New Rules are Posted - any comments

**JEC** · 07-26-2002 06:35 AM

<a href="http://www.usfencing.org/Documents/Rules/New2002.asp" target="_blank">USFA new rules</a>

I like the idea of losing a meter if you leave the strip without passing with one foot one's opponent. I also like the idea of having to examine one's blade before the "on guard" command. If you want to avoid a yellow card, you would have to check your blade after every halt.

**Gav** · 07-26-2002 07:06 AM

These are the rules amendments that have been discussed on the board on and off for the lat few months. In fact we've been using them in our competitions in the UK for the last few months. i can't say that they haven't made that much difference to the game and the rule about the bend in the blade isn't being enforced correctly [either that or we all have legal blades <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ).

**JEC** · 07-26-2002 07:53 AM

I have been told that referees at national (US) competitions would be provided with shims, weight, and a wooden block that measures 1x2x4cm to measure bend in epee, foil and sabre, respectively.
What do you think about the correction for "unwilling to fight"?

[ 07-26-2002, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: JEC ]

**MikeHarm** · 07-26-2002 08:47 AM

If my opponent is frightened of the penalty, and I'm not worried about it, it might cause them to attack recklessly giving me the advantage.

**Gav** · 07-26-2002 08:51 AM

I've never seen the 'passivity' rule enforced. Everyone talks about how in Epee nothing happens (look at the final of the Worlds, nothing happened for an entire period of three minutes), however at the recent Britich Championships The Mens Epee final came in under 3 minutes, in fact it lasted the same amount of time that the Mens Sabre took. My point is that some fights are bad, some are good. I reckon that it would be rare to enforce this rule. Most people want to win, so as soon as someone is ahead the other is going to start chasing.

[ 07-26-2002, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Gav ]

**epeemike81** · 07-26-2002 09:18 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gav:
I've never seen the 'passivity' rule enforced. Everyone talks about how in Epee nothing happens (look at the final of the Worlds, nothing happened for an entire period of three minutes), however at the recent Britich Championships The Mens Epee final came in under 3 minutes, in fact it lasted the same amount of time that the Mens Sabre took. My point is that some fights are bad, some are good. I reckon that it would be rare to enforce this rule. Most people want to win, so as soon as someone is ahead the other is going to start chasing.<hr /></blockquote>There is a difference between what most refer to as "nothing happening" in epee and passivity... I have seen bouts that ended 1-0 after nine minutes of fencing.... For most of that time, they were "just jockying"... however, that jockying is distance games. thus, it was NOT passivity.

The passivity rule was created to deal with the situation where two competitors decide they are going to only fence one touch. so, they sit in their respective warning zones for 9 minutes, and then fence the overtime minute. now THAT is passivity! Two fencers did that at a world cup last year, and it was a world cup which the FIE had turned into a gala event and invited lots of VIPs to... you can imagine how embarassed the FIE was.

-m

[ 07-26-2002, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: epeemike81 ]

**Gav** · 07-26-2002 09:38 AM

Being an Epeeist I am fully aware of the difference between 'nothing happening' and 'passivity' [as you describe it].

If your comments refer to my reference to the final of the worlds, then watch the tapes, there was a clear period (the middle one I think, I'm at work and don't have access to the tapes) where nothing at is going on. Both protagonists are bouncing up and down.

There is no attempt to gain distance or timing (ie jockying) on the other. Milanoli had enough lead there not to be bothered and sat back [he was quite right]. His opponent [a little bloke whose name i can't remember] didn't attempt to redress the balance til the third period. Hence that middle period had 'nothing happening' written all over it.

**damianip** · 07-26-2002 10:03 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gav:
Being an Epeeist I am fully aware of the difference between 'nothing happening' and 'passivity' [as you describe it].

If your comments refer to my reference to the final of the worlds, then watch the tapes, there was a clear period (the middle one I think, I'm at work and don't have access to the tapes) where nothing at is going on. Both protagonists are bouncing up and down.

There is no attempt to gain distance or timing (ie jockying) on the other. Milanoli had enough lead there not to be bothered and sat back [he was quite right]. His opponent [a little bloke whose name i can't remember] didn't attempt to redress the balance til the third period. Hence that middle period had 'nothing happening' written all over it.<hr /></blockquote>In that bout it seems to me that Hoffman (the "little bloke") is trying to think of a way to get to Milanoli without being hit on the counter. (He never did come up with a solution).

Thinking is not doing nothing. I'm concerned that this rule may turn épée into a double touch jousting match.

I guess it will depend on if or how it is enforced.

Paolo

**D'Artagnan1673** · 07-26-2002 10:07 AM

I too see a difference between doing nothing and thinking over how to hit. I think that this is going to be a very arbitrary rule and little good will come out of it.

The fencers are both going to have to use good body language to let their judge know that they aren't just running time out.

**darius** · 07-26-2002 10:13 AM

I like the one-foot off rule. As a ref, it makes the job a little easier, one less condition to worry about.

3 minutes is fine as well, I can't remember the last foil/sabre pool bout that went to time that I've seen; and female epeeists will just have to get to fencing that much quicker.

What do people think about the new administrative things?

I'm pleased that the HPC recommendation was thrown out, and Div I NACs are A,B,C, instead of A & B only.

Also, having at least one 5-rated ref at qualifiers seems to make perfect sense, but that means we have to get moving in Western NY; I believe I'm the only rated ref currently in my division, and I only have a 9 in foil ("No time to test, Dr. Jones!").

Obviously bigger divisions shouldn't have any problems, but what about you guys in smaller areas?

darius

**JEC** · 07-26-2002 10:14 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> 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>I think this is would only apply (not getting a yellow card) to tripping with a shoelace or a bump on the strip.

**D'Artagnan1673** · 07-26-2002 10:21 AM

That is funny because I once launched an attack that was so out of control that I knew I should gotten carded but didn't, I still got the point.

**darius** · 07-26-2002 10:41 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> <blockquote>quote:<hr />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>I think this is would only apply (not getting a yellow card) to tripping with a shoelace or a bump on the strip.<hr /></blockquote>Nope -- the rule specifically says "offensive action". So those Hail Mary parry-riposte-while-falling actions are kosher.

darius

**oiuyt** · 07-26-2002 11:41 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I'm pleased that the HPC recommendation was thrown out, and Div I NACs are A,B,C, instead of A & B only.

Also, having at least one 5-rated ref at qualifiers seems to make perfect sense, but that means we have to get moving in Western NY; I believe I'm the only rated ref currently in my division, and I only have a 9 in foil ("No time to test, Dr. Jones!"). <hr /></blockquote>Where did you see this on the site? I knew about these rules by talking to my local BOD member, but are they posted anywhere? The BOD minutes aren't posted yet (the agenda had the original HPC report that would have caused a div I restriction of just A's & B's).

-B

**darius** · 07-26-2002 11:46 AM

It's not on the site, but I got an e-mail from Bruce Gillman, who does FOC stuff, with both the rules changes and the administrative changes (ie. NAC entries now cost $40 instead of $30, etc.)

I assume that since it's from an FOC rep that it's valid, although I suppose that's not necessarily true.

darius

**D'Artagnan1673** · 07-26-2002 11:47 AM

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

darius
<hr /></blockquote>Cool, now I just need to make them pretty!

**D'Artagnan1673** · 07-26-2002 11:48 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by darius:
It's not on the site, but I got an e-mail from Bruce Gillman, who does FOC stuff, with both the rules changes and the administrative changes (ie. NAC entries now cost $40 instead of $30, etc.)

I assume that since it's from an FOC rep that it's valid, although I suppose that's not necessarily true.

darius<hr /></blockquote>Here's the url that its from

<a href="http://www.usfencing.org/Documents/Rules/New2002.asp" target="_blank">http://www.usfencing.org/Documents/Rules/New2002.asp</a>

**darius** · 07-26-2002 11:51 AM

Right, but what oiuyt was talking about were the administrative changes. I'll quote them here so everybody can see.

darius
---

1. Entry fees for NAC events will be $40 per event.

2. Divisions and Sections must have at least one referee rated 5 or higher (per qualifying weapon) at all qualifying events. The qualified referee must be listed on the qualifying forms sent to Colorado Springs. Qualifying tournaments that do not meet these criteria will be null and void.

3. The state of Vermont has separated from the Northeast Division to become the Vermont Division.

4. Div 1 NACs are open to fencers with classifications of A, B, or C by the entry deadline. The USFA classification chart has been modified and classifications may be given at all competitions that are conducted under the auspices of the USFA (including its Divisions and Sections) in accordance with USFA rules.

5. The 2002-03 planning schedule is on the US Fencing website.

6. If anyone is interested in receiving a copy of the USFA publicity CD, your sectional board-of-directors rep can send you the file.

[ 07-26-2002, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: darius ]

**D'Artagnan1673** · 07-26-2002 11:53 AM

oops, sorry, didn't understand what he was talking about.

**oiuyt** · 07-26-2002 12:02 PM

Incidently, to get the publicity video you should talk to YOUR sectional rep on the BOD. Linda has North Atlantic's copy currently, but she really shouldn't be flooded with requests from everyone.

-B

Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

Thread: New Rules are Posted - any comments

Thread Tools

Display

New Rules are Posted - any comments

Similar Threads

Fencing FAQ (part 1)

Fencing FAQ (part 1)

New Rules

Back from the intervarsity

Posting Permissions