covering target?

[Joe biebel]

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?

[Allen Evans]

Hmmm...rules are either broken, or they are not. In this case, I might guess that the question is about the duck. Is the fencer covering target with their head?

Based on my last conversation with the instructor at a referee seminar, I would not card this duck for "covering target".

[Inquartata]

Legs are covering quite a lot of target as well.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

Based on my last conversation with the instructor at a referee seminar, I would not card this duck for "covering target".

Why a duck? Why-a-no chicken?

[remise]

We have someone at our salle that does this all the time. We tried to debate over the legality of that move, but it was unresolved. I would like to know this as well.

[IanSerotkin]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Legs are covering quite a lot of target as well.

The rules specifically say that ducking is OK (t.21), and it's pretty near impossible to duck without your legs covering some amount of valid target. I just tried it in front of a mirror a few times and short of kneeling like a very awkward baseball catcher, target gets covered.

The legs in this situation sure are covering a LOT of the lame, but I still wouldn't consider it cardable. If it were from an abnormal fencing motion (e.g., lifting the legs to cover while in a normal on guard), then I would card for that. Again, ducking is expressly allowed by t.21, so I can't in good conscience--although I really, really want to--card the fencer for an abnormal movement via t.22.

So, the only point left to consider is the orientation of the fencer's head. It's facing mostly forward, not mostly down, so based on the latest guidance from the FOC I would not card the fencer for covering target.

New foil sucks. The end.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by Joe biebel

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?

First question: no, I don't think I would. It looks like displacement (which is legal), not covering (which is not).

This photo looks like the fencer on the left is covering target. I would probably card someone for doing that, if I noticed.

Second question: what are you trying to do? Link to another thread on the forum? Generally, the little post #1, #2, etc. in the top right of each post has a URL. You can use that to link to a specific post. If you just want to link to a thread, use the URL that you get when you click on page 1 of the thread. It should be something like

http://www.fencing.net/forums/thread12345.html

Or perhaps that's not what you were asking.

[downunder]

in the original photo the head is up, so its not covering with the head.

[IHateMrPotatohead]

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

[Joe biebel]

Covering target is not legal. In the original photo the mask is down somewhat, this would be "iffy" in my book. The legs however are clearly covering target. The fact that "ducking" is legal, does not make this duck legal. Because of the relative position of the attackers weapon, the ducking fencer is covering and substituting invallid target for vallid. Card for ducker. It does not matter whether the target area is dropped behind the valid target or that the leg is lifted to block target. They are the same and have the same effect. If the attacking fencer were taking the blade high and were over the top of the head of the "ducker" it is a different situation. The ducking fencer takes his chances. The worst case for the ducker is a ref that calls the offtarget attack vallid and gives a card for covering target. The second worst case for the ducker is that the attacker misses and the one light stop hit by the ducker is annulled and a card given for covering target. The best case scenario for the ducker is that Alan Evans is refereeing.

[IanSerotkin]

Originally Posted by Joe biebel

The fact that "ducking" is legal, does not make this duck legal.

Mechanically, it's impossible to fully duck without covering at least a little foil target with the legs. Again, trying this in the mirror, the only way I was able to get my body to do so is to either (a) duck so shallowly that it's not really a duck, or (b) put my knees DOWN as opposed to UP, in which case it turns into a kneel and I get carded for intentionally falling.

Therefore, since the rules allow ducking, and the only way to duck is to cover at least part of your lame with your legs, it logically follows that covering with the legs while in the normal range of motion of a duck is not cardable.

If someone can show me a fencer ducking--in a normal fashion--without covering at least some tiny part of their lame with their legs, I will gladly refute my own my point.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by IHateMrPotatohead

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

Fencer A has not dropped his head.

Fencer A's head is still up. Chin to Chest was the requirement given to me.

[keith]

Originally Posted by downunder

Fencer A has not dropped his head.

Fencer A's head is still up. Chin to Chest was the requirement given to me.

quick vaguely on topic question;

If the fencer on the right had hit the ducking guy square in the mask (subsitition of chest for mask) would there be a penalty for substition as opposed to covering?

[downunder]

Originally Posted by keith

quick vaguely on topic question;

If the fencer on the right had hit the ducking guy square in the mask (subsitition of chest for mask) would there be a penalty for substition as opposed to covering?

no




(add characters)

[Joe biebel]

Originally Posted by IanSerotkin

Mechanically, it's impossible to fully duck without covering at least a little foil target with the legs. The only way I can get my human body to do so is to either (a) duck so shallowly that it's not really a duck, or (b) put my knees DOWN as opposed to UP, in which case it turns into a kneel and I get carded for intentionally falling.

Therefore, since the rules allow ducking, and the only way to duck is to cover at least part of your lame with your legs, it logically follows that covering with the legs while in the normal range of motion of a duck is not cardable.

Hmmm, interesting. I look at it like this. Does the position of the ducker cover target relative to the attack? In the photo in question it seems fairly obvious with the low angle of the attack that the legs are covering target. In the event that the attacker makes a high angle attack, it might not be covering at all. As I said before the "ducker" takes his chances. It's important, just as in a right of way call, what the fencers do in relation to each other. It's never simple.

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by Joe biebel

If the attacking fencer were taking the blade high and were over the top of the head of the "ducker" it is a different situation.

This would seem to imply that if I make an attack to the low line of a fencer (who is standing on guard) and he places his hand over the upper quadrent of his chest, he is NOT covering target, since it is not "in the way" of my attack.

Of course, this isn't correct. The fencer who does that will get a card.

I stand with Ian's answer.

[CvilleFencer]

While that type of move definitly tickles my itch to be a card slinging cowboy on a quixotian attempt to single handidly clean up the way foil seems to be going, in fairness, and the interest of being hired to referee events again, I have to agree with Ian, DU, Allen, etc. However in the second pic that Tbryan posted I would card as quickly as if it were a bell punch. Really sorry about that by the way Tbryan. I feel bad that you unknowingly walked into a boxing match at one of my events and I did not have a chance to say so before you had already left...

[qatet]

Originally Posted by IanSerotkin

The rules specifically say that ducking is OK (t.21), and it's pretty near impossible to duck without your legs covering some amount of valid target. I just tried it in front of a mirror a few times and short of kneeling like a very awkward baseball catcher, target gets covered.

If one were to duck with the chest staying upright (not leaning over, as in the picture) then the legs would not be covering target area. It also wouldn't be as effective a duck. But then, ducking while dropping the head is also more effective than ducking while facing forwards.

I'm not sure where I stand on this one. On the one hand, the front is completely obscured (and it looks like the fencer on the right is going to need some serious work to get his weapon straightened out - ouch) but the back is fully open, and the forward crouch would make it even easier to hit the back. The head isn't covering, and I don't know of any specific rules or conventions that cover the legs.

[Zilverzmurfen]

Originally Posted by IanSerotkin

The rules specifically say that ducking is OK (t.21), and it's pretty near impossible to duck without your legs covering some amount of valid target.

Perhaps I should not interfere, since I'm an épéeist and this photo is about foil...

The fencer is clearly caught in the 'ducking' action and may unintenionally (I'm sure) be 'covering target' -- however there's still his entire back for his opponent to score touches to!


Aah, I'm happy I don't have to deal with these matters.

[Joe biebel]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

This would seem to imply that if I make an attack to the low line of a fencer (who is standing on guard) and he places his hand over the upper quadrent of his chest, he is NOT covering target, since it is not "in the way" of my attack.

Of course, this isn't correct. The fencer who does that will get a card.

I stand with Ian's answer.

This is quite accurate. But not he case at hand. 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. It is the relationship of the fencers and their targets and weapons which is key here. In the photo the defender is placing, by their change of position invallid target between the oponents attacking weapon and his valid target.