New Rules are Posted - any comments

**darius** · 07-26-2002 12:06 PM

Thanks -- good catch, I edited it to take Linda's name out.

**swordsen** · 07-26-2002 12:15 PM

Hmmmm, I wouldn't count on that since a riposte is an offensive action begun after the parry.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by darius:
]Nope -- the rule specifically says "offensive action". So those Hail Mary parry-riposte-while-falling actions are kosher.

darius[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>

**veeco** · 07-26-2002 12:26 PM

What really prompted the passivity rule is the men's epee team event.

Estonia (Loit Meelis) was not doing anything clearly. And referees were struggling to card him (he got carded because his socks were falling down if I remember).

The problem at this point was that there was an IOC rep in the stands, watching that event. Talk about the IOC saying that fencing is not spectator friendly! Also probably one of the reasons why some IOC reps said that fencing was not a team sport so there should be no team medal in fencing at the olympics...

**Inquartata** · 07-26-2002 07:37 PM

Just as I thought---they had to raise entry fees to compensate for the lower attendance they're going to be getting in Div I by further restricting entries. I wonder if a 33% increase is going to be enough. ( I suspect you may see fewer vendors at NAC's, too, with the potential market being curtailed. )

I don't much care for the artificially imposed minute break in sabre, and the requirement of rated refs at qualifiers is going to make for a hardship in some divisions ( don't think we have a one in mine ) but I shrug at the other rule changes...

**neevel** · 07-27-2002 07:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Inquartata:
Just as I thought---they had to raise entry fees to compensate for the lower attendance they're going to be getting in Div I by further restricting entries. I wonder if a 33% increase is going to be enough. ( I suspect you may see fewer vendors at NAC's, too, with the potential market being curtailed. )<hr /></blockquote>Another possibility (I'd have to ask people who were there) is that many of the copper strips are in pretty crappy shape and will need to be replaced before too long (at a minimum of approx. $1000/each for ones that'll hold up decently, and easily more).

-Dave

**nahouw** · 07-27-2002 09:20 PM

I agree that the passivity rule came about because of Loit. Loit is very difficult to fence -- he is older and has been around, and has an extremely fast counter-attack -- if you fence him, he thoroughly tries your patience. I advised one of our young Americans in Montreal before his bout with him on what he needed to do in his pool bout with Loit. He executed what I said correctly, and was ahead in the bout -- I was extremely happy -- but his youthful impatience was too much, and he succumbed to Loit's tactics.

But, the passivity rule is very hard to enforce. In the finals of the Womens epee bout in Havana, there was passivity, and one of the members of the referee commission stood up to make the referee enforce this rule, but after discussion with the fencers, no card was given.

**epeemike81** · 07-27-2002 09:44 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by darius:
the rule specifically says "offensive action". So those Hail Mary parry-riposte-while-falling actions are kosher.

darius<hr /></blockquote>I assume the rule you are referring to is as follows:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> It is understood that an offensive action that is launched in such a way that the fencer is not in control, and thereby falls, is disorderly fencing and does require a warning and the annulling of any touch scored.<hr /></blockquote>As you can see, that rule states that offensive actions launched "in such a way that the fencer is
not in control" DO require cards....

so... those "Hail Mary parry-riposte-while-falling actions" are NOT kosher.

-m

**darius** · 07-28-2002 09:27 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />so... those "Hail Mary parry-riposte-while-falling actions" are NOT kosher.<hr /></blockquote>Of course, the key is to define "not-in-control." It's a vague phrase stuck in there to allow the ref some discretion if the fencer is being a complete maniac.

I've seen plenty of falls go uncarded at the National and Int'l level even *before* the penalty was removed. The true test will be seeing how it's enforced, but I suspect that in practice, the loosening of the rule will have most refs not penalizing falling, at all.

It's actually something of a moot point, since falling is generally disadvantageous anyway.

darius

**D'Artagnan1673** · 07-28-2002 09:53 AM

The one time its happened to me, a fairly strict and experienced director didn't card me for falling.

**Ben[PrFC]** · 07-28-2002 10:27 PM

A funny story about carding someone for falling:
At a huge tournament (pomme de terre) a few months, weeks? ago, I was fencing in the mens sabre team event. It was being ref'd by, I dont even remember his name, but he's from spain and has something to do with the management of FIE referees.
Anyways, a guy from my club, on my team, was fencing, and he stumbled backwards and fell. The director called halt, called the fencers on guard, then remembered about the penalty for falling, carded my friend, and said "Im sorry, stupid USFA rule. Dont worry, it's gone next year" he said with a smile."

I just thought it was interesting to see a director apologize for carding someone

**shyHeidi** · 07-28-2002 11:39 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by epeemike81:
I assume the rule you are referring to is as follows:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> It is understood that an offensive action that is launched in such a way that the fencer is not in control, and thereby falls, is disorderly fencing and does require a warning and the annulling of any touch scored.<hr /></blockquote>As you can see, that rule states that offensive actions launched "in such a way that the fencer is
not in control" DO require cards....

so... those "Hail Mary parry-riposte-while-falling actions" are NOT kosher.

-m<hr /></blockquote>Nope.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> 3. Falling is no longer an offense and consequently is no longer penalized. (It is understood that an offensive action that is launched in such a way that the fencer is not in control, and thereby falls, is disorderly fencing and does require a warning and the annulling of any touch scored.) <hr /></blockquote>Here, this link has been posted a couple times in this thread, but I'll post it again anyhow. <a href="http://www.usfencing.org/Documents/Rules/New2002.asp" target="_blank">NEW RULES</a> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

**Gav** · 07-29-2002 07:37 AM

Basically if you score a point and are falling, the point is annulled and the president can hand out a warning. If you score a point then stumble and fall then fall the point should stand. It's all in the action.

Fencer A fleches, scores a hit, as he continues he trips and falls. Hit stands.

Fencer A throws himself at his opponent, as he tumbles to the ground his tip scores the point. This hit should be annulled.

In the 1st example I have tried to convey that the fencer has completed his action with a hit, the fall occurs after. The 2nd example tries to convey that Fencer A has not made any attempt to maintain his balance, in fact chances are that he hit the opponent by accident on the way down. The 2nd example still merits a warning (a verbal one will usually do) and the annulment of the hit.

**Gav** · 07-29-2002 07:40 AM

Just to clarify, the halt in the 2nd example the halt should be called at the moment the fencer starts his fall. The halt stops all actions and subsequent hits are not valid. In the 1st action the halt is called as the hit occurs, anything afterwards doesn't count.

**JEC** · 07-29-2002 11:19 AM

There are several millisec between eye seeing the action, cognitive areas interpreting the need to call a halt, motor areas being activated and creating the speech command of "halt". In neuropsychology, this is call "reaction time" and depending on the task could last from 300 msec (0.3 sec) to a full second. That is why, the best rule is based on the facts at the time of completing the action (i.e.: fencer in or out of control when scoring the hit) rather than when the referee utters the phrase halt.

**oiuyt** · 07-29-2002 11:33 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The 2nd example still merits a warning (a verbal one will usually do) and the annulment of the hit.<hr /></blockquote>Uhm, granted this might well be the way some refs would handle it, there's no way this is allowable in the rules. If you're annulling the touch it's because of a violation of the rules. If the rules have been violated the appropriate penalty must be given. As a ref you can choose to interpret the action as A) no rule has been violated, no card, touch stands, or B) the rule has been violated, card and annullment of touch. You do NOT have the option of C) the rule was sort of violated, annul the touch, no card.

-B

**Gav** · 07-29-2002 12:01 PM

Oiyut: The halt is called at the infringement. The halt has stopped the action prior to the hit. Therefore, there was no hit to be anulled, sorry for not being clear enough. A verbal warning would be along the lines, "don't be an arse - get up and don't do it again". A persistent offender (ie he does it again) would definitely call for a card. At least at lower levels. At higher levels, yes, they would more than likely card straight away, that's the nature of the game.

It's all about context and interpretation. If you thinnk he's dangerous, car 'im. If you think it's accidental, don't allow the hit.

**veeco** · 07-29-2002 02:43 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gav:
Basically if you score a point and are falling, the point is annulled and the president can hand out a warning. If you score a point then stumble and fall then fall the point should stand. It's all in the action.

Fencer A fleches, scores a hit, as he continues he trips and falls. Hit stands.

Fencer A throws himself at his opponent, as he tumbles to the ground his tip scores the point. This hit should be annulled.

In the 1st example I have tried to convey that the fencer has completed his action with a hit, the fall occurs after. The 2nd example tries to convey that Fencer A has not made any attempt to maintain his balance, in fact chances are that he hit the opponent by accident on the way down. The 2nd example still merits a warning (a verbal one will usually do) and the annulment of the hit.<hr /></blockquote>Maybe my understand of the rules is not right, but wouldn't that have been the case with the old rule as well?

I think that the ref will still call halt whenever a fencer falls.

The difference is not so much in wether touches are valid or not, as this would still be the same thing, but rather on the case that someone falls and no touch was scored. Then the fencer doesn't get carded (provided his fall doesn't fall into the "disorderly fencing" category). Before, with the old rule, he would have been carded no matter what.

But maybe I have not understood the rule change correctly.

**JEC** · 07-29-2002 03:07 PM

You did not misunderstand. The problem is that many (if not most) referees did not apply the rule consistently. Sometimes, they called a halt but a cardable offense (falling) occurred as a consequence of the same action that led to the halt. Inconsistent application of the rules has created confusion among many fencers.

[ 07-29-2002, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: JEC ]

**JEC** · 07-29-2002 03:12 PM

[ 07-29-2002, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: JEC ]

**epeemike81** · 07-29-2002 04:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by veeco:
Maybe my understand of the rules is not right, but wouldn't that have been the case with the old rule as well?<hr /></blockquote>yes, you are correct. In that particular example, the new rule does not come into play.

Under the old rules, tripping and falling was cardable. under the new rules, "fencing out of control" is still cardable, but falling over in that more benign way ISN'T. Thus, though you still can't hurl yourself at your opponent, you are perfectly free to be a klutz.

I think it is a good thing, since it still gets the original purpose of the rule without using it in a situation which only adds insult to injury.

-m

Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

Thread: New Rules are Posted - any comments

Thread Tools

Display

Similar Threads

Fencing FAQ (part 1)

Fencing FAQ (part 1)

New Rules

Back from the intervarsity

Posting Permissions