covering target?

[Allen Evans]

A better example would be the attcker takes the blade high and the defefender ducks the attackers blade is now poised over valid target on the back, and now the defender puts his hand in front of his chest. Is the hand covering target now? No, not really.

Well. I'm not sure that example really clarifies anything for me. Ducking is allowed by T21, as we know. T22 doesn't say anything about the placement of the opponent's blade, or what target might or might not be hit while the opponent is covering. If you are using T22 to give a card in your first case, Joe, then you must use it to give a card in the second.

I think that most referees allow T21 as a special case of T22, as Ian points out. As previous posts (which I can't find right now) have pointed out, if a fencer ducks and gets hit in the mask while keeping his or her head up, the fencer has not "substituted invalid for valid" target and there is no penalty.

I think that comman usage has to prevail here. I've seen this action done a number of times, and never seen a card given for it. Have you? (serious question).

[erooMynohtnA]

http://flickershutter.com/June%2018,...ages/123R.html

How about that one?

[keith]

http://flickershutter.com/June%2018,...ages/123R.html

How about that one?

covering.

[downunder]

Under strict definition, that is a yellow card.

I would not award a potential hit to the fencer on the left however, as i would not be sure, especially not from that angle, know if it was going to hit.

[HookUpandFence]

still "normal" movement and I do not believe anyone whoud question this touch.
http://flickershutter.com/Gallery/pages/021.htm

[keith]

still "normal" movement and I do not believe anyone whoud question this touch.
http://flickershutter.com/Gallery/pages/021.htm

Now being really strict you could probably card both of them, altough unlike the original ducker in the thread the guy on the right is coming very close to covering with the mask.

[HookUpandFence]

My son was in a bout and his opponent was putting his free arm back (goodness only knows why) across his back. Son's coach made a fuss and got the poor kid carded for it - to the sum of 2 reds. So to keep from doing it again, he grabbed the floor reel/body cord connector and got another card. I couldn't watch after that. My son was 11, fencing for about 6 months and the other kid was 13 and had been fencing for years. I was amazed they had to face each other. My son lost 15 – 13 and finished 3rd of 10.

[keith]

My son was in a bout and his opponent was putting his free arm back (goodness only knows why) across his back. Son's coach made a fuss and got the poor kid carded for it - to the sum of 2 reds. So to keep from doing it again, he grabbed the floor reel/body cord connector and got another card. I couldn't watch after that. My son was 11, fencing for about 6 months and the other kid was 13 and had been fencing for years. I was amazed they had to face each other. My son lost 15 – 13 and finished 3rd of 10.

... and to think we waste threads on how to teach bouncing and neglect the really important things coaches do .... .

[IanSerotkin]

http://flickershutter.com/June%2018,...ages/123R.html

How about that one?

Well, if you REALLY want to know...

Yellow card to the fencer on the left for covering covering target--with his hair.

Red card to the fencer on the left for having his socks too short.

But seriously...

Based on the angle of the picture, it's hard to tell if the fencer on the right is actually covering. My best guess is nay--it looks like the back arm is sufficiently off to the side. He may be ABOUT to cover if the arm is swinging towards the inside.

[swordsen]

Noh, the guy on the right is covering. That arm needs to be out of the way.

[Joe biebel]

[QUOTE=Allen Evans
I think that comman usage has to prevail here. I've seen this action done a number of times, and never seen a card given for it. Have you? (serious question).[/QUOTE]

"Common usage" is a good phrase. If a lot of referees you know do not call a rules infraction, should you then also ignore it? I know that is not what you meant, but who decides "common usage"? How do things become commomly accepted or ignored? You can state chapter and verse all you want but ask yourself, "what is going on here?" If we are to assume the lunging fencer is making an attack, and the "defending" fencer is ducking and placing their mask between vallid target, or putting vallid target behind invallid target in relation to their opponents weapon, is it not covering target? It certainly violates the spirit of the rule. Since there is little in the rules book to precisely define covering in all of its possible permutations, it will always be incumbent on the referee to make a judgemnt call. Until such time as the rules book list all of the possibilities we will have to rely on the spirit of the rules as much as the letter of the law.

You can not look to the rules book for an answer to this. You must show good judgement and an appreciation for the concept "spirit" of the rule.

Also, I have very much seen "top" officials both punish and ignore, or perhaps to be more fair, "not see", an infraction on an action like this.

[Joe biebel]

http://flickershutter.com/June%2018,...ages/123R.html

How about that one?

Now, I will argue the other side of this. In this particular picture, you can not tell if it is covering or not. If we knew what transpired in the second before the photo was taken, yes. If the fencer on the left flesched at the fencer on the right and left changed directions and stepped in and to the side after the fencer on the right parried and was making a riposte, you should not fault the fencer on the right. The fact that the opponent ran to an angle that put the arm in the way, should not be cause for a card. Leaving it there would surely be a card, but I think this is one you would have to see in it's entirity to get the feel for.

[parrythis]

Legs are covering quite a lot of target as well.

I have to agree.

t . 2 2 The use of the non-sword hand and arm to carry out an offensive or defensive action is forbidden (cf. t.114, t.116, t.120). Should such an
offence occur, the touch scored by the fencer at fault is annulled.
In foil and saber, it is forbidden to protect the target area or to substitute another part of the body for the target area, either by covering
or by an abnormal movement (cf. t.114, t.116, t.120); any touch scored by the fencer at fault is annulled.

The fencer on the left is at least making an effort to look up at his intended target. I would be reluctant to card based on the position of the mask in this picture. The legs, however, are tucked tightly against the lame. There is no way the fencer on the right could land a touche without going around the legs to another part of the lame that is not protected by the legs.

I would card for covering target with the legs.

[KD5MDK]

Now, I will argue the other side of this. In this particular picture, you can not tell if it is covering or not. If we knew what transpired in the second before the photo was taken, yes. If the fencer on the left flesched at the fencer on the right and left changed directions and stepped in and to the side after the fencer on the right parried and was making a riposte, you should not fault the fencer on the right. The fact that the opponent ran to an angle that put the arm in the way, should not be cause for a card. Leaving it there would surely be a card, but I think this is one you would have to see in it's entirity to get the feel for.

If you click on that picture, you get another angle, one which looks much less like reversing of the shoulders. It's very hard to tell what precise angle to the strip the fencers are at. If the fencer on the right has reversed his shoulders, I'd say it's clearly covering. If he is purpendicular to the strip or less, then I'd say it probably isn't.

[Allen Evans]

<snip>...Since there is little in the rules book to precisely define covering in all of its possible permutations, it will always be incumbent on the referee to make a judgemnt call. Until such time as the rules book list all of the possibilities we will have to rely on the spirit of the rules as much as the letter of the law.

You can not look to the rules book for an answer to this. You must show good judgement and an appreciation for the concept "spirit" of the rule.

Also, I have very much seen "top" officials both punish and ignore, or perhaps to be more fair, "not see", an infraction on an action like this.

(laughing) I contrast the above with your previous posts on this and can only think that you are living up to your signiture today!

We stand on opposite sides of the fence on this...you look and say "covering", I look and say "not covering". In the end, I'll make the call that *I* feel is in the spirit of the rule, until a definitive answer is given to me by the FIE or the FOC.

[Joe biebel]

If you click on that picture, you get another angle, one which looks much less like reversing of the shoulders. It's very hard to tell what precise angle to the strip the fencers are at. If the fencer on the right has reversed his shoulders, I'd say it's clearly covering. If he is purpendicular to the strip or less, then I'd say it probably isn't.

I tend to agree, but again, to know which fencer is changing position relative to the other we would need a video. It could very well be that the fencer on the right was properly facing the fencer on the left and the fencer on the left changed his position (just as the photo is snapped) laterally, making it a bit more fuzzy as to covering target. The fact that an invallid part of a fencers target is between the weapon and the vallid surface is not "proof" of an infraction.

[Joe biebel]

(In the end, I'll make the call that *I* feel is in the spirit of the rule, until a definitive answer is given to me by the FIE or the FOC.

I very much agree with the first part of this quote, and somewhat agree with the second part of this quote. The only possible problem I see with this approach is that you will be right or wrong indefinitely. The FOC is not there with you when you need to make the call. You will never get a definative answer. Honestly, if I were making the attack and it hit the other fencers knee, and they had placed their chest behind the knee after I started the attack, I would expect the hit and the carding of my opponent. I would ask about it, and if you did not agree, and felt that it was within the "spirit" of the rules and not an offense, I hope I would have the "good sense" to move on. One can only hope that all of their referees will act on what they consider "in the spirit and intentions" of the rules. Truly, no argument would be forthcoming. The gist of what I been saying for a while now is that you can not rely on the rules book (or the FOC or the FIE) for anything but the simplest situations. You must truly understand the intent of the rules as well as the rules themselves to be a good referee.

[downunder]

I have to agree.



The fencer on the left is at least making an effort to look up at his intended target. I would be reluctant to card based on the position of the mask in this picture. The legs, however, are tucked tightly against the lame. There is no way the fencer on the right could land a touche without going around the legs to another part of the lame that is not protected by the legs.

I would card for covering target with the legs.

you're wrong


we've been through this already. Its not covering target.


edit: read the bit after you bolded. Either by covering (no), abnormal fencing action (no).

Ducking is not an abnormal fencing action. Would you card me because my weapon arm is in front of the target? Same principle.

[Joe biebel]

you're wrong


we've been through this already. Its not covering target.


edit: read the bit after you bolded. Either by covering (no), abnormal fencing action (no).

Ducking is not an abnormal fencing action. Would you card me because my weapon arm is in front of the target? Same principle.

Your wrong. You can duck and not cover target. In this case, the covering is clear. You may not cover target when en guarde, you may not cover target when ducking, etc. Do you see the pattern? I believe the discussion was about covering target not what is an abnormal fencing action. The two are not the same. You don't have to do one to have the other. The quote by parrythis quite nicely supports his view.

[downunder]

Your wrong. You can duck and not cover target. In this case, the covering is clear. You may not cover target when en guarde, you may not cover target when ducking, etc. Do you see the pattern? I believe the discussion was about covering target not what is an abnormal fencing action. The two are not the same. You don't have to do one to have the other. The quote by parrythis quite nicely supports his view.

joe i understand what the word 'either' means.

He is not covering target. I have seen referees have no problems with this kind of actions at world championships where a chin to chest in an engarde position receives a yellow card.

I have never ever seen a card for covering with the legs. Thats because it doesn't happen. You would not referee again that day if you were observed carding that fencer in my opinion.