What is the definition of Jostling in Epee?

[KD5MDK]

I'm trying to imagine simultaniously "throwing a hipcheck" and "standing firm". Doesn't compute to me.

[Fechter1]

Originally Posted by Poulet

It's simple: his feet don't move. His hip swings forward into the opponent.

The difference is between simply offering resistance and initiating contact.

[KD5MDK]

Then he made the action at fault.

[shlepzig]

Originally Posted by parrythis

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.

Cool!

(BTW, this DID happen 2 weeks ago. )

Here I go again (ready to be flamed), It seems that the fleching fencer did not have a safe trajectory when he launched his attack ("flying directly at me").

The actions of the stationary fencer are definitely suspect here, with the wording "hip-check" (implying an aggressive action to cause a collision). Sounds like both should be carded. However based on the BOliver's reply the FOC would have me card just the stationary fencer despite the unsafe trajectory of the other.

Since the FOC direction has been given out in bits and pieces and the whole of the referee's seminars have not been included, it may be that the context has been twisted somewhat such that due consideration for a safe and reasonable trajectory has already been planned, the counterattacking fencer closed distance into that trajectory and caused a collision and only after that the non-fleching fencer is carded. The text:

Originally Posted by BOliver

"However, if Fencer J leans, ever so slightly, into the impact, then it's a card for Fencer J..."

does not bear this out.

It still seems to me that a fencer considering launching an attack that does not have a simple arrest, that fencer has an obligation to take into consideration the possible reactions of his opponent into the planned path of that attack. So that when the planned action (the fleche) is reacted to that a safe fencing ground is maintained. Not to put the burden on the fencer whom has much less time to consider the direction and speed of his opponent while still trying to touch and avoid being touched (this would happen most in epee). The FOC text thus far would have me believe that any incidental movement on the non-fleching fencer could have him carded when the collision occurs.

Shlep (concerned he is not getting the complete context here).

[seak]

My understanding of cor a cor/jostling calls: who gets the card

if fencer a fleches into fencer b who stands still and doesn't do anything card for fencer a

if fencer a fleches into fencer b (such that there would be an impact if fencer b didn't move) and fencer b hip checks fencer a card to both, as they both contributed to the impact

if fencer a fleches so that his trajectory will carry him past fencer b if fencer b doesn't move and fencer b moves or throws a hip check so there is contact then card to fencer b

fencer a when fleching merely has the the obligation to fleche on a path that will not contact fencer b, if fencer b does something that causes fencer a's path to no longer be a safe (no contact one) the card is to fencer b

After fleshing to a safe line fencer a has no obligation to be able to stop or change direction in mid air, to avoid a moving fencer b

If I have this wrong please let me know as I would really like to become the best ref that I can be (yeay for ending on a cheesy statement)

[KD5MDK]

Effectively.
Fencer A has a responsability not to launch himself into fencer B. If he was going to hit Fencer B, he has at least some fault. If Fencer B moves into his fleche/movement that was going to collide anyway, they're both at fault.
If Fencer A began an action that would not have collided, and Fencer B moves into that, then Fencer B is at fault.

Consider if Fencer A makes a Flunge, expecting to land in front of Fencer B, and Fencer B takes an advance. Flunge results in collision. Even though the direction of movement by Fencer A was straight towards Fencer B, if B had not moved forward, there would have been no collision. Penalty to B.
Note that fleches rarely have this "expected end", but lunges do. Always consider if the fencer making a lunge reasonably expected to see his opponent there before he did it.

[Durando]

Originally Posted by shlepzig

The FOC text thus far would have me believe that any incidental movement on the non-fleching fencer could have him carded when the collision occurs.

Shlep (concerned he is not getting the complete context here).

Shlep,

You're splitting hairs in hopes of raising an argument. If you really believe "any incidental movement on the nonflèching fencer" is the case then I leave you to your beliefs, as should everyone else. The explanations so far furnished have been perfectly clear.

[shlepzig]

Originally Posted by OSO post in another thread

Link to original post

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mackill...7594193345894/

I need to save this one as an example of what will draw a yellow card . Even if it is epee. Or are you silly epee fencers going to complain that since there was no blood...?

So's I don't threadjack the other "unofficial photos" thread any further. I saw several coaches at nationals diagreeing with the ref' on the nature of the Corps a Corps and jostling calls in epee.

Bill Olivers reply on Corps a Corps (and bell contact)

One instance I witnessed in a pool was whether the CaC had stopped action prior to the touch. When incidental contact occurs in the action, if it occurs before the touch it stops the action and no touch should be awarded. I hadn't seen this point argued to referees before and seems to be fertile ground for debate on the otherwise sensible fields of epee. Since it can effectively annul a touch is this not essentially the same as a card.

The other thing that seems to be still up in the air is what constitutes a jostled fencer. I was knocked senseless (momentarily at least, arguing that I am not senseless 24x7) by a fleching fencer shouldering me in the head as he passed. The ref issued no call, and after I shook it off and found the strip again, I asked about jostling. I was told that I was not jostled.

OK end of argument there, ref says I wasn't jostled so I wasn't jostled. I sure felt jostled. I could even buy that I had moved in such a way to cause the contact, and the card was mine (though I don't personally feel that way).

Shlep.

Lastly, in response to the response to me from Durando (above). I am not trying to split hairs to raise an argument. I am trying to split hairs to force the wording of the ruling to support the common sense we are expected to excercise when fecning or refereeing in regards to interpretation of the rules. Language like "the slightest bit" in the BOliver response earlier overrides the sensible rules of thumb which Durando refers to that a ref may exercise on the strip.

[BOliver]

In the scenario under discussion, both fencers would be at fault. When I said "even the slightest bit" I meant something like the aforementioned hip check, not merely bracing for impact.

In years past, it was not uncommon for a fencer who was sustainging a corp a corp to throw a hip into his opponent. Assuming the attacking fencer was not out of control, the jostling would be as a result of the hip-check, not the attack. If the attacking fencer was out of control (not always easy to determine!) then both fencers would be guilty of body contact. Jostling might or might not result of the contact.

The FOC is determined to have our referees enforce the rules and the penalties strictly. If all referees enforce the rules strictly, then there will be dramatically less violation of those rules.

It is our intention to create an environment where a referee is expected to pull out a card, and is criticized for not doing so.

Bill

[RoninX]

which is of course what currently happens on nearly every touch where body contact occurs... assuming both fencers have coaches present... (in epee)

-though the word "expected" might better be substituted with "constantly demanded" and criticized may also be replaced with "obstinantly badgered"

[KD5MDK]

The epee coaches are just jealous of the influence their sabre brethren are accused of having, and trying to catch up.

[shlepzig]

Originally Posted by BOliver

In the scenario under discussion, both fencers would be at fault. When I said "even the slightest bit" I meant something like the aforementioned hip check, not merely bracing for impact.

Thank you Mr. Oliver. I had suspected that was what you had meant from the beginning, but was harping on the language to clarify the nature of the motion as an intentional blockage of an otherwise safe pass.

Shlep.

[oso97]

Originally Posted by RoninX

which is of course what currently happens on nearly every touch where body contact occurs... assuming both fencers have coaches present... (in epee)

-though the word "expected" might better be substituted with "constantly demanded" and criticized may also be replaced with "obstinantly badgered"

*chuckle*

*snort*

*gaffaw*

It always strikes me as amusing that the epee coach clamoring for a card when his fencer is jostled is the same coach arguing that his fencer merely committed 'accidental contact' by engaging in the same actions.

[smurfette]

Bill Oliver is so cool!

[Guymelef]

Originally Posted by shlepzig

The other thing that seems to be still up in the air is what constitutes a jostled fencer. I was knocked senseless (momentarily at least, arguing that I am not senseless 24x7) by a fleching fencer shouldering me in the head as he passed. The ref issued no call, and after I shook it off and found the strip again, I asked about jostling. I was told that I was not jostled.

That example sounds more like 'dangerous, violent, or vindictive' to me.

From Merriam Webster
Main Entry:1jostle
Pronunciation:*j*-s*l
Function:verb
Inflected Form:jostled ; jostling \-s(*-)li*\
Etymology:alteration of justle, frequentative of 1joust
Date:1546

intransitive senses
1 a : to come in contact or into collision b : to make one's way by pushing and shoving c : to exist in close proximity
2 : to vie in gaining an objective : CONTEND
transitive senses
1 a : to come in contact or into collision with b : to force by pushing : ELBOW c : to stir up : AGITATE d : to exist in close proximity with
2 : to vie with in attaining an objective

The one time I called jostling in epee occurred locally. Fencer A fleched at fencer B, fencer B made a wide parry with his weapon and ended up wrapping his non-weapon hand around fencer A. Fencer B was essentially hugging fencer A. Fencer A's fleche was effectively ended by this action and he was physically moved a few inches by the hugging action. I called jostling and awarded the yellow card. Fencer B argued that the hug was so that fencer a didn't wind up piled in a heap on the floor.

The moral of the story is that the ref is not there to determine the intention of the fencers, just interpret the action. Trust yourself. Like pornography you'll know when you see it.

[caher]

I've seen every thing called jostling from ANY contact at all to "No blood, no foul!". Bill's explanation is the best I've seen yet and is how I've always tried to call it.

BTW, I'm probably one of very few epeeists to be jostled by the infamous fencer J fleching and remained standing! ( It was not intentional on his part. It was a cross body fleche in the very tight quarters of the Hangover Open at the NYAC and he tripped on something just off the strip.)

Regards,
Chris

[KD5MDK]

One thing to keep in mind is that a referee who is intently examining the floor for tips to suddenly hit it, or for a fencer to step off strip, is less likely to see things up at shoulder height than one who is less focused.