Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

Stanislaus · 02-27-2005, 07:45 PM

So the rules cover situations where someone covers target or uses an "abnormal movement." (t.22, t.72) What's an abnormal movement?

B. LIMITATION OF THE TARGET
t . 7 1 Only touches which arrive on the target are counted as valid.
...t . 7 2 A touch which arrives on a non-valid part of the target is not counted as a touch; it does not stop the fencing phrase and does not annul
any subsequent touches.
If a fencer substitutes a non-valid part of the target for a valid part, either by covering it or by any abnormal movement, the Referee must
penalize him by applying the penalties specified in Articles t.114, t.116, t.120 and any touch scored by the fencer at fault is annulled.

downunder · 02-27-2005, 07:58 PM

backflips, handstands, dancing on your head etc etc....

I've never seen it carded for...

Cipher · 02-27-2005, 10:56 PM

That includes movements such as the passata di soto and the deep squat, where a now valid target, such as your head (in foil), is displacing a valid target. During the afore mentioned maneuvers since your head is doing the displacement, then a touch can be scored on the head. Soemone else might be able to clarify a little better, but that is the jist of it.

rsy · 02-27-2005, 11:28 PM

Take a look at FOC Rules Interpretation Sheet, Item 6(c). I think that when a fencer is bent over with his head down looking at the floor so he can't see his opponent, I would call that an "abnormal movement". Another is when a fencer leans forward & drops so low that his chest rests on his knee or when he displaces by dropping to both knees and hunching over.

-r

downunder · 02-27-2005, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsy

Take a look at FOC Rules Interpretation Sheet, Item 6(c). I think that when a fencer is bent over with his head down looking at the floor so he can't see his opponent, I would call that an "abnormal movement". Another is when a fencer leans forward & drops so low that his chest rests on his knee or when he displaces by dropping to both knees and hunching over.

-r

thats covering target with the head, not an abnormal movement... Dropping to both knees is falling, and halt should be called

rsy · 02-27-2005, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by downunder

thats covering target with the head, not an abnormal movement... Dropping to both knees is falling, and halt should be called

Falling is an accident, which is why it is no longer carded, unless you continue to attempt to make the touch while falling which is carded because it is so dangerous. Is it falling if the movement is a controlled and intentional action by the fencer? And if it is controlled, intentional and also abnormal, doesn't it merit a card, or even an extension of target call?

-r

dreamer90024 · 02-28-2005, 11:47 PM

Is jumping in the air abnormal movement? I've seen that called against a fencer in sabre before. It was the final bout of an Open (New England Div.) and it's 14-14 and one fencer goes for an attack and the other one jumps in the air (just straight up) so that the attack lands on his thigh and not his lame and then hits the other fencer with a riposte. The referee however called it against him and awarded the touch to the other fencer because of displacement of target, even though there was no light for the first fencer. Is this valid?

mrbiggs · 02-28-2005, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamer90024

Is jumping in the air abnormal movement? I've seen that called against a fencer in sabre before. It was the final bout of an Open (New England Div.) and it's 14-14 and one fencer goes for an attack and the other one jumps in the air (just straight up) so that the attack lands on his thigh and not his lame and then hits the other fencer with a riposte. The referee however called it against him and awarded the touch to the other fencer because of displacement of target, even though there was no light for the first fencer. Is this valid?

No, there was a thread about that awhile ago. Jumping isn't abnormal movement in sabre.

MyrddinsPrecint · 03-01-2005, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

No, there was a thread about that awhile ago. Jumping isn't abnormal movement in sabre.

and when biggs says that there was a thread about it, he doesn't mean that the vauge topic of abnormal movement vs. jumping was discussed in a hypothetical sort of manner.

he means that that specific bout was thoroughly discussed and picked apart for all to see.

dreamer90024 · 03-01-2005, 01:01 AM

sorry I just joined so i didn't know.

downunder · 03-01-2005, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsy

Falling is an accident, which is why it is no longer carded, unless you continue to attempt to make the touch while falling which is carded because it is so dangerous. Is it falling if the movement is a controlled and intentional action by the fencer? And if it is controlled, intentional and also abnormal, doesn't it merit a card, or even an extension of target call?

-r

Excatly, thus why i said only halt called,

If a fencer falls, the other fencer is allowed to complete any action started, although halt should be called immediately. If the fencer makes a hit whilst falling, then they are carded and hit is annulled.

edew · 03-01-2005, 04:35 AM

Jumping up in saber is not abnormal movement, but is displacement of target.

I think an abnormal movement is one that causes the opponent and the referee to think that some safety issue may be in play, which may temporarily stop the opponent from continuing (due to perceived possibility of unsafe action) and that the referee can concur.

So, if fencer X makes some funky movement that fencer Y thinks is unsafe, but the referee doesn't think it's unsafe, and fencer Y gets hit, that's Y's problem. If both the referee and Y think that a particular action is unsafe or irregular in some way (such as attempting to communicate with the referee by stamping the feet, etc), then it's an abnormal movement.

Generally, it only depends on the referee to decide whether the movement is abnormal or not. But in some cases, the referee takes cues from the opposing fencer to deem a borderline abnormal action as fully abnormal.

downunder · 03-01-2005, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edew

Jumping up in saber is not abnormal movement, but is displacement of target.

so you are claiming jumping should be carded? sorry, just trying to clarify you

oiuyt · 03-01-2005, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by downunder

so you are claiming jumping should be carded? sorry, just trying to clarify you

Is displacement of target cardable? No? Well then I guess he wasn't saying it should be carded....

-B :)

oiuyt · 03-01-2005, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

and when biggs says that there was a thread about it, he doesn't mean that the vauge topic of abnormal movement vs. jumping was discussed in a hypothetical sort of manner.

he means that that specific bout was thoroughly discussed and picked apart for all to see.

Well, perhaps. But if so then dreamer has a bunch of facts wrong (which is what I strongly suspect). The bout previously discussed was a pool bout. And, IIRC, the score was 3-4 (against the jumper) at the time of the jump. Hardly the same as 14-14 in the finals.

-B :)

cfaustus · 03-01-2005, 12:35 PM

Just to clarify, the passatta soto is not an abnormal movement, although it could well be substitution of target depending on the timing of the actions. If any esquive is done properly it by definition displaces the target. The question is whether or not another portion of the fencer's body may be considered as substituted due to the displacement. Of course, in epee, this is moot.

I would think that an abnormal movement would be something like a cartwheel or a pirrouette... of course, these might be offenses due to turning one's head to an opponent (thereby exposing the unprotected back of one's head). Any ideas on this?

oiuyt · 03-01-2005, 02:14 PM

Turning the head is not illegal. Turning the back is illegal. This is despite the fact that the back is covered (protected) and the back of the head (usually) is not.

If a fencer turns his/her head (eg to look at the machine) this is not illegal, merely stupid.

-B :)

dreamer90024 · 03-01-2005, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Well, perhaps. But if so then dreamer has a bunch of facts wrong (which is what I strongly suspect). The bout previously discussed was a pool bout. And, IIRC, the score was 3-4 (against the jumper) at the time of the jump. Hardly the same as 14-14 in the finals.

-B

I'm fairly certain I am not wrong about this. I do not think it was a pool bout. In fact I'm pretty positive it was a DE. However it is entirely possible I am wrong, it was a while ago and I don't fence sabre so it wasn't something I was very concerned about at the time.

MyrddinsPrecint · 03-01-2005, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Well, perhaps. But if so then dreamer has a bunch of facts wrong (which is what I strongly suspect). The bout previously discussed was a pool bout. And, IIRC, the score was 3-4 (against the jumper) at the time of the jump. Hardly the same as 14-14 in the finals.

-B

good point.

dreamer- i ought to point out- i wasn't trying to be a *****, i was trying to let you know that somewhere in the archives of this messageboard exists a thread devoted to what appears to be a very similar bout......

of course, if there was indeed a finals bout of a recent open in the NE division where the final call was made in such a manner, i think we'd be

seriously slacking off

to not know about it.

but maybe that's just me?

dreamer90024 · 03-01-2005, 05:38 PM

No offense taken. I could be wrong. I really did think it was a DE and that the other fencer won because of the call, but like I said I could be wrong. It may not have been the finals, but I though it was toward the end of the tournament, so maybe the round of four? In fact, I don't have a very clear memory of it. I know it was the Hangover Open though. Does anyone know the name of the other thread? I would like to read it because I was confused by the call, regardless of whether or not I am right about the context.