Stunning Protest by Foilists at Seoul World Cup

[gladius]

This is an excerpt from an article in the Italian Fencing Federation website http://www.federscherma.it/news.asp?24007

...... MEN'S FOIL WORLD CUP: STUNNING PROTEST IN SEOUL AGAINST THE NEW TIMING IN FOIL....

Feb 27, Seoul, South Korea

The new foil timings dictated by the FIE which up to now have provoked many criticisms and reservations, were the object today in Seoul of a stunning protest promoted by the German foilists led by their team captain Ralf Bissdorf and shared also by fencers of other nations participating in the Telecom Trophy in Seoul, a tournament in the World Cup men's individual foil circuit.
In the presence of the President of the FIE, Rene Roch, who witnessed all this at the Olympic Gymnasium in Seoul -- he did not say a word, but certainly must have not been very pleased -- the foilists decided to protest against the new timings mandated by the FIE by limiting the semifinal and final bouts to just one touch.
The tournament was won by the German Benjamin Kleibrinks who beat in the final 1-0 his compatriot Peter Yoppich (current world champion). In the semifinals Marco Ramacci (ITA) was eliminated 1-0 by Benjamin Kleibrinks, and in the other semifinal between Germans, Peter Yoppich defeated Ralf Bissdorf 1-0.
.......

Any guessing out there how this all will end up?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by gladius

The new foil timings dictated by the FIE which up to now have provoked many criticisms and reservations, were the object today in Seoul of a stunning protest promoted by the German foilists led by their team captain Ralf Bissdorf and shared also by fencers of other nations participating in the Telecom Trophy in Seoul, a tournament in the World Cup men's individual foil circuit.
In the presence of the President of the FIE, Rene Roch, who witnessed all this at the Olympic Gymnasium in Seoul -- he did not say a word, but certainly must have not been very pleased -- the foilists decided to protest against the new timings mandated by the FIE by limiting the semifinal and final bouts to just one touch.
The tournament was won by the German Benjamin Kleibrinks who beat in the final 1-0 his compatriot Peter Yoppich (current world champion). In the semifinals Marco Ramacci (ITA) was eliminated 1-0 by Benjamin Kleibrinks, and in the other semifinal between Germans, Peter Yoppich defeated Ralf Bissdorf 1-0.
.......

Any guessing out there how this all will end up?

That's really awesome. My respect for the German fencers just increased tenfold. To protest like that, and stick with it, shows pretty incredible determination.

[DanInMI]

I don't understand this...

"the foilists decided to protest against the new timings mandated by the FIE by limiting the semifinal and final bouts to just one touch."

How did the foilists do that?
Did they just stop fencing after the first touch?
Did the just let the clock run down while pretending to fence?

If they had done either of those things the referree should have been handing out black cards.

I am not choosing sides over this "protest," it's just that it doesn't make sense to me. Something doesn't smell right.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by gladius

Any guessing out there how this all will end up?

I think it will be at least as effective as this protest.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by DanInMI

I don't understand this...

"the foilists decided to protest against the new timings mandated by the FIE by limiting the semifinal and final bouts to just one touch."

How did the foilists do that?
Did they just stop fencing after the first touch?
Did the just let the clock run down while pretending to fence?

If they had done either of those things the referree should have been handing out black cards.

I am not choosing sides over this "protest," it's just that it doesn't make sense to me. Something doesn't smell right.

I'm guessing that they just agreed to only score one point. Maybe they purposefully caused a passivity rule.

[edew]

You can't be black-carded for manifest passivity, as there is a rule and penalty already in place: immediately move to the next period. If at the third period, flip a coin, then move to the final extra one-minute.

My guess was that the various fencers who won had won the coin flip and when that last one-minute was over, they won due to the coin flip.

I personally prefer to have the old timing back. As much as I would like to have my opponents not be able to flick onto my back, I would like to be able to flick to their backs.

And frankly, it's quite difficult to teach hits that land for more than 15ms and not possibly slide off the lame or what-have-you.

The 120ms rule for saber does nothing to stop simultaneous actions: the vast majority of simultaneous actions still yield both lights going off, even if one fencer holds back for a moment (thereby making it not a simultaneous action and requires the referee to interpret right-of-way). The rule's main unintended consequence is that remises block out a decent riposte so that saber fencers are now even less inclined to parry than ever before. I mean, why parry when the remise could hit, or the attack is pushed through? How do you teach a faster parry-riposte when you can't measure the timing difference during lessons? How do you teach making remises when you can't equally measure the timing difference during lessons?

The 15ms rule for foil is clearly broken. Maybe 8ms. Maybe 5ms, but 15ms is way too long. And it's been amply demonstrated that clear hits to the chest will not light up the touch. It makes no sense.

Remember, the scoring machine and lights are to assist the referee in determining only the validity of the touch, not the power or materiality of the touch. The rules for non-electric fencing does not stipulate that the hit must stay on for 15ms or that the block-out time is 120ms (for saber). The rules require the referee to determine whether a hit is within a single fencing tempo (i.e., for ripostes, stop-hits, etc).

The solution is to beef up the spines of referees to make the calls more uniform and adhered to the rules rather than muck around with the technology, only to introduce unintended consequences that make the sport look just awful.

[ViewtifulMisho]

I disagree with the sabre points. If you watch decent-level sabre, like Div. 1 NACs, parrying seems to be more prominent than before (not by much). The reason for this is that fencers now have to take proper, solid parries to keep the remise from landing. The new timings for foil seem to be having an adverse affect, but the new sabre timings work favorably, in my opinion.

[telkanuru]

If one were to believe alan's posts, they were actually fencing their hardest, but the debounce time caused no one to score

[Inquartata]

I find that contrary to my expectations I don't so much mind the new sabre timing...except when fencing people who are channeling epeeists. One can indeed parry still, only with these people you almost dare not riposte---because they just leave their blades laying out there, and as soon as you come off the parry to riposte try to slap or graze your arm and lock you out. This is the sort of remising that is unfortunate; one can cope with the through-the-parry ones and the ones that are more like redoublements...

[mackillian]

I fenced with the new timings again yesterday and ended up very frustrated. I had clearly hit my opponent solidy in the chest three times in a row and have nothing register. At that point, my brain just said "I give up." I asked two of my fellow clubmates after if I was just imagining it or making excuses, or HAD I made those straight hits?

They said I did make those hits and understood my frustration. If I were just making an excuse, they also would've told me.

*shrug*

I just didn't realize.

I'm happy about this protest, I think.

[edew]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I find that contrary to my expectations I don't so much mind the new sabre timing...except when fencing people who are channeling epeeists. One can indeed parry still, only with these people you almost dare not riposte---because they just leave their blades laying out there, and as soon as you come off the parry to riposte try to slap or graze your arm and lock you out. This is the sort of remising that is unfortunate; one can cope with the through-the-parry ones and the ones that are more like redoublements...

Yes, the thing is, one can make a solid parry, but if the opponent is lazy or inexperienced, then the remise may lock out the riposte. If the opponent is experienced, he will move immediately from attack-that-failed to distance and defense. In that instance, even weak or sloppy parry will not result in a remise locking out the riposte. However, I'm inclined to believe that fencers will begin to work on making "lazy" defense: adding remises and continuations to the end of the attack (I know I'm teaching that to some of my students) to score by lock-out.

[veeco]

The German team, and especially R. Bissdorf is a little hypocritical: R. Bissdorf took part in the tests that were run to calibrate the debounce / lock timings, and as a member of the athletes commission and representative, he has agreed for the new timings, and went Roche's way. And now: this?

I am a little surprised by this apparent change off mind...

I would be interested to see what would have happened if the tournament's quarterfinal bouts hadn't included 3 germans. What would have happened if there had been Chinese, Russian, French, Italians and / or Germans?

It's easy to set something like this up when there is hardly no importance in the results of the bouts...

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

somebody could threaten to start making big protests at world championships. I can just imagine some high level foilists making an F U Roche sign, and parading it around.

[haroldbuck]

Originally Posted by edew

You can't be black-carded for manifest passivity, as there is a rule and penalty already in place: immediately move to the next period. If at the third period, flip a coin, then move to the final extra one-minute.

My guess was that the various fencers who won had won the coin flip and when that last one-minute was over, they won due to the coin flip.

My guess would be that they used passivity to get to the third period, actually fenced a touch, and then let time run out. That way the winner is still in some sense the winner of the tournament, albeit by modified rules, and not determined strictly by luck.

[JackSparrow]

Was that Benjamin Kleibrinks first ever World Cup win? Not a bad gift.

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

If one were to believe alan's posts, they were actually fencing their hardest, but the debounce time caused no one to score

LMAO


Very good!

[rsy]

Originally Posted by edew

My guess was that the various fencers who won had won the coin flip and when that last one-minute was over, they won due to the coin flip.

I think that if that happend the score would not have been 1-0, but 0(V)/0(D) because winning by priority gives you the victory, but not the touch. See o17 & o24. I assume it is the same in FIE.

-r

[gladius]

Originally Posted by edew

You can't be black-carded for manifest passivity, as there is a rule and penalty already in place: immediately move to the next period. If at the third period, flip a coin, then move to the final extra one-minute.
.........

My guess was that the various fencers who won had won the coin flip and when that last one-minute was over, they won due to the coin flip.
Remember, the scoring machine and lights are to assist the referee in determining only the validity of the touch, not the power or materiality of the touch. The rules for non-electric fencing does not stipulate that the hit must stay on for 15ms or that the block-out time is 120ms (for saber). The rules require the referee to determine whether a hit is within a single fencing tempo (i.e., for ripostes, stop-hits, etc).

The solution is to beef up the spines of referees to make the calls more uniform and adhered to the rules rather than muck around with the technology, only to introduce unintended consequences that make the sport look just awful.

All the article says is that they fought to one point, i.e., after the first valid touch, the bout was over. It doesn't say how long it took for the first, and only, touch to register... Just like in epee penthatlon. I suppose that the fencers told the referees -- and Roch -- that they were going to fence that way, period.

The second part of Edew's quote is exactly the kernel of the problem which was raised by the Italian observer in Budapest. What to do with obvious touches to the chest which do not register, and the inconsistency of the signaling lights?

[esskreemr]

Collusion is a black-cardable offense. So they did risk expulsion from the tournament. All-in-all a great expression of their thoughts on the new timings.

[Epeecurean]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Collusion is a black-cardable offense. So they did risk expulsion from the tournament. All-in-all a great expression of their thoughts on the new timings.

Well of late the FIE has been posting World Cup results on the Monday right after the event and (as yet) there hasn't been anything put up for Seoul. Maybe the FIE Executive is even now considering black card/expulsion of these fencers?