covering target?

[parrythis]

so to follow up on the covering legs question. How can you duck without covering target with your legs? I mean you can bring your chest to your knees instead of putting your knees in front of your chest but either way your legs are covering valid target?

So far, everyone is treating the word "duck" as meaning "duck down". There are many ways to duck "out of the way" (including down) without tucking your knees up to your chest.

There is one kid that I fence that, I swear, can duck down faster than 32 feet per second squared. (In other words, his torso appears to descend faster than the pull of gravity.) When he does, his torso remains pretty much erect, his legs remain in a highly exagerated squatting en-guard and are not blocking anything, and he is delivering a stop thrust for me to land on. He can be quite frustrating to fence.

[Joe biebel]

So far, everyone is treating the word "duck" as meaning "duck down". There are many ways to duck "out of the way" (including down) without tucking your knees up to your chest.

There is one kid that I fence that, I swear, can duck down faster than 32 feet per second squared. (In other words, his torso appears to descend faster than the pull of gravity.) When he does, his torso remains pretty much erect, his legs remain in a highly exagerated squatting en-guard and are not blocking anything, and he is delivering a stop thrust for me to land on. He can be quite frustrating to fence.

I have seen ducking done like this, completely legal, in fact admirable in its execution without covering target. It ain't easy, and, done as you describe, it is most frustrating.

[The Chaotic Wind]

this is semi unrelated, but there's aso the question of right of way, the attacking fencer's arm appears bent, while the crouching fencer's arm is fully extended. i'm a begginer and i get a little confused about right of way sometimes, so yeah...i may be wrong.

[keropie]

Let's just say that the amount of extension rarely has much to do with RoW. A small extension that starts first in distance has RoW over a full extension that starts late.

[The Chaotic Wind]

alright thanks

[Inquartata]

referees should give as little info as possible so that the fencers can never better themselves by understanding where they went wrong. Also Refereeing sabre can be difficult enough without having to have them explain guesses. I have asked a referee to explain him/herself several times in the past to hear "I dont have to explain myself to you" in response on the odd occasion

So you don't think they should explain, but you still ask them to do so?

[rsy]

So far, everyone is treating the word "duck" as meaning "duck down". There are many ways to duck "out of the way" (including down) without tucking your knees up to your chest.

This got me thinking about the word, "duck". The word used in the FIE rules is "esquives". I do not speak French so I don't know what this word means, but several translating programs interpret this word as "to avoid or dodge" and when I have seen the word used in discussions, it seems to mean just that, to dodge or slip an attack. Now I know that the USFA rules are not a strict translation of the FIE rules, but are a translation and adaption of them and therefore there are differences. However, the British rules are supposed to be a faithful translation of the FIE rules and the Brits also use the word "duck" for "esquives".

Can any French/English speaking fencers shed some light on this? Is "duck" the best translation here for "esquives"? Or, would the word "dodge" be a better interpretation?

-r

[rsy]

Apropos of Joe biebel's comments about covering targtet while executing permitted actions (such as reversing shoulders), see this new Flickshutter picture http://flickershutter.com/June%2024%.../DSC01022.html. Card or no card?

-r

[CvilleFencer]

Apropos of Joe biebel's comments about covering targtet while executing permitted actions (such as reversing shoulders), see this new Flickshutter picture http://flickershutter.com/June%2024%.../DSC01022.html. Card or no card?

-r

Well, from the angle of the picture it would seem to be an easy card to the right. Someone also gets a card for Corp a Corp, although no way to really tell from a still shot who it is. It does look sort of like it would be the fencer to the right again, so I guess I would have to figure out which offense came first. And as the fencer to fix his glove... Also it is hard to say from pictures, but those lames look a bit short. Especially the one to the left. Again, hard to tell in a still pic and not in person...

[Fechter1]

Well, from the angle of the picture it would seem to be an easy card to the right. Someone also gets a card for Corp a Corp, although no way to really tell from a still shot who it is. It does look sort of like it would be the fencer to the right again, so I guess I would have to figure out which offense came first. And as the fencer to fix his glove... Also it is hard to say from pictures, but those lames look a bit short. Especially the one to the left. Again, hard to tell in a still pic and not in person...

Depends on when he brought the arm forward, I would think... This shot is a bit after the initial action, and in the position in the pic, Right's arm, while covering target, is not necessarily preventing Left's valid hit. If Left retracted the arm and tried to remise to Right's flank, then definitely card (unless the arm moves, of course). But that's just my first thought...
Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting the rule.

Curious, Corps-a-corps why? For the feet touching? I can't see any other contact...

Props to Right for getting that hit in.

[CvilleFencer]

Depends on when he brought the arm forward, I would think... This shot is a bit after the initial action, and in the position in the pic, Right's arm, while covering target, is not necessarily preventing Left's valid hit. If Left retracted the arm and tried to remise to Right's flank, then definitely card (unless the arm moves, of course). But that's just my first thought...
Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting the rule.

Curious, Corps-a-corps why? For the feet touching? I can't see any other contact...

Props to Right for getting that hit in.

Covering target with the off hand is covering target with the off hand. Yeah, I was talking about the feet, but that really sort of depends on how things played out.

[tbryan]

Right's arm, while covering target, is not necessarily preventing Left's valid hit.

So, it's still covering target, and he gets a penalty.

The attacker doesn't have to be trying to hit you exactly where you're covering target. If Meinhardt is in the position shown before the halt, he can be carded. If he wants to make the touch he's attempting, he really needs to raise or pull back his arm so that it does not cover target.

[keropie]

Yeah, covering target (unless the halt was before the cover), though unless someone is affected by that foot contact, I don't think I'd notice it and card it. Even if I noticed it, I'd have a hard time carding it really, and it would still have to happen before the (proposed) covering.

[CvilleFencer]

though unless someone is affected by that foot contact, I don't think I'd notice it and card it. Even if I noticed it, I'd have a hard time carding it really, and it would still have to happen before the (proposed) covering.

I do agree that in all likelyhood the card for covering would have occured before the contact, but I have to disagree (if I understand you correctly...) that someone has to be "affected" by the corp a corp. This is not an epee bout and the litmus test is not "Was the opposing fencer jostled". If any body to body contact occurs, it should be carded. I had that one beat into my head by refs as a fencer long before I started refereeing myself. In my case, I am 6'5" and almost 300#'s. You don't want me (or anyone close to my size) walking on your feet. If it happened to you, chances are you would be looking at the referee waiting for the card.

Regardless of the various sizes (and this is sort of a soap box so please forgive me if I sound preachy here) of the fencers involved, I think it is a very easy trap for referee's, especially on the local level, to fall into. That being that they don't like to card for very minor infractions such as very light corp a corp, a bit of equipment that is only "techincally" or "barely" non-conforming, hair that is just barely on the lame, ect. While a lot of people will think you are being a hardass or rules nazi, when they go to national or international level competition and get eated up in cards it is really the fault of referee's at the local level for not making fencers aware of what is and is not acceptable.

Of course I also think it is part of the job of local level referee's to help in the development of local fencers as a whole (through being willing to patiently answer questions after the bout and enforcing the rules and decorum to the level expected/encountered in national and international events to the best of their ability and through aiding/encouraging/educating other local level referee's) and the quality of the areas they referee in as a sort of fencing civic duty. As such my point of view on it may be a bit influenced.

[keropie]

but I have to disagree (if I understand you correctly...) that someone has to be "affected" by the corp a corp.

Oh no, not what I meant at all! Trust me, even my girlfriend (who hasn't fenced in three years) remembers what a hard a$$ I can be about stuff like that (I've given her as many as 4 group 1 infractions for reversing the shoulders, back when that wasn't legal. . . she always complains that no one else ever gave her any ). I'm saying that in all honesty, unless someone tripped or staggered or something, I don't think I'd even notice it all, and therefore I'd be unable to card it.

Dunno if tbryan remembers, but at divisionals I carded him (and his opponent, I think) for corps a' corps at the slightest of possible contact once. It might not have even happened (certainly was his contention ), but I definitely carded both.

Edit: 'hard a$$' would not be the term I'd use for myself, but it's certainly the term the the gf uses to refer to me when I do stuff like that

[notalent]

Card for covering, The easy fix is to hold the arm away from the body a couple of inches. I have seen fencers get away with a lot more if they try and do the right thing.

Apropos of Joe biebel's comments about covering targtet while executing permitted actions (such as reversing shoulders), see this new Flickshutter picture http://flickershutter.com/June%2024%.../DSC01022.html. Card or no card?

-r

[CvilleFencer]

Oh no, not what I meant at all!

Gotcha! Sorry I misunderstood you. Yeah, it would be a tough one to see. I am primarily an epeeist and even being used to keeping one eye on the floor the foot contacts can be very hard to see.

[tbryan]

Dunno if tbryan remembers, but at divisionals I carded him (and his opponent, I think) for corps a' corps at the slightest of possible contact once. It might not have even happened (certainly was his contention ), but I definitely carded both.

Of course I remember.

It was like the first action in the DE.

I probably saw hime kind of settle on his action and tried to hit him in preparation. He decided to try to finish anyway. I'm not sure whether he was attempting to oppose or what. Our bell guards slammed together pretty hard. I don't remember whether either of us go a light on the box. I do remember that we both got yellows for corps a' corps. I didn't think that anything other than our guards touched, and I thought that you were giving a corps a' corps for guard-to-guard contact, which would not be correct as far as I understand the rule. I didn't question you much, but did you think you saw body contact other than the bell guards?

I was annoyed to be fencing David at all. I have bizarrely inconsistent results against him. I'm either struggling to stay even, or I'm scoring 4 touches to his 1. I was annoyed to be fencing him at all that day. Then, on the first exchange, I felt that he stopped, I attacked, and he slammed his bell guard into mine. That jarred my hand. Not something I wanted for the bouts I'd have to fence after David.

And then I turned to see you carding us both.

[keropie]

Eh, I expect I saw simultaneous actions (didn't see the settling, hence, of course, there was no settling ), and saw y'all make guard to guard and then body contact. And no, you certainly didn't argue at all, but I know you were far from a fan of the call

Yeah, honestly I was far from impressed with the field, to tell the truth. I thought you were the closest to an actualy foilist, and you're an epee fencer ><

Oh well ^^

[Damon Scaggs]

Depends on when he brought the arm forward, I would think... This shot is a bit after the initial action, and in the position in the pic, Right's arm, while covering target, is not necessarily preventing Left's valid hit. If Left retracted the arm and tried to remise to Right's flank, then definitely card (unless the arm moves, of course). But that's just my first thought...
Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting the rule.

Curious, Corps-a-corps why? For the feet touching? I can't see any other contact...

It's not necessary for left to be prevented from hitting to get a card for covering. So unless this shot is taken a full tempo after the hit, its a card for the right.