Covering target

[drippingwet]

My coach seems to think that if you're bent over too much, like after the lunge, you're covering. But I've seen it in high level fencing and I've faced someone who was crouching at a major open. If you're bending over, you're chest is covered, but you're back is exposed - right?

Can anyone please explain?

[Unmarked]

From what I know,hunching and trying to "roll" into a ball isn't considered covering.Like you said,the back is exposed.It's like closing your front door to shut people out but leaving the back one open.As for bending after a lunge,I think that most of the time it happens because of the momentum/force of a really quick lunge.That's just my theory.I'm sure someone can explain that better.

[ChubbyHubby]

if you duck and put your head down (ie. mask in front of chest), it is considered displacement of target or target subsitution.

Same penalties as covering with back arm etc. ie. yellow card then red etc.

Or red card straight away if they get an off target on your mask / arm while you are covering.

Generally only given if you are ducking and looking down at the same time, with back of your head exposed. If you duck but keep your head upright, looking forward, not covering the front target it's okay.

"but I have my back exposed" is not an excuse. You see a lot of beginners/kids fencing with their hand around their back (as opposed to hanging down the side or classical "in the air"), that's technically covering too- they are covering their back even though there is nothing in front of their chest).

I know a coach who would watch out for this at kiddie comps on the opponents of the kids he coach. He'd complain to the ref the opponent is covering (yellow card). Then the kid would normally decided to get their arm out of the way by holding it behind their back, the coach would then get the kid a red card by saying it's covering.

[IanSerotkin]

Or red card straight away if they get an off target on your mask / arm while you are covering.

That's not quite correct...you get a yellow card AND the off-target gets converted into a valid touch. Same effect as a red card, but not technically a red card.

[ChubbyHubby]

That's not quite correct...you get a yellow card AND the off-target gets converted into a valid touch. Same effect as a red card, but not technically a red card.

Yes, you are quite right, I didn't explain it correctly. And if they do it again, and get it off-target on the mask, it's two hits against.

[drippingwet]

Can you turn your back if the back of your head isn't exposed e.g. after a stop hit while running away, but keep looking forward?

If you lunged so much that your leg is in contact with your torso, but your head is uprght and you're watching the opponent, is that covering?

[RETLAG]

If you lunged so much that your leg is in contact with your torso, but your head is uprght and you're watching the opponent, is that covering?

If I lunged like that, I'd have to forfeit anyway 'cause I'd be in the hospital.

[Purple Fencer]

Can you turn your back if the back of your head isn't exposed e.g. after a stop hit while running away, but keep looking forward?

If you lunged so much that your leg is in contact with your torso, but your head is uprght and you're watching the opponent, is that covering?

I wouldn't card for that....it's a consequence of a long lunge and being really flexible (I see it more frequently infemale fencers, for some reason)....the leg's gotta go somewhere!

Besides...a covering call is due to a deliberate covering of the target (like clutching you off hand into your chest)

[Joe biebel]

Besides...a covering call is due to a deliberate covering of the target (like clutching you off hand into your chest)

If a fencer grabs their front pants leg to adjust the fabric (covering a portion of the valid target in the process) while fencing, and there is no attack at the moment threatening the valid target, it is not illegal. There must be a threat to the valid target for an infraction to occur. It could also be that the fencers were too far apart or moving in the wrong direction for there to be a threat. Should the same thing happen during an attack, this would be construed as covering target. It would not matter that the person covering target did not mean to do it, it would be covering target. Only a few rules are contingent on intent, usually having to do with brutality, unsportmanlike conduct, or purposeful cheating (manifest fraud) and I don't believe covering target is one of them.

If fencer A attacks fencer B's chest and fencer B's response is to bend knees and drop vertically, and fencer A's attack hits mask where a moment before in his/her simple attack there was valid target, the off-target is counted as valid. It is very rare that a director will make this call. It is more likely to be called after repeated instances and complaints by fencer A. In any case, it is not illegal, it is simply now valid target during the attack of A.

Also, I believe there is an important difference between attacking so deeply that the mask is now where the target was and dropping the head at the end of the attack which covers valid target. Here again, even if it was momentum that caused the covering (dropping of the head) it can still easily be construed as covering. You must after all, be incontrol of yourself.

[GreenDot]

So if I was to take a step to the side and in doing so cause my opponent's point to arrive on my back arm instead of my chest, it would technically be a valid touch? Or is there a stated difference between the vertical and horizontal movement? My understanding has always been that displacing target is fine, while covering target is not. Dropping vertically into a low crouch (which would not cover target, merely move it) like you described seems like a perfectly valid move, and to distinguish it from stepping to the side to avoid a hit seems somewhat silly. "Sir! He moved!"

-James

p.s. This whole post assumes that the ducking fencer is keeping his torso/head in the same line, not dropping his head in front of his chest.

[Purple Fencer]

The key point here being that if covering (by adjusting clothing...very common) when within fencing distance or in the midst of an exchange...it's a penalty. To penalize soneone for covering simply as the result of a very deep lunge would be the same as carding someone for covering with their weapon arm on a 4 parry...

You just have to use some common sense.

[mrbiggs]

It's very rare that a ref will call covering of target with the mask or leg, but it can be done in theory. I wouldn't worry about it. Just keep in mind that if a ref DOES start to give you a hard time, you will have to change your fencing style to make sure your target isn't covered.

[rsy]

If fencer A attacks fencer B's chest and fencer B's response is to bend knees and drop vertically, and fencer A's attack hits mask where a moment before in his/her simple attack there was valid target, the off-target is counted as valid. It is very rare that a director will make this call. It is more likely to be called after repeated instances and complaints by fencer A. In any case, it is not illegal, it is simply now valid target during the attack of A.

You learn something new every day. I thought that this wasn't right until I looked it up. t.22 was what I was thinking of, but I searched the text and found t.47-49 & t.51 If dropping like that is an abnormal position, then it is an extension of the valid target.

Thanks Joe, but here's my problem now. t.22 says that, "it is forbidden ...to substitute another part of the body for the target area, ...by an abnormal movement." and t.49 says, "However, touches which arrive off the target are counted as valid whenever, by reason of an abnormal position, the fencer has substituted this non-valid target for the valid target."

What is the difference? Is it the difference between the phrases "abnormal movement" and "abnormal position"? Dynamic vs. static? When is it an annulment of touch and a card (t.22) as opposed to an extension of the target which would not be a penalty of any kind if the offending fencer had the RoW (i.e. the hit to the extended target was a counter-attack into an attack which arrived either on or off target)?

-r

[mrbiggs]

If fencer A attacks fencer B's chest and fencer B's response is to bend knees and drop vertically, and fencer A's attack hits mask where a moment before in his/her simple attack there was valid target, the off-target is counted as valid. It is very rare that a director will make this call. It is more likely to be called after repeated instances and complaints by fencer A. In any case, it is not illegal, it is simply now valid target during the attack of A.

Also, I believe there is an important difference between attacking so deeply that the mask is now where the target was and dropping the head at the end of the attack which covers valid target. Here again, even if it was momentum that caused the covering (dropping of the head) it can still easily be construed as covering. You must after all, be incontrol of yourself.

Doesn't that contradict the "the referee can only count a touch registered my the scoring apparatus" (paraphrasing) rule?

I could understand if this rule was interpreted to mean that a fencer who moves their arm directly in front of target will have a touch called against, but I've always seen that called as a yellow card. (Or, more often, not at all. ) But ducking, for the purpose of calling a counterattack, is qualitative as it is. I can't imagine what would happen if this rule were regularly enforced.

[MTD]

If you lunged so much that your leg is in contact with your torso, but your head is uprght and you're watching the opponent, is that covering?

This is close to a pet peeve of mine which arises with certain young foilists with nimble bodies -- where they have a defensive reaction involving curling up into a ball, but a ball where the torso is still more or less erect and the head more or less still above the torso. However, the weapon-side leg is covering the torso and the off leg is someplace further behind and relevant only in that the other foot is keeping the fencer from rocking backwards onto the piste. (Indeed, once such an opponent of mine had the center of gravity clearly to the rear of both feet and was staying off the piste only by virtue of the off hand planted on the piste. That's definitely not a passata soto, but the referee didn't see the hand.)

I have a hard time getting people to agree that my opponent deserves a card for covering target when my line of sight directly to him is not of his back, but of his front covered by his leg.

[MTD]

Doesn't that contradict the "the referee can only count a touch registered my the scoring apparatus" (paraphrasing) rule?

Yes, but.

Even without examining the details, the awarding of what otherwise was a not valid touch on substituted or displaced target is a very specific exemption to the general declaration that touches are awarded only if (and not all times when) the box signals a valid hit.

The general convention with all multi-part rules, laws, and so forth, is that when a broad general statement and a specific statement in the same document are in contradiction, then the specific statement is presumed to apply even in the absence of a declaration within the general statement that the general statement does not apply.

But, even if you don't buy the applicability of that general convention, the authors of the rule about "only when the box has a colored light" (rule t.40) actually paid homage to the exeptions! It says that t.49 (substitution of target), o.17 (an obsolete reference to a now-deleted provision for adding identical amounts to both scores when time expires without having reached the point limit for the bout), o.24 (ditto), and penalty touches are the exceptions.

[mrbiggs]

Yes, but.

Even without examining the details, the awarding of what otherwise was a not valid touch on substituted or displaced target is a very specific exemption to the general declaration that touches are awarded only if (and not all times when) the box signals a valid hit.

The general convention with all multi-part rules, laws, and so forth, is that when a broad general statement and a specific statement in the same document are in contradiction, then the specific statement is presumed to apply even in the absence of a declaration within the general statement that the general statement does not apply.

But, even if you don't buy the applicability of that general convention, the authors of the rule about "only when the box has a colored light" (rule t.40) actually paid homage to the exeptions! It says that t.49 (substitution of target), o.17 (an obsolete reference to a now-deleted provision for adding identical amounts to both scores when time expires without having reached the point limit for the bout), o.24 (ditto), and penalty touches are the exceptions.

OK, thanks.

[FalconFencer]

As I understand, and have been called out on several times, if you lean forward there is no penalty. The problem comes if you put your head down into your chest and begin to bend. You are covering a bit of your chest and not exposing any of your back.

I am a tall, wirey fencer and often counter by displacing my target area down into a possato soto, or actually do the splits with one leg in front and one behind me. If I duck my head--YELLOW CARD. If I lay forward, I lose sight of my opponent and expose me back. If I lean back I often pick up a fleche and successfully riposte or counter attack.

Just keep your ehad up and you will have no trouble!