Off-target removal in foil

[mrbiggs]

I ran a search for this and didn't come up with anything, so sorry if I'm covering old territory.

Anyway, should the off-target light be eliminated in foil? This was discussed by the FIE among the recent rule changes, but was voted down. Recently, there has been talk of actually putting it into practice in the 2005-2006 season. So what is your opinion?

[CvilleFencer]

The epee fencer in me says why not! No off targets would speed up tourneys, reduce the burden on refs, eliminate some common equipment problems, and most likely make it easier for those millions of rabid fencing fans who show up to clog gyms and clubs across the country to watch fencing.

Of course it would be a huge change for the sport and make foil even more like epee with less target area and lighter weapons, especially when taken with the new springs, lockout and debounce times. Even more so if the ever pass that horrible Mangerotti (sp?) tip nonsense.

Maybe I should have voted maybe, maybe not...

[kalivor]

I'm curious -- how would they do the weight testing if a light didn't go off for an off-target hit?

[dunastor]

Works fine in epee....

[wflaschka]

I'm curious -- how would they do the weight testing if a light didn't go off for an off-target hit?

Huh! Best follow-up question evar.

[JJMUR]

i'm just curious about how this would work... lets say as of right now you hit your opponent in the arm, the off target light goes off. with this proposed idea, would there be no light that goes off and you just continue to fence?

[esskreemr]

An epee tip goes off no matter what it hits. They'd probably have to clip a lead on the test weight to the opponent's jacket.

All in all a stupid rule change with no significant advantage. It's not like epee is any faster than foil now...

[esskreemr]

yes you have it correct.

[Prometheus]

I think i would perfer to leave the off target indicator but not have it stop the action.

This way there is no reward for a hit off target, and it is easy to tell if the point skips from off target to on.

[glowstix]

i like it just the way it is. besides, wouldn't there be a big adjustment needed while fencing from a mental/psychological standpoint knowing that the off target light won't stop the action?? for me, that would probably change my whole mindset.

[esskreemr]

They've also considered a conductive sleeve for the sword arm to make the sword arm on target.

[kalivor]

They've also considered a conductive sleeve for the sword arm to make the sword arm on target.

I thought that the "sleeve" would just be on the forearm, and not connected to the lame. That way, one's forearm would become target if and when it made contact with the lame (presumably when covering target with it).

[elberto]

all I can say is - YUK!! what an 'orrible idea...

If you want no of target fence epee! (and i do when i want no priority system) - how would you seperate the two .. it is bad enough fencing epee and you by mistake fence foil and get your butt whipped when you do a parry and a one action slow riposte... lol..

I have always thought of foil as a training weapon for epee or dueling (well more epee .. who knows much on dueling these days..) and the target area mostly represents the vital area's of the body (and yes groin is one of those VITAL areas!!! ouch..) - having no off target area would make it interesting to preside (to put it lightly!!).

Leave foil with off target (and stop fooling with the system to make it easier to the televisions!)

[esskreemr]

Anybody interested in starting a petition? I think it would be ridiculous to remove the off-target light. I don't mind rule changes here and there and even a major shift in the interpretations of the rules, but this is messing with the very foundations of foil. Foil fencers UNITE!!!

[JJMUR]

If this system is implemented, wouldn't that mess up the ROW? For instance, Fencer A is fencing Fencer B . Fencer A advances, and extends, and hits B, however, in the arm. With out stopping the action and no indication of anyones priority, would the priority transfer to Fencer B(With that, how would you confirm that fencer A hit Fencer B? It may be possible he fell short, and didn't hit). If fencer A maintains priority, could he just keep attacking until he either hit Fencer B, or until fencer B made his parry. I don't know of this applies at all, but it just seems to mess with an already developed, established, and known system for all Foilists. It's similar to saying "In football, hands can be used, but only for a little bit "

[S. Hunter]

If they remove off targets in foil, they're nuts. A) It won't make fencing any more viewer friendly, it will turn foil into a poke fest with no priority, and B) It would really isolate a lot of fencers and schools from the usfa. And thats on top of needing to alter every box. They won't do it/It won't last if they do.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

I heard, from a pretty reliable source that the off target light stays there, and it stops the action. But if fencer A attacks and lands off target and fencer B counter attacks and lands on target, it's touch B, and there is still one white light and one colored light on. But if fecner A attacks off target and B misses the counter attack, the white light stops the action. (this also solves the testing question)

[Peach]

That's what I heard when I sat in on the referee seminar.

[S. Hunter]

I heard, from a pretty reliable source that the off target light stays there, and it stops the action. But if fencer A attacks and lands off target and fencer B counter attacks and lands on target, it's touch B, and there is still one white light and one colored light on. But if fecner A attacks off target and B misses the counter attack, the white light stops the action. (this also solves the testing question)

Well if its two lights, one on and one off, most refs I've ever seen call it for the guy with the on light. Bad Reffing probably, but its probably realistic that if you hit within the timeout then it won't change foil that much and makes some sense.

[glowstix]

I heard, from a pretty reliable source that the off target light stays there, and it stops the action. But if fencer A attacks and lands off target and fencer B counter attacks and lands on target, it's touch B, and there is still one white light and one colored light on. But if fecner A attacks off target and B misses the counter attack, the white light stops the action. (this also solves the testing question)

thats worse!! i thought it would be something like in sabre. foil would become really ugly now. now everyone will counterattack and duck to put the mask or some other off target area in front of the incoming point and score that way. and they think this is better than flicking??? but thats another thread.