covering target?

[Joe biebel]

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.

I understand that the world championships and Olympics are the creme de la creme (sp?) Perhaps the the very best officials are not used at the Veteran World championships, but the reason this photo caught my eye, was that the same thing happened to me against the same opponent, with two different refs, and 2 different results. In both cases I hit the opponent squarely in the knees directly in front of the chest. In the pool match, the hit was called off-target, even with a little bit of theatrics from me. The American ref called it just the way you say. In the DE's the French referee called it a touch and awarded a card. I prefer the French referees version myself.

I just don't see how you could see this kind of covering target and not call it.

[downunder]

I understand that the world championships and Olympics are the creme de la creme (sp?) Perhaps the the very best officials are not used at the Veteran World championships, but the reason this photo caught my eye, was that the same thing happened to me against the same opponent, with two different refs, and 2 different results. In both cases I hit the opponent squarely in the knees directly in front of the chest. In the pool match, the hit was called off-target, even with a little bit of theatrics from me. The American ref called it just the way you say. In the DE's the French referee called it a touch and awarded a card. I prefer the French referees version myself.

I just don't see how you could see this kind of covering target and not call it.

Thats fine. THe problem with using the Vet Worlds as an example is that referees are not assigned (well at least they aren't now, i'm making a presumption that they weren't when you competed), so its a matter of whom each federation brings.

It has been a very long time since i've seen a hit awarded as well as a card for covering target. I've always been advised (by GP list referees) that there is always doubt on whether they'll actually get a light on (which is only made greater by the new timings), that 99% of the time stick with the card.

I have never ever seen a card for covering target with the legs, from local level to world champs. I just can't see it happening, especially in that situation where the sword arm is doing more covering than the legs. I know thats not a valid argument, i'm just presenting my thoughts.

[keropie]

You would not referee again that day if you were observed carding that fencer in my opinion.

Which probably becomes a valid point the instant he is officiating at an event at which you are assigning the officials, and then only if he feels that he should let your opinion and/or his continued chance to ref influence his enforcement of the rules, as he perceives them.

I tend to be in the group that he's covering target. Yes, ducking is legal. Yes, the movement in question might be legal. No, I don't think the position he is in is legal. No, I do not admit to your deification or canonization in the realm of officiating. I do not think you are always right, or have some claim to 'inside knowledge' of officiating. I do think you have a valuable perspective, as someone who does have different access to different events and different officials that others. But stop pretending we're looking to you for validation.

[downunder]

I don't expect you to look to me for validation. Certainly not. There are plenty of other referees out there with a lot more experiance than me.

I don't think he will be carded for this action. I've seen it a lot, and i've seen it go unpunished a lot. Doesn't make it a legal action, but its a convention thats around.

The thought of an inside view of the refereeing world is a new one. There are some fantastic referees in the UK that are helping me towards passing my exams immediately after my 20th birthday, but in my opinion there is no such thing as an 'inside view'. Even if there was, it changes from competition to competition because Rene wants to crack down on one thing or another. At JWC's two years ago we were to be carded if we didn't salute the crowd, i'm not sure if that one is still around, but it seemed awful odd at the time.

I'm sorry if i come off as a bit harsh, but its just how i am on this forum i guess. I'm much more relaxed in real life, i promise. Mind you, it is fun to wind up people sometimes.

[Damon Scaggs]

Here is a wonderful photo by BernardC (Photos of Flying Flickers at Flickershutter) that shows a possible rules infraction. Anyone out there willing to card this? And why?

Also, could anyone out there help me with the procedure for putting in a link from the other thread?

That's an excellent picture for discussion of this rule. For what it's worth, here is my analysis.

I don't believe the head is covering. While you can't see it in this pic, the bib of the mask extends below the face of the mask some inches. When you take that into account I think it tips the balance. However, what you don't get a feel for when look at a still picture is the speed with which these things happen. We can sit down with a protractor and measure it exactly now, but at the moment the call needs to be made you have no such opportunity. At best, it's borderline. I generally don't card borderline situations. If it's definately a violation it's a card, otherwise not. So for me, it's a "no-call" on the head.

The legs on the other hands are clearly covering target. This is the one most referees would wimp out on mostly because it doesn't really happen all that often and they aren't trained to see it. I think an experienced referee would card it, but not a lesser experienced one. During the gold medal bout of a world cup in France this year I was a side judge and I did in fact raise my hand for this exact situation which resulted in the annullment of the duckers touch. The crowd wasn't crazy (it didn't help that the fencer was French) about it, but neither the fencer or his coaches said boo.

[Joe biebel]

The legs on the other hands are clearly covering target. This is the one most referees would wimp out on mostly because it doesn't really happen all that often and they aren't trained to see it. I think an experienced referee would card it, but not a lesser experienced one. During the gold medal bout of a world cup in France this year I was a side judge and I did in fact raise my hand for this exact situation which resulted in the annullment of the duckers touch. The crowd wasn't crazy (it didn't help that the fencer was French) about it, but neither the fencer or his coaches said boo.

So does this mean the attacker missed. Would the hit of the attacker be awarded in this case, whether it hit valid or invallid, in addition to the card and annulment of the touch for covering by the ducker?

[Damon Scaggs]

So does this mean the attacker missed. Would the hit of the attacker be awarded in this case, whether it hit valid or invallid, in addition to the card and annulment of the touch for covering by the ducker?

Yes, the attacker missed. The ducker had a single colored light. That touch was annuled because of the covering target. If the attacker had hit target he would have gotten hit touch plus the ducker would have received a card.

[KD5MDK]

Would the touch have been awarded if the attacker arrived non-valid on the leg?

[Inquartata]

OK, so "ducking is allowed". Let me break out the reductio ad absurdum.

Foil fencers A and B, at the guard lines. Ref gives the command to fence. A advances to within distance. B ducks to the position in the first photo we were discussing, with his legs thoroughly blocking most of his front target.

And stays down there.

A retreats, B stays down. Refuses to stand back up. "I am allowed to duck". Maybe he even "duckwalks" ( ) toward A a little, so as not to be subject to a passivity call.

But his opponent now has to deal with an egregiously reduced target area because of those legs. How is this in keeping with the spirit of the rules? Has B found a legal way to cover target?

[KD5MDK]

Not according to Mr Scaggs, whose evaluation I shall accept as fairly authoratative, given his level.

[downunder]

That's an excellent picture for discussion of this rule. For what it's worth, here is my analysis.

I don't believe the head is covering. While you can't see it in this pic, the bib of the mask extends below the face of the mask some inches. When you take that into account I think it tips the balance. However, what you don't get a feel for when look at a still picture is the speed with which these things happen. We can sit down with a protractor and measure it exactly now, but at the moment the call needs to be made you have no such opportunity. At best, it's borderline. I generally don't card borderline situations. If it's definately a violation it's a card, otherwise not. So for me, it's a "no-call" on the head.

The legs on the other hands are clearly covering target. This is the one most referees would wimp out on mostly because it doesn't really happen all that often and they aren't trained to see it. I think an experienced referee would card it, but not a lesser experienced one. During the gold medal bout of a world cup in France this year I was a side judge and I did in fact raise my hand for this exact situation which resulted in the annullment of the duckers touch. The crowd wasn't crazy (it didn't help that the fencer was French) about it, but neither the fencer or his coaches said boo.

Noted.

Thank you. It would be nice to see this as commonplace.

[kalivor]

I have never ever seen a card for covering target with the legs, from local level to world champs. I just can't see it happening, especially in that situation where the sword arm is doing more covering than the legs. I know thats not a valid argument, i'm just presenting my thoughts.

I have. Gruchala received one, in either the semi-finals or bronze medal bout at the Athens Olympics. She, however, brought her leg up, rather than dropping her body.

[Allen Evans]

But his opponent now has to deal with an egregiously reduced target area because of those legs. How is this in keeping with the spirit of the rules? Has B found a legal way to cover target?

No. Group I offense. "Abnormal fencing action".

[IanSerotkin]

Noted.

Thank you. It would be nice to see this as commonplace.

Thanks for the clarification, Damon. I retract my my previous arguments as incorrect and submit that I am lower than the lowest piece of whale dung at the deepest part of the deepest sea--at high tide.

Downunder--agreed. Now knowing the correct application of the rule, I am personally looking forward to seeing if I can catch any of the "duck and cover" crowd trying to get away with this.

[Inquartata]

No. Group I offense. "Abnormal fencing action".

"Sir, ducking is specifically allowed, therefore it is not 'abnormal'."

[Allen Evans]

"Oh, a rules lawyer, eh? Unjustified appeal, yellow card. Hmm.... I see one sock down, that's a red card, hmmm...two socks down, that's another red card....You want to keep going with this buddy, or do you want to get on guard and fence?"

Considering I once got a yellow card from an FIE referee for not coming on guard in the high line when I asked, I think I could make a case for being on guard in a low squat as an abnormal action.

[Joe biebel]

"Sir, ducking is specifically allowed, therefore it is not 'abnormal'."

You are right, of course, but staying "ducked" is abnormal. I believe ducking would be a brief period of time that is designed to cause a particular action to miss. The ducking action is allowed, just like many other fencing actions as long is it does not violate other rules. Your previous example was (duck walking fencer) funny and it made emminent sense.

[Fechter1]

"Sir, ducking is specifically allowed, therefore it is not 'abnormal'."

Well, one hand on the strip is also specifically allowed in the rules, but if I were to do go upside down on one hand with my feet oin the air, I'm pretty sure I would be carded for an abnormal action.

[Inquartata]

Oh, I presume he'd come on guard properly. Then duck after "Allez".

And this is one instance in which it WOULD be up to the BC, because it involves the application of a rule, not a construction of fact.

Dud for the defense, Your Honor.

[Joe biebel]

" I think I could make a case for being on guard in a low squat as an abnormal action.

I'm sure you could, however it might be wiser, assuming the position covers target, to call it that. If only to prevent silly appeals. I believe you are correct, in either case, and they carry the same penalty, but the latter is probably less likely to get unwanted attention. If the squatting, ducking fencer is taking the posture after the command to fence, and it does not cover target or break any other rule, then perhaps this is too much like being the "form police".