PDA

View Full Version : What I think ever fencer in Britain should have to read



gbm
-16th December 2003, 22:51
A quote from the rules:


When during a phrase, both fencers are hit simultaneously, there is either a simultaneous action or a double hit.

The first of these conditions is due to simultaneous conception and execution of an attack by both fencers; in this case the hits exchanged are annulled for both fencers even if one of them has been hit off the target.


The double hit, on the other hand, is the result of a faulty action on the part of one of the fencers.

Therefore, when there is not a period of fencing time between the hits:


1. Only the fencer who is attacked is counted as hit:

(a) If he makes a stop hit on the opponent’s simple attack.

(b) If, instead of parrying, he attempts to avoid the hit and does not succeed in so doing.

(c) If, after making a successful parry, he makes a momentary pause which gives his opponent the right to renew the attack (redoublement, remise or reprise).

(d) If, during a compound attack, he makes a stop hit without being in time.

(e) If, having his ‘point in line’ (cf. t.10) and being subjected to a beat or a taking of the blade (prise de fer) which deflects his blade, he attacks or places the point in line again instead of parrying a direct thrust made by the opponent.



2. Only the fencer who attacks is counted as hit:

(a) If he initiates his attack when his opponent has his point in line (cf. t.10) without deflecting the opponent’s weapon. Referees must ensure that a mere contact of the blades is not considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent’s blade.

(b) If he attempts to find the blade, does not succeed (is the object of a dérobement) and continues the attack.

(c) If, during a compound attack, his opponent finds the blade, but he continues the attack and his opponent ripostes immediately.

(d) If, during a compound attack, he makes a momentary pause, during which time the opponent makes a stop hit, while the fencer continues the attack.

(e) If, during a compound attack, he is stop-hit in time before beginning the final movement.

(f) If he makes a hit by a remise, redoublement or reprise when the original attack has been parried and his opponent has made a riposte which is immediate, simple, and executed in one period of fencing time without withdrawing the arm.


3. The Referee must replace the competitors on guard each time that there is a double hit and he is unable to judge clearly on which side the fault lies.


One of the most difficult cases to judge arises when a stop hit is made and there is doubt as to whether it was made sufficiently in time in relation to the final movement of a compound attack. Generally, in such cases, the double hit occurs through the fault

of both fencers concerned, which justifies the Referee replacing them on guard. (The fault of the attacker consists of indecision, slowness of execution or the making of feints which are not sufficiently effective. The fault of the defender lies in delay or slowness in making the stop hit.)

Since every major refereeing problem I have ever seen involved separation of double hits (which includes those with white lights), and this covers every possibility, then there is no excuse for poor understanding of the rules!

Perhaps this is why the FIE wish to reduce the blocking time...

gbm
-17th December 2003, 10:24
I would just like to emphasise a point:


One of the most difficult cases to judge arises when a stop hit is made and there is doubt as to whether it was made sufficiently in time in relation to the final movement of a compound attack. Generally, in such cases, the double hit occurs through the fault of both fencers concerned, which justifies the Referee replacing them on guard. (The fault of the attacker consists of indecision, slowness of execution or the making of feints which are not sufficiently effective. The fault of the defender lies in delay or slowness in making the stop hit.)

Moose
-24th December 2003, 00:37
Personally I'd bring the double hit back into sabre and hopefully return some of the more defensive moves to the sport.

uk_45
-31st December 2003, 21:20
yeah and i think sabre really should have the cross step bought back it made it so much more fun. Just like running into battle.

Moose
-1st January 2004, 04:09
I'd bring back the cross step but ban the fleche, cos the cross step is a much more fluid movement and far easier to control, but the fleche made the sport silly.

uk_45
-1st January 2004, 09:21
Yeah maybe the cross step it's self was just a faster way of attack and basically more fun.

Tarmac
-1st January 2004, 15:52
problem is if you both cross forwards at speed.. lack of distance judgement and knackered thumbs.. amongst other things.

uk_45
-1st January 2004, 16:35
surely this could happen in foil and eppe to, admitidly not to the same degree but still

indigogecko
-16th January 2004, 22:08
Most helpful. Hadn't read that myself! Actually it clarifies a lot in terms of the kind of calls refs often make which the fencers question ("you come in to attack, it's parried. hit left." "It was my beat!" "sigh... on guard...") I've been on both sides of this sort of converstaion, though often when I'm on piste I keep my thoughts to myself after being told off at a competition in younger days for questioning the ref.:o

plewis66
-17th January 2004, 09:49
Could I ask who voted that it is a bad idea, and why?

randomsabreur
-17th January 2004, 13:45
I have just voted bad idea, because they should read all of the rules, not just this, and I think there are certain disciplinary and size of jacket rules that should have wider publicity.

Robert
-17th January 2004, 19:24
Originally posted by plewis66
Could I ask who voted that it is a bad idea, and why?

Sorry Plewis, I voted it a bad idea because I think goodbadandme's attitude is typical of a group of people that think what is written on those few pages is completely unambiguous (which really means they think it supports all their personal opinions). In fact the section he quotes has at least one of the ambiguous statements I cited elsewhere.

What people need is to read the whole section, not just that bit, and the FIE guidance, and interact in question and answer type sessions, and get proper training.

Reading the rules is a good start, but people who have only done that (like me) need to retain a certain humility about how much they really know.

Robert

plewis66
-17th January 2004, 21:44
Fair enough, Robert.

I asked because looking at the question simply as it was stated, it seemed to me that a 'no' vote implied that the voter believed people should not read (or be allowed to read) the rules. That's why I was puzzled.

The Little Un
-18th January 2004, 00:00
I voted against it as I have not got enough time between fencing, playing cricket, snooker, bowling, extra curricular activities and a law degree to read any laws of fencing. However I have never been red carded or black carded yet. I also understand the rules well enough to be often asked to preside by many much more experienced fencers. Reading the rules and knowing the rules are two entirely different matters.

Best wishes,
Judy

plewis66
-18th January 2004, 13:22
It would probably take less time to read that section of the rules than it took to post your response, so I can't accept the lack of time argument.

And reading and undertanding the rules, is, indeed, very different from *thinking* you know the rules via hearsay.

Another invalid 'no' vote, to my mind.

indigogecko
-18th January 2004, 14:28
ok.. new to this forum I may be, but don't you think that's a little unfair? You're entitled to your views/beliefs etc. same as everyone else here. The poll, by it's nature, is there for people to voice their opinions. By all means question people's views, but don't dismiss them as invalid, otherwise what's the point in showing an interest in those views in the first place?
(end rant)

uk_45
-18th January 2004, 16:21
*clapps*

Well done indigogecko.

Yes the forum is aplace to listern and think not to dismiss and ignore or be unfair.

Robert
-18th January 2004, 16:46
Originally posted by indigogecko
ok.. new to this forum I may be, but don't you think that's a little unfair? You're entitled to your views/beliefs etc. same as everyone else here. The poll, by it's nature, is there for people to voice their opinions. By all means question people's views, but don't dismiss them as invalid, otherwise what's the point in showing an interest in those views in the first place?
(end rant)

indigogecko and uk_45,

In Plewis' defence saying that everyone is entitled to their opinions is not the same thing as saying all those opinions are equally valid. Some people think that world is flat, or that it history is about the past. They are entitled to think that but their opinions on physics and history are not valid (or less valid).

The same applies here. Judy is entitled to her opinion, but as presently stated it is a 'bad' opinion. We should take account that some people think it is appropriate to depend purely on word of mouth, but we shouldn't encourage it.

If, however, she is suggesting that it is time-consuming to develop a good understanding of the rules then that is something I have a great deal of sympathy with.

Robert

uk_45
-18th January 2004, 16:51
In Plewis' defence saying that everyone is entitled to their opinions is not the same thing as saying all those opinions are equally valid. Some people think that world is flat, or that it history is about the past. They are entitled to think that but their opinions on physics and history are not valid (or less valid).

The same applies here. Judy is entitled to her opinion, but as presently stated it is a 'bad' opinion. We should take account that some people think it is appropriate to depend purely on word of mouth, but we shouldn't encourage it.


Yes the earth is round how ever there is no such thing as a wrong or bad opinion. Saying 'the earth is flat is flat' is a incorrect fact.

I feel i should explain tho why i voted yes: well in short the rule book is big very big and few people know it inside out and i have the most respect fir them, but the good idea of fencers reading the passages shown is it gives them a good but easy to understand, knowledge of rules and how to implement them

Rdb811
-18th January 2004, 17:31
I think we are trying to say you should read all of teh sections above and tehn the rest , just that we are making a meal of it.

ceprab
-19th January 2004, 11:05
I held off until someone said that there is no such thing as a wrong or bad opinion.

Example of a wrong and bad opinion:

"That minority group are lesser beings and should be exterminated"

The opinion was not, in any case, described as wrong or bad, but the vote as invalid. Reading the rules and knowing the rules are indeed different things, but it is possible to do the former without the latter, it is not possible to do the latter without the former.

And on rules questions, the referee (if competent) will dismiss and ignore you any time your hearsay based interpretation is wrong, assuming you question them in the first place*.

In any case, the sections of the rules governing how to conduct and read a phrase are actually surprisingly short, especially if you restrict yourself to one weapon.

I've had plenty of arguments on other threads with goodbadandme (and others) on the subject of the rules. I haven't voted on this poll as I think that while he has highlighted an important section the necessary reading is slightly bigger than that, but the whole thing is not necessary to read.

Hearsay used to determine the rules is one of the major banes of this sport and several others (try getting a group to agree on one set of pool rules the first time they meet).

* Incidentally I urge people to question a referee to find out what happened in a phrase if it is not adequately explained. If you don't know why a hit went the way it did it is worth asking. You may improve your understanding of the rules, and you probably wil improve your understanding of how that ref applies them, which can only help you win.

ceprab
-19th January 2004, 11:07
From the sig by plewis66
If you think you have no ego, maybe it just got so big you can't see the edges anymore.

Justification for my posts:rolling: !!

I was going to have "Opinionated" under my name on the left, but by the time I got round to changing it the thing said i was a guru and I just had to laugh.

Cheetara
-19th January 2004, 12:23
IMHO It's not this bit of the rules that causes the most problems, it's the definition of an attack

(See a previous thread somewhere)

plewis66
-19th January 2004, 12:35
In my own defence, I said the vote was - in my opinion - invalid, because it was a vote against something that was not the actual question.

Read the question in the poll, and answer that. Forget politics, forget if you should have to do something else as well, the poll is simply:

'Should every member of BF have to read this at least of the rules?'

So far, every 'no' vote justification has not argued against this actual question, but has raised other issues.

That was why I was confused. Because I cannot see why it would be a bad idea. The whole thing fits on a piece of A5 paper, in a nice large font.

It could be handed out in beginers courses as part of the first, secind or third lesson ROW. It would take about two minutes to read. What harm could it do?

At least then all of the arguments would be about the exact same thing, not about what people have heard on the grapevine from Fred, whose been fencing 20 years, or Bert, whose only been fencing 18 months, but got well placed in the regionals.

The motivation for this poll, I suspect, is the controversy on foil about legal attacks.

This issue will never, ever, be resolved if people do not know the rules.

uk_45
-19th January 2004, 15:08
Example of a wrong and bad opinion:

"That minority group are lesser beings and should be exterminated"


No i'm sorry but this is not a opinion it is some one hiding a opinion as a fact and as such the fact is wrong. I totally agree that it as a morally wrong statment but every person on this planet has a right to there own opinion and unfortunatly some of them are not nice.

The Little Un
-19th January 2004, 20:33
The answer given is as relevant as the original question, you failed to show any reason why these rule require understanding any more than any other rules.

Reading rules is fine but it only by good refereeing and obsevance of how referees explain decisions, that fencers actually get to understand the rules. I can site law to you chapter and verse, however that does not give you the understanding of how that law might be interpreted in a court of law.

Best wishes,
Judy

Pointy stick
-24th January 2004, 20:41
Originally posted by uk_45


<<Example of a wrong and bad opinion:

"That minority group are lesser beings and should be exterminated">>

No i'm sorry but this is not a opinion it is some one hiding a opinion as a fact and as such the fact is wrong. I totally agree that it as a morally wrong statment

Waaay off topic, but what you are doing here is seeing that the opinion is expressed in the form of a statement of fact, and therefore choosing to interpret as a statement of (wrong) fact. Sidestepping the real issue of the difference between an opinion and a fact.

So if the person says, "In my opinion, human lives are not all of equal value, and I believe that those who have earned the right to be treated as superior have also earned the right to exterminate those who are inferior," we cannot refute this by a simple statement that the factual content is wrong.

In fact, the opinion as expressed above can be logically derived from certain a priori assumptions, and the thing about an a priori assumption is that it cannot be proved or disproved. Great thinkers have come up with completely logical, rational and internally consistent philosophies which "justify" things which we regard as abhorent. Man is a rationalizing animal, and can find his way to any conclusion he wants. No man ever does what he believes to be unjustifiable in the circumstances.

I write as a small 'L' liberal who is aware that even his most deeply held opinions are only a matter of personal preference. A statement of fact must be verifiable or falsifiable. << "That minority group are lesser beings and should be exterminated">> is neither - although it is disgusting to me.

uk_45
-24th January 2004, 20:58
Yes that what im trying to say we have to respect every ones veiws even if we our selfs disagree with it.

gbm
-24th January 2004, 21:30
I posted this poll because I quoted some rules to someone and then found out I got them back to front. I was horrified that I had made such a fool of myself, but at the time I didn't know any better.
I had heard so many different (and inaccurate) versions of the attack e.t.c. that I honestly didn't know what the rules were. So I read them. And found that, once you trim them down to the relevent bits (nobody really cares how you're meant to run a World Cup unless you are a really good fencer or an organiser), they are actually not that complicated, and quite explicit.
There is still some room for interpretation, unfortunately, but since most of the difficultly in refereeing foil i.e. double hits is explained in this paragraph, I thought it would be a very good idea to actually teach fencers what fencing is, because at my level there is a lot of misunderstanding.
For example:
Somebody goes to a big competition.
They get hit by attacks which start pointing at the ceiling.
They stop-hit instinctively but think they are stop-hitting in time, when in fact they are too late as the attack has already dropped from the ceiling and is threatening them (the people who do this are good at it).
They think a sword pointing at the ceiling is a valid attack, as these points are being given against them.
(Referees could explain this not to be the case, but most competitions I go to are self-refereed, and any it's not the referee's job to teach fencers the rules every bout)
They return to their fencing club, and try and do the same thing to their opponents. Hopefully somebody tells them it's wrong, in many cases they carry on. In some cases whole clubs don't know the rules, especially student clubs.
But here is, as somebody pointed out earlier, enough of the rules to help make it clearer what the rules are, but still fit on an A5 sheet of paper. In twice this length, you could fit almost every relevant rule to foil.
I should have named this poll "What I think every FOILIST in Britain should have to read AT LEAST", though.

gbm
-24th January 2004, 22:13
Okay, so without the "Materiality of Hits" (only referees really need to know when to annul or not annul hits), it runs to about 2 and a bit pages. But I'm sure it could be edited a bit.

Pointy stick
-25th January 2004, 21:35
Originally posted by uk_45
Yes that what im trying to say we have to respect every ones veiws even if we our selfs disagree with it.

We *choose* to respect everyone's views. (Of course, that's only in theory...) But do you respect someone's view if their view is that they need not respect yours?

uk_45
-26th January 2004, 15:14
Yes i do, may get a bit annoyed, but i do. It's their decision and if we cant make our dicision and have them respected what are we?

Prometheus
-26th January 2004, 15:29
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

oddball
-28th January 2004, 11:56
this may just be me bieng awkward, but what of any fencers who can't read?

gbm
-28th January 2004, 12:03
We should be glad anybody has even translated the rules for us out of French, because the FIE sure aren't going to.

ceprab
-2nd February 2004, 11:13
I read it in French first :) (Smug, and proud of having my French still adequate (barely) to the job after a GCSE, oh, so many years ago...)

I have translated passages of the French version for arguments with the sabreurs in my club, and am quite pleased to find that the results were very similar to the unofficial English version.

Beats me why the BFA can't just post an official version of the rules online. Anyone would think they want to discourage people from learning to fence properly..... :confused:

Prometheus
-2nd February 2004, 12:55
Post rules online?
er, no income from doing that!

ceprab
-3rd February 2004, 11:05
No income this way either is there? People actually bother handing over a tenner?

Rhubarb
-3rd February 2004, 11:39
The rules as published by the FIE and any English translation of them will not teach anyone how to fence.Thats what fencing coaches are for!
Can I suggest that anyone with an interpretation problem of any of these rules attempt to engage with the people who are expert in using them. By this I mean the people who are refereeing FIE world cup at the weapon concerned. I'm acutely aware that the rules as written and as applied are often not the same thing.
Please consult Keith Smith, Mike Thornton or Ian Hunter among others for a currently accurate interpretation of how the FIE require their rules for competitions to be applied in a practical and pragmatic manner. I mention these guys because they seem to be about/available at competitions more than most. I hope they forgive me for any extra hassle factor caused by this posting(if anyone ever reads it of course!):o

oddball
-3rd February 2004, 16:16
well said!!!!!
and as most who have tried learning only from a book can say, you can't beat a good coach............................................. .................................but they can beat you

oddball
-3rd February 2004, 16:18
but once you know the rules you can see how to break them(not that anyone would?!)