PDA

View Full Version : Passivity



Robert
-9th February 2004, 10:20
I noted that someone used this rule in the Sabre at Slough (there are breif details somewhere on the forum). As reported it was used against two ladies who repeatedly made step-lunges from the en-guarde line, thus being impossible to seperate.

This seems to be an incorrect use of the new rule, but since the guidance to refs admitted that it was an unclear rule to begin with, and this is the only occasion I have ever heard of it being used I thought I would ask for thoughts.

Has anyone used the rule?

Does anyone have opinions on when it should or should not be used?

Robert

pinkelephant
-9th February 2004, 11:54
Sounds a bit dodgy to me. It gets used quite a lot in epee - and epeeists sometimes deliberately become passive tactically to get the rule invoked.

Boring does not equal passive - if two fencers are constantly probing each others' defences they can go on doing so for three minutes and the rule shouldn't be invoked.

Boo Boo
-9th February 2004, 11:59
Originally posted by pinkelephant
Boring does not equal passive - if two fencers are constantly probing each others' defences they can go on doing so for three minutes and the rule shouldn't be invoked.

If boring = passive, then the passivity rule would have been invoked during one of my DEs on Saturday - I think that the referee was near the point of killing me... :grin:

randomsabreur
-9th February 2004, 12:27
If it doesn't apply to constant simultaneous, a rule that does would be very useful, if nothing else, to prevent the referee making an arbitrary decision out of desperation! The FIE won't do anything, because it is not something that will happen at an international level, it tends to happen where both fencers are at a similar level and have generally failed to successfully defend during the fight particularyly at WS, but has been known at MS (MS fight at Corble between Andrew Aitken and Steve Moore, also MS L8 at slough between Clive Galliano and Steve Moore) The very top fencers will not put themselves in that position, you rarely see more that 1 simultaneous at a time in a top level fight, and that is mostly where both have gone to make the other fall short and then decided to attack together.

Something needs to be done, otherwise we could be there all week, it is difficult to get to time as a simultaneous takes about 1 second per go, but I suppose the ref could use some judicious accidents with not stopping the watch too quickly.

whizzkid1982
-9th February 2004, 12:35
seems a very wrong use of the rule. it is almost exclusively used in epee!! (could this be cos it is sooooo dull!!!!)

Australian
-9th February 2004, 12:54
i only applied it once at the epee, and that was at the last 10 secs of a period in the girls u/18 final, when they both just walked away backwards and were happy to have their break....

the slough decision was wrong, plain and simple.

boring fencing is not passive fencing

ceprab
-9th February 2004, 12:55
Referees making an arbitrary ruling out of desperation should be shot!

Just wait until one of the sabreurs gets desperate instead :) Shouldn't take very long - if they were known for patience they wouldn't be sabreurs ;) .

Repeated together calls certainly doesn't sound passive to me!

aao
-9th February 2004, 13:02
I refuse to accept that any epee fight I'm involved in could ever be called 'dull' ;) (lousy, crap and rubvbish absolutely but dull never!)

The passivity rule is aimed primarily at foil and epee, and can be invoked when the refereee deems that both fencers are basically not doing anything (the worlds womens foil final in 2002 would have an ideal time to use this!). As far as I remember the referee first has to issue a warning for passivity and then subsequently can invoike passivity whenever he feels that the situation calls for it. This leads to whichever period of fencing the fencers are in ending and the next period beggining immediately. (I might however be wrong about this somebody like Ian Hunter would be able to clarify it far better)

In the case of the 2 sabreurs, repetitive actions no matter how boring alas do not constitute passivity. :( anyway by its very nature it would be almost impossible to be passive in sabre plus I have no idea what would happen re- the time period thing as sabre de's aren't run on the noramal 3*3 min sessions that the other weapons use.

Prometheus
-9th February 2004, 13:12
I've used passivity at foil once. At a county event.

The two foilists were at level score after a lot of hit for hit (lucky hits mainly) and I guess they were scared of being the next unlucky fencer hit. so were warily eyeing each other from opposite ends of the piste

This went on for about 30-40 seconds during which I went and had a cup of tea etc. ;) , upon returning I gave them the warning - they were a bit surprised, not because they thought it wasn't passivity but because the new rulings hadn't got to this area of the country by then (the post is still delivered by horse and cart!) and they thought I was inventing it :)

I then called the move to extra time. fin.

ceprab
-9th February 2004, 13:53
Originally posted by aao

In the case of the 2 sabreurs, repetitive actions no matter how boring alas do not constitute passivity. :( anyway by its very nature it would be almost impossible to be passive in sabre plus I have no idea what would happen re- the time period thing as sabre de's aren't run on the noramal 3*3 min sessions that the other weapons use.

At a Bath U v. Swansea U match a few years back I saw a couple of epeeists doing what could only be called passive sabre. It looked very like passive epee, but shinier and with upright blades.

Mantis
-9th February 2004, 14:21
I was told that something as simple as tapping your opponents blade was enough to avoid being passive. This was from someone who had just asked the referee of his bout to enforce it. He was one point up, his opponent wasn't doing anything and he was getting bored. :grin:

doobarz
-9th February 2004, 14:38
Having not been there at the weekend, is hard for me to make a judgement, but we have heard from one fencer involved in the Slough thread in tournaments. She obviously didn't object at the time and call for DT. As the fight continued, the other fencer would also appear not to have either.

The decision allowed the fight to move on. Neither fencer was making an effort to stop the pattern of simultanious hits - not wanting to risk it not working. I have been in this situation myself, and it has worked for and against me if I change something.

Does this count as passive? Maybe, maybe not. Do we agree it is undesirable at 14-14? I would like to think so...

Alternatives for the referee?

1) Wait.
2) Give an attack/ counter-attack decision for a very small break in timing.
3) Wait some more?

Winwaloe
-9th February 2004, 15:55
in sabre bring back the fleche and the cross step - never was a good reason for throwing them out!!

Saxon
-9th February 2004, 19:18
Originally posted by Winwaloe
in sabre bring back the fleche and the cross step - never was a good reason for throwing them out!!

I thought that was exactly it - endless pairs of fleches. Seemed a bit loopy to me - after three of them, you tossed a coin and went to priority!

It needed someone to have the nerve not to fleche from the start line.

Another good thing - my lessons became much less tiring - before that I was doing width after width of fleches. I ain't that fit!

As far as the girls at the Slough are concerned, just because the ref is bored, he shouldn't start making rules up. He should have used his stopwatch. They would have got to nine minutes eventually :)

whizzkid1982
-9th February 2004, 21:15
the break at 8 hits in a sabre counts as the first 3 minute period. after that it is like any other fight! 2 periods of three minutes remaining

NLSC Sabreur
-10th February 2004, 10:11
Originally posted by whizzkid1982
the break at 8 hits in a sabre counts as the first 3 minute period. after that it is like any other fight! 2 periods of three minutes remaining

2 periods of 3 minutes could last half and hour or more. Each together is less than a second and then is followed by 3-10 seconds before play resumes.

I'm named by Random Sabreur above and I can tell you that it was a very long hard fight and we didn't come near using up the clock.
================


Guidance for Referees
Edition One — January 2002
Keith Smith & Mike Thornton
Introduction

Passivity

The following text is taken from the FIE "digest" of the Congress decisions:

"In pools and during the first and second periods of a direct elimination match, should the fencers show themselves obviously unwilling to fight, the referee will orally warn the fencers; should they continue to be unwilling to fight, the referee will call "halt" and the fencers will go straight into the next period of fencing, without the one minute break and without the possibility of consulting with their trainers. Should they be unwilling to fight during the third period of fencing, the referee will call "halt", and the fencers will start a final minute of fencing preceded by drawing of lots to decide the winner should the scores be equal at the end of the minute. (Note: The General Assembly of the FIE will be entitled to adapt this decision if necessary.)".

You will also go through to one minute in the pool fights after the oral warning and then continued unwillingness to fight.

This is likely to be a tough one to referee and no guidance has yet been given by the FIE to help referees implement this Rule consistently.

=======================

The question is does the referee interpret continous choreographed coming together as fighting? If neither fencer is attempting nothing other than the avoidance of being hit (which is what happens when you know that you both are coming together and that no hit can be given) then how can it be called fighting. If one individual was trying to change their rhythm in order to try and hit the other on preparation then even if the result had continually been together one fencer would have been fighting to gain hits. In this case both fencers were mentally locked into the same action with the same timing every time. The fencers will know after that many repetitions that doing the same thing will not advance the score for either side.

I think it a completely reasonable interpretation of the rules to say that fighting is an attempt to gain the hit. Therefore continously or repeatedly doing one or more things that avoid any hits being gained is not fighting. It does not matter how the 2 competitors are avoiding hits being awarded whether they both stand still or jump up and down at far ends of the piste or engage in actions that they know will not gain either a hit.

3 Card Trick
-10th February 2004, 11:02
I sympathise with the predicament. However, for me, what was described is not within either the spirit of, or more importantly, the wording of, the passivity rule.

Clearly the two fencers were fighting (albeit badly).

If the "never ending" simultaneous action should again become a problem at International level the FIE might well revert to the "old" coin toss rule. I haven't seen an example of it being a problem at a Senior level recently though.

Using clocks to ensure that Sabre fights do not exceed 3 minute periods shouldn't be a problem at an event such as the BYC where there were enough clocks for all the foil and epee fights.

I accept that at the speed the simultaneous actions would have been taking place the three minutes would have included an enormous number of actions.

I also think that the suggestion made elsewhere that an arbitrary splitting of the attacks could have solved the problem would be misguided. Either the actions are simultaneous or they are not.

So, whilst I think that the solution was ingenious and probably moved things along, my view is that it was an incorrect decision.

Again, I sympathise with the predicament for the Referee. The situation must have been a nightmare.

randomsabreur
-10th February 2004, 17:03
I'm not saying that the arbitrary splitting of hits is right, merely that it happens and will always happen as the referee rapidly loses the will to live. I don't condone this, and do my utmost not to do it, but sometimes desperation will have to come in to play!

NLSC Sabreur
-11th February 2004, 09:58
To add

Peter's decision to declare passivity was not one he decided on the spur on the moment. He has spoken in the past that continually attacking together with neither fencer attempting to hit on the others preparation was passivity as both fencers were doing nothing (not his exact words but roughly what he said).

I am also pretty sure that he has never had to declare passivity in sabre fight before. It would be interesting to hear a ruling from the powers that be over whether it was an allowable ruling for minor opens and lesser competitions. If a competition says that referees will declare passivity if there is a long period of togethers with no visibile attempt by either fencer to change their timing then I think that sabreurs will be happy with that.

Personally I think it was a fair ruling and the 2 fencers involved also seem to think it was fair.

Mantis
-11th February 2004, 11:01
Originally posted by NLSC Sabreur
Peter's decision to declare passivity was not one he decided on the spur on the moment. He has spoken in the past that continually attacking together with neither fencer attempting to hit on the others preparation was passivity as both fencers were doing nothing (not his exact words but roughly what he said).

This is stretching the definition of passivity a bit far. If after 10 successive double hits, one fencer just froze and let the other attack and hit, surely you cannot award the hit to the other since he was "doing nothing". And if the first fencer gets a stop-cut in then it must always be in time, as his opponent cannot have right of way by "doing nothing".

What has happened here, in my opinion, is that the referee has taken a rule intended for one situation and applied it to a completely different one by making it artificially ambiguous. You could equally well annul any hit at will, stating that "fencers are forbidden to place a non-insulated part of their weapon in contact with their conductive jacket" (note that 'their' implies owned by both fencers collectively).

Mantis
-11th February 2004, 11:08
Hmmm, I had forgotten that sabre has no time limit. I still think that passivity cannot be used for continuous simultaneous attacks, but in retrospect I think a rule to this effect would be in order.

pinkelephant
-11th February 2004, 11:10
Originally posted by Mantis
Hmmm, I had forgotten that sabre has no time limit.

Yes it does - the same as the other weapons. It's just that nobody ever bothers to time it.

Prometheus
-11th February 2004, 11:10
There were no stop watches for the DEs. At least not in my DE and a few others in the mens foil. Rather poorly organised I'd say. If that was the case in this match then that rather changes matters.

Mantis
-11th February 2004, 11:24
Originally posted by pinkelephant
Yes it does - the same as the other weapons. It's just that nobody ever bothers to time it.

What is the time limit then? Is it still 9 minutes, as in foil and epee, but without the breaks at 3 and 6 minutes? Maybe it could be reduced to 90 seconds. :grin:

3 Card Trick
-11th February 2004, 11:34
Given that the organisers provided a stopwatch for every fight at Foil and Epee at the BYC's, and the epee was the day before, I can only conclude that there were stopwatches, but as usual nobody thought you would need them for sabre.

A difficulty arose over not timing a Sabre fight at the World.

99% of sabre fights are over inside of 3 minutes, but that doesn't mean it is safe to do without a stopwatch.

As I have said previously the interpretation was ingenious and I sympathise with the predicament, but the interpretation was wrong.

pinkelephant
-11th February 2004, 11:59
Originally posted by Mantis
What is the time limit then? Is it still 9 minutes, as in foil and epee, but without the breaks at 3 and 6 minutes? Maybe it could be reduced to 90 seconds. :grin:

Three periods of three minutes as in foil and epee - WITH the breaks. In practice one never gets to three minutes - that's why the new rule was introduced - the first break is at three minutes OR one fencer reaching 8 hits, whichever is the sooner (invariably 8 hits).

Prometheus
-11th February 2004, 12:32
Originally posted by 3 Card Trick
Given that the organisers provided a stopwatch for every fight at Foil and Epee at the BYC's, and the epee was the day before, I can only conclude that there were stopwatches, but as usual nobody thought you would need them for sabre.

BYCs?:confused:

What has 3Ct been putting in his pipe, or was I in the wrong competition at the weekend?:)

Definitely no stopwatch in my foil DE on Sunday....at Slough.

NLSC Sabreur
-11th February 2004, 13:13
Originally posted by pinkelephant
Yes it does - the same as the other weapons. It's just that nobody ever bothers to time it.

Not quite true. Stop watches are very useful ------------------------for timing the 1 minute break after the first fencer reaches 8 hits!

(Usually I just count to 60 in my head, then call "When you are ready". Sabre is fast enough to not need to worry about the break being too long.)

3 Card Trick
-11th February 2004, 13:47
"BYCs?

What has 3Ct been putting in his pipe, or was I in the wrong competition at the weekend?

Definitely no stopwatch in my foil DE on Sunday....at Slough."

There4 were stopwatches for all the epee De's at Slough.

As to "BYC's" I guess that there are just too many competitions some weekends??

:o

Boo Boo
-11th February 2004, 13:53
Stopwatches were around on Saturday at Slough, too...

All my poule fights were timed. All but half of one of my DE fights were also timed (I think that I took the ref by surprise by taking my time over a certain opponent...). But really every DE fight should be times: you never know when you might have to use your time strategically...

Boo

randomsabreur
-11th February 2004, 17:55
Stopwatches or boxes with integral timers were in use for the sabre at the BYCs. Very useful for the break, especially with a fancy box once you know where the correct button is.

I have to admit that I rarely bother to time a sabre fight, but I might just start doing so in certain circumstances. Also, the watch I wear most often (ie when i am not trying to look elegant) includes a stopwatch which can come in useful when the organisers at a competition either fail to provide a stopwatch, or the one they have bothered to provide is broken or temperamental.

I think there should be a means of applying passivity to the together situation at sabre, that way people would either avoid the situation, or accept that it happens. Could be a useful stick to wave!

Rdb811
-11th February 2004, 18:24
I don't remember a shortage of stop watches at Slough - in the end I have my bought my own.

Insipiens
-13th February 2004, 09:26
There were loads of stop watches at Slough for the DE at mens foil. They were in a box upstairs in the organisers room. So you just had to go and find them, which frankly was not difficult.

Given my level of fitness I would not want to start a DE bout which was not being timed, because I am always knackered by the end of three minutes.

Marcos
-13th February 2004, 13:21
Originally posted by NLSC Sabreur


"...should the fencers show themselves obviously unwilling to fight...

pretty clear I think - I think Williams is a great ref but from what I have read the rule was incorrectly implemented.

Whilst I agree with the spirit of the rule, I don't see how it can work.

Say the fencers get a "passivity warning" - one has to change tactics and attack (or in the case of the bout in question, not attack!). The advantage in most cases would liewith the one who doesn;t take the risk and waits for the attack and counters/parries (or in this case, just attacks as before, knowing the other will attempt to parry/step back).

ps a friend pointed you out to me, Boo Boo, during your first DE - wasn't boring, you just outclassed her. Would have said Hi but had to run back to the MS

Rhubarb
-13th February 2004, 13:30
I can only look on horrified, as existing rules are bent and twisted to fit the situation. If this is an example of how things are reffed by fencers then we are well on the way to fantasy fencing and no wonder we can't seem to succeed abroad with any consistency.
Competitions(organisers) who fail to engage trained and qualified ref's who work for expenses are short changing their customers. If the imposition of rules in a fashion that is 'creative' is to be the norm, no wonder the majority of competitors are ignorant of them and their intended application.
:confused:

Australian
-13th February 2004, 15:21
Originally posted by Rhubarb
I can only look on horrified, as existing rules are bent and twisted to fit the situation. If this is an example of how things are reffed by fencers then we are well on the way to fantasy fencing and no wonder we can't seem to succeed abroad with any consistency.
Competitions(organisers) who fail to engage trained and qualified ref's who work for expenses are short changing their customers. If the imposition of rules in a fashion that is 'creative' is to be the norm, no wonder the majority of competitors are ignorant of them and their intended application.
:confused:

as much as i agree with everything you are saying, the reality is that most of the opens can't afford to pay for qualified referees to come solely to referee, so the onus is on the fencers to referee themselves... which leads to the circumstances afformentioned.

Mind you the organisers at the bigger events seem to know how to look after the referees (i was treated very nicely at the BYC's and its looking to be the same at the Public Schools Champs)

randomsabreur
-14th February 2004, 12:34
I don't think that the ref concerned is qualified, I think because he doensn't want to be, but he is rated as one of the best sabre ref's in the country, and refereed the finals of a junior A-Grade in Italy when being at least an exam candidate for an FIE exam wasn't necessary. Also, he wasn't fencing at the competition but coaching and doing a bit of refereeing.

So the problem is not that a fencer has interpreted the rules to suit himself when he has no idea what to do, but that an experienced ref has made a conscious decision that something had to be done about a particular situation. Creative application of the rules is rare, most people are fairly lazy about reading the rule book, so creative application is not generally the issue, i.e. you have to read the rule to apply it creatively.

I agree that it is nice for referees to be well treated, but this is generally the case for age group and restricted entry competitions rather than the large senior events, particularly the nationals as the combination of a large entry and the fact that many of the better referees are also fencers means that there is a severe shortage of referees

Rhubarb
-17th February 2004, 08:52
is a bit of a misnomer for someone who palpably is ignorant of the rules and their application! I believe Ian Hunter called passivity for one of the periods in the fight for first place in the Ipswich cup this past weekend. If he reads this can he post to this thread and give us an explanation of the rule AND its application.He's FIE sabre as well as epee!

NLSC Sabreur
-17th February 2004, 10:36
Originally posted by Rhubarb
is a bit of a misnomer for someone who palpably is ignorant of the rules and their application! I believe Ian Hunter called passivity for one of the periods in the fight for first place in the Ipswich cup this past weekend. If he reads this can he post to this thread and give us an explanation of the rule AND its application.He's FIE sabre as well as epee!

Oh dear, I think this is going to come as a bit of a shock to you.

Paper qualifications DO NOT EQUAL good referee.

The first thing exams do is test your ability to pass exams. (If you look at where in this country has the most highly qualified BAF coaches you will not see a corresponding production of top fencers. )

I am not commenting on Ian Hunter merely pointing out an obvious fact of life which is true in most fields you can come across.

It's very possible to be both qualified and a good ref but it's certainly not always the case.

In my semi-final and the final at Slough the referee sent by the organisers (rather than another fencer who we the fencers would have chosen) had to be reminded both times that we have a break at 8. His failure to remember this was not reassuring. His refeering was consistent and results were fair so he was fine but I certainly judged him on performance rather than some paper he might have in his pocket.

Rhubarb
-17th February 2004, 11:10
surprisingly, I agree with you to a great extent BUT I would say that refereeing is not just about getting the hits the right way round. There is a lot more to it than that. I think you are in danger of equating the the fact that someone gets hits correct but ignores the other duties incumbent is a good referee. I beg to differ. Having spoken to Keith and Ian among others on the FIE list I am assured that British Fencing wish to encourage referee's, to qualify and to referee, according to the rules. I only mentioned Ian because he seems to have applied the passivity rule recently in a major international final.:fencingsm

Australian
-17th February 2004, 16:41
in your association's guidance to referees thingamadoobie, they say about passivity:


This is still a tough one to referee but if you think of the word “inactivity” rather than “passivity” when considering this one it will help.

and i really couldn't have phrased it better myself. The most common time that you will see it is at the final 10-15 seconds of a period in the de fight and the fencers will walk away, salute, and the referee will call halt and the minute break begins.

No matter what people think about the slough decision, the rule was applied incorrectly. I can understand how the referee must have felt (i refereed a lot of littlies sabre at the BYC), but that does not warrent them breaking the rules to suit the situation

Sabine
-26th February 2004, 12:26
Reading this thread an interesting thought has occurred to me.

With reference to:

"Guidance for Referees
Edition One — January 2002
Keith Smith & Mike Thornton
Introduction

Passivity

The following text is taken from the FIE "digest" of the Congress decisions:

"In pools and during the first and second periods of a direct elimination match, should the fencers show themselves obviously unwilling to fight, the referee will orally warn the fencers; should they continue to be unwilling to fight, the referee will call "halt" and the fencers will go straight into the next period of fencing, without the one minute break and without the possibility of consulting with their trainers. Should they be unwilling to fight during the third period of fencing, the referee will call "halt", and the fencers will start a final minute of fencing preceded by drawing of lots to decide the winner should the scores be equal at the end of the minute. (Note: The General Assembly of the FIE will be entitled to adapt this decision if necessary.)"."


I have seen passivity called in the last 10 or 15 seconds in a number of fights (indeed normally without warning being given) but always the one minute break has been allowed. At last year's cadet world championships one of our Tauber foil fencers was fencing a British girl and passivity was called after a minute and a half of the first period with no warning. Again the one minute break was allowed.

Is it my impression, or is the passivity rule not only highly subjective in nature but also frequently incorrectly applied with no warning and no foregoing of the minute break.

A confused Sabine

Australian
-27th February 2004, 08:33
Originally posted by Sabine
Is it my impression, or is the passivity rule not only highly subjective in nature but also frequently incorrectly applied with no warning and no foregoing of the minute break.

A confused Sabine

i'd read the rules if i were you:


t.87
During the first and second periods of a direct elimination bout, when both fencers make clear their desire to stop fencing or show evident passivity, the referee will immediately call ‘halt!’ and the two fencers will take their regulation one minute rest. In pools and in the third period of a direct elimination bout, should there be passivity on the part of both fencers, the referee will warn the fencers (but without imposing a yellow card). If there is obvious repetition, the referee will call ‘halt!’ and proceed to the last minute of the time allowed for the bout. This minute will be decisive and will be preceded by a drawing of lots to decide the winner should the scores be equal at the end of the minute.

pinkelephant
-27th February 2004, 09:57
The clue is in the words "edition 1 - January 2002". The rule has since been altered, and the rule itself should ALWAYS be read, not just the advice relating to it.

Nick E
-7th May 2012, 18:44
As a still new fencing parent I was wondering if the rule on passivity outlined above is valid?

My son was fencing today in the first 3 mins of his first DE. Both fencers were sizing each other up with attack and parry and lots of end to end movement. After the first minute with no warning halt was called for passivity. The Fight moved on to the second period with no break. Neither fencer understood why so neither challenged. And as parents of both fencers this one was beyond us.

Would be interested to know if this is right as it felt odd????

Nick E
-7th May 2012, 18:50
Forgot to add that the reason for passivity was that no score had happened in the first minute....

rpryer
-7th May 2012, 19:00
As a still new fencing parent I was wondering if the rule on passivity outlined above is valid?

My son was fencing today in the first 3 mins of his first DE. Both fencers were sizing each other up with attack and parry and lots of end to end movement. After the first minute with no warning halt was called for passivity. The Fight moved on to the second period with no break. Neither fencer understood why so neither challenged. And as parents of both fencers this one was beyond us.

Would be interested to know if this is right as it felt odd????

That's right (except it is non-combativity, not passivity).

Nick E
-7th May 2012, 19:36
Thanks. Will have to tell the boy to get his act together a bit quicker. And this was épée not sabre. Didn't hugely affect the outcome I suspect anyway. Was just interested.

pinkelephant
-7th May 2012, 19:42
As a still new fencing parent I was wondering if the rule on passivity outlined above is valid? My son was fencing today in the first 3 mins of his first DE. Both fencers were sizing each other up with attack and parry and lots of end to end movement. After the first minute with no warning halt was called for passivity. The Fight moved on to the second period with no break. Neither fencer understood why so neither challenged. And as parents of both fencers this one was beyond us.Would be interested to know if this is right as it felt odd????It is absolutely correct. There was a lot of it about today - I called it twice myself.

Nick E
-7th May 2012, 19:49
Thanks Mavis and thanks to all for a fantastic event. Our first but hopefully not our last. It was our first experience of this rule being imposed. So just interested and the forum experts to the rescue.

miraberis
-7th May 2012, 21:12
I was wondering if the rule on passivity outlined above is valid?

http://britishfencing.com/uploads/files/book_t_23:04.pdf

Page 56, t.87.4.

This thread seems to date back several years, so read the official document for the most up to date version of the rule.

Nick E
-8th May 2012, 05:05
Many thanks for the link. Was struggling to find the current regulations when I looked yesterday. And this version is much clearer. Every competition brings a new experience - well not every competition but you get the drift. And thanks to those who have aided my understanding.

n_freebody
-8th May 2012, 12:52
t.87.4-6 (non-combativity) - REPLACE t.87.4/5/6 with the following:

4. When both fencers make their unwillingness to fight, the Referee will immediately
call ‘Halt!’

Unwillingness to fight (non-combativity)
If one of the two criteria below is present, there is unwillingness to fight:
1. criterion of time : approximately one minute of fencing without a hit
2. absence of blade contact or excessive distance (greater than the distance of a stepforward-
lunge) during at least 15 seconds.

5. Individual events
a) If during the first two periods of a direct elimination bout both fencers make
clear their unwillingness to fight, the Referee will proceed to the next period,
without the minute rest.
b) When both fencers make clear their unwillingness to fight during the third
period of a direct elimination bout, the Referee will proceed to a last minute of
fencing. This last minute, which will be fenced in its entirety, will be decisive and
will be preceded by a drawing of lots to decide the winner should the scores be
equal at the end of the minute.

6. Team events
a) If both teams make clear their unwillingness to fight during a team match, the
Referee will proceed to the next bout.
b) If both teams make clear their unwillingness to fight during the last bout, the
Referee will proceed to a last minute of fencing. This last minute, which will be
fenced in its entirety, will be decisive and will be preceded by a drawing of lots to
decide the winner should the scores be equal at the end of the minute

The new and most recent ruleing is as above. It wont be found in the actual handbood as it is a recent addition (i.e. last month)

Swords Crossed
-8th May 2012, 13:40
The new and most recent ruleing is as above. It wont be found in the actual handbood as it is a recent addition (i.e. last month)

Actually, you will find it in the most recent rulebook, as it has in fact been in effect since January 2011.

n_freebody
-9th May 2012, 11:42
I know it has. I was just going off of what it said on the BF website with regards to the dates of the addition/rewording of that section.