Watching instead of competing

[mackillian]

This weekend I had to watch our division's national qualifiers instead of competing in them due to illness. It did give me some more time to practice with my prime lens and take a lot of shots.

Northeast Division qualifiers


Anyone have any thoughts?

[epeeisky]

I know how that is. I was ill at the LA divisonal qualifiers so I just watched and cheered on BRFC fencers and ran errands for people instead.

[telkanuru]

Interesting pictures. Northeast has some interesting fencers, but the ones I like to watch/fence are above DII...

[mackillian]

Yeah, but I wouldn't be competing in THOSE tournaments, either.

[rmyounis]

Nice job....I like fencing pictures

[veeco]

What I liked about your shots is that they show that there is NO need at all for a plexiglass mask. Under the right angle and with the right light, you can see fencers faces pretty well through the mesh.

I like the black and white shots the best. It's kind of a bummer that in a lot of those you only see parts of the fencers bodies though. I prefer it when you see the whole body as you can really get a better idea of what fencing moves look like.

Also, perhaps next time you should try and shoot some pictures of what happens not during the fencing itself, but after touches are scored (the victory yells, the agony of defeat, can make for some nice shots too).

[Fechter1]

Question: the first pic on the first page, would you give the guy (on the right) a warning or a card? (He's exposing the back of his mask to the attacker, and it looks like he's doing it repeatedly, in the next two pictures)
Definitely potential for serious injury there...

[oiuyt]

A card for covering target.

Exposing the back of the head is NOT against the rules, merely stupid.

The current interpretation being given to referees at the national level is that if a foilist ducks but continues to keep his/her face up and towards his/her opponent that it's legal, but if the face goes down towards the floor that it's illegal. This gets mentioned at the morning meetings at pretty much every national-level event now. See picture 85 for another example of an action that probably should receive a card. Mr. McKenney VERY clearly needs some referees to start carding him so that he learns to fix his form. There are examples of his face-down postures throughout the gallery.

-B :)

[mackillian]

People found his style to be very...irritating. He constantly counterattacked using that duck. It made for some cool acrobatic pictures, but it almost hurt to see him win bouts.

And yeah, I wanted to get more of the fencer's bodies in the frame, but I was working with a 50mm f 1.8 prime lens. The lighting is a challenge considering the yellow thrown up from the wood floor and the use of flash not being allowed. I might try my 28-70 f 2.8 lens again, but the aperture is a touch not wide enough to properly expose the pictures.

But I hope I'm starting to get it. Photographing fencing has been a fun challenge, especially compared to other things. Problem is that feedback is hard to get from non-fencers.

[mackillian]

So would this http://www.madowl.com/gallery/div/divII096 be legal? His head is oriented toward his opponent and not the floor.

And in 85 (http://www.madowl.com/gallery/div/divII085) he wasn't carded.

[oiuyt]

I assumed that he gets carded considerably less frequently than he deserves. Otherwise a) he would fence many fewer bout due to losing much more quickly, and b) he would (presumably) fix the problem.

In 96 he could easily be carded for using the head to parry, another topic that has started to be mentioned at the referee meetings, as it has started cropping up with increased frequency this season.

Basically it seems like a large amount of what he does with his body posture is illegal. When he fences in Sacramento he should receive a rediculously large number of cards if your pictures are any indication. The FOC has really been asking the referees to tighten up on behavior like this. This and the hair on the lamé are sort of the hot-button topics for the season (and corps-a-corps to avoid the touch).

I used the qualifier "probably" for 85 because it's possible to get into that position without having deserved a card, depending on when the hit occurred, etc. Given how many times he was in illegal positions by the time your shutter recorded the action I strongly suspect that he deserved a large number of cards, whether or not they were actually awarded.

-B :)

[mackillian]

The other fencers would agree with you. He got two cards that day for covering target. Each time, the other fencers watching would mutter, "About TIME."


veeco, I wanted to, but apparently the northeast division fencers are a quiet, poker faced bunch. At least that day.

[Fechter1]

A card for covering target.

Exposing the back of the head is NOT against the rules, merely stupid.

Thanks.

Follow up question on turning the back... What exactly is the definition?
Considering Pic 78, ducking down and thus exposing your back to the opponent.

[oiuyt]

Definitions? You want definitions? If we gave definitions of more than about 6 things we wouldn't have "interpretation" room to allow for different referees/coahes/nationalities/styles/whatever to argue about what the rules mean!

I think perhaps some of the pictures in that gallery would be great tools for the FOC to issue as guidelines of what not to allow fencers to do.

One thing I noticed is that Mr. McKenney got a white light in #78. Given that his point is clearly buried in his opponent's stomach, he presumably clipped something else on the way in.

-B :)

[daveappr]

nice job on the photos

[Fechter1]

Definitions? You want definitions? If we gave definitions of more than about 6 things we wouldn't have "interpretation" room to allow for different referees/coahes/nationalities/styles/whatever to argue about what the rules mean!

Sorry, bad choice of wording...

Would YOU have given a card for turning/exposing the back in pic 78?

[garyhayenga]

Sorry, bad choice of wording...

Would YOU have given a card for turning/exposing the back in pic 78?

Not turning, since he hasn't, and exposing the back, since it's target isn't illegal. Displacement of target yes, since he has moved his flank target behind his front leg. Which has the same penalty as covering target. Yellow card and off-target hit possibly allowed as a touch.

Now in pic 77 it looks like he might be very close to turning the back, but not at the actual point the picture was taken.

gary hayenga

[downunder]

Sorry, bad choice of wording...

Would YOU have given a card for turning/exposing the back in pic 78?

thats covering target


instant yellow card.

[anoilerman]

sehr schoen