Covering Target Question

[Cal Fencer]

In foil, can you be called for covering the target with the weapon arm?

Cal

[gary hayenga]

On 2005-07-21 16:14:23 -0400, "Cal Fencer" <edingest@infojeeves.org> said:

> In foil, can you be called for covering the target with the weapon arm?
>
> Cal

No.

gary hayenga

[R. Mattes]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:38:15 -0400, gary hayenga wrote:

> On 2005-07-21 16:14:23 -0400, "Cal Fencer" <edingest@infojeeves.org> said:
>
>> In foil, can you be called for covering the target with the weapon arm?
>>
>> Cal
>
> No.

Hmm, i learned (long ago) that you can. Once a fencer starts to use
the weapon arm purely to cover vaild target area that's inpropper use.

Just my 0.02$

Cheers Ralf Mattes

> gary hayenga

[gatorjosh]

Wasnt there a call a while ago during one of the olympic matches where the final touch was decided by an off target hit on the weapon arm but the guy was actually called for covered target and was subsequently carded, giving the win to the other guy?

[David Neevel]

Cal Fencer wrote:

>In foil, can you be called for covering the target with the weapon arm?
>
>Cal
>
>
>
>
You could be called for substitiution of valid target due to an abnormal
position (t.49). What constitiutes an "abnormal position" is not defined
in the rules, but it generally has to be something pretty extreme-
anything that could conceivably be construed as resulting from a "good
faith" attempt to parry, evade, or counterattack should be given the
benefit of the doubt. So, for practical purposes, the answer is "no".

Keep in mind that any position in which the weapon arm is completely
obscuring some portion of the target will also be leaving another target
section wide open. For instance, in the fairly common case of a fencer
pulling the weapon arm back across the front of the torso as part of a
deep 4 parry the flank & lower back (8) will be pretty easy pickings.

-Dave

[Harold Buck]

In article <gatorjosh.1slie0@timelimit.fencing101.com>,
gatorjosh <gatorjosh.1slie0@timelimit.fencing101.com> wrote:

> Wasnt there a call a while ago during one of the olympic matches where
> the final touch was decided by an off target hit on the weapon arm but
> the guy was actually called for covered target and was subsequently
> carded, giving the win to the other guy?


t . 2 2 The use of the ******non-sword hand and arm******* to carry out
an offensive or defensive action is forbidden (cf. t.114, t.116, t.120).
Should such an offence occur, the touch scored by the fencer at fault is
annulled.

In foil and saber, it is forbidden to protect the target area or to
substitute another part of the body for the target area, either by
covering or by an abnormal movement (cf. t.114, t.116, t.120); any touch
scored by the fencer at fault is annulled.

============

Thus, you can use the sword arm and hand to carry out a defensive
action.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

[Bruce J. Heidebrecht]

No, by your own statement:

.... it is forbidden to protect the target area or to substitute another part
of the body for the target area either by covering or by an abnormal
movement...

It is possible to be called for covering target with the weapon arm.

It would be a hard call to make for the referee, and really goes to the
intention of the fencer, but it can be made.

Bruce J. Heidebrecht




> From: Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net>
> Organization: ‹
> Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
> Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 07:51:59 -0500
> Subject: Re: Covering Target Question
>
> In article <gatorjosh.1slie0@timelimit.fencing101.com>,
> gatorjosh <gatorjosh.1slie0@timelimit.fencing101.com> wrote:
>
>> Wasnt there a call a while ago during one of the olympic matches where
>> the final touch was decided by an off target hit on the weapon arm but
>> the guy was actually called for covered target and was subsequently
>> carded, giving the win to the other guy?
>
>
> t . 2 2 The use of the ******non-sword hand and arm******* to carry out
> an offensive or defensive action is forbidden (cf. t.114, t.116, t.120).
> Should such an offence occur, the touch scored by the fencer at fault is
> annulled.
>
> In foil and saber, it is forbidden to protect the target area or to
> substitute another part of the body for the target area, either by
> covering or by an abnormal movement (cf. t.114, t.116, t.120); any touch
> scored by the fencer at fault is annulled.
>
> ============
>
> Thus, you can use the sword arm and hand to carry out a defensive
> action.
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson

[Harold Buck]

In article <BF22CC5C.2562%bjheidebre@comcast.net>,
"Bruce J. Heidebrecht" <bjheidebre@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>
> > From: Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net>
> > Organization: ‹
> > Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
> > Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 07:51:59 -0500
> > Subject: Re: Covering Target Question
> >
> > In article <gatorjosh.1slie0@timelimit.fencing101.com>,
> > gatorjosh <gatorjosh.1slie0@timelimit.fencing101.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Wasnt there a call a while ago during one of the olympic matches where
> >> the final touch was decided by an off target hit on the weapon arm but
> >> the guy was actually called for covered target and was subsequently
> >> carded, giving the win to the other guy?
> >
> >
> > t . 2 2 The use of the ******non-sword hand and arm******* to carry out
> > an offensive or defensive action is forbidden (cf. t.114, t.116, t.120).
> > Should such an offence occur, the touch scored by the fencer at fault is
> > annulled.
> >
> > In foil and saber, it is forbidden to protect the target area or to
> > substitute another part of the body for the target area, either by
> > covering or by an abnormal movement (cf. t.114, t.116, t.120); any touch
> > scored by the fencer at fault is annulled.
> >
>
> No, by your own statement:
>
> ... it is forbidden to protect the target area or to substitute another part
> of the body for the target area either by covering or by an abnormal
> movement...
>
> It is possible to be called for covering target with the weapon arm.
>
> It would be a hard call to make for the referee, and really goes to the
> intention of the fencer, but it can be made.
>

The rule quoted clearly implies that you can use the weapon arm for a
defensive action. Covering the target with the weapon arm is a defensive
action.


--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

[R. Mattes]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 09:40:29 -0500, Harold Buck wrote:

>> No, by your own statement:
>>
>> ... it is forbidden to protect the target area or to substitute another part
>> of the body for the target area either by covering or by an abnormal
>> movement...
>>
>> It is possible to be called for covering target with the weapon arm.
>>
>> It would be a hard call to make for the referee, and really goes to the
>> intention of the fencer, but it can be made.
>>
>
> The rule quoted clearly implies that you can use the weapon arm for a
> defensive action. Covering the target with the weapon arm is a defensive
> action.

No, covering target is _not_ a defensive action. Rule t2.2 talks about
the use of the non-weapon arm for offensive and defensive actions (like
parrying with the non weapon hand). This has nothing to do with _covering_
a valid target. In sport fencing covering simply is not allowed.
Side note: there's quite a difference between someone actively covering
valid target area and valid target area being covered (intent). In any
position except maybe the straight line valid target area is
covered.

Cheers Ralf Mattes

>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson

[Bruce J. Heidebrecht]

t.23 If during a bout the Referee notices that one of the fencers is making
use of the non-sword arm and/or hand, or is protecting or covering
the valid target with a non-valid surface, the Referee can call for the help
of two neutral judges who will be designated by the Bout
Committee. These judges, one on each side of the strip, will watch all
aspects of the bout and will indicate, by raising their hand or when
asked by the Referee, if the non-sword arm or hand has been used, or if the
fencer has protected or covered the valid target with a nonvalid
surface (cf. t.49, t.114, t.116, t.120).



"or is protecting or covering the valid target with a non-valid surface"
is the important part of this rule. ANY non-valid surface used to cover
target can result in a card. If a fencer raised their leg to cover their
lower target area, this would be illegal. Just because T.22 specifies the
non-weapon arm, doesn't negate the fact that T.23 opens up the subject the
any non-valid surface.
But again, this could be a difficult decision for the ref to make because it
comes down to intention of the fencer. Was the fencer making a broad parry
and their arm moved across their body, or were they intentionally covering
target with "a non-valid surface" ?

Bottom line - YES it is possible to be called for covering target by using
the weapon arm.


Bruce J. Heidebrecht





>
> The rule quoted clearly implies that you can use the weapon arm for a
> defensive action. Covering the target with the weapon arm is a defensive
> action.
>
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson

[Joseph Kormann]

Bruce J. Heidebrecht wrote:
> Bottom line - YES it is possible to be called for covering target by using
> the weapon arm.

So every parry-4 is illegal.

[John Hasler]

Bruce J. Heidebrecht wrote:
> Bottom line - YES it is possible to be called for covering target by using
> the weapon arm.

Joseph Kormann writes:
> So every parry-4 is illegal.

It is _intentional_ covering that is illegal. Covering that is incidental
to a normal movement doesn't count.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[Bruce J. Heidebrecht]

As I've stated before:

"But again, this could be a difficult decision for the ref to make because
it comes down to intention of the fencer. Was the fencer making a broad
parry and their arm moved across their body, or were they intentionally
covering target with "a non-valid surface" ?"

Bruce J. Heidebrecht



> From: Joseph Kormann <ajkormann@verizon.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:54:56 GMT
> Subject: Re: Covering Target Question
>
> Bruce J. Heidebrecht wrote:
>> Bottom line - YES it is possible to be called for covering target by using
>> the weapon arm.
>
> So every parry-4 is illegal.

[R. Mattes]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:09:16 -0400, Bruce J. Heidebrecht wrote:

> As I've stated before:
>
> "But again, this could be a difficult decision for the ref to make because
> it comes down to intention of the fencer.

Yes, judging a bout is rather difficult. So what's new.
Maybe with the exception of an epee bout a ref always has to judge the
intention of the fencers (in epee only to decide whether a corps a
corps was done intentionally).

> Was the fencer making a
> broad parry and their arm moved across their body, or were they
> intentionally covering target with "a non-valid surface" ?"

I haven't been in the ref business lately but IIRC it seldom was
difficult to distinguish the two -- an when it was i usually go by
"if in doubt, leave it out". Normally when I call "covering of
valid target" it was _after_ an unsuccessful parry when the weapon arm
was brought back to the body to cover target. I often see this with
jumpy kids with too little technique/self-discipline.

Are we talking about the rules or about the difficulty of applying
them correctly always?

Ralf Mattes


> Bruce J. Heidebrecht
>
>
>
>> From: Joseph Kormann <ajkormann@verizon.net> Newsgroups:
>> rec.sport.fencing
>> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:54:56 GMT
>> Subject: Re: Covering Target Question
>>
>> Bruce J. Heidebrecht wrote:
>>> Bottom line - YES it is possible to be called for covering target by
>>> using the weapon arm.
>>
>> So every parry-4 is illegal.

[Joseph Kormann]

John Hasler wrote:
> Bruce J. Heidebrecht wrote:
>
>>Bottom line - YES it is possible to be called for covering target by using
>>the weapon arm.
>
>
> Joseph Kormann writes:
>
>>So every parry-4 is illegal.
>
>
> It is _intentional_ covering that is illegal. Covering that is incidental
> to a normal movement doesn't count.

1. I'm being the devil's advocate.
2. I am intentionally moving my arm, covering my torso, to place my hand
in the 4 position.
3. Where in t2.2 does it use the word "intentional". All quotes and
references to the rule do not have or use that word.It does specifically
say you cannot use the non-weapon arm to block target.

Therefore, you *can* use the weapon arm to block target *and* it counts
as target. Like in soccer how the refs are counted as part of the field.
It's up to the judge to determine if the weapon went off on the weapon
arm while it was in front of valid target.

This makes sabre easier and foil harder. Especially if they do away with
the off-target lights in foil.

[R. Mattes]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 16:21:21 +0000, Joseph Kormann wrote:

> John Hasler wrote:
>> Bruce J. Heidebrecht wrote:
>>
>>>Bottom line - YES it is possible to be called for covering target by using
>>>the weapon arm.
>>
>>
>> Joseph Kormann writes:
>>
>>>So every parry-4 is illegal.
>>
>>
>> It is _intentional_ covering that is illegal. Covering that is incidental
>> to a normal movement doesn't count.
>
> 1. I'm being the devil's advocate.

Yes, and let's all not forget hat fencing is about _fencers_ on a plance
and not about two lawyers ...

> 2. I am intentionally moving my arm, covering my torso, to place my hand
> in the 4 position.
> 3. Where in t2.2 does it use the word "intentional". All quotes and
> references to the rule do not have or use that word.It does specifically
> say you cannot use the non-weapon arm to block target.

As a previous poster already quoted: "... or if the fencer has protected
or covered...". Sorry, i'm not too familiar with the English version of
the rules (English not being my first language), but "the fencer _does_
protect or cover up" pretty much implies intention, or?

Cheers, RalfD

> Therefore, you *can* use the weapon arm to block target *and* it counts
> as target. Like in soccer how the refs are counted as part of the field.
> It's up to the judge to determine if the weapon went off on the weapon
> arm while it was in front of valid target.
>
> This makes sabre easier and foil harder. Especially if they do away with
> the off-target lights in foil.

[John Hasler]

Joseph Kormann writes:
> I am intentionally moving my arm, covering my torso, to place my hand in
> the 4 position.

Your intention is to parry, not to cover target.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[Harold Buck]

In article <pan.2005.08.13.17.37.42.29167@mh-freiburg.de>,
"R. Mattes" <rm@mh-freiburg.de> wrote:

> No, covering target is _not_ a defensive action. Rule t2.2 talks about
> the use of the non-weapon arm for offensive and defensive actions (like
> parrying with the non weapon hand).


If I use my weapon arm to keep myslef from getting hit, that is a
defensive action. I can even use my weapon arm to hold your blade, quite
legally.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

[R. Mattes]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:02:22 -0500, Harold Buck wrote:

> In article <pan.2005.08.13.17.37.42.29167@mh-freiburg.de>,
> "R. Mattes" <rm@mh-freiburg.de> wrote:
>
>> No, covering target is _not_ a defensive action. Rule t2.2 talks about
>> the use of the non-weapon arm for offensive and defensive actions (like
>> parrying with the non weapon hand).
>
>
> If I use my weapon arm to keep myslef from getting hit, that is a
> defensive action.

Where on earth did you learn that? No more than locking yourself
in the bathroom ...
My latest copy of the US version of the rules is from 2002 but it states
(in t.8) rather clearly what constitutes a 'defensive action'.

> I can even use my weapon arm to hold your blade, quite
> legally.

???
No no, you got that one mixed up too -- that's wrestling.

Cheer Ralf Mattes

> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson

[Joseph Kormann]

John Hasler wrote:
> Joseph Kormann writes:
>
>>I am intentionally moving my arm, covering my torso, to place my hand in
>>the 4 position.
>
>
> Your intention is to parry, not to cover target.

Is it? That's for the judge to determine. I can quite happily set my
en-guarde in 4 with my arm blocking a chunk of target. Now the director
has two things to think about: am I blocking target and will he see the
action to call the off-target actually on.

In all seriousness, I understand what you mean. There are plenty of
people out there who would think of this as a "good idea" and try it.

I was in a bout once and inadvertantly used my weapon fore-arm to brush
someone's foil aside. Effectively parrying with it. I know what I did
and what the director did. What's the thoughts from the NG?

-Joseph