Turning your head for a yellow card.

[Go? Fencing?]

If turning the head is such a saftey issue why has the flick over top of the mask not cardable? I know I have taken several of these to the back of the skull and officials did nothing even when I asked because I was starting to welt from aqll the miss hits.

Things like this should tell you that it's time to switch to foil.

[AllisonT]

I got a touch off the yellow and red card my opponent earned for turning her head to look at the box during our bout! Although a ref will call it for turning the head, it really should be called in that catch-all category: unsafe fencing.
It was a good call because she DID expose the back of her head to me.

There is always a gap between the written rules and the standard practice (common application of the rules). In court, standard practice beats written rules because it's all in the interpretation of the written word. If a rule is almost universally applied in a certain way, that becomes the rule.

[acaba]

Although a ref will call it for turning the head, it really should be called in that catch-all category: unsafe fencing.
It was a good call because she DID expose the back of her head to me.

I disagree. Penalties should be only be applied as based on the rules. That call was based on a flawed interpertation of the rules.

There is always a gap between the written rules and the standard practice (common application of the rules). In court, standard practice beats written rules because it's all in the interpretation of the written word. If a rule is almost universally applied in a certain way, that becomes the rule.

But the practice of this rule is clearly explained in the Handbook for Referees, as quoted by KD5MDK earlier in this thread... http://www.fencingofficials.org/Info...tml#_Toc976820

Turning the Back: In all weapons, it is illegal to turn one’s back toward the opponent. (This is not turning the head. Do not give fencers a card if they turn their heads so that they look behind themselves.)

The rules and written interpertation of the rules are clear on this point. If a fencer turns his/her head so it exposes its back to the opponent the correct answer is...

NO CARD

<rant on>
No trying to weasel and say that it is unsafe fencing, dangerous, bad sportsmanship, etc. The rules and modern interpertation clearly state what the ref is to do in this case. NO CARD at a local y-12 unrated event, NO CARD at the world championships.

To all refs: do not confuse fencers by making up rules that you THINK should be in the rule book, but aren't.
<rant off>

Aaron

[keith]

<rant on>
No trying to weasel and say that it is unsafe fencing, dangerous, bad sportsmanship, etc. The rules and modern interpertation clearly state what the ref is to do in this case. NO CARD at a local y-12 unrated event, NO CARD at the world championships.

To all refs: do not confuse fencers by making up rules that you THINK should be in the rule book, but aren't.
<rant off>

Aaron

I agree that refs should apply the rules as decided by governing bodies - if the FOC says no card for turning the head then no card for turning the head.

<rant on>
On the other hand WHAT THE F**K ARE THE IDIOTS AT THE FOC THINKING.

The back of the head/neck has no protection - if you turn it towards your opponent you are doing something dangerous and stupid (doubly stupid since scoring is hard when you can't see what is going on).

Should coaches and clubs work hard to stop people from doing it yes and carding it is the easiest way to get to that goal.

This may not be carded at the international level - but probably because selection eliminates the fencers stupid enough to develop the habit.
<rant off>

[larkmaj]

Although a ref will call it for turning the head, it really should be called in that catch-all category: unsafe fencing.

What catch-all category?
What is this unsafe fencing?
Nowhere is there a penalty for "unsafe fencing".

[Be_Like_Water]

What catch-all category?
What is this unsafe fencing?
Nowhere is there a penalty for "unsafe fencing".

I think she means "unsafe fencing" to be a generalization, as did I in a previous post. No, there is not a CARDABLE offense described as "unsafe fencing" but the referee has the power to use his/her discretion. The rules are there to enforce fairness between competitors and safety; it is the referee's JOB to ensure both.

So let's endulge your need for a "cardable penalty." It's simple enough: referee gives a warning saying "do not expose the back of your head to your opponent anymore"; the fencer does not obey and consequently turns his head; the fencer is given a yellow card for disobeying the referee, which IS a legitimate penalty.

Anyone who says enforcing this rule is ridiculous should decide that AFTER exposing their head and subsequently getting hit there full force. Perhaps then it wouldn't seem a horrible travesty that most directors make these calls.

[Mauler]

Disorderly fencing...

is probably what you're looking for?

Referee has the authority to classify just about any abnormal and "unsafe" fencing as a "disorderly fencing."

Having said that, it is of at least one particular FOC's opinion (per informal "sharing of knowledge" session he held on a Sports Zone at Sacramento) that referees should not punish the fencers because of the faulty box. What's broken here is the new box (that doesn't register otherwise valid hits), not the fencers who genuinely believed that they landed and therefore thought it fine to turn around and walk back to their guard line.

In such cases, referees are encouraged to stop the bout, place the fencers on guard, and continue the bout. As for "mere turning of the head to look at the box," is most certainly not an offense in any shape or form, and should be be penalized nor discouraged.

[epeemike81]

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?

you can't get it overturned if they say you made an abnormal fencing action. once the ref determines that it was an "abnormal action," that is considered factually true. DT can only overturn a mis-application of the rules, not a perceived misperception of the action. If they try to give you a red card for your first offense, then you can call the DT. if they try to card you simply for "looking at the lights" then you can call the DT. But, if they say that they're carding you for "Abnormal fencing action," you're SOL.

-m

[epeemike81]

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.

What you really seem to be saying here is that the rules are enforced much more OFTEN at lower levels, not more strictly.

-m

[epeemike81]

I agree that refs should apply the rules as decided by governing bodies - if the FOC says no card for turning the head then no card for turning the head.

<rant on>
On the other hand WHAT THE F**K ARE THE IDIOTS AT THE FOC THINKING.

The back of the head/neck has no protection - if you turn it towards your opponent you are doing something dangerous and stupid (doubly stupid since scoring is hard when you can't see what is going on).

Should coaches and clubs work hard to stop people from doing it yes and carding it is the easiest way to get to that goal.

This may not be carded at the international level - but probably because selection eliminates the fencers stupid enough to develop the habit.
<rant off>

Yes, exposing the back of the head is dangerous. So is distance which is too close. In fact, I'd guess that in the history of fencing, improper distance has probably played a crucial role in far more serious injuries than exposing the back of the head. Should we start carding for improper distance? Maybe we should just make the score dependent on proper form....

-m

[keith]

Maybe we should just make the score dependent on proper form....

-m

don't be a ****head.

You are right bad distance is more likely to get you killed than anything else - or perhaps a combination of poor equipment, bad distance and poor tactical choices (counter attacking the fleche while attempting a head parry perhaps?).

While bad luck can't be controlled by the rules, foolishness & stupidity can at least be limited. Exposing the back of the head to an opponent is both foolish and stupid for reasons that have nothing to do with form - I find it strange that people have a problem with the idea that it is;

1) stupid because it is unsafe
2) stupid because it increases the chance of having hits scored againts you.

As for this;

As for "mere turning of the head to look at the box," is most certainly not an offense in any shape or form, and should be be penalized nor discouraged.

sorry but any fencer who is looking away from their opponent because they think they hit them should thank the ref for every bloody card they get.

[acaba]

sorry but any fencer who is looking away from their opponent because they think they hit them should thank the ref for every bloody card they get.

Again, you are starting to make up rules that do not exist. If, while fencing, I choose to not look at the other fencer but instead look at the ref, my coach, my father in the stands, the pretty girl across room, my shoe laces, or the box because I thought I got a touch, it is not against the rules.

To all refs: do not confuse fencers by making up rules that you THINK should be in the rule book, but aren't.

Just to be clear, I think it is a very bad idea to expose the back of your head to your opponent, but it is also a very bad idea to lunge and smash your face into someone's extended bell guard. Neither are against the current rules. If you want to change that, petition the FIE, do not start imagining rules that are non-existent.

[keith]

Again, you are starting to make up rules that do not exist. If, while fencing, I choose to not look at the other fencer but instead look at the ref, my coach, my father in the stands, the pretty girl across room, my shoe laces, or the box because I thought I got a touch, it is not against the rules.

.. and if you glance back I said that if the FOC says this is not a card then it is not a card.

Get used to the fact that some people can carry multiple concepts in their head at once.

There seems to be a fair amount of the 'FOC should help develop fencers' not just train refs to stand their and say fence/halt and do the funky hand signals. Strikes me that a ref (or coach or clubmate) is doing you a favour if they are stopping you from doing stupid things on the piste - and looking away from your opponent is way up near the top of that list.

[epeemike81]

don't be a ****head.

You are right bad distance is more likely to get you killed than anything else - or perhaps a combination of poor equipment, bad distance and poor tactical choices (counter attacking the fleche while attempting a head parry perhaps?).

While bad luck can't be controlled by the rules, foolishness & stupidity can at least be limited. Exposing the back of the head to an opponent is both foolish and stupid for reasons that have nothing to do with form - I find it strange that people have a problem with the idea that it is;

1) stupid because it is unsafe
2) stupid because it increases the chance of having hits scored againts you.

I don't have a problem with that idea. I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that it's stupid. I don't believe there's any need to create a penalty for it, and I certainly don't believe there's any justification for giving a card under the current rules.

-m