PDA

View Full Version : passivity rules enforced at Vets Nationals in epee



marg
-7th March 2011, 08:09
The mens epee final lost the second period and they went straight to extra time so the final score was 2-1!!
As a spectator I felt robbed of watching a complete final.
As a fencer I would have been pretty fed up.
Is this really helpful to the sport ?

cesh_fencing
-7th March 2011, 08:24
I am guessing there are only 2 periods in VETs DEs and that is why it went straight to the extra minute.

I would say don't blame the rules, blame the fencers for choosing not to make any hits in a 60 second period. It is totally their choice.

pinkelephant
-7th March 2011, 15:03
You might not like the rule in its current form (and I don't) but the IOC loves it, so we'd all better get used to it. We need to gain audience interest - and that means scoring hits at a reasonable rate.

marg
-7th March 2011, 15:22
Vets fence to 10 hits with one break at 3 minutes. If i remember correctly i saw one bout where one fencer was 6:0 up on the other. Then there was absence of blade contact for 15 secs and they were bounced straight into the second 3 mins. I think this might have been 15 secs of thinking time on behalf of the trailing fencer. It didn't really look like she wasn't trying to fence, just not sure what to do.
Are all referees enforcing this now in Opens ?

jmayle
-7th March 2011, 22:04
Vets fence to 10 hits with one break at 3 minutes. If i remember correctly i saw one bout where one fencer was 6:0 up on the other. Then there was absence of blade contact for 15 secs and they were bounced straight into the second 3 mins. I think this might have been 15 secs of thinking time on behalf of the trailing fencer. It didn't really look like she wasn't trying to fence, just not sure what to do.
Are all referees enforcing this now in Opens ?

Well they are in a lot of U17 comps.

It would be very tactically acute to actually avoid blade contact for 15secs when 6-0 up as it gives the trailing opponent less chance to regain their game plan and as you quite rightly state, it could have been thinking time, after all 15 secs isn't that long. Not to score a hit within a min is also debatable and can be tactically avoided in the above scenario, it could just be a case of good defence not passivity.

I don't think the rule is a good one, it can be manipulated to favour the fencer in front and reduces the fair chance of the trailing fencer to regain the position.

I actually don't think it improves the overall viewing experience as if the fencers are equally matched, which is often the case in finals, it would be very feasible that no point would be scored in 1 minute due to good defensive fencing on both sides. I think Jon Willis has voiced this on another thread. Subjective regard for passivity is also an issue, when is it passive and when is it not? Inexperienced referees may find this a hard call.

cesh_fencing
-7th March 2011, 22:25
I am unsure why they have included the excessive distance part of the 'excessive distance or no blade contact within 15 seconds' as if you are miles away from your opponent there will not be blade contact anyway.

I can see this being called by reffs less than the 1 minute part of the rule, as if a fencer knows the rule, they should be able to find the blade within 15 seconds (or if someone is holding their epee way low or out wide hit the target).

Interesting in foil however, someone could do at least 5 attacks without hitting the blade and score off-target hits on each one and take up 15 seconds, I am guesing a referee could then call passivity as there had not been any blade contact in the 15 seconds as there does not seem to be anything saying off-target hits reset the 15 second clock.


I think the 1 minute with no hits is the key as this is very easy to referee and so is dificult to argue with.

In reality if a fencer is a few hits behind in a fight and is wanting to hit you, it would be pretty hard to fend them off for a whole minute and not score a hit yourself.

If the fencer trailing is not really trying to score, then I feel the pasivity call after 1 minute is totally fair and give the advantage to the fencer with the lead.

Barely legal
-8th March 2011, 10:00
Subjective regard for passivity is also an issue, when is it passive and when is it not? Inexperienced referees may find this a hard call.

But surely this is why the rule has been changed.
Now it gives a very clear definition of passivity (1min no hit or 15s no blade contact). The old rule left it open to the referee to decide if the fencers were passive or not.

TomA
-8th March 2011, 10:21
I am unsure why they have included the excessive distance part of the 'excessive distance or no blade contact within 15 seconds' as if you are miles away from your opponent there will not be blade contact anywayI'm unsure as to why the blade contact bit is in, rather than just the excessive distance. Absence of blade is a commonly used tactic in epee, especially when you have one or more pommellers involved.

pinkelephant
-8th March 2011, 17:59
So if you don't want non-combativity (NOT passivity) called, find the flaming blade - it's not that difficult in 15 seconds. It's the one minute with no hit that I don't like - at foil OR epee a fight can be absolutely frantic for a minute with no hit scored.

Foilling Around
-8th March 2011, 19:08
Interesting in foil however, someone could do at least 5 attacks without hitting the blade and score off-target hits on each one and take up 15 seconds, I am guesing a referee could then call passivity as there had not been any blade contact in the 15 seconds as there does not seem to be anything saying off-target hits reset the 15 second clock.


Haven't we covered this elsewhere, surely an off target is a hit. Think of steam and the judges reply "yes, off target" or "yes, on-target"

Australian
-9th March 2011, 08:15
Paul, you don't need to use steam fencing to justify the argument. A hit is a hit. We'll get proper direction at Junior Worlds in a couple of weeks.

Also remember the rule is "approximately one minute". At epee GPs this season we've been told not to call halt exactly on the minute, but similar to previously, have a feeling for what the fencers are actually doing. Give it an extra 10 seconds, 20 seconds, see if anything is actually going to happen.

Use common sense, or you'll be that referee that annuls a hit for non-combativity, because it happened 1 minute and 0.5 seconds into the match (yes I did see that in Doha).

John Rohde
-9th March 2011, 11:10
I was watching the final BVF epee final in question and it did seem odd and unsatifactory.
Perhaps there's a diffrence in perception between watching it live and on television? I've seen some spectacularly dull rounds of team matches on video but, then, presumably both sides saw some advantage in it and one side was wrong.
A "get stuck-in" rule can be rationalised within the traditions of the sport it's just that in the context of the match I saw Sunday, it seemed inappropriate. I tend to think of watching epee as a bit like going to a cricket match, with time to get a drink and have a natter, often missing the exciting bit. Maybe tv executves want basketball?
If it's what the IOC requires, then fair enough. Allowing discretion to the referees of up to 20 seconds over the 60second no-hit criterion might, however, allow some room for some inter-national ill-feeling of a sort that the IOC does not like.