New Rulebook?

[KD5MDK]

I hit the FOC website today to grab a copy of the rulebook after a computer crash, and noticed that the one there is dated 9/05. Did anybody notice this come out? And idea what the changes are?

[oso97]

The first thing I would comment on is the formatting! Easier to print out.

Second, I hope they've put in the new passivity rule...

[Kettu]

I haven't had a chance to skim through it yet. Any ideas as to what has been changed/updated?

[Alan]

Originally Posted by oso97

The first thing I would comment on is the formatting! Easier to print out.

Second, I hope they've put in the new passivity rule...

You mean this scandalous and autocratic decision made by King René in Seoul
instead of meeting and trying to undersatnd the protesting foilists ?

Are you serious ?

[oso97]

Originally Posted by Alan

You mean this scandalous and autocratic decision made by King René in Seoul instead of meeting and trying to undersatnd the protesting foilists ?

Are you serious ?

No, you idiot with a one track mind, I was originally referring the passivity rule that went into effect LAST year that removed the warning and went right to the overtime minute (in pools and the final period of a DE bout). I noticed this past weekend that my old copy of the rulebook (printed out in May) hadn't had that changed.

But, seeing how the other is an official rule, yes, I would be perfectly serious about having it in there. But then again, I'm just a humble referee. I call the actions and apply the rules the way I'm told to, without editorial comment, when I'm performing those duties. And having an accurate and up-to-date rulebook makes that job significantly easier.

Why do you have to make everything about your quest to have the President of the FIE tarred and feathered, drawn and quartered and burned at the stake? Its getting a bit old. Why don't you go take some Prosac and lie down? Or better yet, some Viagra and go bar hopping? Its starting to sound like you could really stand a night of passion in the arms of a beautiful woman.

[Fencing Jesus]

Oso mean, Oso mean.
This was an uncalled for attack.

You really need to settle down.
Shame on you.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by oso97

But, seeing how the other is an official rule, yes, I would be perfectly serious about having it in there. But then again, I'm just a humble referee. I call the actions and apply the rules the way I'm told to, without editorial comment, when I'm performing those duties. And having an accurate and up-to-date rulebook makes that job significantly easier.

.

Hum. Someboby who applies the rules of an autocrat without comment
is far more dangerous and would qualify better for the term (idiot) you used

[dsapery]

Originally Posted by oso97

I was originally referring the passivity rule that went into effect LAST year that removed the warning and went right to the overtime minute

Let's not forget that the current FIE passivity rule has NOT been adopted by the USFA. Part of the new FIE rule includes text about issuing black cards and suspending fencers/teams from subsequent tournaments.

The USFA does not automatically adopt the new FIE rulebook. Certain changes, like ones affecting safety, are approved by the USFA very quickly. Sometimes the USFA delays implementation to coincide with the USFA's competition year. Sometimes the USFA doesn't adopt a rule at all.

And sometimes the USFA adopts rules that are contrary to the FIE rules. Just try to find either of the following in an FIE rulebook from the past 5+ years:

1. Having your name on your knickers instead of the back of the jacket.

2. Repechage (which, by the way, doesn't appear in the USFA rulebook either, yet it's used at USFA competitions)

[JEC]

Keep in mind that the FIE just published a new rulebook in French last month.

The USFA will most likely follow FIE suggestions as described in that publication.

http://www.fencing.net/forums/fencin...on/t20455.html

[downunder]

Originally Posted by dsapery

2. Repechage (which, by the way, doesn't appear in the USFA rulebook either, yet it's used at USFA competitions)

thats because the FIE has organisation rules for only Junior/Senior World Cups, World Champs, and the Olympics.

It has no care about the fencing at the level which repecharge is used.

[oso97]

Originally Posted by Alan

Hum. Someboby who applies the rules of an autocrat without comment
is far more dangerous and would qualify better for the term (idiot) you used

I think I'll just let this comment stand on its own merits. Its obvious, Alan, that your lothing for all things Roche has blinded you and made you unable to be able to read between the lines, grasp subtle distinctions and contribute politely to any sort of reasonable conversations.

(Or is THIS reply going to be deleted as well, oh mighty moderator?)

[Purple Fencer]

Haven't looked at it yet, but did they actually make the graphics legible when blown up in size? I mean things like the pic of the gabarit, weapon sections, etc...

[Alan]

Originally Posted by oso97

I think I'll just let this comment stand on its own merits. Its obvious, Alan, that your lothing for all things Roche has blinded you and made you unable to be able to read between the lines, grasp subtle distinctions and contribute politely to any sort of reasonable conversations.

(Or is THIS reply going to be deleted as well, oh mighty moderator?)

Right. No need of subtlety to see the autocratic behavior of King René
aimed at destroying foil.

[foilz]

I'm not a Roche fan, but the poor man is staggering down a steep slope, sloppily and stumbling, risking losing his load, fearing total collapse, with a uniquely personal disaster extraordinarily imminent (the loss of fencing in the Olympics).

What's the reason?

The big pack of IOC hunting dogs with M. Rogge at the head of the pack.

These curs, lead by that big, rangy, lean, hungry alpha dog, are ready for a nice, big, juicy feast of fencing.

Ordinarily, they would be completely ignoring fencing. But they have a taste for the amalgam of foil, epee and sabre because of Rogge's persistent agitation on behalf of NBC and the Olympic sponsors.

Now that Rogge has Roche on the spin, the only way for Roche to fight back is to do just that. Stop tumbling. Get a grip. Pick himself up. Hold his ground. Rally his forces. Draw up his strength. And attack!

Curiously, he is the head of fencing. But he draws his energy from the Olympics, and acts accordingly. All of which is negatively expressed (timings maybe, welding masks definitely, et al).

Roche should be drawing positive energy from the events that confront fencing. He should be on the offense, not the defense. He should be reminding the IOC that fencing is at the core of the Olympic movement, and can only remain there if FIE defines the rules.

Fencing is not ice skating.

The sad fact is, Roche (a fencer) has been brilliantly and expertly mesmerised by Rogge (a sort of fencer).

M. ROCHE, WAKE UP!!!

[rudd]

Is it possibel to discuss any topic on this forum without it becoming a pointless diatribe on the current state of foil specifically and the future of fencing in general. I'm no mod but people please to the topic. If Alan or foilz want to pursue a dirrent subject then start yet another rambling thread about same.

British fencing have a relatively recent translation of the FIE rule plus an addendum about passivity here

Rudd

[downunder]

Originally Posted by foilz

Roche should be drawing positive energy from the events that confront fencing. He should be on the offense, not the defense. He should be reminding the IOC that fencing is at the core of the Olympic movement, and can only remain there if FIE defines the rules.

ahahaha

classic.

we would be gone sooo fast. The olympic movement is the biggest myth ever.

Fencing is surviving at the moment because it is cheap to host and cheap to televise.

Roch is looking for other reasons to ensure our survival. And honestly, the new timings are a step in the right direction, however needs significantly more testing and were rushed in - although they'll probably last until beijing then get changed again.

Wireless is cool, and i like the christmas tree lights in the masks. Clear visor masks are apparantly at the request of TV/IOC and i've got no problem with them. People complain about the safety of them, but what about the safety of existing masks. Its not like much is done about that on a world level. I've fenced at all levels from local comps, state, national up to junior/senior world cups and the junior world championships, and i've never seen the "punch test" you guys use. Does it even exist outside the USA? Surely then it is hypocritical to question the lexan mask safety when there are no checks on the mesk ones. THe replacement every 2 years would seem to make it more safe.

[/rant]

[MikeHarm]

Alan,

Noone forces you to fence, have you considered trying something else that doesn't make you upset instead of foil such as perhaps bowling or soccer? You might want to consider trying another sport for a while until you see how it works out instead of letting the anger consume you.

I see a lot of people enjoying foil all the time with the new timings just like I did before the new timings. Life is what you make of it.

Originally Posted by Alan

Right. No need of subtlety to see the autocratic behavior of King René
aimed at destroying foil.

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by downunder

I've fenced at all levels from local comps, state, national up to junior/senior world cups and the junior world championships, and i've never seen the "punch test" you guys use. Does it even exist outside the USA? Surely then it is hypocritical to question the lexan mask safety when there are no checks on the mesk ones. THe replacement every 2 years would seem to make it more safe.

[/rant]

Come to a local tournament in SoCal in the US....we test EVERY mask....FIE or not. I can't speak for tourneys outside the US, FIE or local.

This is WHY US armorers have tgroubles with the lexans....we can't properly test the are of most danger in a failure...right across the eyes.

In a society where people sue for millions because the place tghey were injured at couldn't keep them from being stupid, we HAVE to test.

[chiz]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

This is WHY US armorers have tgroubles with the lexans....we can't properly test the are of most danger in a failure...right across the eyes.

In a society where people sue for millions because the place tghey were injured at couldn't keep them from being stupid, we HAVE to test.

Purple

From my old structures classes, a polarized film can be applied to the surface, a load test similar to the punch test applied to different areas of the mask. Deformations which would create an unsafe condition would show up as bands of stress, color under the right light source. The film could be a applied at the testing station and reused or disposed of for each test.

The empirical data for the safe results would be published and over time the results would build a good base for the safe use. Somewhere in my memory - I think either the Air Force or Navy did some research on face shield safety under heavy load impact?

This wouldn’t keep them from looking like a cross between a welder and a dipnet.

Chiz

[Amadeus]

Originally Posted by downunder

I've fenced at all levels from local comps, state, national up to junior/senior world cups and the junior world championships, and i've never seen the "punch test" you guys use. Does it even exist outside the USA? Surely then it is hypocritical to question the lexan mask safety when there are no checks on the mesk ones. THe replacement every 2 years would seem to make it more safe.

out of curiosity, i thought that the punch test was devised when a russian fencer was killed at the olympics. this would make me think that the punch test would be used at the world championship level. why isn't it?