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.
Meh, Not really. The referee calls the action position "abnormal", this is a statement of fact, no BC. Now if the ref calls the position abnormal and then does nothing or misapplies a rule about the "statement of fact", BC yes.
__________________
I'm a foil fencer, and I can change, if I have to, I guess.
Meh, Not really. The referee calls the action position "abnormal", this is a statement of fact, no BC. Now if the ref calls the position abnormal and then does nothing or misapplies a rule about the "statement of fact", BC yes.
Only if the action he saw is ACTUALLY an abnormal fencing action. If it's not, then it IS a misapplication of the rule. But there's where the problem lies, you cant ask a director to perfectly reconstruct every action, especially some weird squirmy action. On the other hand, if you ask the dirctor to explain what happened and he says "you ducked" then that's perfect grounds for appeal... since in that case there's no question of fact. The director says you ducked... Fact. He says it's an abnormal fencing action... misapplication of rules!
__________________ . "I don't mind being the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one." - Ozymandias .
Inq,
I believe that ducking connotes a reaction to a prior action; remaining in that position is squatting, which I don't believe the rules countenance.
I agree with Joe Biebel, just because you can duck, does not mean that you can cover target while doing it. For example, you can advance the rear shoulder, but the non-target arm had better be out of the way when you do, otherwise there would be no doubt that it would be covering target.
Moreover, the fencer in this picture has gone past merely ducking (which means to move the head and body quickly downwards) and is instead squatting (which is defined as "a crouching position with knees bent and the buttocks on or near the heels"). Observe also that his back is rounded, his shoulders are forward and his mask is forward and down so that together with his knees and upper thighs he has effectively covered the entire valid target on his chest.
My call, this fencer is not ducking, he is squatting, which is an abnormal movement and by that abnormal movement he has covered target. Any touch he makes is annuled, he gets a group I card and if the fencer on the right had RoW and the touch was off target I would call it a valid touch on the substituted target under t.49.
I just saw the post with the rest of the photos from this session and they are really great. Here is the same fencer, squatting as before, shot from a different angle. Squatting Fencer. On the other hand compare this photo of a fencer ducking, but not covering target. Ducking Fencer.
Yeah it's amazing just how many shots of ducking and squatting there are. And in general how many such actions were used at that event. Actually, I'm sorry to say, I lost my DE bout in this tournament to someone who kept ducking, my blade going over his head. My own damn fault for not adjusting my game, but back in the day I would have just flicked his ass. Arghhhh!
.
__________________ . "I don't mind being the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one." - Ozymandias .
The last page and a half or so of posts shows the ambiguity of many of the rules.
"Ducking" is not defined, and certainly there's no distinction between ducking and squatting made anywhere. No dictionary definition includes "and then standing back up" as an element. There is room aplenty for argument, which cannot be a good thing for the smooth working of tournaments...
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
Well there's two separate issues, one is covering target and the other is abnormal movements/displacement of target. There's a director that was at that tournament that cards anyone who ducks because he says it's an abnormal fencing movement. In one of my bouts, I attacked and my oppoent ducked and I hit him on the mask (white light). The director gave me the touch because the other guy was "displacing target". But of course this is wrong since ducking is specifically allowed in the rules (t.21). Also, touches are counted as valid if they arrive off target, but only if it's a result of an abnormal movement... which ducking is not.
As far as covering target, in some of the pictures a fencer clearly squats/ducks in such a way that they cover target. Sometimes not.
.
__________________ . "I don't mind being the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one." - Ozymandias .
The last page and a half or so of posts shows the ambiguity of many of the rules.
"Ducking" is not defined, and certainly there's no distinction between ducking and squatting made anywhere. No dictionary definition includes "and then standing back up" as an element. There is room aplenty for argument, which cannot be a good thing for the smooth working of tournaments...
I can see where if a ref entertains the fencers interpretations of what is covering, etc. that it would "slow things down". The referee however (assuming some "seaoning" and a little backbone) should never need to entertain any kind of appeal on the subject. It would go something like this. Halt attack from the left. The attack is offtarget but I am awarding a valid hit for covering target. There is no mention of the posture (we had been talking about ducking) only the infraction. If a fencer wanted to discuss it or asked for a clarification in a "nice" way, I might repeat the call. It would be a mistake by the ref to pantomime, act out or go into detail. There are a lot of fencing Perry Masons out there dying to drag the ref into a discussion.
Suffice it to say, you simply may not cover target when the opponent is threatening the target. A lunge is perfectly legal, but if you cover target while doing so, or finish with head down against the chest, there is a good chance that a sharp ref will see it and card it. So it stands to reason that if you duck, and cover target, the mere fact that ducking is legal (as has been pointed out many times in these posts) does not mean you are not to be carded if you cover target in the process.
__________________
I'm a foil fencer, and I can change, if I have to, I guess.
However, according to this question in the referee study guide, I WOULD card based on the position of the head:
Fencer X makes an attack which is parried. Fencer Y makes an immediate riposte, while Fencer X makes an immediate remisewhile dropping his head so that the top of his mask is facing Y. X's remise arrives, Y's riposte fails, glancing off X's mask.
a) No touch. Call halt and place fencers on guard.
b) No touch. Yellow Card for X.
c) Touch for X
Not the same thing. Fencer ont he left is still facing the fencer on the right.
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.
I would card for excessive awesomeness.
__________________ RebelFencer's Awesome Quote of the Week:
"Encouraging the average age of first intercourse to go below 16?"
-Army Fencer
"Ducking" is not defined, and certainly there's no distinction between ducking and squatting made anywhere. No dictionary definition includes "and then standing back up" as an element. There is room aplenty for argument, which cannot be a good thing for the smooth working of tournaments...
Simply because "ducking" has not been defined does not mean that it can be interpreted any way one chooses. On the other hand, if enough people fail to see the distinction between a duck and a crouch, perhaps I am seeing a distinction without a difference.
Regardless of whether or not there is a distnction between the two positions and even if there is a consensus to call that odd position a duck (and therefore not an abnormal movement), as Joe biebel has again pointed out, even if the fencer ducking, he is still not exempt from the rules on covering target. t.22 says. "...it is forbidden to protect the target area...either by covering or by abnormal movement..." So even if you want to say that the fencer is ducking, he may not do so in an manner which covers the target area. The "crouching/duck" clearly covers target in all of the pictures shown and that is still a Group 1 card and the annullment of any touch.
What I would like to see is for the FOC to pick up on pictures like these, or perhaps commission ones of their own, and use them as graphic examples of actions which do or do not vioate particular rules. While such pictures may not be able to capture more subtle distinctions required for some interpretations, they could go a long way to setting standards that could be broadly used to place actions as clearly inside or outside the boundries of those that are permitted.
Simply
What I would like to see is for the FOC to pick up on pictures like these, or perhaps commission ones of their own, and use them as graphic examples of actions which do or do not vioate particular rules. While such pictures may not be able to capture more subtle distinctions required for some interpretations, they could go a long way to setting standards that could be broadly used to place actions as clearly inside or outside the boundries of those that are permitted.
-r
Dang! Good idea. Photos yes! Videos, even more yes!
__________________
I'm a foil fencer, and I can change, if I have to, I guess.
Suffice it to say, you simply may not cover target when the opponent is threatening the target.
I'd have to check, but I don't think the rule on covering specifies that part about "when the opponent is threatening". So really, a ref could card anytime a hand incautiously strays between lamé and opponent. Apart from "consensus practice" among refs, what stops him from doing so?
Quote:
The referee however (assuming some "seaoning" and a little backbone) should never need to entertain any kind of appeal on the subject.
But your advise I think rather defeats the purpose of the appeal process, which is to improve understanding and application of the rules by referees and to prevent improper misapplication of them to the detriment of the fencers ( and fencing ). If followed a shrewd ref could caefully avoid ever being appealed simply by refusing to give the grounds upon which a call is made, thereby ensuring that ALL of his calls are "matters of fact" and never misapplications of a rule--even when they ARE misapplications of a rule.
This may make tournament run more smoothly and safeguard refs individually, but it could have negative repercussions for the sport overall, no?
IOW, if I am understanding correctly it sounds like you're advising refs to cover their asses above all else---never say anything which could tell a competitor that you've interpreted a rule and give him grounds to question it. How is this a good thing for the sport, really? Isn't it goal displacement?
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
Last edited by Inquartata; 06-26-2006 at 03:04 AM..
Regardless of whether or not there is a distnction between the two positions and even if there is a consensus to call that odd position a duck (and therefore not an abnormal movement), as Joe biebel has again pointed out, even if the fencer ducking, he is still not exempt from the rules on covering target.
Yeah, this has been my position from the outset...even if it may sound in places as though I was arguing otherwise.
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
Linear Mode
