FIE rulebook - updated

[JEC]

http://www.fie.ch/Fencing/Rules.aspx

There is an update dated Dec. '05 in the FIE website. The update is only in the French version and the changes are highlighted in blue.

[kalivor]

On one hand, apparently they realised that they had the maximum curve in a foil at 2 cm, and corrected it to 1.

On the other hand, they don't seem to want to admit that they've made a change there, as it's not highlighted.

[mrbiggs]

Huh...

I was just looking at the hand signals page (14), and there was a diagram of a referee doing the "parry" sign, and it was labelled as the hand signal for "Parade! /Contre-Temps!" Looking up "contre-temps," it means (an approximate translation) "an attack made when a fencer's opponent stops."

In other words, a distance parry is correctly hand signaled by the "parry" sign.

Am I confused, or have I just never heard of this before?

Also, is "counter-time" really a correct call on the strip, rather than "attack no, counterattack yes?"

[JEC]

Originally Posted by kalivor

On one hand, apparently they realised that they had the maximum curve in a foil at 2 cm, and corrected it to 1.

On the other hand, they don't seem to want to admit that they've made a change there, as it's not highlighted.

There was a corrected edition published in October 2005. I believe that it was when the curvature was changed.

[KD5MDK]

I wish the USFA would highlight rules changes...

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Huh...

I was just looking at the hand signals page (14), and there was a diagram of a referee doing the "parry" sign, and it was labelled as the hand signal for "Parade! /Contre-Temps!" Looking up "contre-temps," it means (an approximate translation) "an attack made when a fencer's opponent stops."

In other words, a distance parry is correctly hand signaled by the "parry" sign.

Am I confused, or have I just never heard of this before?

Also, is "counter-time" really a correct call on the strip, rather than "attack no, counterattack yes?"

"Contre-temps" means "counter-time", which (for those out there who may not know) is a parry of the counterattack, and riposte.

It does NOT mean "an attack made when a fencer's opponent stops."

I think you need a new source for your French-->English translations.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by JEC

There was a corrected edition published in October 2005. I believe that it was when the curvature was changed.

It wasn't changed in the October 2005 version. There was quite an argument about it on a recent post.

[JEC]

Originally Posted by kalivor

It wasn't changed in the October 2005 version. There was quite an argument about it on a recent post.

Sorry, I'm just an Epee guy. You are suggesting that they just slided that change in the Dec 05 version without hightlighting. Was it one of the items discussed in Nov Congress in Qatar?

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by JEC

Sorry, I'm just an Epee guy. You are suggesting that they just slided that change in the Dec 05 version without hightlighting. Was it one of the items discussed in Nov Congress in Qatar?

Well, apparently the rule was changed much earlier, but never made it into the rulebook. So it wasn't a "new change to the rules," but it WAS a new change to the rulebook.

It ought to have been discussed in Qatar, as it was one of the changes (together with the new timings) being "tested" to reduce the flick in the previous season. Of course, it might have just piggybacked on the vote to adopt the new timings as "official" rather than "test" timings. The difference between a 1 cm and a 2 cm bend in foil seems non-existant, from a practical standpoint.

Well that's my take on it anyways. It could be inaccurate, but I don't think it is.

[rudd]

From the British fencing website: http://www.britishfencing.com/rulechanges1205.doc

2003 Congress change never included in the Rules:
m.8: in the last paragraph, the maximum bend in the foil blade must be less than 1 cm:

[Mauler]

Mrbiggs,

There may be instances when a referee sees it fit to further communicate to the fencers/coaches the finer details that he/she sees which can be very valuable information for all involved.... and/or may diffuse a potential arguments down the line.

Actual action is rather simple. But resulting calls may vary depending on many factors.

Let's say you and I are Foil fencers. I'm the attacker, you the "counterattacker." I realize that you are very much a "counter-jabbing" sort of fencer, and that I am in a dire risk of not landing my rightful attack (especially in this day and age of new timing).

One option might be to time my attack in such a way that I have a high probability of landing that attack within the time limit. The other might be to come in with a full-preparation invitation, parry the "now rightfully your attack because of my own choice" then riposte.... Both may pose a tough/risky situation for me.

Another option might be... and if the referee and I are on the same page, as it we trust each other's abilities, and we are in the mood to show off.....

I chase you down, and at the proper distance and timing, I open up my true attack albeit a slow and inviting one. Not a full-preparation invitation, bidding you to attack. I truly am attacking, but in a manner that you are looking to take advantage of. You counterattack, hoping to pull out at the same time as to cause just enough of a delay to lock out my attack. You may even present an opposition to increase my responsibility as an attacker (that is, to achieve a clear line-of-sight before finalizing my offense). After all, if I have to disengage, that's more time wasted and better chance at a lock out.

So instead, I might have chosen to take control of the blade at the final portion of attack, just in case. In other words, AFTER I have set up a correct attack, AFTER I have begun a correctly-executed attack, I may still choose to cover my vulnerable b*tt (thanks to your masterful prowess of "incorrect" fencing)... Or just to let you know that I knew exactly what you were looking for.... and I pwned j00!

As far as the referee's call.... It could go many ways, and all the variations will serve the function just fine. As in, the point will be awarded to the right fencer. It may be called my beat-attack, or prise-de-fer. Okay.... It may be called your attack, my riposte. Fair enough. I risked it when I chose this line of solution.

But if the referee wants to make a distinction between finer details of the timing because he/she is good enough to see it, then I would definitely appreciate it if the call comes with a modifier, counter-time. Not to mention a respectful salute goes his/her way for being such a M4573R N1NJ4.

[Mauler]

Originally Posted by kalivor

The difference between a 1 cm and a 2 cm bend in foil seems non-existant, from a practical standpoint.

I believe the intention behind the change is to emphasize the responsiblity of enforcement more to the referee. Of course there will always be curves. Of course if you really wanted to be anal, only a handful blades will ever be straightened back enough to be completely legal (block test isn't the only thing at issue).

But the difference is how many referees will start actually enforcing "straight-as-possible" spirit of the rule. Before, it was 2 cm, distinguishing it from Epee. This gave Foil referees a little bit of psychological leeway into believing that, in Foil, it's ok to let things go a little further... without verifying for a fact how much of leeway was truly accurate if measured.

It didn't matter to them if the blade bend was in the order of 2 cm, 4 cm or even 10 cm once the referees allowed themselves to go down that path!

What the 2 cm --> 1 cm rule change has done to actual working referees is that when they are standing there by the strip presiding a bout, it really forces them to ask themselves, "Is that blade really, really, I mean really, 1 cm or less? Come on. Really?"

I believe the rule change hasn't really reduced the "horrible offenders who keep 2 cm blade bend" nor do I think that was the intention.... Rather, it helped greatly in reducing large groups of fencers who got away with 5 cm, 10 cm (or even worse in certain areas). Because, before the change, when the referee saw a blade bend, there was a question about just how much visible bend prompts the whole block testing process? Now, it's more along the line of, "I shouldn't be able to see the bend at all. If I can see any bend, I am justified, no, I am compelled, into at least trying the block test."

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by Mauler

It didn't matter to them if the blade bend was in the order of 2 cm, 4 cm or even 10 cm once the referees allowed themselves to go down that path!

They cared about 10 cm. (I had this really, really bad blade once ...)

[Fechter1]

Originally Posted by kalivor

"Contre-temps" means "counter-time", which (for those out there who may not know) is a parry of the counterattack, and riposte.

It does NOT mean "an attack made when a fencer's opponent stops."

I think you need a new source for your French-->English translations.

Absolutely correct, but I think i know where the confusion came from...

A countertime is basically a parry (-riposte) of an opponent's stophit. I.e. when the opponent stops (attemts a stophit).

[Mauler]

Originally Posted by kalivor

They cared about 10 cm. (I had this really, really bad blade once ...)

You were fortunate to have fenced in such an environment, then. Not where I come from. Heck, not that long ago, even in national level events, American Foil fencers sometimes got away with blade bend you could fit your fist through!!!

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by kalivor

"Contre-temps" means "counter-time", which (for those out there who may not know) is a parry of the counterattack, and riposte.

It does NOT mean "an attack made when a fencer's opponent stops."

Okay, good, I thought I was missing something.

Originally Posted by kalivor

I think you need a new source for your French-->English translations.

You mean other than me glancing the definition over at 1 AM? Yeah, that would probably be prudent...

Thanks for the help.