Gah, beat me to it!
Gah, beat me to it!
The pen may be mightier than the sword, but why pick just one?
What if fencer J simply 'braces for impact'? (i.e. center the body, the "I will not be moved" stance)Originally Posted by BOliver
There is a difference between standing still and moving into the collision.
Moving into an attack is a new action. As I understand it this cancels the obligation that Fencer A had when starting his flèche (but of course does not allow him a free moment of violence, no matter how much we wish this were so).Originally Posted by TrainingDummy
You ain't from south Texas, are you TD? Oh. Wait. Yeah, okay. Go brown cows!
No. Both fencers have an obligation not to cause corps-a-corps. Fencer A must pass without jostling his opponent. His opponent must let him pass. If Fencer A were required to be able to stop at any moment, then Fencer B would always be jumping into Fencer A's way, hoping that Fencer A would bump into him and get a card. That would be lame.Originally Posted by TrainingDummy
Fencer A fleches, fencer B retreats or holds his ground but does not step or lean into fencer A's path, collision and jostling occurs. Card for Fencer A.
Fencer A fleches and attempts to pass, fencer B (while trying to score a touch) steps forward or sideways into fencer A's path, collision and jostling occurs. Card for Fencer B.
Fencer A fleches straight at fencer B with no attempt to avoid. Fencer B steps forward into fencer A as he tries to score. Collision and jostling occurs. Card for Fencer B and probably a card for fencer A.
One thing that Kolombatovich pointed out when discussing the corps-a-corps and jostlng rules at a referee seminar earlier this year was that when referees apply these rules consistently, the fencers will keep more reasonable distance, and it will be easier to see the action. Applying the jostling rules also helps to prevent things from escalating to violent or brutal actions.
It seems to me that the judgement of whos at fault in jostling is really going to be as fleeting as some ROW arguments. You will probably have a good feel for who is at fault and why when watching the action.
Ignoring what I just said, personally, I would lean towards the fleching fencer as causing the collision, especially if it occurs on the strip. If the collision occurs with both fencers leaving the strip it is probalby the defenders fault.
When fleching you should have a safe trajectory past the fencer and leaving the strip as you pass. A defending fencer does not have prior knowledge of the fleche and may respond as if presented with a conventional attack. In epee this is often the counter attack. Saying the the defender is as fault for coming forward at an fleching attacker carte blanche would be worse for epee than some claim the new timings are for foil.
I think your putting too fine a point on it with the leaning. If the leaning causes the corps a corps, fine, but if it has nothing to do with whether or not their is impact, I don't think it should be used to switch blame. Most fencers know a split second before an impact that "it" is going to happen. A good example would be what happened in a match I was fencing in a recent epee tournament. I made a flesche attack, my opponent retreated a step and then stopped. I was so surprised by this that I did not even slow down. Just before the imminent impact, my opponent leans into me slightly to try and keep from getting knocked on his a$$. Jostling? Yes. My fault? Certainly. My touch annulled? Yes. Yellow card to me? yes. All is right with the world? Yes.Originally Posted by BOliver
I think any time you make a sweeping statement (kinda sounds like a sweeping statement) regarding the rules you take away the all important "judgenment of the referee." My litmus test is: did it happen? and whose fault is it? Leaning does not necessarily change the fault. Can it? Yes. Again, referee judgement.
I'm a foil fencer, and I can change, if I have to, I guess.
A counter attack often, but in no way presupposes, forward movement on the part of the counterattacker. You can make an arrêt without moving forward, can't you? Point is that the defender is no longer the defender in this case; he is rather, the counterattacker.Originally Posted by shlepzig
Unfortunately, I can't be sure if this is an attempt at silliness. or not. This was not my example. My example was regarding possible "flinching" to decrease imminent damage. Only in the movie "Matrix" would there be enough time to have the scenario you describe. Let's talk reality here.Originally Posted by Poulet
My post was quite clear and had more to do with referee judgement than the letter of the law. It is a total waste of time to try and make everything that can happen clearly spelled out in the rules book. Good referee judgement is the most essential part of making a correct call whether for ROW or rules infractions. The possibilities are infinte. In this particular case, the subject was jostling. Again I state: two things are important. 1. Did it happen? 2. Whose fault was it? Unless there is a specific rule that says flinching makes it your fault, referee judgement.
I'm a foil fencer, and I can change, if I have to, I guess.
Well, we are discussing a "rule of thumb." It isn't absolute, but it gives a good guideline.Originally Posted by shlepzig
It is interesting to note that your bias is toward the "fleching fencer as causing the collision." I retook the referee seminar this year, and one point that came up was that the fleching fencer is penalized more often than he should be. As Durando says, if the "defender" moves toward the attacker after the attacker starts, he isn't really defending. He's counterattacking. He must now avoid his opponent, too, or he's going to get a card.
Really, the FOC was pushing this rule as stated by Mr. Oliver. If the "defender" moves toward his opponent, and a corps-a-corps occurs (in foil and saber) or jostling occurs (in all three weapons), that "defender" is going to get a card. The attacker may get one, too, depending on what the attacker was doing.
I agree that collisions that occur when leaving the strip sound like they're probably the defender's fault. Another rule of thumb.
I like to counter-attack in foil. I like to prime and close distance on my opponent's fleche. Actions that would not have been called corps-a-corps in the past have been getting me carded (and my touch annulled) in the last year or so. Think of the rules more like really strict basketball rules (if that helps you). No body contact at all. If you set, and someone charges you, then it's his fault. If you're moving anywhere other than back and away, and you collide, then you're going to get penalized.
Right, your safe path involves fleching, bringing the back foot in front to land the fleche, and then continuing that run at an angle past the defender. If the defender closes the distance, he may close off your safe trajectory to pass without a collision. For that, the defender can be penalized. If the attacker still had room to get past but just throws himself at the defender, then he'll probably also be penalized.Originally Posted by shlepzig
Of course, in epee, it's not a card unless there's jostling. Many fleche vs. counter-attack (moving forward) actions still don't result in a collision, and many collisions that result in contact are not jostling. And it is possible to defend against a fleche in epee without moving forward into the fleche.
The USFA Referee's Manual is an excellent resource for study, providing the explanation behind certain rules and judgments. Here's an excerpt for today's discussion:
>> Corps à Corps - Body Contact: “Halt” must always be called whenever corps à corps takes place. (Yes, even in épée!) In foil and sabre, a card must be issued to the fencer who caused even the slightest contact. And if the contact jostles the opponent or the fencer caused the corps à corps to avoid a touch, a card must be given in all weapons, even épée. If both fencers caused the illegal contact, then both fencers are to be given cards. It is important to realize that in situations with attack and counter-attack, the counter-attacker most often causes contact. If a fencer attacks with a fleche or a fast advance lunge and the opponent causes illegal contact by stepping into the path of the attacker, the opponent must be given a card. If the fencer who caused the illegal contact landed a touch, the touch is annulled.
Compare and contrast with the USFA's Rules for Competition (also downloaded from the organization's main site):
>> CORPS A CORPS AND FLECHE ATTACKS
t.63 In épée, a fencer who either by a flèche attack or by advancing vigorously brings about a corps à corps even several times in succession (without brutality or violence) does not transgress the basic conventions of fencing and commits no fault thereby (cf. t.20, t.25).
A fencer who intentionally causes corps à corps to avoid being touched or who jostles his opponent is penalized according to Articles t.114, t.116, t.120.
The ‘flèche ending systematically in a corps à corps’ referred to in this article must not be confused with the ‘flèche resulting in a shock which jostles the opponent’ which is considered as an act of intentional brutality in all three weapons and is punished as such (cf. t.87, t.120).
(Boldface mine, for the following comments.)
The text from the ref's book clearly point at the counter-attacker as usually at fault for the card-able offense. But meanwhile, the core rules avoid naming a suspect in the crime, although the attacker would seem to be implicated -- the fleche itself leads to the jostling of the opponent (i.e. the opponent of the flecher). Two perspectives, same question.
So let's say one of the fencers launches into a fleche, and the second fencer receives the attack with a parry-riposte in prime and a slight side-turning displacement. The forward-moving fencer's head and the defender's elbow come into contact.
Jostling and "disorderly fencing" are both noted as the same yellow and red penalties (t.87). Each fencer probably feels in the right: One could say the parry-riposte elbow is a jostling action, and one could likewise call the fleche attempt as being disorderly and causing the collision. It's gonna be up to the ref to decide each fencer's intent as it appears to him.
It hasn't been mentioned yet, but I also think there's an underlying right-of-way assumption that frames the issue in a lot of fencers' minds: that the nominative "defender" in an attack action should yield to the aggressor. That might hold true in foil and sabre, but not epee.
Yes, it can be done without some forward movement, but it usually is done with some. It can even be done with no movement whatsoever, but that is usually the case where the attacker has run into the point expecting it to be somewhere else. But the direction the thread is going that virtually any movement on the defenders part implies that he impeded the attackers ability to pass without jostling is what I take exception to.Originally Posted by Durando
The words attacking and defending were used in this context to give some description to the general position of the fencers (the fleching fencer and the stationary fencer) and not to ascribe any sense of ROW to the sport. These terms may be technically inaccurate since epee by nature really defies simple descriptions of the sort. Aggressive and passive may have been more accurate but did not seem to be appropriate to the scenario.
Firstly, I think most calls will fall in the "I know it when I see it, and I can tell who is at fault." line of thought. Then the call is made and all that is left is the crying.
When making that decision, I think that the fencer fleching (or exhibiting the grosser movement) is usually the one at fault. I would like to see something more deliberate to say the passive fencer caused the collision.
This is where we disagree. Nor are jostling decisions as "fleeting as some ROW arguments." And once you know what to look for it is easy to spot as a director and to avoid as a fencer. In any case, as a wise teammate of mine said, the director's job is more to ensure an even playing field than to hand out cards at every judgement call.Originally Posted by shlepzig
That's fine, but this notion goes directly against the guidance that the FOC is giving to referees in the US. Don't be surprised if many referees start carding the defender for moving into an attacker.Originally Posted by shlepzig
Just because the fencer on my left started first and made a larger movement forward doesn't mean that he caused the collision. If he had a safe path to stop or to pass the other fencer at the start of his action, the fencer on the right moves forward into the attack, and there is a collision, then the referee is well within the guidelines to card the fencer on the right if he judges that cards should be given.
In fact, if the referee only gives a card to the fencer on the left in this case, it's going to be hard for him to explain his reasoning to an FOC observer or examiner. He may card the fencer on the left, but in that case, he's almost certainly going to be carding both fencers.
From what I can tell, the FOC has decided that referees are permitting far too much contact in fencing. They want to see fencing actions scoring touches with the point or edge of the weapon. They don't want to see fencing actions ending in bell guards to the chest. The rules say zero contact in foil and saber, and the FOC wants referees to enforce those rules. The rules say contact halts an epee bout and that jostling is a card, and the FOC wants referees to enforce those rules, too.
Any time you move forward or to the side in a fencing bout, you must first consider whether you have the ability to make that movement and not cause a collision. If your opponent is stationary, you must move in such a way that you do not come into contact. If your opponent is moving, you may move toward him, but you must do so in a way that does not cause contact (in foil and saber) or contact and jostling (in all three weapons).
Ah, Come on guys. Give it a break.
At the Columbus NAC a season ago I had a lady director who had just come from directing women's foil. I and my opponent (this is VETS) collide doing the walrus belly to belly greeting. Director wants to give me a card (don't 'xactly remember the color). I look at her and say "Lady it can't be unnecessary jostling, he's still standing!!"
Listening to the comments here, I get the feeling some foilists are trying to apply foil rules to epee. It don't work. There are legitimate targets that I can go for in epee that almost always result in contact with the opponent. Like for instance the rear foot or the off hand. Perfectly legit. Now knockdowns are a different matter but even there I've seen people charge up and wind up on their own tuches. Give'm a hand and then help them back up.
Nope. Primarily an epeeist here. When fencing, I'll play to whatever rules the referee actually enforces.Originally Posted by jjefferies
When refereeing, I'm not interested in how calls were made last season, how calls are made in X region, etc. I'm most interested in how the FOC wants calls to be made at all levels. When I'm refereeing, the FOC is my boss. Like I said, the last referee seminar I took was this season, and it was given by Kolombatovich. Bill Oliver has also weighed in on this thread. There's no way I'm going to go against what they're telling me is the current interpretation of the "correct" way to apply these rules.
Hopefully, all referees feel the same way since that way the refereeing at least becomes more consistent. That's my goal. I'd like the calls to be as similar as possible from one referee to another. The best way for us all to accomplish that is to stick with the FOC's current guidelines. When the FOC says "call it this way," then I'll call it that way. We do a disservice to fencers if we call things one way locally but another way when we're refereeing at a national event. And it seems silly for me to say, "The FOC at Nationals this year said to apply this rule of thumb, but I'm going to ignore that and instead...."
Of course, no matter which way we call something, someone is going to give us flak. That's just part of refereeing.
Going by the FOC Referee Database.... there are 1589 registered/rated referees in the United States. Out of that group, 34 are at rated at level 1 (out of them 10 are active, up-to-date FOCs).
So for every 2 referees who's figured it out, there are 98 referees out there who are still learning their ropes. The ratio of "correct" coach/fencer to the rest are even more dramatic, from my subjective experience.
That's the "fencing culture" we're operating under in this country, hence a whole slew of coping mechanisms we adopt as groups of referees, competitors, coaches and parents. All the crutches we develop and use, all the "folk lore" that are handed down by national competitors and referees in our clubs who happened to see certain way of refereeing, etc.
Current system assumes that every referee wishes to improve. Current system accepts that there is a LOT of bad information out there. So when FOC's push a certain "topic of the weekend," which at times seem contrary to "common sense" of our fencing culture, intention there, I believe, is to steer the masses in a direction. In the end, they are right, and we are wrong. The "judgement" and "opinion" of a referee is not as broad and unforgiving as the majority of us accept. The call/judgement was either right or wrong, and FOC's are there to help us close that gap between acceptable level and correctness.
The choice, of course, remains with individual referee to pursue the appropriate level as we see fit. As clearly stated in the reimbursement policy, referees are all volunteers. We all have different reasons, goals and aspirations for refereeing.
As a mid-range working referee (level 4) who works exceptionally hard at perfecting my craft, I know that statistically, and by definition, any given day, I'm walking into a tournament knowing very well that I could be making a dozen or more "WTF?!?!" calls as the day progresses. But that's well within an acceptable range of performance of a referee of my level, and the FOC's can still count on me to survive the day as a "98% referee."
It's the remaining 2% where there is still a discrepancy between my understanding/knowledge of the Fencing Rules, and that of my supervising FOC's. Most of the times, it will go unnoticed, while under certain conditons (i.e. ccombination of two fencers exploiting an aspect of the rules I'm not well versed in, yet) that "tiny 2%" will be amplified to a disastrous proportion... with me smack in the middle of it. That, of course, is why I'm still a learner, until I figure out a way to eliminate that 2%.
Whatever the theory/philosophy/opinion that I'm holding at the time that leads to that discrepancy, the understanding is that FOC's are right, and I am wrong. It's that simple. So if, for whatever the reason, there's a little tingly sensation in the back of mind that's making me doubt why I should be penalizing "such a minor body to body contact," and my supervising FOC tells me afterward that it was a jostling, then I need to do a little soul searching and recontructing of my fencing theories so that I no longer get that doubt in the future occurences.
Tough part for me, of course, is that this nemerically "insignificant" 2% is anything but. It's a tip of an iceberg as the cause of that error could be multi-lateral, and not as easily identifiable/correctable. It's a huge gap that represents years/decades of practice and performance. And then there's a matter of physical/mental talent that limits a referee's growth as well.
We should also keep in mind, that in addition to being leading performers and educators, FOC's are also managers of refereeing body. And hence they need to employ management tachinques -- i.e. issue a blanket decree on a certain rule and see how many of the referees actually attempt to experiement with how to make that call... whereas in the past, these referees might have never even thought about it. If 6 out of 10 referees in the meeting goes out there and at least tries (utterly failing at times and making OMG!?! calls here and there), that's a pretty darn good return from 1-min effort, considering that this is a management of volunteers in a free country.
So, all the "customers of the industry" out there... Please take it for what it's worth. Only a short time ago, it was a Wild West with the introduction of new timing, for instance... covering, corps-a-corps in foil like you've never seen before. Before that, a referee pulling out a card was a "bad thing." And now, coaches and fencers complain lack of service when referees fail to issue penalties. And perhaps in epee, too, down the line, you may notice walking away from tournaments realizing that you have less bruises and split lips than you used to back in good old days.....
Last edited by Mauler; 04-05-2006 at 01:19 PM.
When you have three Romulan Warbirds blocking the escape route, Worf has an emotional breakdown about his childhood toy, Riker announces he's gay, Data's positronic brain gets a virus, and Geordi quits because he's had just one too many imminent warp core breach.... Just sit back, breathe, and follow these simple steps:
So... Let me get this straight... If my opponent comes flying down the piste directly at me, and I throw a hip-check at the last microsecond, and he loses his balance while I stand firm, it's his fault.Originally Posted by RITFencing
(BTW, this DID happen 2 weeks ago. )
One test is worth a thousand opinions.
I ain't as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was. - Toby Keith
Living life without taking the occasional risk is like lemon-pepper chicken without the lemon-peper. It's just chicken.
Actually, if ya'll would care to read again Mr. Oliver's clarification (you know, he IS the head of the FOC and his word should be followed...) this is the fault of the person who gave the hipcheck.Originally Posted by parrythis
That's it, I'm done with the discussion forums on F.net. It's had its uses, but the ideologues, ranters, and "experts" have drowned too many of the conversations. I'm changing my password to something random and never logging in again.