Athletes' Handbook Changes for the 2006-2007 Season

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

If you short the wires in epee against the guard, you WILL fire the light...because it's a normally open circuit and the box is looking for a closure.

only if by "fire the light" you're including the grounding light...

that said, in an epee tape could hide a switch that connects wire to wire.

-m

[KD5MDK]

Don't SG and Eigertek boxes have independent grounds that allow the epee to trigger a valid touch when there is contact between the hot (a or b?) wire and that side's c?

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by brtech

I'm an armorer, and an engineer and I think tape can hide all kinds of mischief including foil mischief. These days, I think I would use tape to hide a circuit that lengthens any contact with the opposite lame into a regulation hit. Wouldn't be too hard. It's only a microprocessor and a handful of passives. Probably is less than 1/2" on a side and a few mm thick. Knock a dent in the guard, spray some insulation down, drop the circuit in, connect to the wires, cover with tape. You could never tell by looking.

Or slice a thick guard pad in half or glue 2 thin ones together. Wow.

[KD5MDK]

Wouldn't you need to maintain contact with the A line of your opponent for that?

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

This happened at J.O.'s this year. A fencer wore a bright green uniform with their name properly on the uniform. Should the fencer be allowed to wear this uniform. I will not give out the decision at J.O.'s because I want to get a discussion going. If you say the rulebook is the final authority then the uniform is allowed (M.25.3). If you say the Athletes Handbook is the final authority then the fencer can not wear the uniform (2.6).

What happened at J.O.'s was the third choice, the referee used last years rulebook (light or white). The fencer did not want to rock the boat, so did not take it further.

I want to thank Jeff Bukantz and Bill Oliver to getting me a definite answer to what the rules will be at Summer Nationals. Also the FOC for Summer Nationals was cc'd by Mr. Oliver on this. Below is his answer.

All,

When last we visited this issue, it was agreed that the rules book, as published on the FOC website, took precidence over any other documents, with the exception of certain addenda that would be published by the FOC on the website (none such are in place, at the moment.)

Corinne, I'll send you correct wording on the uniform color, so you can update the handbook. We should be sure to get that updated by next season.

Sharon, be aware of the issue, so you can nip any problems in the bud at Nationals. Any uniform color except black. Designs aren't covered, currently, so it will be up to the Head referee, with assistance from the other FOC members present, to rule on the acceptability of any design, should such an issue arise. (Evil Clown knickers, anyone?)

If I have time, I'll try to get something on the FOC website....

Bill

[KD5MDK]

Thanks for passing that on.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

When last we visited this issue, it was agreed that the rules book, as published on the FOC website, took precidence over any other documents, with the exception of certain addenda that would be published by the FOC on the website (none such are in place, at the moment.)

Don, does that ruling apply to all matters, or only to the colored uniform issue?

I'd like to know, in case I get any more "the Referee's Handbook says" arguments in future.

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Don, does that ruling apply to all matters, or only to the colored uniform issue?

I'd like to know, in case I get any more "the Referee's Handbook says" arguments in future.

Of course I am not in any way official in any sense of the word. I would make a copy of this. I would say Bill Oliver is and if there are differences in the CURRENT referee's Handbook than the rule book I would let him know. As I said above some referees use the third choice an out-of-date information.

[KD5MDK]

Can you come up with cases where the Referee's Handbook was being applied as overriding the Rule Book?

[brtech]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Wouldn't you need to maintain contact with the A line of your opponent for that?

Well, first of all it depends on how clever the code is on the scoring machine: does it check that opposite A line contact is maintained through the hit period or just sample it at the beginning? Assuming it did it well, I think that the cycle you would see is lame contact, then depress, then release (foil B-C connection restored as tip returns to resting state) and then loss of contact to lame. If you lengthened the depress time artificially, you may still have enough valid lame contact time. It wouldn't turn every momentary contact into a point, but it would turn an awful lot of them.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by Army Fencer

I've recently read the Athletes' Handbook, and I found a number of important changes.

At a different level, someone recently asked me how to compute Div II and Div III qualifiers to Nationals if a combined qualifier is held. In previous years, the final finishers and qualifiers (assuming no auto-quals) looked like this

1. E, Div II & III
2. D, Div II & III
3. C, Div II
4. E, Div II & III
5. U, Div II & III
6. D, Div II & III
7. D, Div II & III
8. C
9. E, Div III
10. C
11. C
12. U, Div III
13. D, Div III
14. D, Div III
15. U, Div III
16. D, Div III
17. E
18. U
19. U
20. E
21. U
22. E
23. U
24. U
25. U
26. U
27. U

That is, the seven Div II qualifiers also could fence in Div III if their rating permitted it. They did not take up a Div III qualifying spot. We remove the Cs from the total list to compute the number of Div III qualifiers (6) and start counting, skipping the Cs, from the spot below the last Div II qualifier.

Now, the Athlete's Handbook no longer specifies that Div II qualifiers are also qualified for Div III. Does that mean that we start at the top of the list when counting Div III qualifiers, like this?

1. E, Div II & III
2. D, Div II & III
3. C, Div II
4. E, Div II & III
5. U, Div II & III
6. D, Div II & III
7. D, Div II & III
8. C
9. E
10. C
11. C
12. U
13. D
14. D
15. U
16. D
17. E
18. U
19. U
20. E
21. U
22. E
23. U
24. U
25. U
26. U
27. U

If so, that's clearly a significant change to the qualifying path for these events. I'm surprised that I didn't hear more about it among those trying to qualify for Div II/III.

[qatet]

Originally Posted by tbryan

At a different level, someone recently asked me how to compute Div II and Div III qualifiers to Nationals if a combined qualifier is held. In previous years, the final finishers and qualifiers (assuming no auto-quals) looked like this

[snippety snip]

If so, that's clearly a significant change to the qualifying path for these events. I'm surprised that I didn't hear more about it among those trying to qualify for Div II/III.

There was significant discussion of it on the boards here. As best I can tell, most of the general fencing population, however, doesn't read the handbook (or the rulebook, for that matter, but that's a separate issue) and didn't know until they finished fourth and learned that they hadn't qualified for anything at all, at which point there wasn't much that they could do.

Also, on an unrelated note, I think that this year's Nationals should feature an unofficial competition for the best Evil Clown Knickers. Milanoli would be proud. Dear Bill Oliver, thanks for the awesome ideas!

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Can you come up with cases where the Referee's Handbook was being applied as overriding the Rule Book?

No specific incidents come immediately to mind. I am talking about general tendencies, rather.

For example, one passage from the Handbook is often cited:"The definition as to what is an attack is derived from both the Rules Book and from convention--what is called an attack by the world's best referees". For many people that seems to constitute license to add things that aren't in the rules, or to extrapolate from them.

Then there's this addition to the definition of an attack, for instance: defining "offensive" as "you must be going toward your opponent". This is not required under the rules, and is a serious stretching of the generally understood meaning of "offensive".

We've all had this argument before, ad nauseam. You must remember it. You are refereeing, two fencers come to close distance, one extends and hits with a simple extension and cut but no footwork---he is not "going toward" the other fencer. The other reacts. Two lights. What do you call this, as a referee? The only possible call is "attack", isn't it? But according to the Handbook's expanded definition, it isn't. Gee, I guess I'll just throw it out because technically it isn't an attack, a counterattack, a PIL or anything else.

At the extreme there are refs who seem to put all of their emphasis on the "forward motion" from the Handbook and little or none on the "continuously extending" part.

Then there's "In Sabre, the attack also ends when the front foot lands in the lunge". Which, alas, is what the rule says only in the case of a simple attack with lunge. t.75.b (1) also says that "in a compound attack (cf. t.8) when, with the arm extending in the correct forming of the first feint (cf. t.77), the touch arrives at the latest when the front foot touches the strip or immediately afterwards". t.75.b (2) requires only that "the touch arrives at the latest at the end of the lunge". And if I continue leaning and stretching forward after my front foot lands, my knee and body are still forwarding the lunge, aren't they? So the two phasings are not synonymous. ( I would actually prefer the clarity of the Handbook's version, personally, if only it were justifiable to elevate it above the rulebook's. )

There is also some fuzziness in the "beat vs parry" discussion: "If one fencer’s weak [foible] part of the blade meets the strong [forte] part of the opponent’s blade (not a mere grazing of the blades), it is a parry by the opponent. If it is the strong that meets the weak, it is a beat". Which goes well beyond the actual wording of the rules...

There too I think the clarity of the Handbook's version is preferable, but---it adds things to the rules which aren't in them.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by qatet

There was significant discussion of it on the boards here.

Thanks. I wasn't paying attention at the time since I didn't know many who planned to do Div II/III events this year at Nationals. I'll have to go back and search some more for that thread.

Originally Posted by qatet

As best I can tell, most of the general fencing population, however, doesn't read the handbook (or the rulebook, for that matter, but that's a separate issue)

As I said, "someone...asked me." I've told them that this information is in the handbook, but I think that they've decided that it's easier to wait for me to look it up than to read the handbook themselves.

[Inquartata]

Enabler!

[KD5MDK]

but I think that they've decided that it's easier to wait for me to look it up than to read the handbook themselves.

Your stories are more believable than anything in the newspapers.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Enabler!

Okay, so I cut the explanation short. Some of them actually do read the handbook, but the handbook could really benefit from some examples in the sections on computing qualifiers. While the handbook is fairly clear, I know that we've had discussions here over the past few years about multiple divisions that generated (at least initially) the wrong list of qualifiers. My friends just know that I read and post here, so they're really asking me to do some the research, ask other people on fencing.net, compare with other divisions, and figure out whether when the handbook says X, does it really mean Y or Z?

And I believe that it does make sense for as few people as possible to waste their time doing that kind of research at each club.

[oso97]

Once again, Inq, you demonstrate your endless capacity for quoting without context.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Then there's this addition to the definition of an attack, for instance: defining "offensive" as "you must be going toward your opponent". This is not required under the rules, and is a serious stretching of the generally understood meaning of "offensive".

The specific quote from the referee's hand book that I think you are referencing is part of a larger discussion of Article t.7 - i.e. what is an attack? Its is necessary to look at the entire discussion - focusing in on any of the words to the exclusion of the others will lead you down blind alleys.

Originally Posted by Referee Handbook

"The attack is the INITIAL OFFENSIVE action made by EXTENDING the arm and CONTINUOUSLY THREATENING the valid surface of the opponent's target."

INITIAL --you must start your action before your opponent. This does not at all mean who started moving first.

OFFENSIVE --you must be going toward your opponent. Attempting a parry is not offensive.

EXTENDING --for those of you who know grammar, this is a gerund; it connotes action. The arm never has to become extend ed to have a correctly executed attack. To have an extending arm, your hand must be going away from your body.

CONTINUOUSLY --non-stop. You must keep attacking. If you "break" your attack--stop moving forward or hold back your arm--you are no longer attacking and, if your opponent starts an attack of her own, your continuation may become a counter attack. Your attack ends when it misses, is parried, or falls short. In Sabre, the attack also ends when the front foot lands in the lunge.

THREATENING --you must present a danger to your opponent. This word really has two parts to its definition. One is the relationship of distance between the fencers in determining whether one is threatening. If your opponent is within advance lunge distance, you can be threatening; you can start an attack. If your opponent is beyond advance lunge distance, you cannot be threatening; you cannot start an attack - even if your opponent were to remain completely immobile, your attack would not start until you were at advance lunge distance. The other part that is important in defining this word is that your point (for foil) or your blade (for sabre) is going toward your opponent’s valid target. It is a very common misconception that, for example, a foil attack requires the point to be "aimed" at the valid target before an attack starts.

Taken as a whole, this is an extraordinarily illustrative and comprehensive statement. It does not say, as you seem to suggest that offensive is the only thing to take into consideration. And in fact, if you look at the next sentence, it is there to illustrate a key point : Attempting a parry is not offensive. If you're searching for the blade, you lose the ROW (assuming the other guy does the appropriate thing). As part of the convention, we assume that we're talking about the weapon arm. Not the off weapon arm. Not the head, the neck, the torso or the foot. The Weapon Arm.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

We've all had this argument before, ad nauseam. You must remember it. You are refereeing, two fencers come to close distance, one extends and hits with a simple extension and cut but no footwork---he is not "going toward" the other fencer. The other reacts. Two lights. What do you call this, as a referee? The only possible call is "attack", isn't it? But according to the Handbook's expanded definition, it isn't. Gee, I guess I'll just throw it out because technically it isn't an attack, a counterattack, a PIL or anything else.

I still don't know in what universe this action would not be an attack. It meets all of the expanded criterion - initial (started before the other), offensive (moving towards the opponent, and not parrying), continuous (no break) and threatening (its aimed toward the opponents valid target area).

Originally Posted by Inquartata

At the extreme there are refs who seem to put all of their emphasis on the "forward motion" from the Handbook and little or none on the "continuously extending" part.

In fact, my dear Inq, the words "forward motion" do not even appear in the Referee Handbook.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

There is also some fuzziness in the "beat vs parry" discussion: "If one fencer’s weak [foible] part of the blade meets the strong [forte] part of the opponent’s blade (not a mere grazing of the blades), it is