New timings: tactics, technology, and refereeing

[edew]

Sorry to introduce a new thread for an already overplowed thread. But...

Yesterday, I officiated in the first new-timing foil competition. Yeah, I've done several weeks worth of fencing and refereeing at the club, but now it's at a competitive environment where people are at varying levels of skill and knowledge of each other.

First, the technology: the hard shell plastic underneath really helps. The attacker is at a distinct disadvantage because slowing down to hit may allow for a stop hit to register and the opponent to run away before the hit can arrive. So one possible tactic is to attack hard and fast to overcome a stop-hit. But then, the opponent steps in and stop-hits to the chest just plinks off. I've even saw a "hit" arrive where the blade was bent hard in the middle. No light.

Maybe this will be good for the sport in that it will force the attacker to hit with much more finesse: not too hard, not too soft. (As a coach, I'm constantly dismayed at my students who plow right into me. I certainly don't want weak fencers who don't want to hit. That's bad in its own right. But I really dislike those who hit and then use the blade and me to prop them up. Use your own legs dammit!)

Second, the tactics. I refereed junior men's foil (group A2 event) and open women's foil (group A1 event). Most of the junior men's foil fencers were big-time flickers before. Only one managed to keep on flicking and made to the top-8 (Ben Anderson). Almost all others kept their flick attempts in check. I think that's a bad thing. They're unnecessarily handcuffing themselves when an occasional flick can probably still arrive. Many were way too over-conscious about hitting straight and the result was lots of misses or off-targets. They should all fence more naturally. I don't think either the block-out time or the debounce time is that much of a factor in reality, just only in perception. These fencers think that the changes will cause their actions to not work, and so they don't work.

One woman, a well known flicker did lose because of the flicks. Well, she may have lost in any case because those flicks were kinda big originally. But I think what may have happened is that her opponent no longer worried about being flicked and actually moved in or out with confidence (instead of the scared frozen on the strip look) causing the hits to not register. Boy those actions were so big.

I think within 6 months, fencers will get back into the feel of the new timing and will do well enough. The fencers will end up where they normally will end up.

Third, refereeing. It was a bit hard only because most points were not awarded due to right of way actions. I'd say at least 50% of the calls were, "attack no, counter-attack yes." or "attack no, riposte no, remise yes." Here, I would say that the new timing (if the tactics don't change) has destroyed the game. There's no incentive to attack if the defender can just step in, get nailed in the chest and not have it go off, and then stick a counter-attack in. And that's what happened: a lot of waiting, even in the junior men's foil where the fighting is usually at a higher tempo and a bit more ferocious. I can imagine women's dragging on even slower than it is already. Again, I'm hoping some of the reticence will wash out over the course of the next few months.

My bet: new timings for next season will be 9ms debounce time, back to 350ms block out time. (Note, local club-level fencing use 750ms blockout time, but international had used 350ms for several years already. My Eigerteks were set for 350ms blockout time, but I had been fencing on various machines with various block-out time settings.)

Next week is saber with new timings. We'll see what happens there.

On a personal level, I think the new timings will favor folks like me, who don't make a lot of unnecessary flicks. I rarely flick to the back on attacks and most of my parries end with hits to the chest, even when flicked. I also like making simple disengage and simple one-two disengages. Now that I know my opponent can't run at me planning to flick, I can force them to attack to the front as well as make my usual slimey counter-attacks. Here comes A05 in foil!

[achilleus]

After getting some time to play with the new timings, and witnessing a tournament I gotta say that these timings won't last without some adjustments.

Edew broke his assessment down by category, so here's my breakdown:

Technology: It really shifts the balance of power away from the attack. Defense and counter offensive action have much greater impact on the game now. In addition, infighting is also really tricky since the egregious bends that tend not to register seem to happen the most at close distances.

Tactics: The flick and march still work, although as stated in other threads, not like before. Until fencers really adjust and become comfortable with the new timings, epee is the name of the game. Counters, remises, in the prep are all ways to win in foil right now. Foilists are adjusting to not flicking, how to attack with the point in front, and how to deal with counterattacks and attacks in the preparation. It'll take a while for some to figure it out, and to train the proper responses into their game. And to gain some confidence with their new actions. Bouts will generally be less dynamic with much more blade action. Fencers with good eyes, soft hands, and small blade actions will make a killing.

Officiating: Edew was right on. Officiating foil is like officiating epee. Touches are mostly one light. Then, the ref blinks during a ferocious action and two lights are on with both fencers staring waiting for the call. It has made for some odd calls. In addition, many refs no longer are calling prep. If they see 2 lights on, they automatically assume the attack must have begun, otherwise it would only be one light.

The timings won't last. Straight and solid infighting touches not registering are far worse than flicks. I'm not sure what the solution will be, but these timings are very much a transition time.

[ls14evar]

Maybe they'll respond by getting rid of ROW, and increasing the target area to the full body? Yah that would fix it.

[vincikai]

Maybe they'll respond by getting rid of ROW, and increasing the target area to the full body? Yah that would fix it.

lol yeah why can we just use epee and fence with foil rules such as ROW.... much easier

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

I dont see what was wrong with foil in the first place. During the few times that I fenced foil, I actually had a marching attack.... I wont even consider fencing foil ever again.

[JackSparrow]

Well, I think their intentions were good if they wanted to bring fencing back to it's classical roots. How well they've achieved that is questionable. There's nothing more maddening than direct hits not registering. Maybe that's why all these threads on screaming keep appearing.

[downunder]

In addition, many refs no longer are calling prep. If they see 2 lights on, they automatically assume the attack must have begun, otherwise it would only be one light.

just a note that this is very much incorrect, and the weapons must be refereed the same way in both foil and sabre

[edew]

Quite right. A preparation is a preparation is a preparation, regardless of whether two or one light goes on. (Of course, a preparation by one fencer is contingent on the action of the other. If the "defender" defers to the preparation, then the preparer controls RoW. If the "defender" attacks into the preparation, the attack has RoW.)

[achilleus]

just a note that this is very much incorrect, and the weapons must be refereed the same way in both foil and sabre

Just another note, it is very, very incorrect. However, the new timings confuse both fencers and refs a like.

The officiating, hopefully, will settle down in about 6 months when the refs adapt to the new timings.

[dekko]

I suspect either the new timing will go away or the new tip will actually be released by one of the equipment companies. It would be shocking to see this timing stick around without the new tip.

As far as the idea that this was done to return foil to it's original form is laughable. This was done due to the injury factor with some people flicking and hitting the back of people's heads instead of the body, on or off target.

Actually(conspiracy theory here), I suspect all the major equipment companies have the new tips made and designed within an inch of their lives, ie Leon Paul, Allstar, PBT, Uhlmann, etc, but will not release them because they are afraid they will be copied instead of bought and used and they will not get their money out of them they put in to design and build them. I hope I am wrong about this because if this is true then you guys suck and should go straight to hell.

[Katman]

As far as the idea that this was done to return foil to it's original form is laughable. This was done due to the injury factor with some people flicking and hitting the back of people's heads instead of the body, on or off target.

What? Did I miss something? That's the first I've heard of that.

[LordTofuDog-jnr]

What? Did I miss something? That's the first I've heard of that.

Keep it that way, a flick to the back of the head (not the mask) hurts. A lot!

[Kiwifencer]

I know there was the new tip proposed, but not adopted, but what would that do to help register hits under the new timings? as opposed to the current tips? My understanding was the tip was to also try to prevent the thrown/flicked hit by the nature of its action (not that anyone has seen one or can describe one? Anyone?).

[Katman]

Keep it that way, a flick to the back of the head (not the mask) hurts. A lot!

That's not what I meant. I was talking about his understanding of the reasons for the timing changes and stuff for foil.

[MTD]

That's not what I meant. I was talking about his understanding of the reasons for the timing changes and stuff for foil.

Yes, it was medical objectives, not esthetic objectives, that got the FIE anti-flick bandwagon moving. When not executed perfectly (and the objective of a fencer faced by a flick is to arrange for the flick not to be executed perfectly!), flicks land with very brief forces way in excess what a mask is supposed to withstand, and also land with forces in excess of what the back of a cranium is supposed to withstand. The point is moving laterally at very high speed. This is not true of straight thrusts, which travel longitudinally only at the speed of the extending arm.

Think of it this way -- I tie a lead sinker weight to the end of my fishing rod. Would you rather I whip you with it, or I run at you with the fishing rod pointed at you? The latter way, I have the entire force of my arm and body behind it (which isn't that meaningful because the rod folds faster than I can push it at you), but the former way, that velocity squared term of the kinetic energy of the initial impact is a killer (even though there's no significant force being supplied to restore velocity lost to friction).

[achilleus]

Yes, it was medical objectives, not esthetic objectives, that got the FIE anti-flick bandwagon moving.

You got a reliable source for that info? Yes, I've heard the facts you mention before, but everything that the FIE has discussed or written about the new timing seems to be geared towards improving audience appeal, and having common rules for all 3 weapons.

In addition, if medical objectives are the case, what about epee? Flicks happen there, with larger heavier weapons. Why hasn't the FIE done anything to remove flicks from epee?

[DanInMI]

Why hasn't the FIE done anything to remove flicks from epee?

flicks are not dominant in epee. Most of the time if you attempt a flick in epee you are going to be scored against.

The objection to flicks in foil is not the flick itself, it is the reluctance of directors to call the the bending of the elbow and the march leading up to the flick an attack in preparation.

[edew]

A good many flicks occur as the riposte of parry. The parry is done with a bent elbow (and I'm sure everyone would agree that such an act is not contradictory) and while making the parry, the flick is just being loaded up. Then the riposte occurs and the arm is straightened out during the flick. Of course, the arm need not be straight at the conclusion of the flick (as even straight ripostes need not have a fully straightened arm by the time the riposte hits: the opponent's body may be too close [perhaps on purpose, perhaps by accident] to allow a fully straightened arm).

Should such actions, which occur much more frequently than flicks as attacks, be eliminated by the same sweeping misguided claim that referees don't call bent-arm attacks as preparation?

I tell fencers that you can stick your blade up your own a** and still have it called an attack, as long as the opponent behaves as though that is an attack. So to claim that a march or a bent arm attack is not attack without describing what the opponent is doing at that moment, makes for an incomplete argument.

Last weekend, at a local competition that I refereed, fencer A attacks, fencer B makes a parry while pulling distance. Fencer B then advances with arm bent blade held steady. Fencer A attacks, then fencer B makes a riposte movement. I called it attack into preparation. Fencer B argues why it's not his attack. I say his arm never extended, he just advanced forward. If he showed any amount of forward extension with his arm, I'd given it to him. At the same time, I told him that fencer A made a deliberate attack into B's advances. B reacted to the attack with the extension. If A wavered or perhaps made a counter-attack or stop-hit attack (for example, included attempt to displace target), then A recognized B's attack and thus it's B's attack.

As has been stated in many other posts, what constitutes an attack depends on what BOTH fencers are doing at that moment.

[achilleus]

flicks are not dominant in epee. Most of the time if you attempt a flick in epee you are going to be scored against.

The objection to flicks in foil is not the flick itself, it is the reluctance of directors to call the the bending of the elbow and the march leading up to the flick an attack in preparation.

Dan,

Thanks for joining the conversation, but is it that difficult to read such a short thread in it's entirety?

Let me sum up:

A previous poster mentioned:

Yes, it was medical objectives, not esthetic objectives, that got the FIE anti-flick bandwagon moving.

I asked for proof, and asked the above question because if it is medical objectives, then the FIE should look at flicks in epee. Check out the question in it's entire paragraph:

In addition, if medical objectives are the case, what about epee? Flicks happen there, with larger heavier weapons. Why hasn't the FIE done anything to remove flicks from epee?

They do happen. They work. If they're dangerous or unsafe, and this is why the FIE is against flicks, they should be looking at epee as well as foil.

[Micheezehead]

Flicks to the back are not prevalent in Epee.

So I could see the arguement for wanting to remove the flick from Foil for that reason.

Why the FIE isn't saying anything is because they don't want people to think that fencing is a dangerous sport. Bad PR all around. In my opinion anyway.