Turning your head for a yellow card.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by larkmaj

As stated before, I think (I could be wrong about which team) it was a Russian national team that made this rule necessary. In epee the would do a move where they would turn their backs, send their epee between their legs, and have it nick the side of their leg as it goes through, making it appear that they scored the touch on the opponent. It took the team practicing this move IN FRONT of the officials for them to notice it. That's why this rule was implemented.

about right. specifically, when they took prime they'd turn their back and hit their leg first, which locks out their opponents remise.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Urban Legend...

if so, then it's an urban legend that's repeated by a large number of knowledgable FOCs.

-m

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

if so, then it's an urban legend that's repeated by a large number of knowledgable FOCs.

-m

It wouldn't be the first time... :-)

Being a good referee has nothing to do with being an accurate relay in the gossip tree.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by el chucko

Is the Referee Handbook "legally binding" though? At tournaments and as a source of authority, I have only seen the actual rulebook cited.

In other words, some of the rules are somewhat vague and open to interpretation. That is by design, in some cases. I am not sure if a fencer or referee would be justified in using another book or whatever to back-up or dispute a penalty, other than the official USFA/FIE rulebook.

(Oh, and KATMAN, I was talking about the nifty sidestep...)

Well, the entire point of the Handbook is to explain to Referees what the interpretations are expected to be, so that they're all on the same page. It's a serious problem for a sport when one group of referees calls things one way and another does the opposite. This is why in order to take the referee's test you have to attend the Rules Interpretation Seminar as well. So that you're taught, by the FOC instructor, the proper interpretations for a great many rules.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

It wouldn't be the first time... :-)

Being a good referee has nothing to do with being an accurate relay in the gossip tree.

Haha....however true that may seem to be, it's not. The rule has nothing to do with safety, it was implemeneted to prevent cheating....I'm going to take the knowledge of the FOCs.

[El Chucko]

I did take the Referee test (passing all 4 parts), and did attend the FOC seminar. But I'm still not foolish enough to think that all referees do, or even are expected to, interpret every rule the exact same way.

The rules are like the US Constitution, I suppose: there are Strict Constructionists, and there are Loose Constructionists. If only Madison were a fencer...

[sabreur]

Originally Posted by el chucko

The rules are like the US Constitution, I suppose: there are Strict Constructionists, and there are Loose Constructionists.

There are also good referees, who make calls consistently and the way that they are commonly made, and bad referees who are inconsistent and make calls in a way that is not in keeping with the generally accepted interpretations.

Maybe a better comparison would be to accounting, where you have the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles--there is a certain amount of freedom to interpret within the framework of GAAP, but if you walk outside the line, you end up like ENRON.

We have one club in our area whose members try to give yellow cards for looking at the lights. They are treated with a fair amount of derision and scorn, and we make sure they don't get to referee.

MR

[rudd]

Turning to look at the lights before halt is called isn't cardable but it is a very bad habit. I lost an important poule match at my first tournamemt after a long break. His attack no, my counteattack no (new timings I tell ya.) I looked at the light and froze, he jabbed, jabbed and scored. Time ran out, went to priority which he got and then I lost the next point. So it can cost you a lot more than a yellow card.

Ger

[sabreur]

Originally Posted by rudd

Turning to at the lights before halt is called isn't cardable but it is a very bad habit. I lost an important poule match at my first tournamemt after a long break. So it can cost you a lot more than a yellow card.

Ger

No arguments. But it shouldn't be carded.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

Haha....however true that may seem to be, it's not. The rule has nothing to do with safety, it was implemeneted to prevent cheating....I'm going to take the knowledge of the FOCs.

I agree that it has to do with reducing the opportunities for cheating...

But to lay out blanket statements about "The Russian Team did this, and we (we never being a first hand source) even saw them practicing it while warming up.", is silly.

I've been around long enough to have heard these stories attributed to nearly every group of fencers... in the US, Russia is the big baddy, so they get the blame here. In E. Europe, they often blame the Germans. The Italians usually get labeled for performance drug abuse, and the Americans are often tagged as bout buyers (and for a hell of a lot more than the SI story). Obviously, these things are not limited to those countries.

Fencing has a few guys who cheat... the Kopasz is a brilliant example.

[Be_Like_Water]

Originally Posted by Dave The Bastar

Under which rule/heading?

For turning the back. Or for unsafe fencing. Depending on how is it done.

[larkmaj]

After another look through the 1st group offenses I believe the only place it could possibly fit is under "Abnormal fencing action" but that seems to be a stretch. Although that seems to be a very vague statement.

Originally Posted by Be_Like_Water

For turning the back. Or for unsafe fencing. Depending on how is it done.

There is no "unsafe fencing" offense. In the 1st group there is "disorderly fencing" but turning the head can hardly be considered disorderly.

[nyacfencing]

Although not directly supported by the rule book, this is a common card thrown in smaller local competitions. This is not a bad thing, since in general it is a very bad habit to acquire. I have seen many bouts end on such a bad habit.

Since, in general, smaller competitions are meant to be preparation for larger competitions, fencers should appreciate the enforcement of this rule even if it isn't in the rule book.

Furthermore, carding for this offense could conceivably be justified by a referee for the following reasons:

• Abnormal Fencing Action (1st Group)
• Dangerous, voilent, or vindictive action (2nd Group) Note that even though this rule is intended to prevent dangerous actions against one's opponent, it could be argued that by turning your head and therefore exposing the unprotected area one creates a dangerous action for him or herself

[downunder]

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

Furthermore, carding for this offense could conceivably be justified by a referee for the following reasons:

• Abnormal Fencing Action (1st Group)
• Dangerous, voilent, or vindictive action (2nd Group) Note that even though this rule is intended to prevent dangerous actions against one's opponent, it could be argued that by turning your head and therefore exposing the unprotected area one creates a dangerous action for him or herself

nope. no way. Turning of the head is not an abnormal fencing action.

If anyone tried that on me, it would be off to the DT to get it overturned.

Also, are you trying to imply a red card for turning the head?

[larkmaj]

excerpt from t.87 (rule governing the offences currently under discussion, emphasis is on my part):

"All bouts must preserve the character of a courteous and frank
encounter. All irregular actions (flèche attack which finishes
with a collision jostling the opponent, disorderly fencing,
irregular movements on the strip, touches achieved with
violence, touches made while falling) are strictly forbidden
(cf. t.114–t.120). Should such an offence occur, any touch
scored by the fencer at fault is annulled."

Even though turning the head could conceivably be considered an "irregular action" I fail to see how it could damage "the character of a courteous and frank encounter" of which the rule is intended to protect.

[KD5MDK]

Refereeing should be consistant. If the FOC says "don't card for it", the only reason I can see to change that would be if 1) A concensus among the FOC arises to change that, or 2) It is called differently at the International level of competition. Until then, all US referees should be calling it as the FOC encourages, and non-US referees should call it as their national referee body recommends.

[KD5MDK]

Didn't see page 2 before my last response.

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

Although not directly supported by the rule book, this is a common card thrown in smaller local competitions. This is not a bad thing, since in general it is a very bad habit to acquire. I have seen many bouts end on such a bad habit.

Since, in general, smaller competitions are meant to be preparation for larger competitions, fencers should appreciate the enforcement of this rule even if it isn't in the rule book.

I would say that local competitions should, within the bounds of reasonableness, match the best competition level they can (I'm not saying they need to test the flex in blades). Thus, the rules should be enforced as fencers will find them, not more strictly.

[nyacfencing]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I would say that local competitions should, within the bounds of reasonableness, match the best competition level they can (I'm not saying they need to test the flex in blades). Thus, the rules should be enforced as fencers will find them, not more strictly.

I understand your point, but reality is quite the opposite. Generally, rules are enforced much more strictly at the lowest levels than at the highest. This is because fencers at the lower levels have less control and understanding, and actually break the rules much more frequently. Also, it is necessary for lower level fencers to train themselves to fence well within the confines of the rules in order to reach the higher levels.

Higher level fencers generally have a good deal of control, and in general break the rules much less frequently. And when they do, there is generally less impact on the action regardless.

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

Although not directly supported by the rule book, this is a common card thrown in smaller local competitions. This is not a bad thing, since in general it is a very bad habit to acquire. I have seen many bouts end on such a bad habit.

No, the bad habit being acquired here is the referee acquiring the habit of misapplying the rules of fencing or simply making up their own rules versus doing their job correctly.

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

Since, in general, smaller competitions are meant to be preparation for larger competitions, fencers should appreciate the enforcement of this rule even if it isn't in the rule book.

It isn't a rule, and any attempt to card for a supposed infraction of such a non-rule deserves a protest along with some counciling and/or remedial training for the referee who makes the bogus call.

[larkmaj]

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

Higher level fencers generally have a good deal of control, and in general break the rules much less frequently. And when they do, there is generally less impact on the action regardless.

I would tend to disagree. While it is true that they have a lot more control and break the rules less frequently, when they do break the rules it is in a much more subtle and serious way. Each infraction generally has a bigger impact on the bout since a touch is worth so much more and many times they make 2nd or 3rd group infractions.

But then again I could be talking out of my rear.