Some of you have asked about the documents referred to in G. Scarso letter to R. Roch. So far I found this post which appeared in January on the Italian website. It refers to a letter by Marcello Baiocco which may have been written in November/December 2004 explaining the report of and position by the SEMI Commission of the FIS. http://www.federscherma.it/news.asp?22970 THE NEW RULES IN FENCING FOIL
by
Marcello Baiocco (President of the S.E.M.I. Commission of the FIS)
01/19/2005: Marcello Baiocco. President of the S.E.M.I. Commission of the Italian Fencing Federation, enters the debate about the new and much criticized rules of electric scoring in foil. This is an article with the intent to explain policy decisions which pushed the FIE to propose these changes. FYI, these changes have provoked protests by almost all nations and their application is temporarily suspended. This was not known by Baiocco when he wrote this article. We feel however that to publish it now will be help in the evaluation of the [unintended] consequences of the new rules.
Rome - It is well known that following a proposal by the FIE, the rules of electric timings in foil have been recently changed and all currently scheduled international competitions are to be governed by these rules as an experiment for a trial period.
To be better informed and to understand the current situation I think it's useful to recall the reasons, emanating form the current program adopted by the FIE, which prompted the FIE to propose this change, and to share some technical information about the new calibration of the scoring machines, and the
[unintended] consequences which have emerged from the first practical experiments in the field of the new rules.
Regarding the first point
[i.e., the program adopted by the FIE], there is no doubt that the evolution of foil fencing today is due primarily to two concomitant causes:
(a) the increased speed in execution while making quicker attacks, parries, ripostes, remises and everything else, inevitably leads to the simultaneous lighting of the lights of both fencers.
(b) the ever growing dependence on the electric signaling apparatus
[at the expense of the call of ROW by the referee] has favored, at the expense of the traditional touches, the substantial increase of flying attacks and flicks to targets on the adversary which were previously hardly ever sought but for in rare occasions, like the back, the posterior part of the sides, the top of the shoulders, etc.
One cannot categorically state that the results of this evolution are all negative. Instead, they brought a more spectacular fencing, at least from the point of view of the majority of the spectators. But it must be also recognized that the new way of foil fencing cannot be said to adhere to the classic rules of combat as they are codified by the International Rules.
The FIE had two goals:
(1) try to reduce the simultaneous lights, and
(2) bring back the bout to a more classic way in accord with the fencing tradition.
To achieve these two goals the FIE has tried to develop technical solutions which could in some way, if not totally eliminate, at least diminish the number of double touches and the flicks.
Another motivation for these changes was the repeated incorrect behavior of the majority of the referees who, in spite of all directives, did not follow the rules by
(a) avoiding to take responsibility for the objective determination of ROW, often taking the cop-out of a double touch, and
(b) at the same time to regard fencers as attacking, when they are advancing with the weapon withdrawn without directly threatening the target.
For the first problem it was clear that the time of the double touch had to be shortened. During a series of experiments in the lab two possible solutions emerged:
One was to adopt a new and different design for the tip of the foil which would allow for the opening of the signaling circuit only after a predetermined run of the point, like in the case of epee, just to be clear.
The other was to increase the impact time, i.e., the time needed for the tip of the point to be depressed on the target, both valid and non valid, to allow the scoring machine to register the touch.
The chosen solution, which seemed to be the better one because it could be realized with a simple change in the calibration of the electric apparatus, without the need to replace the tips of all foils, was the second one, and this is what is now being experimented in the field.
After this long preamble, the changes which were adopted for the signaling system are the following:
- impact time, both for the valid and non valid touch: from 13 to 15 milliseconds;
- time for double touch: from 275 to 325 ms.
The old timings, established by the rules before this changes, were respectively
- impact time for a valid touch: from 1 to 5 ms
- impact time for the non valid touch: from 2 to 10 ms
- time for the double touch: from 700 to 800 ms.
I want to be clear that at the time, the choice of these values was not a random one.
For the impact times, this choice should not have adversely affected the recording of touches which in certain cases -- like touches while retreating or on a hard target -- would not allow for the point to stay long enough on the body of the opponent.
For the double touch time, this choice should have allowed the correct scoring for parries and ripostes executed while respecting the regular fencing tempo
[according to the rules].
In practice though, the new rules have turned all these premises upside down, because if on one side they favor refereeing by making it less subjective, on the other side they penalize a whole set of legitimate fencing actions which the new calibration cannot properly register.
Specifically, the increase in the impact time eliminates almost all the flicks according to the intentions, but at the same time, beside diminishing the spectacularity of the attacks, it doesn't allow for the scoring of many touches correctly executed.
The first field tests in World Cup competitions which have taken place so far have shown these problems:
- direct touches, not perfectly perpendicular to the target, correctly executed, as well as parries and ripostes done the same way, do not register when they land on a rigid part of the opponent, like the women's chest protectors or on the bony parts of the body, e.g., the shoulders, because the tip of the foil bounces back.
- direct attacks or remise attacks, correctly executed in the fencing tempo, but slower than very rapid counterattacks, are penalized because the irregular touch of the counterattacking fencer, by landing first, prevents the signaling of the subsequent regular touch of the attacking fencer.
It's evident that because the problems are due in the first case
[direct touches on rigid targets] to the choice of the impact time, and in the second case
[double touch] to that of the double time, the chosen timings should respectively be diminished in the first case and increased in the second.
Tests conducted for this purpose have shown that to try to reduce the number of these anomalies in how the electric apparatus scores, the impact time should not exceed 11 ms, and one should not go below 350 ms for the time of the double touch.
Furthermore we should study a suitable solution to take care of the problem of debouncing of the tip of the foil on hard targets, by trying to absorb the contact through an adequate padding of the uniform over the parts in question, and at the same time to study a more rational solution in the manufacture of the chest protectors for the women fencers.
All the above refers to the current situation in the experimental phase taking now place for the introduction in foil fencing of the new rules proposed by the FIE and which are supposed to modify the old Rules.
But until today the application of the new rules interests only Junior World Cup events. My opinion is that a more complete feedback about the actual effectiveness of the project, and the results of this innovation, can be had only after few foil tournaments for men and senior fencers of high level. Only then we will be able to formulate opinions and evaluations of the system now under trial.
Comment:
The translation of this document into comprehensible English is not easy. I tried to portray what I understood were the points made by Baiocco and edit the presentation in a visually better way. If some of this does not make sense, it's probably because I am not familiar with the intricacies of the problems discussed. 
Linear Mode
