Foil timings for season 2006-2007

[Fernando Diaz]

Although this is not official I have received from high officials the coments of the proposal for timings that FIE will make probably for season 2006-2007 (otherwise they could not be imployed in Pekin 2008), together with the request of preparing a couple of machines for testing.

Impact time 15 ms, so no change, Mr. Roch is pretty happy with the results specially after the toothing problems (not signaling of some direct hits) are being solved.

Blocking time 450-500 ms, increased to avoid a too defensive game.

and

NOT non-valid hits anymore. The white lamp will light up to signal that the circuit is broken but it will not block the machine and will not be considered as a hit.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Fernando Diaz

Although this is not official I have received from high officials the coments of the proposal for timings that FIE will make probably for season 2006-2007 (otherwise they could not be imployed in Pekin 2008), together with the request of preparing a couple of machines for testing.

Impact time 15 ms, so no change, Mr. Roch is pretty happy with the results specially after the toothing problems (not signaling of some direct hits) are being solved.

Blocking time 450-500 ms, increased to avoid a too defensive game.

and

NOT non-valid hits anymore. The white lamp will light up to signal that the circuit is broken but it will not block the machine and will not be considered as a hit.

Is this a joke ???
.

[Fernando Diaz]

No, is the last info I have

Why should it be a joke?

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Fernando Diaz

No, is the last info I have

Why should it be a joke?

I don't see how they would do this so soon. Particularly with the controversy surrounding the last changes.

The Federations are going to throw a livid fit if this is pushed out. All that money to switch equipment just to switch it back...

On top of this the fact that foil under those rules would not even closely resemble foil in any form classic or modern.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Fernando Diaz

No, is the last info I have

Why should it be a joke?

because the problems the 15ms debounce time created are still present. they haven't gone away.

the majority of people are more or less ok with everything else pertaining to the new timings EXCEPT the 15 ms debounce time.

that is why we're asking if its a joke.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by noodle

because the problems the 15ms debounce time created are still present. they haven't gone away.

the majority of people are more or less ok with everything else pertaining to the new timings EXCEPT the 15 ms debounce time.

that is why we're asking if its a joke.

If you still have direct hits not scoring and no non-valid hits ...
who will attack ???

That's why the passivity rule was dictated ??

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Alan

If you still have direct hits not scoring and no non-valid hits ...
who will attack ???

That's why the passivity rule was dictated ??

ummm... i dunno?
don't ask me, i'm agreeing with you

[ChubbyHubby]

Originally Posted by Fernando Diaz

Although this is not official I have received from high officials the coments of the proposal for timings that FIE will make probably for season 2006-2007 (otherwise they could not be imployed in Pekin 2008), together with the request of preparing a couple of machines for testing.

Impact time 15 ms, so no change, Mr. Roch is pretty happy with the results specially after the toothing problems (not signaling of some direct hits) are being solved.

Blocking time 450-500 ms, increased to avoid a too defensive game.

and

NOT non-valid hits anymore. The white lamp will light up to signal that the circuit is broken but it will not block the machine and will not be considered as a hit.

This sort of conflicts with what we've heard in the UK. We heard it was going to be 8ms and no change to blockout.

Perhaps what we are hearing are proposals from our own federations? Sounds like there are going to be changes, but no one knows for sure what the offical change is then.

[Mr Epee]

Sounds like someone has a death wish...

[CvilleFencer]

The super unofficial rumors I have heard has been for 8ms debounce, no change for the lockout in foil or saber. Roche has wanted to get away from the off target for a long time now but I don't think, and I don't think HE thinks, it will ever happen. Its just a drum he likes to beat on to try and scare other folks into line with him. Sort of a "Well if I can't have this then I will do THIS and screw everything up" type ploy. Would someone just whack off this guys head saber, drive a broken foil through his heart, stuff his mouth with holy waffers, bury it across running water from his body and be done with it?

[Feraud]

Getting rid of the off-target in foil would be a disaster. There would be no more respect for the attack and fencers would deliberately block target with no consequences. I had read originally this proposal was to be combined with the idea of expanding the valid target to include the bib and the upper arm (only if it was bent, using a new lame with a special sleeve designed to register touches on the bent arm) But the whole thing would be kinda ridiculous because then foil would resemble epee even more, with the sword arm as target. There’s an historical precedent for the bib and arm target actually ( in some older fencing rules) but not for removing the non-valid touch, that’s always been part of foil.
The new timings I can live with, no off-target would be ridiculous because nobody would attack anymore.

[DanInMI]

Originally Posted by Alan

If you still have direct hits not scoring and no non-valid hits ...
who will attack ???

Were you paying attention? Mr. Diaz said: "(e)specially after the toothing problems (not signaling of some direct hits) are being solved."

Obviously, they feel that direct hits not scoring will no longer be a problem.

Personally, I have a problem with off-target hits not stopping the action.

I am afraid that THIS will have the unwanted result that you guys have been whining about with the first change (that did not actually occur.) It may encourage counter attacking. This will make it possible to block with your weapon arm and then counterattack. Currently if you cover with the weapon arm the action stops and the defnder is only rewarded with not being scored against. But in this scenario the defender can cover and be rewarded with an immediate counterattack scoring.

I don't think that is a good thing.

[Katman]

Ha. I heard the small, Alanesque explosion all the way here in Texas which that post probably caused.

Thanks for the post. I really hope that's not how it turns out.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by ChubbyHubby

This sort of conflicts with what we've heard in the UK. We heard it was going to be 8ms and no change to blockout.

It seems to me that the vast majority of people against the new timings are against the 15 ms debounce time. Therefore, I think that many fencers, clubs, even entire federations, will be angry if they have to spend money to upgrade to a new timing that is...still broken.

Have they actually fixed the problem of direct hits not scoring? I'd guess that if they have, they are referring to the microbreaks problem. But there are straight attacks that also may not score for other reasons, such as the blade grounding out, or the angle of the hit not being quite right.

And I agree with others that getting rid of RoW for off targets will only make the problems we've been seeing much, much worse.

[Joe biebel]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

The Federations are going to throw a livid fit if this is pushed out. All that money to switch equipment just to switch it back...

A contractor tried to reassure me recently with the phrase "we'll get it right if it takes every penny you've got" that everything would be perfect. He was not the one I went with.

Mr Roch, a well known fencing genius, has universal approval of his changes. At least everyone that matters agrees with him. In fact that is his litmus test for who matters.

In the companies I own, the bill for failed experiments, comes right out of our/my profits. We do experiment, fairly often, on a small scale at first. If the new designs prove solid and to have the intended features, advantages or cost reductions, and stand up to the test of time, we implement them. If they do not we improve them or abandon them. The "customer" is never our lab rat.

IMHO, This whole issue smacks of "big government" to me. Goverment with no accountability, out of control ego, and downright disdain for the "citizens" affected. Personally, I never cared much about the FIE leadership until recently. I did not realize how much power one man could have, because I was unaware of any abuse of power until recently. The few letters and articles I have read from Roch, and the FIE magazine, have me believing the worst. I hope Mr. Roch is incompetent. This sounds strange I know, but the only obvious other explaination is that he is a self-serving, egotistical polititian, whose legacy will no doudt lead to reform in the structure of the FIE. So, I guess we can thank him for that.

[Joe biebel]

The following "official" rumor was heard only in my head

Mr. Roch has just released this important message.

"It has come to my attention that the new timings which I personally pushed don't work worth a damn. I formally apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused anyone and would be happy to personally pay for switching all of the machines back (including labor and parts) to the previous timings.

Also, I am going to go with the advice of the best minds available to me, as to how to best proceed with improving foil. It would seem that a technological fix is not the answer. So the new rules regarding foil fencing and marching attacks (hiding the blade and flicks) are simple and as follows.

A marching attack, hand withdrawn and or point not threatening valid target, is now to be considered an invitation or preparation. It will score if the proper light goes on, but will have no right of way.

Any hit make with a whipping, flicking action will also count, but without the benefit of right of way. Any hit made with a flick or whip that appears "hard" or possibly physically harmful to the recipient will be annulled and an appropriate card will be issued.

All attack actions, to be called and attack, must have an extending arm with the point threatening the valid target. There will be numerous variations on this to take into account avoiding parries etc., but the jist is here.

Thank you all for your input. In six months time, we will have a vote of confidence with each member of each federation getting a single vote. If you want me to stay, I will. If the the confidence is not there, I shall resign.

Building Your Trust Since the day I Woke Up,
Your Humble Servant,
Rene Roch"

[oiuyt]

Part of the problem is that Roch has very recently shown that he has the support of the majority of the federations (wonder if this has anything to do with his efforts over the past few years to start a huge number of brand-new federations, all of which owe a significant part of their existance to him, and each of which have a vote worth as much as that of Russia, France, Italy, Germany, the US, or any other federation). He stood for re-election earlier this season and won decisively.

Hoping that the federations, as a whole, will complain and get rid of him is misguided given recent evidence that this is not the case.

Better to expend the effort hoping to get proposals of his voted down (which he has shown just means that he'll keep resubmitting them until they DO get approved, whether in a congress meeting or via individual "phone consultations"). He loses proposal votes frequently. His job seems secure. Moreover, some of these proposals (elimination of the white light, although here he's using a nice slight-of-hand of changing it to still there, but not really) have already been repeatedly rejected (although most of the time the doomed proposals are withdrawn before being voted down).

-B :)

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Joe biebel

Any hit make with a whipping, flicking action will also count, but without the benefit of right of way. Any hit made with a flick or whip that appears "hard" or possibly physically harmful to the recipient will be annulled and an appropriate card will be issued.

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.

[Fernando Diaz]

Just to keep things clear I would like to point ot a couple of points.

-As you may remember a few weeks ago I post the results of the tests we have done with several scoring machines and how the microbreaks problem can be fixed, we have running machines that does not suffer from the non-registering problems anymore, so this is why I said that the toothing problems are being solved. It is just a techincal problem.

-What I got was the indication that I should prepare such machines for testing since those will probably be the final timings. As technician I don´t mind if people like or not it, I just do what I am paid for...... so I'll let you know how does fencing goes with this settings. I will probably have those machines ready for end next month. Moreover I get paid for each new version of the software so the more changes they want the more money I make, YUM!

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.

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).

[jBirch]

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).

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.