Possible error with new FIE foil timing specifications

[Epeecurean]

...according to Barry Paul of Leon Paul. A simple test would seem to be to do some off-target flick hits.

http://fencingforum.com/forum/showth...&threadid=3220

[Epeecurean]

It seems the Allstar boxes have definitely implemented the new timings incorrectly and the Favero boxes may have as well.

Anyone planning on buying replacement chips should look into this first.

[Mergs]

Oh Damn.

[JEC]

I emailed Gino Favero regarding the comment posted by Mr. Barry Paul about the timing of non-valid hits in foil. This is his reply:

“Regarding the contact sensibility of the NON valid hits for foil, to avoid any doubt, I have just spoke with Mr Baiocco Marcello, who is the President of the FIE Technical Committee (SEMI), and he has confirmed me that the sensibility for the NON valid hits has to be the same of the one of the valid hits, that is 13-15msec. Our new chips respect these times.”

MERGS, your wife should have received your upgrade chip by now.

[Epeecurean]

And yet Barry has received a fax from the same Marcello Baiocco which seems to say the opposite:

http://fencingforum.com/forum/attach...=&postid=66244

Obviously some miscommunication going on here!

[Barry Paul]

So why have some of the other firms got it wrong and why it matters?

In the instructions sent to all federations and manufacturers it states

Fleuret Sensibility Anciennes regles 1 a 5 ms Nouvelles regles 13 a 15 ms

This is obviously refereeing to valid hit as the Anciennes regles for non valid hit regulation is 2 a 10 ms. (we set all our non valid hits at 5.0 ms).
For some reason Allstar and Favero have changed the non valid to 13 to 15 ms.

Whenever the F.I.E. make a change in regulations, they just state the changes. For obvious reasons they don’t list all the hundreds of regulations which have remained unaltered.

Why does it matter?

Many hits to the mask when the contact time is set at 15 ms will not register. Fencers going for a duck stop hit will be hit on the mask no hit will register and they will get the hit. Other scenarios also exist which disadvantage one or the other fencer.

The problem is that for non technical people or electronic manufactures without a depth of knowledge of fencing and fencing apparatus manufacture they do not have the experience to know how the F.I.E. frame the regulations or why the regulations have evolved as they have, and therefore why it matters about length of timing for no-valid hit. One reason, I know it matters, is that when fencing in the foil Bologna A grade, many years ago, the apparatus was not regulation and off target hits had to be about 15 ms or longer. I made at least two 32 or better by parrying with the mask (no light) and hitting.

Here is the letter dated 13 October From President of SEMI Baiocco.

It cannot be clearer. Barry

[Alex_Paul]

Attactched below is a copy of the document by which manufacturers were supposed to implement the changes
It says
Foil Characteristics to be modified= sensitivity of the apparatus

former rules 1 to 5 ms new rules 13 to 15 ms

That is all it says. Seeing as the only time that was 1 to 5 ms before the changes was the time for a valid hit clearly this should be the only time that the manufacturers have modified. The time for non valid hits is and always has been 2 to 10ms. This document makes no mention of changing the 2 to 10 ms off target time to 13 to 15 ms and therefore they should not have been changed by anyone.

[oiuyt]

Why were the valid and non-valid timing requirements different under the old timings? Has this always been true? If so, why? If not, when did it change and what were the circumstances behind the divergence?

Barry- You might have some history that could answer the above questions and shed some light on how we got where we currently are.

-B :)

[Barry Paul]

The original apparatus were design with analogue components resistors and capacitors, this meant some initial constraints. For instance when you hit the valid target you made two different circuits one for the point hitting the lame (a valid hit) one a break in the foil circuit indicating off target.(non valid hit) So the timing for a valid hit always had to be shorter than a non-valid hit, otherwise a valid hit would never been registered.

It was found in early days that air non-valid hits would come up due to very small break caused by beats on the blade or noise in the spools etc so the minimum time for non-valid was set at 2 ms.

Now that microprocessor circuits allow muti timings this separation of timing between valid and non valid is not so necessary.

However it was subsequently realized that fast non-valid hits on the mask with non-valid timing set at over 10 ms did not register. That’s why over the last 10 years most manufacturers who knew what they were doing set their non valid timing to about 5 to 8 ms.

[MTD]

For reference.

In the USFA rules of fencing (the plurality of the readers have to deal with USFA rules), the current rules (from the 1999 edition through the present) state in Appendix B to the Material Rules:

• A (Foil) 1 (The Central Judging Apparatus) (a) (7) "Conversely, after a lapse of a period of time X (which bears no relationship to ‘fencing time’ which is the basis of judging according to the conventions governing foil fencing) after the first signal given by the apparatus, the latter must ignore all signals for subsequent hits. The central apparatus must be capable of being regulated for the period of time between 700 and 800 milliseconds."
• A (Foil) 1 (The Central Judging Apparatus) (b) (1) "Any hit must cause a signal whatever the resistance of the circuits external to the apparatus. The duration of the break of contact which must always ensure that a signal is registered must be 5 milliseconds...."
• A (Foil) 1 (The Central Judging Apparatus) (b) (2) "...The duration of the break of contact which causes a valid hit to be signalled must never be less than one millisecond...." and "...maximum limit ... 5 milliseconds..." and "...must always register a valid hit with a break of under 5 milliseconds...".
• A (Foil) 1 (The Central Judging Apparatus) (b) (3) "A non-valid hit must be signalled for a break of contact of 2–10 milliseconds when the exterior resistance is between 0 and 200 ohms."

These rules date back even farther than 1999, although the 1995 rulebook shows them as rules 713 (7), 714 (1), 714 (2), and 714 (3).

These same rules appear in the FIE's current Reglement Materiel (February 2004), with the same numbering as the corresponding USFA rules, but marked as having just been added to the rules. The September 2000 edition shows no such rules whatsoever.

(Naturally, none of these say anything about the new timings, as the new timings are a currently-temporary experiment superimposed on top of older rulebooks.)

So, I conclude that 1) the idea of off-target hits being regulated with different timing limits than on-target hits is an idea which dates back to 1995 or earlier, but 2) the FIE did not list the details in the Reglement Materiel until extremely recently, and it will take someone more familiar with FIE documents than me to point to where the FIE used to list these details.

Of course, none of this addresses the question of why have off-target hits being regulated with different timing limits than on-target hits. For that, see the previous post by Barry Paul, which he posted while I was still typing.

[DHCJr]

At the behest of Barry, I checked with Dan DeChaine. For those who don't know Dan, he is very careful. He said he would get back to me. He went back and checked the minutes from the congress, they show no changes to the off-target. The two changes for Foil was for the Valid and the block-out time.

He did not know why Marcello said one thing to Faverro and one to Leon Paul, but it is possible that he answered without checking with the rule book.

Now, this throws a wrench in the USFA requirements.

I told Barry, I just LOVE how clear the FIE rules have always been!

[Robert (2)]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

At the behest of Barry, I checked with Dan DeChaine. For those who don't know Dan, he is very careful. He said he would get back to me. He went back and checked the minutes from the congress, they show no changes to the off-target.

Could you post a link. I can't seem to find them on the FIE site. However in Escrime http://www.fie.ch/download/magazines...azine%2047.pdf on p.6 in the French section it reports the Leipzig congress as 'Augmentation du temps de contact au fleuret a 15 millisecondes', which clearly makes no distinction between on or off target. I'm not suggeesting you are wrong, I would just like to see it for myself.

Robert

[JEC]

So, perhaps, the problem was the rule translation from French to English.

[DHCJr]

These are from the Informational letter 19, in case the link does not work. If you go using French it will be the French translation and English the English translation.

French

http://www.fie.ch/download/letters/2...et%20sabre.pdf

English

http://www.fie.ch/download/letters/2...nd%20sabre.pdf

[JEC]

Table for the new contact times and blocking for foil and sabre:
Weapon-| Characteristics to be modified-| Former rules --| New rules -----|
Foil----- | Sensitivity of the apparatus--| 1 to 5 ms------| 13 to 15 ms --|
-------- | Time for double hit-----------| 700 to 800 ms -| 275 to 325 ms -|
Sabre -- | Time for double hit-----------| 300 to 400 ms -| 110 to 130 ms -|

The letter only indicates that the "Time for double hit" must be change, not whether it is a valid double hit or a non-valid double hit.

Then, it goes on to say:
"to implement all the modifications necessary for the correct functioning
of the scoring devices the new standards, even if these modifications are
not explicitly described."

I added the bold for emphasis.

[DHCJr]

So what you are saying the manufacturers decide on the timing that is the correct functioning,even if these modifications are not explicitly described.

As was noted by MTD above the off-target timing was 2 - 10 ms. The document you quote states the change is from 1 - 5 ms will be changed to 13 - 15 ms.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying and correct me if I am wrong. You would say both the Leon Paul and the Favero timings are correct, because both boxes are functioning. We will just have to live with the differences.

Or are you saying the Leon Paul box is not set up correctly, while the Favero is?

[JEC]

Item a: We have the old rules.
Item b: SEMI provides a recommendation to Executive Committee
The SEMI report makes the mistake of not specifying whether it was referring to valid-hit timings or both (valid and non-valid hit) timings.
Item c: Executive committee decides to make a consultation to National Federations with mail/telephone vote.
Item d: The new timings are voted in and announced.

Based in the fact that the table specified a "former timing", and this only applies (but overlaps) to valid hits, the SEMI's report might be implying that is talking only about the valid hit timings. Thus, the question is how the FIE will interpret what I placed in bold from the SEMI's recommendation.

Manufacturers and Federations are likely to complain about the lack of precision. If the FIE upheld one view (only valid hits) or another (valid and non-valid hits), some Federation might said that they were voting for a proposal that had both timing changes, or only one time. Furthermore, if they decide to take one side, some of the timing boxes would be incorrect, creating a mess among manufacturers (and Federations who have already purchase those timings or new boxes), who will need to change or adjust chips. Thus, suggesting taking a neutral approach, both are correct. A neutral approach is a likely outcome is to say for the 2004-5 season. We will have to live with the differences, in the same way the blade size for youth events are not specified by the FIE.

[Barry Paul]

Clearly there has been miss-understandings by various people who have not appreciated the implications of changing regulations, timings and how such timings are framed by the F.I.E. and S.E.M.I.

I agree with JEC and therefore propose that what the F.I.E. and S.E.M.I. should do is clarify the rules thus

Non-valid timing should be changed from old regulation 2 10 ms to new regulation 5 – 15 ms. This would allow all apparatus made by all the manufactures to stay unaltered for this years trial. This compromise would be sensible as the F.I.E. are very likely to push next year for abolishing the non –valid light altogether, in which case the argument about non-valid contact time will become pointless.

[Mergs]

Originally Posted by JEC

I emailed Gino Favero regarding the comment posted by Mr. Barry Paul about the timing of non-valid hits in foil. This is his reply:

“Regarding the contact sensibility of the NON valid hits for foil, to avoid any doubt, I have just spoke with Mr Baiocco Marcello, who is the President of the FIE Technical Committee (SEMI), and he has confirmed me that the sensibility for the NON valid hits has to be the same of the one of the valid hits, that is 13-15msec. Our new chips respect these times.”

MERGS, your wife should have received your upgrade chip by now.

Yes she did! Thanks again. 6 more weeks and I'll get to play with it! WooHooo!

[Robert (2)]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

These are from the Informational letter 19,

These are just the badly phrased letters we have all already seen. You said you had someone look at the original minutes of the Leipzig congress, could you provide a link to that.

Robert