Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Rule Change Proposals - 2018 Congress.

  1. #1
    Senior Member ChrisHeaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lytham
    Posts
    616

    Default Rule Change Proposals - 2018 Congress.

    http://static.fie.org/uploads/20/100...2018%20ang.pdf

    Some real humdingers!

    I like the idea of foil with no off target/white light. (Nobody else like this idea looking at the committee reactions). I'm an epeeist.

    So you just keep battling away until someone gets a valid hit? Cool!

    Also fleches in sabre and non combativity proposals.

  2. #2
    ***** Legend hokers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Woking/Guildford
    Posts
    3,787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisHeaps View Post
    Also fleches in sabre and non combativity proposals.
    This has caused a LOT of discussion today.

    This sentence is TERRIBLE:

    We could examine the case of fleche, bearing in mind the non-abolition of the passe-avant. This could be achieved, if we would allow a fleche attack only when the attacking athlete is finishing his action and manages to hit the opponent and it will be only after the completion of this action that the back leg lands on the ground, crossing the front leg (as the natural outcome of a forward move)
    “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

  3. #3
    Initiate
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    81

    Default video referee

    I know this is only a minor point but do wonder with video referee why is it only optional for Veterans and yet compulsory for all others of a similar grade of competition?
    Pragmatic or ageist? Discuss

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M'son View Post
    I know this is only a minor point but do wonder with video referee why is it only optional for Veterans and yet compulsory for all others of a similar grade of competition?
    Pragmatic or ageist? Discuss
    My guess would be pragmatism. The Veterans Championships run 24 events, as opposed to 12 at all other championships. It's also worth noting that by making it optional, it means that the competition can run on many more pistes (most video-refereed rounds take place on 4 or 8 pistes which makes the day quite long).

    By giving the Vets Championships the option to run video whenever they want, it lets the organisers make a judgement call about the benefit of running video vs. the amount of time it adds on to the day.

  5. #5
    Senior Member ChrisHeaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lytham
    Posts
    616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hokers View Post
    This has caused a LOT of discussion today.

    This sentence is TERRIBLE:

    We could examine the case of fleche, bearing in mind the non-abolition of the passe-avant. This could be achieved, if we would allow a fleche attack only when the attacking athlete is finishing his action and manages to hit the opponent and it will be only after the completion of this action that the back leg lands on the ground, crossing the front leg (as the natural outcome of a forward move)
    Ha! It's so bad. It reads like if you attempted a fleche but missed you would get a red card.

    Interesting, I think, is that the motivation for all these changes is to increase the appeal of fencing to spectators. This of course is one of my absolute favourite recurring forum topics and I'm grateful to the FIE for this years revival. I will normally pitch in at about post #12 with a Beach Volleyball reference.

    So, what can the FIE do without changing the fundamentals of a weapon or making rule tweaks that won't make a blind bit of difference to a spectator to increase the appeal of fencing to telly viewers who are tuning in to the Olympics or World Champs?

    People seem to like sloooow things. We had the British Ladies National Golf Championships near us recently and it was packed with loads of regular people paying lots of money to walk around all day watching it in between trips to the bar (hmmm).

    Then what about curling? Very popular but sooo sloooow, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Fencing is just too darned fast. No vet jokes!

  6. #6
    Member jacquesdor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire
    Posts
    158

    Default

    Good camerawork and slowmo video replay. Multiple camera angles. It has helped bring wider audiences to cricket and rugby which I seem to remember were in the doldrums 20 or 30 years ago. Kerry Packer I think kicked it off with cricket, then we had the snickometer and embarrassing ball tampering close ups.

    Fencing slowmotion is fascinating, at the Olympic Team event a girl behind me said to her friend...
    "I don't know what going on but I am really enjoying this."

    So, lots of angles, slow motion and competent well paid commentators who can explain what is happening, not, someone who at Rio described a Fleche as "staggering forward!"

    What we need is a Russian oligarch, perhaps one with a personal fortune to invest around the 15 Billion mark.

  7. #7
    Initiate
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    81

    Default video referee

    See your point about number of events but how many times have I sat at a Vets world championship final ( this is the only FIE event ) and possibly seen someone robbed of a medal because there was no video.
    Surely we should have it for finals. Don't think that is asking for too much.

  8. #8

    Default

    Can we please stop derailing every conversation into a discussion about getting fencing on TV or vets fencing.

    Fleche in Sabre would be cool but impossible to achieve without getting rid of crossover rule. Is it time we got rid of the crossover rule.

    On the topic of the foil rule. I have never understood why an attack off target had the same priority as a valid attack. By my logic if you miss and your opponent hits, they should get the point regardless of priority. This might just be a logical conclusion to that problem.

  9. #9
    Senior Member max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Sheffield
    Posts
    403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FencingMove View Post
    Can we please stop derailing every conversation into a discussion about getting fencing on TV or vets fencing.

    Fleche in Sabre would be cool but impossible to achieve without getting rid of crossover rule. Is it time we got rid of the crossover rule.

    On the topic of the foil rule. I have never understood why an attack off target had the same priority as a valid attack. By my logic if you miss and your opponent hits, they should get the point regardless of priority. This might just be a logical conclusion to that problem.
    This would be the result of one of the proposed rule changes in#1 whereby no white lights for off target hits.
    A problem shared is one more person to laugh at you.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Nick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Exeter Devon, Chelmsford Essex
    Posts
    417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FencingMove View Post
    Can we please stop derailing every conversation into a discussion about getting fencing on TV or vets fencing.

    Fleche in Sabre would be cool but impossible to achieve without getting rid of crossover rule. Is it time we got rid of the crossover rule.

    On the topic of the foil rule. I have never understood why an attack off target had the same priority as a valid attack. By my logic if you miss and your opponent hits, they should get the point regardless of priority. This might just be a logical conclusion to that problem.
    The off target issue in foil only makes sense when you think about the context the weapon started out with. So the idea is that foil is used as a practice weapon. As such you get penalised for failing to defend yourself from an attack effectively, no matter where it lands. If you've just been stabbed in the arm, you're unlikely to be able to make an immediate riposte for example, that being said if you've begun the motor movement of a parry riposte and have managed to divert the opponents attack away from your torso, you will probably finish the movement irrespective of getting hit "Off target". The problem in part is that each weapon has its own origin and the rules reflect that, you end up running the danger of making foil into epee, which with the timings changes nearly happened as counter attacks became more effective at which point why bother having two weapons?
    Overall I think that one of the biggest mistakes that was made in fencing was reversing the lights. As soon as you put the lights the other way round then a lot of the refereeing phrasing and ROW makes sense. It then all becomes about penalising the fencer that failed to Defend themselves (Defence- de-fence - fencing) When phrasing the referee says "point against" then "point scored". You focus on the idea that it's a point against the opponent. It also makes sense of the double in Epee, both fencers are penalised for failing to defend themselves.

    The fleche in sabre is such a controversial idea because nobody wants to go back to the old days of everyone just running at each other. The only way to make fencing more accessible is to simplify the rules. If you allow a fleche then you have the issue of what happens if your opponent manages to make you miss and you are still in front of them? or in passing? How will the Italians and Russians manage to make use of the new rule tactically that is still technically "within the rules" but isn't in the spirit of them.
    Jason Nesmith : You WILL go out there.
    Alexander Dane : I won't and nothing you say will make me.
    Jason Nesmith : The show must go on.
    Alexander Dane : ...Damn you.

    Next Competition:t.b.d.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    <snip>
    Overall I think that one of the biggest mistakes that was made in fencing was reversing the lights. As soon as you put the lights the other way round then a lot of the refereeing phrasing and ROW makes sense.
    I agree - it seems logical to spectators (fencers or civilians) that the light denotes the fencer hit (and not the hitter) but I can't remember the original rational for the change.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M'son View Post
    See your point about number of events but how many times have I sat at a Vets world championship final ( this is the only FIE event ) and possibly seen someone robbed of a medal because there was no video.
    Surely we should have it for finals. Don't think that is asking for too much.
    There was video this year for the Vet's finals on the podium piste and some of the semi-finals on the main coloured pistes.

    GB MF team overturned a hit with a video review in the final.

  13. #13
    Mavis Thornton pinkelephant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Lytham St Annes, Lancs
    Posts
    6,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maitre D View Post
    I agree - it seems logical to spectators (fencers or civilians) that the light denotes the fencer hit (and not the hitter) but I can't remember the original rational for the change.
    The reason for the change was that a hit against is NOT logical for spectators. In all other sports, if your score is higher, you are winning. This was not the case with fencing - the fencing with the higher number on the scoreboard was losing. The lights changed round at the same time that the score changed round - the scorer gets a light up.
    Advocate extraordinaire to Beelzebub.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Nick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Exeter Devon, Chelmsford Essex
    Posts
    417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pinkelephant View Post
    The reason for the change was that a hit against is NOT logical for spectators. In all other sports, if your score is higher, you are winning. This was not the case with fencing - the fencing with the higher number on the scoreboard was losing. The lights changed round at the same time that the score changed round - the scorer gets a light up.
    One alternative would have been for both fencers to start with fifteen points (lives) and one to be removed each time you are hit. It then makes complete sense especially in the light of the modern generations that have all grown up with computer games that work on that basis.
    Jason Nesmith : You WILL go out there.
    Alexander Dane : I won't and nothing you say will make me.
    Jason Nesmith : The show must go on.
    Alexander Dane : ...Damn you.

    Next Competition:t.b.d.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pinkelephant View Post
    The reason for the change was that a hit against is NOT logical for spectators. In all other sports, if your score is higher, you are winning. This was not the case with fencing - the fencing with the higher number on the scoreboard was losing. The lights changed round at the same time that the score changed round - the scorer gets a light up.
    I think the light changed much later. When I started in the early 90's the scoring had changed but the lights were the opposite of today. I don't think the lights changed until close to Sydney 2000.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI, USA
    Posts
    142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rudd View Post
    I think the light changed much later. When I started in the early 90's the scoring had changed but the lights were the opposite of today. I don't think the lights changed until close to Sydney 2000.
    2000 was when the change was made (it was at the start of the '99-'00 season IIRC, to give everyone time to get used to it before the Olympics). The change to touches-for as opposed to touches-against had occurred back in the late 1970s or early 1980s (it was touches-for when I started in 1987), and the reasoning was to bring the lights on the scoring apparatus in alignment with touches-for scoring.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FencingMove View Post
    Can we please stop derailing every conversation into

    On the topic of the foil rule. I have never understood why an attack off target had the same priority as a valid attack. By my logic if you miss and your opponent hits, they should get the point regardless of priority. This might just be a logical conclusion to that problem.
    Hi fencingmove.
    Because this idea of priority is fundamental to foil.
    And what you meant to say I think is ‘I have never understood why an off target hit with priority takes precedence over an on target hit without priority’

    In any case, it is certainly a radical and interesting proposal and would make a huge change to foil tactics and technique.
    Kind regards
    Mark

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by plenty View Post
    Hi fencingmove.
    Because this idea of priority is fundamental to foil.
    Kind regards
    Mark
    Thank you for your in depth analysis.

    I would perhaps ask one or two questions...

    Does getting rid of the off target light (hit) get rid of priority in foil. My argument would be 'no' as two on target lights would still need to be separated.

    Do you think that the above suggestion for use of priority would be better or worse for foil. I would say it would probably be better for spectators but might take away from some of the security in the attack. It would probably make counterattacks even more prevalent than they already are.

    The counterargument to this is that fencers would simply adapt and become better at finishing/ more cautious with the marching attack. Who knows. I just think it's a more logical way of playing it.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Nick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Exeter Devon, Chelmsford Essex
    Posts
    417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FencingMove View Post
    Thank you for your in depth analysis.

    I would perhaps ask one or two questions...

    Does getting rid of the off target light (hit) get rid of priority in foil. My argument would be 'no' as two on target lights would still need to be separated.

    Do you think that the above suggestion for use of priority would be better or worse for foil. I would say it would probably be better for spectators but might take away from some of the security in the attack. It would probably make counterattacks even more prevalent than they already are.

    The counterargument to this is that fencers would simply adapt and become better at finishing/ more cautious with the marching attack. Who knows. I just think it's a more logical way of playing it.
    I think as you predict we would probably see an increase in counter attacking actions.
    I think we would also see an increase in blocking actions being made using the sword arm and other similar attempts to ensure that an attack lands off target so that a counter attack is given one light. There would be fewer committed attacks, so there would be less reliability in the parry riposte. In effect we would end up with limited target epee with a lighter weight sword and instead of penalising both fencers for being hit the right of attack being used to split it. For me this doesn't simplify the rules of the weapon it strips it of its individual characteristics, departs to far from the fundamental basis of the rules and their origin and renders it entirely pointless as a weapon.

    Fundamentally there are simple definitions for who scores.
    Foil/Sabre: The person that caused there to be two hits is penalised and blocked from scoring.
    Epee: Hit without being hit, or both will be penalised.
    Jason Nesmith : You WILL go out there.
    Alexander Dane : I won't and nothing you say will make me.
    Jason Nesmith : The show must go on.
    Alexander Dane : ...Damn you.

    Next Competition:t.b.d.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FencingMove View Post


    Does getting rid of the off target light (hit) get rid of priority in foil. My argument would be 'no' as two on target lights would still need to be separated.
    Hiya fencing move,

    Substantially yes, but not completely you are right.
    Pls check out the following tactical scenarios which I outline to illustrate the game changing potential. ( when I put the words ‘no priority’ in brackets . . . It means priority doesn’t count for toffee , nada, zip )

    1 - simultaneous attack ( one off target , one on target ) ( no priority )

    2 - attack parried ( riposte off target ) ( no priority )

    3 - riposte parried ( counter riposte off target ) ( no priority )

    4 - attack v counter attack ( attack of target ) ( no priority )

    5 - attack v counter attack with opposition ‘time-hit ‘ ( time hit off target ) (no light )

    6 - attack v counter attack with avoidance ‘ ducking / inquartata ‘ ( attack of target ) ( no priority )

    7 - counter attack v parry riposte ‘counter-time ‘ ( riposte off target ) ( no priority )

    8- finta in tempo v countertime ( attack of target ) ( no priority )

    If the white light is taken away then a lot of actions become far more risky to execute. As you are sabreur I am sure you recognise there is a lot of similarity tactically to foil with how to set up hits - in fact tactically very similarity but the difference in sabre is whole target above waist and whole blade to use .

    Am just working through how change would manifest , maybe foil would become as cagey as pentathlon , certainly there would be more renewed actions and avoidance / dodging. For sure refereeing would be very very interesting.
    Kind regards
    Mark

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •