Foil timings for season 2006-2007

[Joe biebel]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Interesting. What's the plan for the coincidental floor hit problem in Epee? And why are three surfaces (fencer valid target, fencer invalid target/referee/box/other misc items, piste) more difficult to discern then two surfaces (fencer valid target, other objects)? Is the proposal to remove off-target hits the logical extension of the problem of fencers hitting the ground (or the ref, or their big toe) and getting an off-target light when they're in trouble?

Honestly curious.

James.

If they get rid of the off target we can also get rid of the metallic piste in all weapons by simply requiring full body lame including hands, feet, legs, everything for epeeists

[Joe biebel]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Are you suggesting that refs look for flicks, and do not allow them to take RoW?

It's a very good idea, but I could see how that could make it easier to get bad calls. My opponent lunges, and I parry 4 riposte...but the director thinks I "flicked" the tip in at the last moment. It could be called too strictly and leave too much room for incorrect interpretations. If back flicks only were called this way, then it would make sense.

Any action can be missed by a referee or at least misinterpreted. No guarantees with any rule being called correctly. Still no reason to not make changes and corrections.

[edew]

Getting rid of the off-target so one doesn't have to have the grounded strip is like getting rid of the ropes on a boxing ring so you can have fights anywhere, and oh, you can now hit below the belt, too. That's not the same sport anymore.

Grounded fencing strips are part of the program, not just an inconvenience that people can live without, although for many local and regional competition, we do use non-grounded strips due to availability.

Nevertheless, the problem with non-grounded strips is not a valid reason to change the rules. If the off-target is removed, I will no longer teach foil anymore. Just saber and maybe epee.

[Joe biebel]

Originally Posted by Fernando Diaz

As foilist I like the timings as they are now, specially after we have fixed the microbreak problem, and I don´t understand why should the blocking time be increased. But of course it helps that I am 39 years old I I dont want to run along the piste.

Foilists, I have noticed, have already started to adapt with closing and remises into the direct reposte line, in order to "time out" an indirect riposte that must find an "open sector" to hit. Probably not the intention of the timing change. As I understand it, this is to eliminate or reduce "marching" actions. I don't see it doing that. I only see it giving taller fencers more of an advantage with retreating stop hits and more of a wrestling feel to the close fencing.

No offense Mr. Diaz. I don't think you are getting rich or anything like that from the "experimentation". I really believe it is simply not a technical fix in the first place. If you don't want flicks or someone "threatening to threaten" being called an attack, just say so. We had an interesting time at the Denver NAC with the officiating. I believe they were told to "Enforce the rules" and by golly, they did. Sure mistakes were made, they always are. But the referees did what they were told. Now, it may be, that there are political reasons that changing the description of foil right of way is difficult, but that is no reason to "force a technical fit" that is bound to be fraught with problems and have uninteded consequences. If a rule is bogus, a pen stroke can change it. If all of the scoring machines in the world are altered, even in a small sport like fencing, you should be darn sure that you've got it right before requiring everyone to shell out money for your experiments.

[FoilyDeath]

No offtargets at last! We have been suggesting it for the last 5 friggin years!
For those of you whining, have you actually tried it? It makes it a much more technical and interesting game when you have to do more than just hit anything after you attack. Attacking actually causes problems.

[Insipiens]

Thanks to Mr Diaz for giving us all this information - it is interesting to know.

Personally, if you can stop the non-registering hits on from straight attacks i think the main problem with the new timings will go away. i don't see the need to amend the lock out time, and 450ms looks like just fiddling.] if you do an indirect riposte it should not count against a direct remise anyway so it doesn't matter if it doesn't light up.

What I would like to see, before any new change, is a box that actually works on the new timings, where the specifications which eliminate the problems of direct hits not registering are clear and all the manufacturers can make boxes that work. And these should be tested under the existing rules before anyone changes them yet again.

[raymac]

Originally Posted by FoilyDeath

No offtargets at last! We have been suggesting it for the last 5 friggin years!
For those of you whining, have you actually tried it? It makes it a much more technical and interesting game when you have to do more than just hit anything after you attack. Attacking actually causes problems.

obviously you didn't read the post concerning sword arm parry ripostes. or you don't mind a sport mimicking sword fighting in which you can use your arm to deflect an attack, then proceed to strike your opponent with the same arm and win the action.

[Joe biebel]

Originally Posted by Insipiens

Thanks to Mr Diaz for giving us all this information - it is interesting to know.

Personally, if you can stop the non-registering hits on from straight attacks i think the main problem with the new timings will go away. i don't see the need to amend the lock out time, and 450ms looks like just fiddling.] if you do an indirect riposte it should not count against a direct remise anyway so it doesn't matter if it doesn't light up.

Perhaps I used the wrong term or phrase or perhaps we misunderstand each other. Or perhaps one of us does not understand the rule (not me, not me). By indirect riposte I mean a change of line to the open sector when an opponent remises closing out the direct riposte in the same line. Such as with a disengage or cutover. The riposte with disengage would still maintain priority. With the 300 milisecond lockout it is very difficult to get a light with the opponent obscuring the initial line of the attack causing more closing actions against controlling parries.

[edew]

Originally Posted by raymac

obviously you didn't read the post concerning sword arm parry ripostes. or you don't mind a sport mimicking sword fighting in which you can use your arm to deflect an attack, then proceed to strike your opponent with the same arm and win the action.

You can always "parry" with the sword arm. There's no specific rule that says the sword arm must get out of the way. However, what has never happened (at the USFA/FIE level) is not counting hits to the forearm (or shoulder or leg or wherever). It's much more difficult to make the opponent hit your forearm. It's easier to just fence regularly and work on distance or traditional parries.

The no off-target rule will probably favor the attacker more than the defender.

[nahouw]

Originally Posted by Joe biebel

Foilists, I have noticed, have already started to adapt with closing and remises into the direct reposte line, in order to "time out" an indirect riposte that must find an "open sector" to hit. Probably not the intention of the timing change.

This type of action has been around since they revoked the penalty of closing the distance to avoid a riposte. You will find older referees (fencing prior to circa 1980) who sometimes call this. Obviously, it's usefulness has come up again.

Just goes to show that throughout time, rules and penalties are made, and then changed, in order to adapt to how the fencers will try to push their "competitive advantage" vis a vis the rules.

[Joe biebel]

Originally Posted by edew

The no off-target rule will probably favor the attacker more than the defender.

Have not tried this, but I would expect the opposite. I can see using the sword arm (or mask, leg, any nonvalid surface) to purposerly "snag" the attackers point making a stop hit or counterattack and getting one light while the attack is occupied on the arm, etc. with no light. I think the effect would be profound, but whether it is or not, would it be an "improvement?
Also, sleeves would probably become thicker and bigger, sort of like the addition of a "manplate" for the purpose of avoiding hits. I can see it now, "Buy the new foil jackets from Weasel Fencing Supply with the new inflato sleeve for better "protection". I kinda wanted to do something like that against the first few opponents I faced with chest shields after the new timings came out just to hear them complain about unfair my advantage.

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by Joe biebel

Also, sleeves would probably become thicker and bigger, sort of like the addition of a "manplate" for the purpose of avoiding hits. I can see it now, "Buy the new foil jackets from Weasel Fencing Supply with the new inflato sleeve for better "protection". I kinda wanted to do something like that against the first few opponents I faced with chest shields after the new timings came out just to hear them complain about unfair my advantage.

M.25 handles this issue quite well. Oversized or puffy sleeves simply would not be allowed without and addition to the current rules. Also I think that in general, with the "mask parry" aside the difficulty of using any part of your body in such a way that you would not be carded for covering target area would require a great deal off effort to be used to any real effect for the defense. I do however think that grazes on the weapon arm no longer stopping the action would favor the attacker in some situations, especially a righty vs. a lefty. Or at least they would favor ME on the attack against most lefties I fence.

I don't really have a dog in this fight. I will teach my students whatever works best under whatever rules govern the sport at the time. As for myself I gave up competitive foil when the new timing changes came about but they were just the final straw. I am by nature better suited for epee and doubt I will ever go back to foil, but I think that if the off target went away it would drastically change the flavor of foil and lesson the discipline a great deal especially since the big problem for me is straight attacks not registering under the new timings. I have no faith left in the FIE to fix a problem before they start implementing costly and ineffective "band aid" rules that cause new problems or exasperate existing ones. I really hope this one does not come to pass...

[edew]

Originally Posted by Joe biebel

Have not tried this, but I would expect the opposite. I can see using the sword arm (or mask, leg, any nonvalid surface) to purposerly "snag" the attackers point making a stop hit or counterattack and getting one light while the attack is occupied on the arm, etc. with no light. I think the effect would be profound, but whether it is or not, would it be an "improvement?
Also, sleeves would probably become thicker and bigger, sort of like the addition of a "manplate" for the purpose of avoiding hits. I can see it now, "Buy the new foil jackets from Weasel Fencing Supply with the new inflato sleeve for better "protection". I kinda wanted to do something like that against the first few opponents I faced with chest shields after the new timings came out just to hear them complain about unfair my advantage.

Well, I have tried fencing with no off-target lights. Maybe it's because the fencers did not have much experience with such a system, but none of the fencers tried to cover or snag the point. Trying to snag an off-target is tricky and not often successful, as the point could slip past and hit on target and there's no off-target to stop the action.

[Tomas N]

Originally Posted by Fernando Diaz

As technician I can tell you why they want to get rid of the non valid hits. TO GET RID OF THE PISTE AND THE WIRES!, this makes the piste not needed anymore and makes much easy to implement the wireless system (just two surfaces to distinguish not three).

A couple of others have commented on this, but I wonder if you're saying that "getting rid of the piste" literally means getting rid of the piste. Perhaps fencing in a round? Like the others, it's not obvious to me how getting rid of off target in foil would help move to a wireless system.

Tomas

[Joe biebel]

Originally Posted by edew

Well, I have tried fencing with no off-target lights. Maybe it's because the fencers did not have much experience with such a system, but none of the fencers tried to cover or snag the point. Trying to snag an off-target is tricky and not often successful, as the point could slip past and hit on target and there's no off-target to stop the action.

Well your probably right, at least on a short term basis. But fencers will adapt and look for any advantage that the rules might afford. I'm probably over-sensitive about "untested" changes and their unintended consequences from recent events.

I thought you might like to see the "inflato 2006" now availavable from most vendors, ahead of any rules changes that might occur. Hope I got the upload right.

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by Tomas N

A couple of others have commented on this, but I wonder if you're saying that "getting rid of the piste" literally means getting rid of the piste. Perhaps fencing in a round? Like the others, it's not obvious to me how getting rid of off target in foil would help move to a wireless system.

Tomas

The off-target and the grounded piste thing that is stopping the reelless system for the other two weapons.

Let us first talk about Foil. With Sabre all touches are done with a direct connection with the valid target. There is no worry about hitting the floor, the grounded piste or the legs. They are not even considered. How do you tell the difference between the grounded piste and the leg or between the guard and the hand, when there is no way to physically connect the grounded piste with the box that is on the back of the fencer. Both will give an off-target light. How do you block that light when the other person gets a touch, let us say a whole second before.

There has been much talk about building a Epee Buzzer box in the Armory section. That is basically what you will be doing. One of the comments made how do you tell when you hit a normally grounded part like the guard or the piste. You will get a hit anyway.

[Fernando Diaz]

The idea of get rid of the piste is to make fencing cheaper. Everything a club would need is machines and cable reels, no permament instalations needed. Is a matter of fencing organization in new places and doing this Mr. Roch is really very good.

Why getting rid of the non-valid blank helps with wireless fencing is a mater of distinguish between surfaces, unless you are connected to them the piste and the lame are undistingushible, just conductive surfaces, of course this is technically possible but more complex and expensive.

[DHCJr]

Fernando, I would agree that making fencing less expensive and would be a good thing. But that doesn't seem to be Rene Roch purpose. He is actually making it more expensive with all his proposals. For example, at the '84 Olympics, the organizers had to pay for one technician. This was a much bigger tournament then the 2000 Olympics, where they had to pay for 4 technicians just for Sabre. They had to pay for the mask lights, t-shirts and the other items. The visor mask are MORE expensive than a mesh mask. If it made the sport safer, I would be all for it.

Here in the U.S. getting rid of the piste, does not save much money, considering most tournaments and clubs don't use them now.

For every step forward Rene Roch is doing to save us money, he takes two steps back.

[Joe biebel]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

Fernando, I would agree that making fencing less expensive and would be a good thing. But that doesn't seem to be Rene Roch purpose. He is actually making it more expensive with all his proposals. For example, at the '84 Olympics, the organizers had to pay for one technician. This was a much bigger tournament then the 2000 Olympics, where they had to pay for 4 technicians just for Sabre. They had to pay for the mask lights, t-shirts and the other items. The visor mask are MORE expensive than a mesh mask. If it made the sport safer, I would be all for it.

Here in the U.S. getting rid of the piste, does not save much money, considering most tournaments and clubs don't use them now.

For every step forward Rene Roch is doing to save us money, he takes two steps back.

I These decisions need to be made with a business model rather than a big government model

[MikeHarm]

If getting rid of off target