PDA

View Full Version : Covering at Foil



Winwaloe
-17th February 2004, 10:39
when does movement of the non sword arm and/or shoulder constitue covering? especially as some fencers come on guard with the free hand in front of them?

Saxon
-17th February 2004, 12:32
t.22
At foil and sabre, it is forbidden to protect the target area or to substitute another part of the body for the target area, either by covering or by an abnormal movement (cf. t.114, t.116, t.120).


In my non-qualified capacity, I would suggest that covering means using non-target area to guard part of the target from a hit or potential hit.

So while on guard, or not in an active phrase, you can do what you like, but as soon as there is the possibility of an incoming point, that arm has to be out of the way. Usually happens by instinct, particularly when attacking.

Now that reversing shoulders is no longer an offence, covering comes in there too - as soon as your back shoulder comes forward, if your back arm is not well out of the way, you're likely to be covering valid target.

And if at that point you stick your arm in the air, are you protecting your back from a flick?


...and it goes withou saying that if you cover in sabre, you're either a complete loony or never want to play the piano again.

Australian
-17th February 2004, 16:32
saxon has it pretty much spot on...

and let me emphasise (like saxon also did) is that although reversing line of shoulders is no longer an offence, cases when someone reverses their shoulders, they are more than likely going to be covering with their back arm... thus earning a yellow card

Winwaloe
-18th February 2004, 15:59
Interesting - one of my fencers got 2 red cards at the BYN for reversing his shoulders - given by a ref who told me he refed every weekend and therefore had to be right.

Australian
-18th February 2004, 16:17
Originally posted by Winwaloe
Interesting - one of my fencers got 2 red cards at the BYN for reversing his shoulders - given by a ref who told me he refed every weekend and therefore had to be right.

well then he's not up to date with his new rules then... :)

anyways, as i said, if your fencer was reversing he was more than likely covering too... so in all fairness he would have got the cards anyways

Winwaloe
-18th February 2004, 16:25
nope - rear arm out the way (I could see) and card given for reversing - also same ref ignored obvious covering with another fencer (none of mine involved) so pretty sure it was for reversing shoulders

Tubby
-18th February 2004, 17:41
Wasn't there a case of a woman fencer being red carded in a World cup event (final?) when her hair fell onto her lame for a second time? Or is that a myth?

Tubby
-18th February 2004, 17:50
Originally posted by Australian
if your fencer was reversing he was more than likely covering too... so in all fairness he would have got the cards anyways
i did get one parent who came up to me, mid-fight, to claim that the other girl was covering target when they got in close.... SO i shooed him off and said i'd look at it. Wasn't the point he was making covering through turning the shoulder? I saw the discussion taking place and the movements being demonstrated but couldn't hear the words. From the movements it looked as if that was his beef.

Australian
-18th February 2004, 18:43
the quote that he said to me was:

"her arm is right across her chest"

:confused:


i didn't see it.... the girl wasn't reversing anyways :)

PKT
-21st February 2004, 05:25
Originally posted by Australian
the quote that he said to me was:

"her arm is right across her chest"

:confused:


i didn't see it.... the girl wasn't reversing anyways :)



The fencer or the coach in situations like this should ask for hand/side judges.

The coaches should make their charges aware of what they should do in an eventuality like that: simply ask the ref for side judges.

Which brings up another question.
Knowing that most foil and sabre refs concentrate mainly on the arm and use only their peripheral vision to watch the rest of the action:
When would you as a ref ask for help to determine if
~ a foilist is covering target, or
~ a sabreur is doing passe' avant?

In a recent big tournament in Vancouver - that's Vancouver, BC, not THAT other Vancouver [in Washington state] which even stupid people try hard to bypass - that I got a good whack on my left thumb thus drawing oodles of blood - I was retreating and the left hand came up for balance. Then in WF, a competitor was covering her target somuchso that she got her hand skewered and lots more blood... After her hand was bandaged by the St John's Ambulance on site, every DE bout she fenced in was attended by hand judges.

PK

Tubby
-21st February 2004, 06:13
Originally posted by PKT


In a recent big tournament in Vancouver - that's Vancouver ....... Then in WF, a competitor was covering her target somuchso that she got her hand skewered and lots more blood...
Did you say big? Give us a point of reference.

Was there any photos of said skewering?

Australian
-21st February 2004, 18:46
Originally posted by PKT
The fencer or the coach in situations like this should ask for hand/side judges.

The coaches should make their charges aware of what they should do in an eventuality like that: simply ask the ref for side judges.


it wasn't a coach... it was a dad :rolleyes:

it really didn't bother the fencer from what i saw

PKT
-23rd February 2004, 04:45
Originally posted by Tubby
Did you say big? Give us a point of reference.

Was there any photos of said skewering?

It was a national selection tourney but open to non-Cdns. So there were come US participants.

Unfortunately not, I was refing at the time.

PK

PKT
-23rd February 2004, 04:47
Originally posted by Australian
it wasn't a coach... it was a dad :rolleyes:

it really didn't bother the fencer from what i saw

That said, it's part of the game to put the opp't's mind otherwise preoccupied. "Oh, heck, now i HAVE to beware of where my non-swrod hand is..."

PK

Robert
-23rd February 2004, 09:57
Originally posted by Australian
well then he's not up to date with his new rules then... :)

anyways, as i said, if your fencer was reversing he was more than likely covering too... so in all fairness he would have got the cards anyways

The removal of reversing the shoulders is going to cause problems. At the weekend I ended up in close-quarters with some-one and reversed the shoulders to try and deliver the hit.

He wanted me carded (perfectly fair appeal on his part).

Most of the people in my poule didn't know the rule had changed (though the organisers did provide update sheets, much credit to them) so I heard quite a few opinions.
Most thought it was a silly rule change (along with those for crossing lateral boundary).
Some thought any reversal of shoulders had to be covering and therefore should be penalised.
Some (and me, and the ref :party:) felt that because I hold a classical pose I shouldn't be penalised.
Most were unaware that as a president you can award a hit for an off-target light if you feel it results from covering.

So that was my first experience of the rule change.

Robert

PKT
-24th February 2004, 06:26
Originally posted by Robert
...
Most thought it was a silly rule change (along with those for crossing lateral boundary).
...

So that was my first experience of the rule change.

Robert

Crossing the lateral boundary is not a small thing:
Imagine yourself refing an epee bout, then you can understand the importance of having the fencers in the middle of the psite...

Remember, refing epee is long period of bordom and sudden bursts of all hell breaking loose...

PK

Robert
-24th February 2004, 07:53
Originally posted by PKT
Crossing the lateral boundary is not a small thing:


My reference was to the change from time of crossing to when the halt was called, which makes it all more subjective.

Robert

oiuyt
-24th February 2004, 16:21
You guys DO realize that the rules changes are not yet in effect, right? Refersing the shoulders goes into effect with the other trial changes in junior world cups (ONLY) starting with next season. Presumably it will be expanded to the senior level the year after that. For now reversing is still definitely cardable with or without covering.

-B :)

Robert
-24th February 2004, 19:10
Originally posted by oiuyt
You guys DO realize that the rules changes are not yet in effect, right?

It would be useful if Keith, Mike, Ian or someone could comment on this.

If you check out the FIE Rules link above and look at 2004 revised penalty sheet you will note that the reversing of shoulders (after clothes, before dragging of point) has gone. Unlike the other changes the FIE didn't vote to trial it so I cannot imagine why its implementation would be delayed. And several people stated earlier on this forum the change was in effect from 1 January.

Robert

Boo Boo
-24th February 2004, 23:09
Originally posted by oiuyt
You guys DO realize that the rules changes are not yet in effect, right?

According to the BFA (British Fencing Association) certain rule changes (not all) have come into affect from 1st Jan 2004. One of the rule changes that has come into affect is the one about "reversing of shoulders"...

Please refer to:
http://www.britishfencing.com/Congress%20Decisions%20Dec%2027.doc and
http://www.britishfencing.com/februlechanges.doc

These updates are what British referees have been following.

Boo

Prometheus
-25th February 2004, 10:27
oiuyt is correct the new ruling is applying according to the FIE congress to the Junior WC from the coming season:


décisions Congrès 2003-FRA.pdf (http://www.fie.ch/download/letters/2003/info/13/en/Relevé%20des%20décisions%20Congrès%202003-FRA.pdf)


Suppression de l'inversion des épaules au fleuret en tant que faute

Suppression of the inversion of the shoulders to the foil as a fault


Application: à titre d'essai pour les compétitions de Coupe du Monde juniors dès le 1er octobre 2004

Application: by way of test for the competitions of World cup juniors as of October 1, 2004



It does appear that the Rules as described on the BFA site are incorrect in this respect as they do purport to be from the Congress decisions.

http://www.britishfencing.com/Congress%20Decisions%20Dec%2027.doc

PKT
-25th February 2004, 19:12
Originally posted by Boo Boo
According to the BFA (British Fencing Association) certain rule changes (not all) have come into affect from 1st Jan 2004. One of the rule changes that has come into affect is the one about "reversing of shoulders"...

Please refer to:
http://www.britishfencing.com/Congress%20Decisions%20Dec%2027.doc and
http://www.britishfencing.com/februlechanges.doc

These updates are what British referees have been following.

Boo

Here's the Canadian Fencing Federation's President's report on the same topic, laid out in similar fashion:
http://www.fencing.ca/news/2003nov_fie_congress_report.htm
As per usu., this report is in both official languages of Canada neither of which is Chinese.
PK

PKT
-25th February 2004, 19:41
Originally posted by Prometheus
oiuyt is correct the new ruling is applying according to the FIE congress to the Junior WC from the coming season:


décisions Congrès 2003-FRA.pdf (http://www.fie.ch/download/letters/2003/info/13/en/Relevé%20des%20décisions%20Congrès%202003-FRA.pdf)

Suppression of the inversion of the shoulders to the foil as a fault

Application: by way of test for the competitions of World cup juniors as of October 1, 2004

It does appear that the Rules as described on the BFA site are incorrect in this respect as they do purport to be from the Congress decisions.

http://www.britishfencing.com/Congress%20Decisions%20Dec%2027.doc


D'oh!
Murphy's Law strikes again. Sheet happens.

Geez, even the report by the President of the Cdn Fencing Federation got it right on this point ...

==)-----------------

It's interesting:
For most other sections of the FIE pdf document, the format for the aplication time was at the top of the page, under the boxed title of the section - this applies to sections 2, 3 & 4 - except fo this section, Section 5 of "Rules changes", which begins on page 12 to the end of the document on page 27.

PK

3 Card Trick
-27th February 2004, 11:33
Reversing as a penalty has been removed from the Penalty Sheet by the FIE.

If they have made a mistake no doubt they will correct it. But for the time being that is all I know.

Prometheus
-27th February 2004, 11:40
I do so hate being right all the time ;)

Australian
-27th February 2004, 15:24
But the official FIE rules say it is not a fault

(if your french is up to it, download the feb 2004 official rules in french here: http://www.fie.ch/download/rules/fr/RTECHN.pdf )

t.120 pg38

I'll go on that over a letter anyday

PKT
-29th February 2004, 08:29
Originally posted by Prometheus
I do so hate being right all the time ;)



Originally posted by Australian
But the official FIE rules say it is not a fault

(if your french is up to it, download the feb 2004 official rules in french here: http://www.fie.ch/download/rules/fr/RTECHN.pdf )

t.120 pg38

I'll go on that over a letter anyday


He who laughs last...

PK

Prometheus
-1st March 2004, 11:30
OK, I can see it ain't there, and therefore the rule doesn't apply anymore.


Originally posted by Prometheus
I do so hate being right all the time

The exception proves the rule :moon:


Prometheus - glug,glug
(the sound of someone going down with his ship)

3 Card Trick
-5th March 2004, 07:33
I have now checked the position and can confirm that the penalty of "at foil, reversing the line of the shoulders" is removed.

Any "reversal" which remains capable of penalty will now be covered by the concept of "covering".

Please note that suggestions that the removal of the offence does not take effect until Oct 2004 are, according to my sources in the FIE, incorrect.

Australian
-5th March 2004, 09:12
Originally posted by 3 Card Trick
I have now checked the position and can confirm that the penalty of "at foil, reversing the line of the shoulders" is removed.

Any "reversal" which remains capable of penalty will now be covered by the concept of "covering".

Please note that suggestions that the removal of the offence does not take effect until Oct 2004 are, according to my sources in the FIE, incorrect.

excellent

:grin:

quoting prom: "I do so hate being right all the time "

Tubby
-5th March 2004, 11:46
I know this is rinky dink as its kiddies foil, however here goes.

My daughter was fencing in a LPJS comp v.recently. In a DE, she was winning 5-0 and having hit her opponent 3 times on the non-fencing arm as it was clutched against said fencers chest with fist clenched (we've all seen this so you know what I mean). My daughter pointed this covering out to the ref who responded "Don't worry, you're winning 5 nil". :confused:

And so the fight resumed, 5 seconds later my daughter lunged, full bore (nice technical term there) and hit the clenched fist in front of the target with the point of her electric foil. I know that sports hurts and that if you can't go hard go home, but the ref should have the safety of the fencers in mind and should have acted to protect the fencer from potential harm.

The young girl did all she could from crying but everyone watching could tell that it was an ouchie.

Had she been seriously hurt could she sue the ref for negligence even though he was probably trying not to penalise her? Could she have sued (me) my daughter for fencing on knowing she could have been hurt?

Robert
-5th March 2004, 18:32
Originally posted by Tubby
My daughter was fencing in a LPJS comp v.recently. In a DE, she was winning 5-0 and having hit her opponent 3 times on the non-fencing arm as it was clutched against said fencers chest with fist clenched (we've all seen this so you know what I mean)... hit the clenched fist in front of the target with the point of her electric foil.

I'm not clear, you seem to be saying that your daughter scored 5 points, AND these hits. In which case the score should have been 9-0 for substitution regardless of whether the ref decided to card for covering.

Robert

Tubby
-5th March 2004, 21:00
Throughout the DE my daughter was scoring hits as well as hitting off target on the covering arm. At 5-0 she decided to mention to the ref that the other fencer was covering as she had hit her on the arm. She went on to win 10-0. The point I was making was that the ref had not warned the other girl. The warning would have served two purposes. Potentially stopping a) the covering and b) the fencer being injured.

I see this as similar to turning the head. The ref should warn for this, as much as I'm happy to have a fencer show me their back to hit, if I'm off target on the back of their head (having known they do it all the time) how much blame would lie with me, the ref or the opponent who looked round to check the box. So along the same lines - the unprotected hand in front of the target should draw a warning on grounds of safety as well as covering. Then again I could be talking out of my:moon: per usual.

Robert
-6th March 2004, 17:12
Originally posted by Tubby
Throughout the DE my daughter was scoring hits as well as hitting off target on the covering arm.

So along the same lines - the unprotected hand in front of the target should draw a warning on grounds of safety as well as covering. Then again I could be talking out of my:moon: per usual.

My point was that when your daughter hit the arm (and an off-target light came on), that off-target counts as an on-target light. It is the only circumstance under which the president can award a hit which did not actually occur. And if you remind a fencers you can do this the arms come back pretty sharpish, without the need to card anybody.

Robert

Tubby
-6th March 2004, 21:10
oh, point taken.

Prometheus
-8th March 2004, 11:07
Originally posted by Robert
My point was that when your daughter hit the arm (and an off-target light came on), that off-target counts as an on-target light. It is the only circumstance under which the president can award a hit which did not actually occur. And if you remind a fencers you can do this the arms come back pretty sharpish, without the need to card anybody.

Robert


Really? Which ruling is that, can you quote it so I can update my rules please?

rory
-8th March 2004, 11:45
There is no such rule. See t.22 and penalties under t.120. For both covering and substitution (if anyone quotes that idiocy about giving a hit on the mask as valid for a ducking fencer) it's a yellow, then subsequent reds.

pinkelephant
-8th March 2004, 12:08
Oh yes there is.

t.49 However, hits which arrive off the target are counted as valid whenever, by reason of an abnormal position, the fencer has substituted this non-valid target for the valid target. The Referee may question the judges about this, but he alone must decide whether the hit is valid or not.

Peter Pan
-8th March 2004, 12:12
t.49 However, hits which arrive off the target are counted as valid whenever, by reason of an abnormal position, the fencer has substituted this non-valid target for the valid target. The Referee may question the judges about this, but he alone must decide whether the hit is valid or not.

Possibly this was an amendment after yr 2000 edition - see "Unofficial Rules" on link at top of page.

srb
-8th March 2004, 12:33
A practical slant.

I was fencing, lunged and hit my opponent in the middle of the chest, but a white light came up. I then asked to test, another white light came up, and it became apparent that my opponents crocodile clip had come off his electric jacket.

The president said that although he saw the hit to chest, he couldn't award the hit as it came up as a white light. Was he right, or wrong?

srb

JohnL
-8th March 2004, 12:46
The decision was correct.
It is possible that you hit off-target just prior to lunging and the timed lockout prevented another light from lighting. For the referee to award the hit he would have to be 100% certain that this was not the case, and the chances of that are minimal.

With giving a valid hit when the hand is covering the target, to be certain of this you would have to see the hand virtually pinned to the jacket by the foil point. In addition the referee would have to be sure that nothing else was hit first. Safer to use the cards than to get into that discussion,

As for substituting the mask for the target. Forget it. In fencing you move, at some time the mask is bound to be where the target was. Just use the cards. In days gone by, the best people at substituting their masks for their valid targets were probably Nick Bell and the illustrious Barry Paul, however the champion had to be Richard Hill. (Oh those were the days!)

Prometheus
-8th March 2004, 12:46
hmmm, so you're saying that as well as carding (yellow or red) you also give a hit to the opponent?

Does this require that the opponent has right of way?

So you also don't need to know that the hit would actually have arrived on the lame at all - you just guess? doesn't rule t.49 pre-suppose you also have judges for that reason?

In Extremis: the opponent could get two hits for a counter attack then - one red for a second covering offence and the original hit given?

How fascinating! must try that [hitting my opponents hand with a remise] at the next international I'm at.

pinkelephant
-8th March 2004, 13:00
It happens quite often at children's events with beginners, and is usually blindingly obvious when it happens. The referee can also require the fencers to chenge ends, even during the course of a fight, so that he/she can watch the back arm if there's no chance of getting competent arm judges. (I did this at the BYCs when every available competent arm judge was refereeing).

You can also do this to watch for back arm PARRIES at epee - one of my own personal bug-bears since being the victim not only of back arm parrying on the blind side, but my oponent actually HOLDING my blade with her hand! (Of course, I should have let go, to demonstrate graphically what was going on, but I didn't think of oit at the time).

Tubby
-8th March 2004, 13:04
well and truely sticking my neck out from shell ....

no hit.

if fault is with equipment then, generally, too bad.

Just like in LPJS couple weeks back, fencer A, lunge, hit middle of chest (layed on?), redouble to chest (passe?), redouble to flank (passe?), fencer B then attack, coach of fencer A asks ref if it would be better to have the box switched on. No hit.

pinkelephant
-8th March 2004, 13:05
Originally posted by Prometheus
hmmm, so you're saying that as well as carding (yellow or red) you also give a hit to the opponent?

I wouldn't give a RED card as well as the hit - you can't award two hits at once.

Does this require that the opponent has right of way?

Yes

So you also don't need to know that the hit would actually have arrived on the lame at all - you just guess? doesn't rule t.49 pre-suppose you also have judges for that reason?

You can only give the hit if the hand PREVENTS the hit from arriving on the target, and it would have done so had the hand not been there

In Extremis: the opponent could get two hits for a counter attack then - one red for a second covering offence and the original hit given?

No (but 3CT/Ian Hunter please confirm?)

How fascinating! must try that [hitting my opponents hand with a remise] at the next international I'm at.

Why a remise? Most unlikely to occur at International level anyway.

Prometheus
-8th March 2004, 13:20
How fascinating! must try that [hitting my opponents hand with a remise] at the next international I'm at.

I was being provocative ;) - because possibly no ROW.


My problem with this view is that I think that substitution is seperate to covering - a similar offence but different situation. I guess you could say that Tubby's example is substitution. I'm more concerned with the rather dodgy application of t.49 which Robert cites. You are suggesting that in this case the hitter should not be concerned for the unprotected hand of the fencer at fault but should hit it anyway - seems unsafe to me with kids?


Covering can be interpreted as the possibility of the non-target area being substituted whereas substitution must always occur.

So I don't disagree with your following of the logic of the rules, merely that in my experience the card would be given and hits to the opponent would be gained using t.22 rather than using rule t.49

I always understood t.49 was applied for situations that are very odd i.e. dropping the mask (head butting the opponents point?) bring up the leg via jumping, gamemanships' fencing etc. I think substitution is a very difficult rule to apply and seems unnecessary where you already have rule t.22 to cover (no pun intended) this exact situation.

PS if Robert tries using this with me at a competition I'll be straight to DT!!!:moon:

randomsabreur
-8th March 2004, 13:59
You can get a hit against and a red (i.e. 2 hits at once, happens regularly at sabre where a fencer is carded for cross stepping and is hit as their own hit is annulled

Robert
-8th March 2004, 18:43
Originally posted by Prometheus
My problem with this view is that I think that substitution is seperate to covering - a similar offence but different situation. I guess you could say that Tubby's example is substitution. I'm more concerned with the rather dodgy application of t.49 which Robert cites. You are suggesting that in this case the hitter should not be concerned for the unprotected hand of the fencer at fault but should hit it anyway - seems unsafe to me with kids?


Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle :moon:

Slap on hand for Prometheus, who wasn't up on this rule as he should have been. Considering our recent discussions on this board I am feeling very, very smug at this moment.

To be clear t.22 and t.49 are completely complementary. Read the penalty sheet and you will see BOTH rules are listed next to the offence. (DonJaime: It has been in for a while, I am quoting from a 2000 edition).

You should use both. The most important thing is to stop the person bringing their hand forward. My method would have stopped it before a blade came anywhere near the arm (Prometheus method would not).


PS if Robert tries using this with me at a competition I'll be straight to DT!!!:moon:

I'll bear that in my mind if you ever try using covering to prevent me reversing the shoulders.

Robert :cool:

srb
-8th March 2004, 19:18
:sleep:

Prometheus
-9th March 2004, 08:50
Originally posted by Robert
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle :moon:

Slap on hand for Prometheus, who wasn't up on this rule as he should have been. Considering our recent discussions on this board I am feeling very, very smug at this moment.

To be clear t.22 and t.49 are completely complementary. Read the penalty sheet and you will see BOTH rules are listed next to the offence. (DonJaime: It has been in for a while, I am quoting from a 2000 edition).

You should use both. The most important thing is to stop the person bringing their hand forward. My method would have stopped it before a blade came anywhere near the arm (Prometheus method would not).

I'll bear that in my mind if you ever try using covering to prevent me reversing the shoulders.

Robert :cool:

Ha Ha,

but hang on - that doesn't mean a thing? What we are discussing is which rule/offence do you penalise the fencer for.

t.120 is a summarised list of the penalties. This implies to me that you look up the rule you seek then apply the relevent card, not look up the rule then add in all the rules listed on that line! By your logic I would penalise someone for t.72 which is a Sabre rule!!!:eek:

bydande
-9th March 2004, 08:55
A covering related question for anybody who cares to answer

At the the recent foil BYC my daughter complained to the referee that her opponent was ducking and bending forward so that she covered her target with her mask making it almost impossible for my daughter to hit the target area. From my perspective this appeared to be covering (with the mask) and also potentially dangerous because the girl was leaning and ducking to such an extent that she was exposing the unprotected top of her head. Unfortunately the referee just said that ducking was not a penalty and told her to get on with it.

Who was right?

Is ducking always just "displacement" or does it become "covering" if you duck in such a way that you obscure the target with your mask.

pinkelephant
-9th March 2004, 09:24
Originally posted by bydande
A covering related question for anybody who cares to answer

At the the recent foil BYC my daughter complained to the referee that her opponent was ducking and bending forward so that she covered her target with her mask making it almost impossible for my daughter to hit the target area. From my perspective this appeared to be covering (with the mask) and also potentially dangerous because the girl was leaning and ducking to such an extent that she was exposing the unprotected top of her head. Unfortunately the referee just said that ducking was not a penalty and told her to get on with it.

Who was right?

Is ducking always just "displacement" or does it become "covering" if you duck in such a way that you obscure the target with your mask.

Ducking, as with a duck stop hit, is a perfectly legitimate move. Displacement of target would be when the head alone is dropped in front of the target, which I agree is dangerous. The difference, as with all things, is in the perception of the referee. If the referee says the target was not displaced, then that is a question of FACT, and cannot therefore be challenged.

If the "leaning and ducking" you describe was so extreme, it must have opened up alternative areas of target, on the back.

bydande
-9th March 2004, 10:02
Pinkelephant,

1. Yes - at the time my advice to my daughter (in the break) was
"the referee has made his decision, so you now need to stop feeling hard done by and come up with your own solution to the problem".

2. The "leaning and ducking" was pretty extreme and yes there was loads of opportunity for a flick to the back as a result - but my daughter has not learnt to flick yet. But hopefully she will have by next year!

Robert
-9th March 2004, 11:02
Originally posted by bydande
A covering related question for anybody who cares to answer


Bydande, a very similar thing happened at the Nottingham on Saturday. I didn't see the action itself, but a considerable argument developed between one fencer and the president.

The fencer said his opponent was covering, and should be carded. After the fight he demonstrated what he said the other fencer was doing, which was leaning forward over their front leg body touching the leg. Result, only the back was exposed to a hit.

To me this looks like a displacement. The fencer is trying to avoid being hit - they are not trying to cause an off-target light. If the mask were caught on the way down it would not be unreasonable to give it as a hit for substitution. But since the fencer is not deliberately covering or substituting it seems unfair to card them.

Bydande, I am curious, did you feel the other fencer was trying to avoid being hit, or just trying to turn any hit into an off-target?

Robert

P.S However, I think t.22 para.2 is open to alternative interpretation. Perhaps Prometheus could oblige?:)

Prometheus
-9th March 2004, 11:29
My interpretation is that substitution implies an element of 'mens rea' as well as the 'actus rea' in the movement.

So I guess, if that's the case, Robert's question about the intent of the fencer is the one the president should consider?

Was it merely leaning forwards through poor technique or actual attempt to wriggle free?

It's a tricky one though - a bit like guessing if a fencer is deliberately hitting off target to gain time in a team match.

Unfortunately I have never seen an opponent of mine carded for doing that either and I can certainly sympathise with Tubby's daughter's situation.

I guess you need to take away the thought that leaning forwards like that is such a bad habit that the fencer concerned will never make it to the 'big time' (another generalisation that will probably backfire on me).

Australian
-9th March 2004, 11:41
Originally posted by Prometheus
It's a tricky one though - a bit like guessing if a fencer is deliberately hitting off target to gain time in a team match.


and so what if they are?


in bydande's case: i do sympathise, but it is the interpretation of the referee, and what he sees...

robert: if the fencer had his head upright then i see no problem with this... should be treated like a lunge in my opinion

Prometheus
-9th March 2004, 11:57
Originally posted by Australian
and so what if they are?


Hurmmph, last time I try and be sympathetic. It doesn't work for me :(

Australian
-9th March 2004, 12:04
Originally posted by Prometheus
Hurmmph, last time I try and be sympathetic. It doesn't work for me :(

sorry mate, i just personally like the tactic :)

pinkelephant
-9th March 2004, 12:04
There's nothing against deliberately hitting off target at foil in the rules. The rule is "deliberate hit NOT ON THE OPPONENT" which is a different thing entirely.

pinkelephant
-9th March 2004, 12:06
Originally posted by bydande
Pinkelephant,

1. Yes - at the time my advice to my daughter (in the break) was
"the referee has made his decision, so you now need to stop feeling hard done by and come up with your own solution to the problem".

2. The "leaning and ducking" was pretty extreme and yes there was loads of opportunity for a flick to the back as a result - but my daughter has not learnt to flick yet. But hopefully she will have by next year!

If the bending was that extreme you can hit the back without flicking - you just step in close, lift the hand and prod (to use the technical term).

bydande
-9th March 2004, 12:08
Robert et al

I got the feeling that it was an instinctive act by the fencer trying to avoid being hit by making the front target area as small as possible and as difficult to get at as possible.

Firstly, to set the scene, in the fight it was clear that my daughter was the more "attacking" fencer and the other girl was a more "defence and counter attack" orientated fencer. So what tended to happen was one of the following scenarios:

a) when my daughter attacked the other girl would back off quickly and my daughter would chase her down the piste untill they reached the back line or my daughter got a hit or the girl managed to find my daughters blade and reposte - all fair, good and enjoyable fencing to watch.

or

b) On those occasions when my daughter attacked too quickly for the girl to back off and avoid being hit, the girl seemed to instinctively make herself small and difficult to hit by ducking down, bringing her arms in close and leaning forward to protect her front. An understandable and very "human" reaction when an opponent with a sharp pointy stick is bearing down on you. The end result of this was that my daughter frequently ended up very close to the girl sawing away with her blade trying to get at her now almost compltely obscured target. And this resulted in a lot of "attack - off target" calls for my daughter when she hit her opponents mask or arm.

On a slight tangent, there was even one point when the other girl leaned so far forward that she "butted" my daughter mask to mask - needles to say the referee didnt call for corp a corps though.


So personally, I think the the girl was instinctively covering and displacing her target in order to avoid being hit and although this in turn presented other opportunities (like flick to back), her actions effectively prevented the attacking fencer from landing a point on the front target - by means other than a parry or distance. Surely that cant be fair?

Boo Boo
-9th March 2004, 12:56
Not being hit can be an art - if you watch fencers like Vezzali (ITA) and Gruchalla (POL), they excel at (amongst other things!) extremely good, perfectly timed counter attacks (hitting without being hit). Their counter attacks will often involve ducking down and/or tiping onto their front leg - making their target as small and as difficult to hit as possible...

It may be frustrating if you fence anyone who makes an art (whether on purpose or, occassionally, by accident...) of being difficult to hit, but it is not always against the rules (covering with back arm and exposing back of head aside...).

You can request judges (to watch for the covering/exposing of head etc.), but otherwise you need try things like, for example:
- slowing the attacks down (since people don't tend to counter into slow attacks - since it is suicide - this also gives more time to see the opening);
- second intention (feint a fast attack to draw the counter, then parry repost); and
- if you know that your opponent is always going to parry at a certain distance, then you can normally disengage around the parry (most kids don't tend to use a wide reportoire of parries) when you attack from that distance.

Boo

PKT
-11th March 2004, 00:43
Originally posted by DonJaime
t.49 However, hits which arrive off the target are counted as valid whenever, by reason of an abnormal position, the fencer has substituted this non-valid target for the valid target. The Referee may question the judges about this, but he alone must decide whether the hit is valid or not.

Possibly this was an amendment after yr 2000 edition - see "Unofficial Rules" on link at top of page.

Hey, DJ,
if you hit the "Quote" button of the psot you wish to quote, what you'll get is what you see above.
What you've been doing without putting quotation marks at the beginning and the end of the quotation is confusing and brain-use-required.

PK

PKT
-11th March 2004, 00:47
Originally posted by Tubby
...
Just like in LPJS couple weeks back, fencer A, lunge, hit middle of chest (layed on?), redouble to chest (passe?), redouble to flank (passe?), fencer B then attack, coach of fencer A asks ref if it would be better to have the box switched on. No hit.

LOL

d'oh! didn't the fencers test before they the "allez"?


PK

Tubby
-11th March 2004, 06:03
Originally posted by PKT
LOL

d'oh! didn't the fencers test before they the "allez"?


PK you want me to answer that? :grin: The fencers went into the minute break, one unplugged to take a drink, box does its thing, ref walks over and switches it off, 50 seconds later calls time, allez ........

Australian
-11th March 2004, 09:39
Just like in LPJS couple weeks back, fencer A, lunge, hit middle of chest (layed on?), redouble to chest (passe?), redouble to flank (passe?), fencer B then attack, coach of fencer A asks ref if it would be better to have the box switched on. No hit.

.... and i didn't do the same thing at BYC's.... :confused: :confused:

the worrying thing was that for the minute or so they fenced, there really wasn't a hit that i thought would have lighted

Insipiens
-11th March 2004, 17:00
Originally posted by Australian
.... and i didn't do the same thing at BYC's.... :confused: :confused:

the worrying thing was that for the minute or so they fenced, there really wasn't a hit that i thought would have lighted

Surely must have been epee?

Australian
-12th March 2004, 09:17
was foil, the box wouldn't have been switched off at the break for epee :)

Insipiens
-12th March 2004, 09:27
Originally posted by Australian
was foil, the box wouldn't have been switched off at the break for epee :)

D'Oh

:homer2:

I was just guessing by the excitement of the bout. ;)

Prometheus
-12th March 2004, 09:47
Perhaps Aussie's have the same lack of understanding irony as the yanks?

Farrago
-26th July 2005, 12:26
Covering question:

As far as I can tell, covering only counts if done by the back arm/hand and the head. A couple of people I have fenced have said I'm awkward to fence as I cover most of my target with my front arm. They say it's because my natural stance is "weird" (technical term). Apparently despite being a left-hander I don't fight like a left-hander (though they also say I don't fight like a right-hander) and little of my chest is exposed.

Can it be counted as covering if it's with my weapon arm and can it be counted as covering if it's just my natural (admittedly bizarre)stance?

Thanks, Farrago

Winwaloe
-26th July 2005, 14:56
Originally posted by Farrago
Covering question:

As far as I can tell, covering only counts if done by the back arm/hand and the head. A couple of people I have fenced have said I'm awkward to fence as I cover most of my target with my front arm. They say it's because my natural stance is "weird" (technical term). Apparently despite being a left-hander I don't fight like a left-hander (though they also say I don't fight like a right-hander) and little of my chest is exposed.

Can it be counted as covering if it's with my weapon arm and can it be counted as covering if it's just my natural (admittedly bizarre)stance?

Thanks, Farrago

I have seen a couple of lefties come on guard with a form of carte where the sword arm does indeed seem to cover quite a lot of he target. It looks akward but they don't appear to think so. Never really noticed it on a right hander. It does help with the concept put forward at last year's Wellsbourne team comp that all lefties should be treated roughly the same as old time witches. Anyone got the matches?

vil
-26th July 2005, 15:33
Originally posted by Farrago
Can it be counted as covering if it's with my weapon arm and can it be counted as covering if it's just my natural (admittedly bizarre)stance?
I was convinced that the answer to both questions was no, but re-reading the rules (the relevant ones are t.22 and t.49) I'm now inclined to say yes to both. When the rules talk about covering they don't specify that it only applies to the non-sword arm, they just mention substituting another part of your body for the valid target area. Would anyone who's more in-the-know care to clarify?

pinkelephant
-27th July 2005, 11:00
Oh dear, not again. As it is impossible to hold a weapon without the sword arm covering some part of the target, you would never be penalised for "covering" with it.

PLEASE apply some common sense.

vil
-27th July 2005, 11:29
Originally posted by pinkelephant
Oh dear, not again. As it is impossible to hold a weapon without the sword arm covering some part of the target, you would never be penalised for "covering" with it.

PLEASE apply some common sense.

Even if the entire sword arm was pressed up against the front of the lamé? I've seen people do that before.

I think you're right, in that most fencing will involve some covering with the sword arm; but I'd say there's a point at which it stops being ordinary fencing and becomes a deliberate attempt to subvert the rules. Maybe this would be covered by "abnormal movements" instead?

John Rohde
-27th July 2005, 14:31
Originally posted by vil
Even if the entire sword arm was pressed up against the front of the lamé? I've seen people do that before.

I think you're right, in that most fencing will involve some covering with the sword arm; but I'd say there's a point at which it stops being ordinary fencing and becomes a deliberate attempt to subvert the rules. Maybe this would be covered by "abnormal movements" instead?

I think that is what the FIE think because they proposed having a lamé for the lower part of the swordarm that was conductive when in contact with the lamé jacket IIRC. The latest proposal to extend the target area, includes all the swordarm except the lowest part.