Tim Morehouse - Fencing Blog

[Craig]

Hello all,

Tim Morehouse has started posting to his blog and will continue to post his accounts of the 2006 Fencing World Championships.

You can take a look at the first two blog posts that we uploaded today:

http://www.fencing.net/blogs/morehouse/

Cheers,
Craig

[Craig]

So, what are your thoughts given the description of the new instant replay system?

[KShan5[PrFC]]

I like the idea. However, I like the idea that they had before that a failed challenege is a yellow etc. It would eb very much like they do it in the NFL with losing a time out after a failed challenege. It would stop fencers from using their three challeneges for no reason and keep a better pace of the bout.

[eac]

Originally Posted by Craig

So, what are your thoughts given the description of the new instant replay system?

Sounds like an improvement, although I wish that instead of there being a limited number of challenges, there were a penalty for a challenge and an unlimited number of them. That way, if you KNOW a ref screwed up against you 4 times, you can call him on it 4 times. OTOH, if the ref never screwed up, but you feel like trying your luck with the other refs, you don't; on the current system, there's nothing against that.

Another problem is that if you successfully appeal against a ref 3 times, that ref will be a) relatively incompetent and b) very pissed off against you, and so you're more likely to need a fourth challenge.

[mifencer]

This SO much like the FIE to implement a process without fully thinking it out... and the French criticize the U.S. for not thinking out.

Call me old fashion, but there's always been a human touch in fencing or better yet, sports in general. I don't see anything in wrong with having a judgement call, just train the judges better.

Just my $.02.

[MPL]

Originally Posted by eac

Another problem is that if you successfully appeal against a ref 3 times, that ref will be a) relatively incompetent and b) very pissed off against you, and so you're more likely to need a fourth challenge.

This wouldn't help you immediatly, but hopefully, if a ref is getting 3 successful appeals against him every bout, he won't be reffing at the highest level for long.

[Craig]

Check out Tim's response to my comment:

Originally Posted by Tim Morehouse

Blog comment:
We actually just heard that this might not happen after all. Stay tuned. A lot of things seem to still be up in the air.

In addition, we just found out that the entire team must wear the exact same socks so we are now purchasing 50+ pairs of matching socks.

[eac]

Originally Posted by Craig

Check out Tim's response to my comment:

Can we please *NOT* cross-post each thing Tim says in two threads, and then have five threads about the same blog?

[JackSparrow]

They should post a table of the fencers with the most failed appeals on the FIE website. Name and shame them!

[Gav]

Originally Posted by JackSparrow

They should post a table of the fencers with the most failed appeals on the FIE website. Name and shame them!

What we should do is open a book on who puts in the most failed calls ...

Give a prize to the person who gets closest.

[Craig]

Got this via email

Rule Changes One Day We Fence At Worlds

We found out tonight about two rule changes or interpretations that will go into effect tomorrow for Saber!

1) On a simultaneous action in the middle if one fencer is attacking from hand down and the other from hand up the touch will be award to the fencer who is attacking with the hand up even if they start and land together.

2) On an attack, if the attacker falls short and his/her arm is extended then that will now be considered an established point in line and the person riposting will have to beat it becaues if they just riposte it will be called point in line.

This is apparently what the FIE told referees to call in the meeting they
had today. Our representative said that most referees laughed, but we
shall show it plays out tomorrow.

Also, there will be instant replay. 3 challenges with no penalty starting at the 32. No word yet on how you request one. Only the fencer can request and not the coaches.

We start tomorrow at 12:30 and the women's foil starts before us around 9am

Tim

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Craig

On an attack, if the attacker falls short and his/her arm is extended then that will now be considered an established point in line and the person riposting will have to beat it becaues if they just riposte it will be called point in line.

That seems to be a rather large change, right? I'm not very good at sabre reffereeing, but I was under the impression that the fencer who now has to ripost would have to take a step back or pause for a tempo before the point in line was considered "established."

[Peach]

Golly. Both are large rule changes and without much notice or apparent discussion. In sabre, it has long been required that PIL could not be established without either a deliberate pulling of distance (usu. 2 retreats) or a distinct pause or preparation on the part of the attacker.

I can see some interesting ramifications on the part of savvy fencers. For instance, if you know your opponent will deliberately miss and then leave arm extended, you could make an exaggerated preparation of your riposte to encourage commitment to line, and then beat. Contrariwise, if your opponent attacks and then leaves arm extended, you could just hang out and at your leisure beat and go -- or false-beat, allow the opponent to deceive, then beat again -- or hit the hand -- because line is very vulnerable to someone with controlled footwork.

You could use the action in the attack to make your opponent hesitate, and then renew the attack. If you know your opponent was going to beat, you could attack, establish PIL, let them beat, and parry-riposte or deceive the beat retreat, step in step out so they attack short. Or attack, establish PIL, and if they hesitate extend with point (keeping PIL).

Gonna be a lot of twitching and rearing back with this one. And people ripping off their masks with their eyes bulging in disbelief at the refs because they haven't heard the news.

As for the low-high rule, that would limit something I use a lot, and which my opponents often do not see but the referee does--the low-hand attack from below. It's a nice one, especially with the obstructed visibility of the visor masks.

[eac]

This is insane. I don't really care about the rule changes one way or the other, but I want them to STOP CHANGING THEM!!!!

[downunder]

It isn't so much a rule change, as something that is being cracked down on.

Nothing will change... It'll just be in effect for a week or so.

Whatever you do, don't change the way you fence or referee until you see a urgent letter from the FIE on the website instructing otherwise.


I'd heard about the point in line 'changes' being used. The FIE are a bit concerned about the massive amount of time allowed for counterattacks in sabre, and really want to bring it back to a more foil timing, where the counterattack should correctly start extending before the remise. If the point in line is left out there, then this potentially provides the distance for more than one fencing and so the hit should be awarded that way.

The actions in the middle should be interesting. Its splitting hairs as it is sometimes.

[fencingpictures]

Originally Posted by Morehouse

1) On a simultaneous action in the middle if one fencer is attacking from hand down and the other from hand up the touch will be award to the fencer who is attacking with the hand up even if they start and land together.

Like my coach always said, the highest hand wins.

We got an update from Guillermo at FencingPictures, and in addition to the most recent information in this thread, apparently fencers also get one (1) instant replay challenge for a 5-touch encounter. I don't know for sure, but this wouldn't seem to include seeding rounds, as the slow-mo is on the 4 primary strips; so it might be for team.

There are also 2 referee delegates, each delegate covering 2 of the primary strips (strips with slo-mo). When an instant replay request comes in, the ref, with the delegate, will review the action together and make a determination.

As we get more information it will be posted here and at fencingchannel.tv.

--wf

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by eac

This is insane. I don't really care about the rule changes one way or the other, but I want them to STOP CHANGING THEM!!!!

I'm with you. Decide what you want from us and then leave things the heck alone!

But it's typical bureaucracy: if you aren't constantly doing something you don't feel like you're in charge and meeting your responsibilities. So you move the deck chairs around.

Bah.

[Sabresque]

That high hand low hand rule is ridiculous. All I can say is what???????

[KD5MDK]

Who are the US referees in Turin? Can't wait to hear the reports out of Memphis. Hopefully they'll still be repeating all changes at Albuquerque.

[Allen Evans]

(laughing) No! Wait, it's going to get evey worse! I can imagine:

"Halt! The attack is from the left, touch left. Score is now 10-7. On guard. (ahem) for the rest of the bout, any fencer making more than three advances will be considered in preparation and any simple attack into this preparation will have priority.....Fence!"

Allen Evans