Another card question

[jspierre]

Anyone ever get carded for holding their unarmed arm down, but crooked with the forearm as if resting on a table on your side, and your hand around your mid-flank?

Would a director consider this covering the target in either foil or epee?

[damianip]

[quote]Originally posted by jspierre:
<strong>Anyone ever get carded for holding their unarmed arm down, but crooked with the forearm as if resting on a table on your side, and your hand around your mid-flank?

Would a director consider this covering the target in either foil or epee?</strong><hr></blockquote>


Not an issue in épée. If you don't care about getting hit on the bare hand, don't worry.

In foil however, it's different. If I read your description correctly, I'd be inclined to give a caution for covering in foil.

I think it's essential to keep the arm away from the body. If it's in contact with the torso and you're in distance, you're living dangerously.

Paolo

[Purple Fencer]

If you're out of distance or otherwise not involved in an actual exchange of bladework (an attack or a defense), it's not a penalty. if you've parrying an attack and your off-arm clutches in front of your lame, THEN it's a penalty.

[Stryder]

I disagree.
If your hand is in it's natural position when on guard, then I would not card you. It is NOT the duty of a fencer to move his hand to a position advantageous to his opponant. If it were then holding the hand up above the rear shoulder, the most absurdly classical form, would foil (he heh) my favorite attack. The flick.

Where wou be required to put your hand if I were shooting for the left armpit?

"The hand must be out of the way of the opponant's view of the front of the lame' and not move to obstruct it during the bout." So sayeth Stryder!

Note: This passage was taken directly from the Book of Stryder" and does not appear in any other rule books such as that of the FIE or the USFA

[Purple Fencer]

Mike;

Are you disagreeing with me or with Paolo?

[damianip]

Sam,

I thought we were in agreement. I said that the arm in contact with the torso when in distance would constitute covering.

The rules state:

In foil and saber, it is forbidden to protect the target area or to substitute another part of the body for the target area, either by covering or by an abnormal movement.

So, actually, the in-distance rule is by convention, not by statute, so to speak.

Regardless, the target is the whole lamé not just the front. If you bring your arm down to block a target area (under the arm, across the back, etc.), then it is covering. If one refers to the left armpit, the arm must be away from the torso, not necessarily up over the head.

Therefore, I am in agreement in principle with Sam and in disagreement with Mike (sorry, Mike).

Paolo

[swordsen]

I absolutely disagree with Mike. If you are covering target you are covering target. (which is really the most rational explination of the classical back hand up position)

[Stryder]

Sam, I thought your point was that when not really engaged, you cannot be covering. That is of course true.

Paolo, both your own definition "If you bring your arm down to block a target area" and the ones you quoted from the rulebook "..protect the target area.." and "..either by covering or by an abnormal movement." involve an action by the fencer seperate from his normal fencing actions in response to a threat.

In other words, they both support my arguement that an arm at rest in a natural position must be allowed.

Swordsen, if you adhere to the rules absolutely then as I stated before, holding the arm up in the air interferes with a perfectly legal attack to the back. Also there is lame' directly under both arms. If you try to say that a fencer mustn't cover any target then you can't bend either arm. The bib covers target but it is legal.

Covering target is a verb. One cannot cover target without taking action to cover target. The rule is written terribly. "Substiution" "Displacement" ?? These terms seem designed to confuse, to displace means to move, therefore a step backwards in response to a threat is displacing target area.

When the rules are vague I look to the interpretations. World class refs, on down the line, no one would call covering target against a fencer who's arm is not directly in front of the lame' from the opponant's point of view, unless the fencer moves his hand in, in response to the threat.

[Purple Fencer]

[quote]Originally posted by Stryder:
<strong>

In other words, they both support my arguement that an arm at rest in a natural position must be allowed.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, yeah. As Derek Cotton said during my first director's clinic "It's gotta hang SOMEWHERE."

If two fencers are well within distance, but are just jockying for position, I'm not going to throw a card if one guy reaches to to adjust his mask or hitch his pants up...happens all the time. If there's an actual exchange of action tho, the card's warrented. That's how I called it during my practical in Palm Springs.

[damianip]

[quote]Originally posted by Stryder:
<strong>Covering target is a verb. One cannot cover target without taking action to cover target. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Grammatically speaking "covering target" is not a verb. It is a present participle and an object and, as such, doesn't necessarily connote action.

However, one can do it (cover target) actively or passively, as the result of assuming a posture where the arm covers target.

The action in this case is carrying the arm in a "natural" posture. Whether it is by intent or not is irrelevant.

My point is that when in distance, keep the arm off the torso (any part) or you run the risk of being called for covering.


Paolo

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: damianip ]</p>

[swordsen]

I'm with Paolo. saying it iw where the arm hangs naturally doesn't work. I have seen fencers whose arm when relaxed tended to curl up in fron of their chest. (physical problem) Took him awhile to get it back out fo the way. but by your logic that would be okay.

And as for the classical form back arm. I sit her contemplating all of the various places I have been flicked at it really would have stopped any of them. Might get the middle of someones blade across my knuckles but no target covering.

At anyrate, this is really a topic that can't be accurately discussed without seeing the arms in question. Sort of like the old did fencer A have the ROW question. Without seeing it who can be sure?