New Article: New Foil Rules and their Impacts

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Also, I heard somewhere that many old machines had the lockout time set at 350 ms, the minimum under the old timings. Is this true?

Very unlikely. Despite what most of the announcements of the change in timing said the minimum for the old timing was not 350ms. That came from a previously announced and tested change that was never approved from several years ago. When the announcements came out last August about this season that number was erroneously used, and then reused over and over again. The actual old minimum (which, technically should now be the current minimum, the "testing" period has expired and there won't be a vote to extend it until Doha, right? :)) was 750ms.

IIRC, the 350ms setting was being experimented with about 5 years ago and was for use in world cup and world championship competitions. Not sure if it ever actually got used even there.

-B :)

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Very unlikely. Despite what most of the announcements of the change in timing said the minimum for the old timing was not 350ms. That came from a previously announced and tested change that was never approved from several years ago. When the announcements came out last August about this season that number was erroneously used, and then reused over and over again. The actual old minimum (which, technically should now be the current minimum, the "testing" period has expired and there won't be a vote to extend it until Doha, right? ) was 750ms.

IIRC, the 350ms setting was being experimented with about 5 years ago and was for use in world cup and world championship competitions. Not sure if it ever actually got used even there.

-B

Ah, okay, thanks.

[darius]

Under the current system, people are hiding behind their bibs and front arm and having a decent amount of success with it, especially when there's a lefty fencing a righty. The amount of useable target has already been reduced by sidelining the flick, and now people reduce it even more by hiding behind their arm.

By making the forearm target (and bib!), you've created two nice soft targets. Because of the debounce timing, straight attacks to chest can be unreliable. Chances are we'd be flicking to the upper arm as a primary attack -- after all, it's closer, and not hard to put off a light on soft tissue.

We can attribute this all to the diety of unintended consequences: because of a perceived unsightly flaw in the game, Roch rammed through a major change in the game, which created unsightly flaws in the game, so now we're going to add more changes to the game? Does anybody see where problems might crop up using this logic?

It'd be nice if the power structure of the FIE was based a little less on one man's whimsy. Or at least if that person understood, or transparently studied the unique characteristics of each weapon, what draws athletes to that weapon, and what (gasp) ... a tv audience might find appealing.

In my anecdotal experience, my corn-fed, free-range, red-state friends from back home were most impressed by the flow and elements of the game which have been the most limited by the new timings.

darius

[Feraud]

Originally Posted by Neil

Ok, do this experiment.

Get a friend and both hook up to a strip with a box using the new timings. One of you advance-lunge attacks with your hand on your hip, the other guy tries to attack in prep and then run away before the attacker extends to hit. I'm no elite fencer, but when I tried this, there was no way I could use the 300ms blockout time to lock out the attacker's hit with my counterattack.

Counterattacks are favoured with the new timings, but I reckon it's because of the 13-15ms contact time. The sudden change in target position of the counter-attacker makes it hard for the attacker to place their point nicely, so they miss because the new contact time punishes any hits where the point doesn't fix on the target.

Yes, the first night I fenced with the new box, this is exactly the sort of game I tried playing with it. I could never get in a one-light counterattack by simply exploiting the blocking time, nor could I fail to get two lights if I made a bent arm attack and deliberately let my opponent hit me first. You’d need a blocking time closer to the 40ms used in epee to accomplish that.

[rocky]

Fine, but the fact still remains that the new lockout times makes it much harder to complete a parry riposte, as many fencers have taken to immediately remising following an attack, locking out valid ripostes. Roche has tried to elimate flicks (and not fully succeeded) and instead has created a much greater problem.

[OROD]

Many people here are saying that they've never seen a reposte that was locked out by a remise with the new timings. Ok, whatever... maybe it's happened and they didnt notice, or maybe it never happened... it doesnt matter. I've seen it happen enough times to know it CAN happen, maybe not all that often, but it happens. The problem is that it takes the call away from the director, who is the one who SHOULD be making the call on right of way, not the machine.

As far as adding the weapon arm as target or the bib to make up for the fact that people are now countering/remising more... seriously, this is just stupid. With this logic we'll never stop making changes to foil and in little time it will become something completely different. What needs to happen is fix the original problem, not add new changes that will cause other problems... and that means a combination of partially changing the timings back and getting directors to direct better.

There's two issues (as I understand it) that caused Roch to inact the new timings, he wanted to get rid of the flick and wanted to make foil more spectator friendly. The latter is just plain dumb, so I'm not going to address it. If you really feel that this was the way to achieve greater popularity in foil, then start a new thread for it and I can tell you how wrong you on that thread.

As far as getting rid of the flick, first, there's nothing wrong with the flick as a valid fencing action. Roch (and others) really just want to get rid of it because they want fencing to be more "classical" like it was a hundred years ago when they were young. Second, I agree that refs called marching attacks too loosely. This was not a problem with the flick, it was a problem with the directors. Third, flicking and the style of fencing it represents is a much faster and more distance/movement oriented game than previously. This is something that makes it MORE appealing to the public, NOT LESS. Reducing the speed and athletizism of the game is counterproductive to the intention of making foil more TV friendly. And lastly, the new timings didnt get rid of the flick, it just made them more random. So, 1) Roch failed! Maybe he now wants even more severe timings to really get rid of it. And 2) making clear attacks that land and randomly go off or dont doesnt help people watching to understand what's going on. This also goes for the direct attacks that dont go off.

[/RANT]

[Neil]

Originally Posted by OROD

As far as adding the weapon arm as target or the bib to make up for the fact that people are now countering/remising more... seriously, this is just stupid. With this logic we'll never stop making changes to foil and in little time it will become something completely different. What needs to happen is fix the original problem, not add new changes that will cause other problems... and that means a combination of partially changing the timings back and getting directors to direct better.

There's two issues (as I understand it) that caused Roch to inact the new timings, he wanted to get rid of the flick and wanted to make foil more spectator friendly. The latter is just plain dumb, so I'm not going to address it. If you really feel that this was the way to achieve greater popularity in foil, then start a new thread for it and I can tell you how wrong you on that thread.

As far as getting rid of the flick, first, there's nothing wrong with the flick as a valid fencing action. Roch (and others) really just want to get rid of it because they want fencing to be more "classical" like it was a hundred years ago when they were young. Second, I agree that refs called marching attacks too loosely. This was not a problem with the flick, it was a problem with the directors. Third, flicking and the style of fencing it represents is a much faster and more distance/movement oriented game than previously. This is something that makes it MORE appealing to the public, NOT LESS. Reducing the speed and athletizism of the game is counterproductive to the intention of making foil more TV friendly. And lastly, the new timings didnt get rid of the flick, it just made them more random. So, 1) Roch failed! Maybe he now wants even more severe timings to really get rid of it. And 2) making clear attacks that land and randomly go off or dont doesnt help people watching to understand what's going on. This also goes for the direct attacks that dont go off.

[/RANT]

I agree wholeheartedly with all of this. I'm just nitpicking because I don't want people to waste time lobbying the FIE to change the wrong thing. If the bloody FIE want to make poorly-tested, sweeping changes, let them change something that doesn't have much effect (like 750ms -> 300ms blocking time) and stop them from making stupid changes like the 13-15ms contact time.


Edit: And on a happier note, a huge thanks to Gladius for translating all of this stuff for us!

[dilznik]

You guys both have points, sort of. I'm all for the changes as expansion of target areas, not because I think it'll fix the problem, but because 1) the way it currently is doesn't work... people use their bib and forearm to cover target because of the new system. 2) having the upper weapon arm as target might make it easier to flick than it originally was, and from distance, which I would find to be the biggest F U to Roch. 3) I'll take perverse pleasure in stabbing anyone wearing a man-plate in the throat, which will be a good change up manouver to my standard "manplate sideways ball flick".

In the end, the original change was the problem, Roch is too proud to go back, our sport is ruined, and no one is going to watch it on TV anyway since... well, we made these changes and it's still not on ESPN or Eurosport, is it?

Free the 3ms contact time.

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by OROD

Many people here are saying that they've never seen a reposte that was locked out by a remise with the new timings. Ok, whatever... maybe it's happened and they didnt notice, or maybe it never happened... it doesnt matter. I've seen it happen enough times to know it CAN happen, maybe not all that often, but it happens. The problem is that it takes the call away from the director, who is the one who SHOULD be making the call on right of way, not the machine.
[/RANT]

I don't think that anyone is disagreeing with you here. What we are disagreeing with are those people under the erroneous impression that the 300ms lockout time is causing most of failure of hits to go off rather than the broken 15ms debounce time.

The 300ms lockout time makes *relatively* little difference. That doesn't change the fact that an accidental remise should score instead of a perfectly executed double-disengagre riposte.

gary hayenga

[grotto]

on the whole I like the changes, now I do think they went too far with the debounce timing, I don't know where the line should be say 10-7 milliseconds? enough to thwart the bounce the barrel flicks but short enough to let flicks that "stick" and straight attacks need to be able to land. I think the lockout works. If I have a good Parry there is no way a remise is going to get there before my repost. (much like a parry repost in epee) I also note that I have had to clean up my foil parries to make sure I clear the line and not just tap the blade.

As for more changes, I really think they need to let foil / sabreists settle in and sort out the new rules first. one season is too short to change ones game especially if they killed your favorite attack. I can see getting rid of the off target (don't like it but can see the logic.) but adding target!? now we have Fepee!

ok flame on guys I am an epeeist!

[rocky]

Originally Posted by dilznik

I'm all for the changes as expansion of target areas, not because I think it'll fix the problem, but because 1) the way it currently is doesn't work... people use their bib and forearm to cover target because of the new system.

If someone is covering target with their bib then wouldn't that be cardable as replacement of target? In other words, I don't think we really need to add that as target area, as anyone using the bib in that way will already be breaking the rules, and so the problem can be easily stopped. Also, I disagree with adding the forearm, as if someone tries to cover with that then they just open up their flank, so it isn't that bad.

[rocky]

Originally Posted by grotto

If I have a good Parry there is no way a remise is going to get there before my repost. (much like a parry repost in epee)
…now we have Fepee!

Yes, that's what we're trying to stop, foil turning into epee. You shouldn't have to take parry in foil as you would in epee, because foil is about right of way, not about who touches first, as in epee.

Honestly, I can live with the new rules, but it would be nice if they'd moderate them just a little.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by rocky

If someone is covering target with their bib then wouldn't that be cardable as replacement of target? In other words, I don't think we really need to add that as target area, as anyone using the bib in that way will already be breaking the rules, and so the problem can be easily stopped. Also, I disagree with adding the forearm, as if someone tries to cover with that then they just open up their flank, so it isn't that bad.

Everyone covers some target with their bib, so where do you draw the line? And when you decide that they're covering target, do they have to buy a new mask? Also, I'd guess about half of Y10 fencers have huge bibs relative to their size, because they're very small. How would that work?

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

I also find the "speed of attack is slower" observation interesting. In our own training, we've had to get faster and tighter to be able to own the attack and get it to target..

I'm guessing that your faster is probably similar to their slower.

Maybe you can meet in the middle?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by rocky

If someone is covering target with their bib then wouldn't that be cardable as replacement of target?

Uhm, can you think of a position in which the bib is NOT covering target? If we carded for that here's how the bouts would go: "Ready", "Fence", *fencers advance into distance*, "Halt, yellow card to both sides for covering", "On guard", until it hits 4-4, in which case the mutual red cards are discarded and we just sit until time expires (and the overtime minute) and someone wins on the priority coinflip. Oh joy, sounds spectator friendly to me. :)

Originally Posted by OROD

Many people here are saying that they've never seen a reposte that was locked out by a remise with the new timings. Ok, whatever... maybe it's happened and they didnt notice, or maybe it never happened... it doesnt matter. I've seen it happen enough times to know it CAN happen, maybe not all that often, but it happens. The problem is that it takes the call away from the director, who is the one who SHOULD be making the call on right of way, not the machine.

There's no question that it happens in sabre. Taking the call away from the referee isn't viewed as a bad accidental side effect, but rather as Roch's primary intent over there. Foilists have (relatively) VERY little to complain about in terms of the changes removing referee discretion. Then again, in sabre at least we don't have any more touches that mysteriously don't light a lamp than we did prior to the changes.

-B :)

[dilznik]

Originally Posted by rocky

If someone is covering target with their bib then wouldn't that be cardable as replacement of target? In other words, I don't think we really need to add that as target area, as anyone using the bib in that way will already be breaking the rules, and so the problem can be easily stopped. Also, I disagree with adding the forearm, as if someone tries to cover with that then they just open up their flank, so it isn't that bad.

As the others have stated, the bib always covers some target. Hunch over a little, and now you're covering much more target.

If you're standing right, the flank is the target. Try this*: stand in a good en garde position with your elbow almost to your hip, and your body canted at, say 30 degrees away and to the side. You should now be standing so that your weapon arm is coving your entire right (if you're right handed) side, the way it should be. Now twist yourself a few degrees left, and you'll see that now your back has opened up a little, but you're covering a lot more of your front. Hunch over a little so that your shoulder presents a good target and you've put more of your lower body at distance. Now tilt your head a little to the side, and tuck your chin a little, and see how your head blocks your shoulder from getting hit and your bib covers even more of your chest. It may seem a little uncomfortable, but remember back to when you were first in a proper en garde position... that was uncomfortable, too. In this position people will immediately say "this guy looks like a knob" and they they will proceed to stab you in the arm, the bib, the arm again, slide the point off your back, get a touch in the chest (oops), stab you in the arm, slide the point off your chest (stupid contact time!), and flick you on your unprotected back and it'll only register one time in five or ten. You don't even need to parry. Just counter attack by hunching even more, cocking your head to the side even more, ducking behind your bib even more, and sticking out your arm. You'll psychologically crush them, too, because they'll think "how can someone who looks so stupid be beating me?" and that'll just fluster them and you'll hit them even more and win. You'll be rewarded for having the world's worst technique.

*none of this will work if you are fat

[dilznik]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Taking the call away from the referee isn't viewed as a bad accidental side effect, but rather as Roch's primary intent over there. Foilists have (relatively) VERY little to complain about in terms of the changes removing referee discretion.

My favorite call is this one: Attack, no, parry-riposte... huh, I guess that's a no as well even though everyone saw it, can you test again? oh okay then the rest of the action was remise, one light... apparently.

[keith]

Originally Posted by dilznik

...snip....

*none of this will work if you are fat

...and none of it would work against someone who would beat you anyway.

but to explain;

the stance is immobile (has to be to keep everything covered) so it relies on you pissing of an opponent and letting them beat themselves - which is a sound tactic. Any slow progressive attack ending with a brisk final motion with angulation will work. Unless of course they are just better than you in which case quit moaning and do some practice.

[rocky]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Uhm, can you think of a position in which the bib is NOT covering target? If we carded for that here's how the bouts would go: "Ready", "Fence", *fencers advance into distance*, "Halt, yellow card to both sides for covering", "On guard", until it hits 4-4, in which case the mutual red cards are discarded and we just sit until time expires (and the overtime minute) and someone wins on the priority coinflip. Oh joy, sounds spectator friendly to me.

Obviously that's silly, I meant when people drop their head in order to block with the mask. That's replacement of target, so there isn't a problem, people just need to be prevented from doing it.

[keith]

Originally Posted by rocky

Obviously that's silly, I meant when people drop their head in order to block with the mask.