Rules Trivia

[DHCJr]

For my 1,001 posts, I would like to propose a challenge. I’m going to ask Bill Oliver not to come up with the answer right away, but give others a chance. In a couple of weeks, I’ll put out some ideas and hints. After that, I expect Bill could come up with twice as many.

This will be comparing the current TOM rulebook and the rulebook from the 80’s.

1) Terms and proper names that are no longer in the rulebook and what they meant.
2) Rules, that people think exist, but are not in the rulebooks.
3) Rules that are in the current rulebook but are obsolete.
4) Rules that are impossible to achieve.
5) Rules that have to be inferred.

[CvilleFencer]

An interesting challenge! I am not sure of the format you would like but off of the top of my head (assuming I am right!)

1. Pries de Fure. Taking of the iron, or taking control of the opponents blade by both moving it out of line and down toward the target, usually with a cirular motion. Of course I am not sure it ever was in the rulebook...

2. Grips. Insulated/painted/plastic grips are not illegle in epee although some think they are and foil grips must not be completely painted/insulated, only at the rear and bottom parts where they may contact a lame.

I will try to think on the others...

[mollusk]

(4) I'm still trying to get exactly 15 cm of tape on my foil. (Rule m.13)

[Purple Fencer]

(4) I'm still trying to get exactly 15 cm of tape on my foil. (Rule m.13)

Actualy, 15cm is the max...you won't be penalized if it's less...you just run ther chance of bare blade contact with the lame shorting out a hit

[andrewmcleod]

An impossible rule:
keeping the front of a foil mask insulated
An obsolete rule:
1mm travel for a foil

[mollusk]

Actualy, 15cm is the max...you won't be penalized if it's less...you just run ther chance of bare blade contact with the lame shorting out a hit

But the rule doesn't say "15 cm or less". It says 15 cm. (I was joking when I said that I was trying to get exactly 15 cm.)

[Neil]

3)

t.56/6 and t.60/2(b)

If the attack is initiated when the opponent is ‘point in line’, the attacker must, first, deflect the opponent’s blade. Referees must ensure that a mere contact of the blades is not considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent’s blade.

In my experience the italicised bit is obsolete. If you are trying to maintain a point in line (PIL) while someone attacks you, any blade contact will resulting in you losing the PIL. I've yet to see a referee say, "Yes, you beat his PIL and then attacked, but the beat didn't really deflect his blade, so the PIL stands."

[dunastor]

I've yet to see a referee say, "Yes, you beat his PIL and then attacked, but the beat didn't really deflect his blade, so the PIL stands."

I actually said that once... That fencer wasn't too happy about it...

[andrewmcleod]

I'm the sort of person who want to *see* an action performed, instead of just 'assuming' an attack was continuous. I'm sure I've given that one, and I know I've given something like a counter-attack that starts just before a final-action coupe from the attacker because I felt there is excessive 'drawback' on the coupe, I think to flick. And by drawback I mean the fencer had actually bent his arm and was drawing it back after the counter-attack had been launched, as opposed to a properly done coupe where the arm remains sort-of extending.

[rvergara]

3)

t.56/6 and t.60/2(b)

If the attack is initiated when the opponent is ‘point in line’, the attacker must, first, deflect the opponent’s blade. Referees must ensure that a mere contact of the blades is not considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent’s blade.

In my experience the italicised bit is obsolete. If you are trying to maintain a point in line (PIL) while someone attacks you, any blade contact will resulting in you losing the PIL. I've yet to see a referee say, "Yes, you beat his PIL and then attacked, but the beat didn't really deflect his blade, so the PIL stands."

what about all the mal-parés? i attack, the other guy mal-parés, i hit valid, he hits not valid. the ref calls it parry riposte off target

[Agent_V]

what about all the mal-parés? i attack, the other guy mal-parés, i hit valid, he hits not valid. the ref calls it parry riposte off target

in saber, sure, but not in foil. My FOC examiner was pretty strict about that: "Never, ever, use the word mal-pares. It does not exist!".
i.e. either the blade was parried, or it was not, the difference is when the contact occured, not as to whether the correct line was closed out or not.

Alexander

[Agent_V]

obsolete rule: t.82: "...During bouts no one is allowed to go near the strips, to give advice to the fencers..."

as for those rules that need interpretation, there is a whole bunch of them in the foil and saber sections (though Daninmi I'm sure would like to argue that there is no need...)

Alexander

[oiuyt]

A category 5 (rules that have to be inferrred) rule: What is the minimum length of a blade? Has to be inferred from the manner of testing flexibility. Flexibility testing involves attaching to the testing stand 70 cm from the tip, therefore the blade must be at least 70cm long.

Category 2 (rules that people think exist): "There's no such thing as corps a corps in epee!" or "corps a corps isn't a halt in epee!" *eyeroll* Can't tell you how many times I've had coaches complain about halts and cite this "fact".

Category 3 (rules that are obsolete): The portion of t.53 about grounding one's foil to one's lamé to "jam" the machine (quick flash of the Spaceballs equivalent of a scoring box with strawberry jam coating it). Current machines don't care about this and it should no longer be an issue.

Category 1 (terms that are no longer in the rulebook): President or Director. President is still in the rulebook referring to the President of the FIE or the President of the Directoire Technique but not in the sense that director was used and referee is currently used.

Drawing a blank on category 4 rules. I know I've heard of at least a couple of such but I just can't remember any off-hand.

-B :)

[oiuyt]

obsolete rule: t.82: "...During bouts no one is allowed to go near the strips, to give advice to the fencers..."

Ooooohhhh, good one Alex.
-B :)

[Agent_V]

I'm not rated in saber, but one rule has always confounded me as to it's application: the second half of t.70 (b)
"...cuts which merely brush the opponent's target (passe touches) do not count." How can the director just say "no, that light doesn't count because you didn't hit hard enough..." ?

brad? ever used this rule?

[Agent_V]

3)

t.56/6 and t.60/2(b)

If the attack is initiated when the opponent is ‘point in line’, the attacker must, first, deflect the opponent’s blade. Referees must ensure that a mere contact of the blades is not considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent’s blade.

In my experience the italicised bit is obsolete. If you are trying to maintain a point in line (PIL) while someone attacks you, any blade contact will resulting in you losing the PIL. I've yet to see a referee say, "Yes, you beat his PIL and then attacked, but the beat didn't really deflect his blade, so the PIL stands."

it is definitely not obsolete. for instance, if fencer A has PIL, and fencer B beats on A's forte with his foible, then the PIL is still valid. (though it is rare to find a foil director who is superconcious about forte/foible). Also if B tried to close out A's PIL but failed, even though the blades touched, then the PIL is still valid.

They tell you in the referee seminars that no matter how soft the beat is, it still counts as deflecting. That's true, because even the softest beat really deflects the blade out of line, hence still consistant with the rule.

Alexander

[andrewmcleod]

But an very slight 'accidental clash' may not, yet this will always get given as a beat.

[Purple Fencer]

I'm not rated in saber, but one rule has always confounded me as to it's application: the second half of t.70 (b)
"...cuts which merely brush the opponent's target (passe touches) do not count." How can the director just say "no, that light doesn't count because you didn't hit hard enough..." ?

brad? ever used this rule?

That's a holdover from the dry days (pre 89?) Nowadays, if the light goes on, there's been a touch (unless it's a simul)...and ANY simple physical contact between teh balde and the lame will (ideally) set off the light.

[Kiwifencer]

what about t 22 - specifically the part referring to the subsitution of target..

forbidden to substitute another part of the body for the target area.

Does not really sit well with t 21 - ducking and displacing the target is allowed........

[noodle]

what about t 22 - specifically the part referring to the subsitution of target..

forbidden to substitute another part of the body for the target area.

Does not really sit well with t 21 - ducking and displacing the target is allowed........

covering the lame with the off hand fits well, though