Looks like this wasn't well received in the end.
http://static.fie.org/uploads/17/899...2017%20ang.pdf
Reverse shoulder rule revoked
Looks like this wasn't well received in the end.
http://static.fie.org/uploads/17/899...2017%20ang.pdf
The rule has not been revoked.
Read the first line: it's in bold, in a black border, the heading to the whole document:
PROPOSALS OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE RULES 2017 CONGRESS
I agree it hasn't been well received though.
So these will be voted on & confirmed at the end of November in Dubai. Should we expect implementation from January?Originally Posted by Australian
non combativity in foil
Good to see British Fencing's proposal about passivity in foil being accepted.
There was a foreign referee at the British Nationals last year who insisted that an off-target didn't count for passivity - only valid hits. During the bout, there had been off-target hits within the 60 seconds, but he seemed pretty bored and just wanted to get the fight over with, and he called passivity.
Off targets count as hits, even if they aren't valid, and therefore should be taken into account when assessing passivity, but that wasn't explicitly stated in the rules. It should be going forward.
OK the modification is to remove the rule, if I understand that strike though correctly.
It looks like eliminating the reversing shoulders rule found favor with everyone and hopefully it will be removed from the rulebook soon. Personally I think it's a terrible rule.
Also, I understand the need for epee to address the non-combativeness to make the weapon more spectator friendly. However as a fencer, my intent when I walk onto the strip is to win. To do this, I use my strengths where possible and hopefully my opponents weaknesses.
If I assess that my best chance of winning is to be in a defensive mode, I AM fencing to the best of my ability. I am not, "Not Fighting," but merely fighting in the way I have deemed to give me the best chance of winning.
Now I understand that this may not be the most spectator attractive fencing, but as a fencer, that CANNOT be my primary concern.
JohnL
Still valid until BF has the official nod
Just to update that BF have said this rule is still valid until they give official notification
proposals of modifications to the rules 2017 congress
...I mean, seriously....
Yes, seriously. Getting rid of the rule is still only a proposal, albeit one with a lot of support. Any change will either be with immediate effect from the date of the meeting, or from 1st Jan.
Advocate extraordinaire to Beelzebub.
The FIE Congress was listed as the 25th.
Does anyone know the results or is the Congress still going on?
JohnL
I can't find any details of the outcome of the congress on the FIE site, anyone got any info?
Only anarchists are trustworthy
I've been told that this rule was revoked, but haven't seen or heard anything about the timing of the change.
Hello,
It's been reversed, as expected. Details Up on britishfencing website news section.
Also of interest is there had been talk of bringing foil close to sabre in terms of limiting the number of footwork actions that constitute 'pressing attack' .. I.e attack in prep / line becomes possible/ valid after x ... Step step step lunge
M
Rule changes link to BF site
Found this on BF site.
http://britishfencing.com/news/latest-news/?n=1810
With ref to second paragraph above I observe that now referees are letting priority pass to fencer B where fencer A initiates with pressing footwork and absence of blade and fencer B rapidly opens distance by say six or seven steps and then shows line ( I.e safely out of range and therefor pressing fencer A is considered to no longer be threatening target ).
Are others seeing this commonly abroad as the new consensus . Any Obs welcome .
Given that a significant minority of refs domestically are still catching up with the concept of 'pressing attack' having priority I wonder how long the new precedent will take to establish.
Mark
Thankyou foiling around ( Paul )
For comments re above with ref to seminar trekanten camp. pls post here response..
How much does the fencer need break distance by to neutralise & take over priority ?
Also Francophile any OBS ?
Mark
Hello
To report back w definitive answers
Current Convention of R.O.W interpretation.
1- pressing attack has priority but if defender opens up distance by six seven steps then priority neutralised.
2- at quite close distance ( inside lunging ) pressing fencer can lose priority if they making large 'obvious' searching actions .. This is thus only situation where a.i.p occurs.
3- the pressing fencers ' attack window ' has not shifted parameters to align with the sabre attack window.. For foil, priority is still maintained continuously at a markedly bigger distance than sabre.
I would ask any coaches to post here any observations of anomalies ( I don't ask refs to contribute as there is general moratorium on referees discussing these issues )
Generally as coach I am observing significant variance in referee interpretations at events.
Kind regards
Mark
1) Is it 6 or 7? How big are the steps?
3) What on earth is the attack window?
In general I'm in favour of the concept of discussion of priority but as has been said a few times before Mark, I think you're off the ball a little on some of your understanding. It would be quite helpful if you could try to make the effort to come to a major event with some of the senior refs and have a discussion.
The Eden Cup and London Cup are at SportsDock on the 3rd/4th of November. This is in London and will have most of the British FIE refs present as well as many from other nations. Perhaps you could come down and ground your observations a little?
"Pressing" attack doesn't have priority. The attack has priority. An attack is a step lunge or fleche [paraphrasing]. You can't attack with a step lunge if your opponent is 6 steps away. The number isn't important its the factor of being a distance away that an attack can not occur from.
A search for the blade constitutes a preparation (t.84.3). It is difficult however to separate a changing of line from a search and often benefit of the doubt is given to the athlete making the aggressive action.
This is not the only situation where a.i.p occurs.
Honestly this sentence is kinda gibberish.
I think this is based on some faulty assumptions of priority addressed above but kinda hard to tell.
Once again Mark I implore you to speak to someone knowledgeable in person who can help you clear your understanding. Wanting to learn is a positive trait but as far as I know you have not approached any of GB's 7 currently active FIE foil referees to discuss any of this, not to mention the many others who do not have the qualification but are still more than knowledgeable enough.
Please, help us help you.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote