 2003, 14:38
Originally posted by aao
Would be very hard to execute and not really that painful as the bib is the most protected\padded area. try it at epee (with a flicky blade and a very understanding opponent!) and you'll see the difficulties

It is not the ones that hit that I would be worried about but the poorly executed ones that find the unprotected back of your neck.

Gav
-4th November 2003, 14:49
All that this means is that the character of Foil will be changed. For the better? I don't know - I've not fenced under these conditions.

Jambo
-4th November 2003, 14:52
I find it reassuring that they looked into the changes in a reasonably scientific and thorough way. As Gav says, you'd have to fence with them to really know how it might turn out.

Prometheus
-4th November 2003, 15:03
The special commission's final opinion and recommendation are to apply the proposed changes universally at foil and sabre Junior World Cup competitions of the 2004-05 season

Poor juniors, or is that guinea pigs?

harry
-4th November 2003, 15:07
some terrible ideas here. FIE do this every year.

If the mask is the target i would hate to be on the end of a flick from me when i do it to head. Especaiolly if it lands flat across the side of the neck- dangerous idea which will not change anything apart from cost fencers more money in getting new masks.

Increase the weight of the spring and time which the point needs to be depressed will basically mean that people will hit even harder to register the point. it wont stop flicking- Adding to the pain!!! This still wont reduce flicks as the blades are still flexible enough to pull them off- fencers will just hit much harder to get them to register.

I have always liked the idea of the step over being taken out in foil as the fleche is never used as a fleche. It became a run with your arm back, finish when your oponent counter attacks and reap the reward when the referee gives it to you. Making it almost impossible to parry the attack as you can never find the blade and never get given the counter attack.(does not actually resemble an attack whatsoever)

Why dont they consider making the blades used in foil slightly stiffer, same as in sabre which got rid of the flicking? I'm not saying this is the solution but i is worth lookin at. As long as the blade still bends okay without being a fishing rod it will mean that the fencer trying to flick with it has less chance to land the hit.

randomsabreur
-4th November 2003, 16:29
Gist of reaction to foil changes = ouch

750 g pressure required with a stiffer blade, really ouch.

Direct attack with thrust with said blade to throat could be seriously dangerous (could a deep attack, perhaps simultaneous cause serious damage to the voice box etc (medical point on which I have no idea, but currently foil hits that land there hurt like hell and mean you can't breathe properly for a while!!!

Block out time at sabre sounds like the least of the worries in that lot

Rdb811
-4th November 2003, 17:40
Originally posted by tigger
Phew! Big changes....


I'm dubious about taking out the fleche/cross-over.

Not good for the knees. Can't see what the problem is fleching in foil. The new masks will be costly, although 'historically accruate'. Otherwise I concur with Tigger.

Whatever happened to enforcing the rules and letting the historical nature of teh sport sell itself.

neevel
-4th November 2003, 19:38
When reading the report, make sure you look at the Conclusions on page 10-- this is what the commission is actually recommending the FIE go forward with next season.

The "go" items are:

-Reduced double-touch blocking time.
-Increased tip debounce time.
-750 g spring weight for foil
-1 cm maximum blade curvature for foil
- drop reversing shoulders as an offense in foil (with the admonition that referees be strict about calling covering target).

What exactly they mean regarding foil masks is a bit unclear to me-- while they say almost all on the commission favored making the bib target, they still appear to be reserving judgement on that (i.e., they don't explicitly say "Make the bib target").

All the other items they either reserved judgement on (banning the fleche, removing the off-target) or don't even mention at all (making the weapon arm target if it comes into contact with the body).

The odd thing is, the proposals are only for Junior World Cup competitions. Presumably Senior competitions and non-FIE competitions would still be under the current rules.

If anything happens w.r.t. making only the mask bib target, Leon Paul will probably make a killing with their X-change mask patent, as you'll be able to buy one mask, and then get a conductive bib for foil and a non-conductive one for epee.


-Dave

stevejackson
-4th November 2003, 19:40
Did anyone spot how close the new on guard lines were to be? I noted that they proposed a change " to bring the distance in line with that imposed when fencers are replaced on guard after a halt." but couldn't see what they intended this distance to be.

Andy W.
-4th November 2003, 20:39
Target bib


Having seen what happens when a foilist accidently gets their foil under their opponents bib, I can only say that the FIE are dangerously ignoring why the bib is there (to protect the throat which is a very weak part of human anatomy) and that I hope they have good liability insurance. Even to suggest such a change is boardering on irresponsible, to seriously consider it......



:transport

Muso440
-4th November 2003, 20:43
Originally posted by Andy W.
Having seen what happens when a foilist accidently gets their foil under their opponents bib, I can only say that the FIE are dangerously ignoring why the bib is there (to protect the throat which is a very weak part of human anatomy) and that I hope they have good liability insurance. Even to suggest such a change is boardering on irresponsible, to seriously consider it......
:transport

I agree. As a cack-handed newbie with crap point control I kind of like the idea of being able to hit the bib, as I often end up doing it anyway. But on the other hand I'm quite fond of my neck.

Rdb811
-4th November 2003, 21:19
Ever tried fencing epee or sabre ? :)

neevel
-4th November 2003, 21:38
Originally posted by stevejackson
Did anyone spot how close the new on guard lines were to be? I noted that they proposed a change " to bring the distance in line with that imposed when fencers are replaced on guard after a halt." but couldn't see what they intended this distance to be.

The intent is to keep the guard lines where they currently are, but have fencers start with their back foot on the line, instead of with their front foot behind the line.

-Dave

Jenrick
-5th November 2003, 09:19
The curvature of the blade at 1cm is good as at some tournaments some weapons look like scythes! As for bib as target area why not if the protection is there. As for the rear hand as a target surely at present if it gets hit by covering the the target are at present a hit can be awarded? i.e substitution of target. Is that right?
The contact time being lessened is good, it may lead to flicks being harder but then the hard hitting rule may come.
Come to think of it, it does get rather complicated. Just do away with off target lights and fence. It would be more spectator friendly and with the contact time reduced it may even be easier and fairer to preside and interesting to watch.

:rolleyes:

tigger
-5th November 2003, 09:20
Can't see any safety problem with the bib target and 750g of pressure - it's like that in epee, and no-one seems to die on a regular basis. Interestingly tho the 750g tips in epee don't seem to eliminate flicking to wrist, or doing flick ripostes from close range? I guess the contact time would have more effect. I still think the sword arm target thing is nonsensical.

The en garde line thing would seem to have more effect on sabre than foil (did this apply ot both or just foil?).

Also with foil bibs, would it be the whole bib, or a line drawn across the bib horizontal to the bas of the neck or what? Bibs come in different sizes, and the LP xchange bib is significantly smaller than a standard one! Bit of a grey area?

Andy W.
-5th November 2003, 09:33
off target lights,

Yes do away with the off target lights they don't seem to add much other than stop the fight too often ( especialy at less experienced level) and as a spectator they seem 'pointless', given that they indicate an non scoring hit they usually stop the opponent from scoring a hit immediately before or after the white light. One light would be the end of most disputes but by retaining the body jacket as the scoring area would still differentiate foil as a more 'deliberate' discipline from the wide target area of epee?

Bib target, still think its a bad idea. Saw a kid hit on her adam's apple through her bib, i.e. the bib took the point of the blow, but there followed a very alarming five minutes before she stopped choking. This was at U9 level, so I don't think strenght and applied forces are that all that relevant, one 'unlucky' attack is all it takes. Sorry, encouraging strikes on the target of the throat seems plain daft to me and so what if epee and sabre do it? I know littel about the other weapons but perhaps the rules should change there instead of foil coming in line with the rest?

Gav
-5th November 2003, 09:37
Ever tried fencing epee or sabre ?

I was discussing these proposals with a foilist last night and we both agreed that a hit to bib won't be a problem. You can be hit on the bib in both Epee and Sabre and there are very few casualties as a result. Remember that Epee blades are quite a bit stiffer then Foil blades. We also both agreed that addition of the bib as a viable target probably wouldn't change things all that much.

The really wacky thing that we came across on the pdf is the 'lame cuff'. what a bizzare idea!

Rdb811
-5th November 2003, 11:46
Originally posted by Andy W.
off target lights,

Bib target, still think its a bad idea. Saw a kid hit on her adam's apple through her bib, i.e. the bib took the point of the blow, but there followed a very alarming five minutes before she stopped choking. This was at U9 level, so I don't think strenght and applied forces are that all that relevant, one 'unlucky' attack is all it takes. Sorry, encouraging strikes on the target of the throat seems plain daft to me and so what if epee and sabre do it? I know littel about the other weapons but perhaps the rules should change there instead of foil coming in line with the rest?

I've seen one guy winded by a hit on the bib in eight years and that was thought exceptional.

randomsabreur
-5th November 2003, 11:59
I've seen a few, been on the receiving end once and I think given a few. The idea of that happening with a stiffer blade does not bear thinking about.

I don't think that it will cause particular problems at an international level, it is at domestic and club level that accidents will happen. International level fencers are unlikely to lunge at each other from a ridiculously close distance at the exact same time, but beginners sometimes exhibit this tendancy

pinkelephant
-5th November 2003, 12:13
Being hit on the bib with 750g pressure at foil will still be less painful than being hit on the same bib with the same pressure but a stiffer blade, i.e. epee.

The reason for making the bib on target would seem to be the current size of the bib - they used to be a lot smaller, but the change has quite rightly come about for safety reasons.

You can indeed award a hit which lands on the back arm provided it is actually covering the target (not just swinging alongside) at the time, and the point would otherwise have hit the lame. Very rarely given even at baby level (where it should actually be given more often).

Do away with the white light - it hasn't done sabre any harm. Don't care much about crossovers and fleches - too ancient to do them anyway.

sparkymark567
-5th November 2003, 15:07
So to make a hit you have to hit harder, i.e. the blade will bend more, and then it has to return to a perfectly straight blade with less than 1cm bend.

So I guess we will have to buy new blades at the end of every week. Either that or stop the fight after every hit so we can straighten our blades, and have the bend measured again.

also with the bib off target, it insulates the mesh from the lame. If the bib were made on target, it wouldn't take much sweat to provide conduction between the lame and mesh. So I guess, with the bib on-target, we'll also have to buy a new mask at the end of every week. This will ensure that the mesh is perfectly insulated by the paint covering it.

So what we've got is the good old fashioned gentleman’s sport of fencing, where flick hits aren't allowed and only the wealthy can afford to participate due to the cost of replacing blades and masks. Great!

The only reason people don’t like flick hits, is because they can’t do them. I think it makes the weapon much faster and more exciting. Does anyone know if the FIE consists entirely of boring old farts? or is it just the majority of them?

Gav
-5th November 2003, 15:21
Originally posted by sparkymark567
So to make a hit you have to hit harder, i.e. the blade will bend more, and then it has to return to a perfectly straight blade with less than 1cm bend.

So I guess we will have to buy new blades at the end of every week. Either that or stop the fight after every hit so we can straighten our blades, and have the bend measured again.

also with the bib off target, it insulates the mesh from the lame. If the bib were made on target, it wouldn't take much sweat to provide conduction between the lame and mesh. So I guess, with the bib on-target, we'll also have to buy a new mask at the end of every week. This will ensure that the mesh is perfectly insulated by the paint covering it.

So what we've got is the good old fashioned gentleman’s sport of fencing, where flick hits aren't allowed and only the wealthy can afford to participate due to the cost of replacing blades and masks. Great!


SparkyMark:


All that this means is that the character of Foil will be changed. For the better? I don't know - I've not fenced under these conditions.

I think that it is premature to guess what will happen. The FIE are notoriously glacial in their ability to make decisions. There are various things that could be done to prevent the scenario's you outline.



The only reason people don’t like flick hits, is because they can’t do them. I think it makes the weapon much faster and more exciting.

Here I am actually in agreement with you. I'm not opposed to the flick at all. I think that the problems people have with it are:


Ref's not implementing the rules properly (at the lower levels)
Lack of perception about the realities of higher level fencing.


If it wasn't for those points I would probably still be doing Foil today (don't tell anyone from my club that! ;) )

Flash SOTU
-5th November 2003, 19:23
First they say in this report that my riposte (compound, indirect...) will still bring on a light even if the rimessa lands first (in 3.2) and THEN they write "the counter-attack will prevail when a single light comes on and the attack will prevail when both lights come on." (3.4.1)

This sounds to me as if my reposte will be completely useless. Can someone explain to me what they really mean?:upset: :dizzy: :rockon:

sparkymark567
-6th November 2003, 01:23
Originally posted by Flash SOTU
First they say in this report that my riposte (compound, indirect...) will still bring on a light even if the rimessa lands first (in 3.2) and THEN they write "the counter-attack will prevail when a single light comes on and the attack will prevail when both lights come on." (3.4.1)

This sounds to me as if my reposte will be completely useless. Can someone explain to me what they really mean?:upset: :dizzy: :rockon:

You recieve a stop hit during your compound reposte:

(i)your hit if two lights come up. i.e when the time period between recieving the remise and completing the reposte is less than the block period.

(ii)Oponents hit if, if your compound reposte is too slow.

except I don't understand how you can do a compound reposte while your oponent is executing a remise. So I'm not really sure what they mean either.

The second bit seems o.k to me. The stop hit will only be valid if there is one light on the box. So the box decides whether a stop hit is in time. otherwise the attack wins.

Australian
-6th November 2003, 03:29
yeah the FIE are only talking in terms of attack-counterattack, not with parry riposte

whizzkid1982
-6th November 2003, 14:08
i think that all the talk of needing to hit harder at foil is not the point. the hit iwll not need to be much harder, i have seen amazingly light epee hits come up. what the changes are trying to achieve is the getting rid of the the flick hit (which is refed badly at all levels and is not part of classical foil). this is achieved by the tip needing to be depressed for longer than the tip is normally in contact for with a flick hit. this also means that the flick to neck or being flicked with a stiffer blade will not happen since your hit will not register. surely if faced with an option that no longer works you are forced to reposte properly.

and so i don't get bitched at for being jealous cos i cant flick i can do it perfectly well but think it is an abuse of the weapon and the way foil is reffed. i still do it cos i can get away with it!!!!

harry
-6th November 2003, 16:49
what the changes are trying to achieve is the getting rid of the the flick hit (which is refed badly at all levels and is not part of classical foil).

What you are saying is that because referees can not referee properly then we should change the rules to make it easier.
I beg to differ but i know that the beginners even doing direct attacks will hit harder than normal to get the hit- they already do because they havent learned the dexterity and finesse it requires to hit lightly and still get the hit (that takes a few years to learn- so you tell the parents of the kids why they will be so bruised after each event). The top fencers would quickly learn- germans,pols and russians are already taught to hit hard to smash through parries and garuanteeing not missing so the rule change again would only really affect the average fencer.

The only rule change i agree with is removing the cross step to stop people running up and down- it does not take skill and ultimately limits makes the fencing actions to one phrase.

sparkymark567
-6th November 2003, 17:17
Originally posted by harry

The only rule change i agree with is removing the cross step to stop people running up and down- it does not take skill and ultimately limits makes the fencing actions to one phrase.

Borring!!! Watch a good foil fight and it's much more exciting to see fencers run up and down between exchanging priority.

I think the idea of this rule, is to prevent the typical flick attack, which involves chasing your oponent whist attacking with absense of the blade.

Look what happens in Sabre, most of the time (except at the highest level) only about 1/3 of the piste actually gets used. The fencers do move up and down but most the time the parries and repostes are only exchanged over a very short section of the piste. Comparing this to current day foil, an oponent may parry and then run nearly the whole distance of the piste as the reposte develops in to an attack. Surely this forms the basis of a much better spectator sport. Rather than a silly bit of static blade work which is very hard to see anyway.

I think the FIE are going OTT with the proposed rule changes. The reduced block period on the box will make a long flick attack less likely to succeed, since the chance of a successful stop hit will be much greater. So why bother with the other rule changes suggested. It make perfect sence to me: two lights then the attack prevails.

and if the bib/mask were made on-target, surely this will completely ruin foil as we know it. As other people have mentioned, we'll probably end up with a hybrid of epee and sabre

haggis
-6th November 2003, 20:57
Wow! These are some major recommendations.

I'd say fair enough to the increased contact time, 750g pressure and the 1cm bend. I would like to see it in action but the theory sounds good.

The elimination of the reversing shoulders rule makes sense to me as well (as pointed out the situation seems to be covered by the rule concerning covering target).

The elimination of the fleche, or more pertinently the elimination of the cross-over, isn't necessarily a bad idea. I think it's worked very well for sabre and foil is facing some of the same problems that sabre did when the rule was introduced at that weapon.

The blocking time recommendation worries me more. There does seem to be a real risk of foil being forced into an epee-style "hit first" tactic that doesn't maintain the characteristics of the weapon despite the Commission's claims. I would be very interested to see it in action.

The bib becoming target seems fairly reasonable. Modern bibs are massive and have significantly reduced the valid target even since the time when I started fencing. If it's safe, then why not. Including the rest of the mask as target seems less sensible. No historical precedent and, if the Commission are to be believed, extremely difficult to get a light on. Seems likely to produce the occasional very fortunate hit but, theoretically, significantly change the target.

The suggestions about lame cuffs/add-ons, etc. seem unnneccesarily bizarre and confusing.

On the whole, most of the recommendations don't seem totally unreasonable (lame cuffs excepted) but it's hard to be sure until I saw how they affected a fight and how the sport would develop as a result. The danger is that these recommendations eliminate the flick only to replace it with something far worse. I do pity the the poor juniors who will be used as official guinea pigs for the FIE's experimentation.

Australian
-6th November 2003, 21:18
yeah the blocking times on both weapons will start a spree of counterattacking, methinks

Robert
-7th November 2003, 00:08
Having just read the proposals I think some of them do make sense.

The bib is logical enough and will make some money etc.

The 750g and longer contact time seem to be 'anti-flick' ideas that serve very little purpose. The same with a lot of the covering ideas.

The banning of the fleche is not a good idea and it ought to remain part of the game.

I can see the reasoning behind a reduction in blocking time but think the time they have chosen is wrong.

Part of the problem seems to be that the committee is not thinking about fencing as a whole. I presided a fight a few weeks ago between two of our beginners. A attacks, B parries and ripostes, A remises. But B must have taken half a second to hit. She would have been frozen out under the new timing. So yes change the blocking time BUT first examine all levels of fencing, or this will just create a counter-attack culture at the lower levels which is not good for fencing.

Perhaps some of these ideas should be put into a poll?

Robert

Australian
-7th November 2003, 01:01
the FIE would then argue that it was not an immediate reposte

harry
-7th November 2003, 08:25
sparky- i dont agree!! You must be watching the British attempt at sabre.

At the lower of sabre most sabreurs get stuck in the middle- not by choice but they are not good enough to go back or forwards so only use the middle third. Watch top level sabre and tell me that they dont use the whole piste!!- and it is so good to watch. Old fogie's get their conversation of blade and several phrases of actions which they so desire and it is also spectator friendly and fencers actually get to fence again.

At foil at the moment you get just one or maybe two phrases take place. At International level foil it is very rare that fencers even use the cross over to form an attack as it is clumsy and big and there footwork is so good. It is so dangerous and you get hit on prep for doing it! The fleche no longer exists as a fleche in foil in modern fencing as the "lazy" cross took precedent. So why keep it?

Try fencing without cross steps and see how difficult it is. Also notice then how much harder it is to fence that way. You cant be lazy anymore and make up distance by running i can imagine that very few of your long attacks work.

Aoife
-7th November 2003, 10:56
:endworld:

Bib as target- I don't like that idea, sure on many occasions I've hit the bib instead of target and so not got a point, but I consider that testimoney to having to improve my aim. On the other hand, I had a hard hit to the bib last night that left me gasping for breath- it was from a newbie, and I think if they were ENCOURAGED to make such hits it could become dangerous very quickly!

Getting rid of fleche/crossover - Noooooooooo! I'm only just getting the hang of fleching, and I'll be really 'fleached off' if they get rid of it!

I don't see too much problem in the prevailance of flick hits (and no, I can't do them myself, I have a rather firm sword), but if the FIE think they must be cut down on, then a longer contact time could help, I don't think more weight is needed; I always thought it was considered a skill to get a light hit on your opponant, and clumsy to nearly smash through them. :shrug:


Overall, I'm not too happy with the proposals, and nobody around me will be either, because they;re the poor folks who'll have to put up with my moaning and whinging for the nex t few weeks!

:soap:

Robert
-7th November 2003, 11:03
Originally posted by Australian
the FIE would then argue that it was not an immediate reposte

In the case I was watching it certainly was an immediate riposte. She detached her blade and from that point it was a continuous movement towards the target (to wide and to slow but continuous). The problem is that at world level noone will riposte that slow but at her level people will. I can see what the FIE is trying to do but you would need to set different blocking times
0.2 for olympians, 0.3 for high level national fencers, 0.5 for beginners etc.

Cumbersome, and awkward.

Robert

Aoife
-7th November 2003, 18:55
Having thought about it (and grumbled at length to anyone who'll listen.... or who won't listen but don't have a choice).... surely elimination of stopping the bout for off-target hits will be bad for people's aim. If newbies come into the sport and get the impression that an off-target hit means nothing because play continues, then why not just whack around off every arm and leg in sight until you strike it lucky? It reduces the need to develope careful aim- and I always valued discipline as a great part of foil.

Australian
-8th November 2003, 00:40
Originally posted by Aoife
Having thought about it (and grumbled at length to anyone who'll listen.... or who won't listen but don't have a choice).... surely elimination of stopping the bout for off-target hits will be bad for people's aim. If newbies come into the sport and get the impression that an off-target hit means nothing because play continues, then why not just whack around off every arm and leg in sight until you strike it lucky? It reduces the need to develope careful aim- and I always valued discipline as a great part of foil.

thats a very good point

fencingmaster
-9th November 2003, 12:27
Sorry that this posting is long, but some observations on the FIE proposals
-----------------------------------
[1]..the following purposes:
- to preserve the specific character of foil and sabre….respecting also fencing’s character as a combat sport ‘par excellence’ that is defined by its own natural and universal logic
- improve working conditions for referees, making it easier for them
- improve audience and tv comprehension …allowing them…to understand

Well this opening statement shows that the FIE wants to remain in a timewarp “preserve the character of foil”…Fencing, like all sports is constantly evolving, as each successive generation strives to better its predecessor. In case they’ve lost the plot let’s remind them that fencing is about hitting one move ahead of your opponent and not about preserving a particular ‘character’ They’ll be giving merit marks for style next. “Making it easier for the referee” So what happens? Referee doesn’t know what’s happened so hit is given to the fencer who looks better? Why not improve refereeing standards?
---------------------------------------------
[3.3]..no longer cause the referee to make subjective decisions…where the fencing actions are too confusing. When such situations occur the referee is subjected to …pressure…and influence…

Isn’t refereeing about making decisions? Isn’t refereeing about being impartial? So, FIE stop hitting the fencers with rules when you should be improving the standard of refereeing. Give the fencers the respect of providing decent, consistent refereeing, instead of insulting the fencers by blaming their actions
--------------------------------------------
[3.4]If both lights come on, the referee will have to determine priority of the attack

So what’s new? If referees can’t do it now they won’t be able to do it no matter how the FIE juggles the timing of the box.
-------------------------------
[4.1] Hits are registered even if they are not the result of a thrusting action…fencers sometimes look as though they are fencing sabre or wielding an axe…

Hello, what’s this, a new rule? Is it an offence to look like a sabreur? Where in the rules is a fencer compelled to ‘thrust’ – surely I am allowed to place the point as a remise whilst retreating!
------------------------------
[4.3] non regulation actions and where hits were not the result of a thrusting action.
[4.4] ensure …hits are the result of a thrusting action
[4.4] pressure greater than 750 gr

Now they have truly lost the plot. Surely the FIE want to turn fencing into some form of historical re-enactment society. Don’t they realise that modern fencing is about ‘touching’ the target first and not about thrusting an inflexible pointed object into someone – the latter is what are ancestors did!
-------------------------------------
[5.1] it was manifest that refereeing became far easier when the preceding proposals were rigorously applied.

Ah, this is new – rigorously apply the rules – an acknowledgement that refereeing standards are lacking.
----------------------------------------
[5.2] The crossover, fleche…are forbidden.

The fencer is to be penalised because referees become confused when a blade action is combined with footwork. Why rob the foilist of the fleche simply because some referees can’t tell when an attack commences if it is preceded by footwork?
----------------------------------------
[7] …reversing the shoulders:
- this offence should be removed since it is already covered under …”covering of valid target”
- the referee must consistently apply the penalty….non-sword arm may not be situated between the opponents point…and target.

>>>Well done FIE. The only sensible recommendation here.<<<
-----------------------------------
[8] The re-introduction of the bib as part of the valid target… it makes refereeing easier

No, it doesn’t make refereeing easier, it just increases the number of coloured lights! The bib was part of the target for ‘steam foil’ not the heavier and less flexible electric foil. The argument that it is already part of the target at epee and sabre doesn’t hold water because the FIE propose a pressure of 750g on a point that is somewhat smaller in diameter than that of the epee – in other words the penetrative force of the foil would be greater. Barry Paul has given his thoughts on this elsewhere.
----------------------------------
[9] - avoid having the fencers attack to..sword arm
- favour a hit …arriving after a successful feint and lands on the sword arm….

Doh! So a simple attack to arm is not allowed, but a compound attack to arm is…er..and this makes refereeing easier? If the arm and bib are target, what skills are left for the foilist ?
-------------------------------------

Prometheus
-9th November 2003, 12:54
The re-introduction of the bib as part of the valid target… it makes refereeing easier

No, it doesn’t make refereeing easier, it just increases the number of coloured lights! The bib was part of the target for ‘steam foil’ not the heavier and less flexible electric foil. The argument that it is already part of the target at epee and sabre doesn’t hold water because the FIE propose a pressure of 750g on a point that is somewhat smaller in diameter than that of the epee – in other words the penetrative force of the foil would be greater. Barry Paul has given his thoughts on this elsewhere.

If a junior dies whilst they test this in a-grades then they may have to change their minds?? We Brits should be worried by this - after all our juniors get hit more often than our opponents!

Seriously though - we all know that this is driven by media nonsense and most will not ever come to pass or will be revoked when they realise the stupidity of it.

Anyone know how removal of the bib when electrification came along went down? Was there much consternation or were people happy to see it go?

Flash SOTU
-9th November 2003, 20:49
Originally posted by Australian
yeah the FIE are only talking in terms of attack-counterattack, not with parry riposte

if counterattack = remise then this makes sence...

"the counter-attack will prevail when a single light comes on and the attack will prevail when both lights come on." (3.4.1)

Thanks

Pointy stick
-9th November 2003, 21:25
I don't like the idea of the bib becoming target area, but I can understand the reasons given. It could be dangerous in a small number of cases at the lower levels.

I think the 'off target' lights are useful. Otherwise, some people (especially all those beginners with the lousy coaches discussed elsewhere!) would just keep prodding until a coloured light came on. I think stopping for 'off target' is an important part of the game at beginners' or club level.

I think flick hits aren't 'wrong', but anything which tends to reduce the number of flicks will help to get foil back to the original spirit of fighting with a point weapon. So, longer contact times, stronger springs, and possibly stiffer blades, yes.

I think fleches/running make a less watchable game. How many of us fence with what it looks like foremost in our minds, though? Reducing or eliminating fleches might make it a more thoughtful game.