Brutality

[MyrddinsPrecint]

So-- this weekend at a high school meet, there were a couple issues of possible brutality in a sabre bout. Fortunatly, I didn't have to card anyone, but realizing that I didn't know the rules word for word, I decided to read the pertinant ones.

The penalty chart includes the black cardable "Deliberate brutality" with the reference of t.105, which reads "A competitor who, while fencing, commits certain violent or
vindictive actions against his opponent, or who does not fence
to his utmost ability, or who profits from a fraudulent
agreement with his opponent, may be excluded from the
competition...."

Well, that's as clear are they're going to make that rule, and as clear as I need it to be.

However, there's also a red card for "Dangerous, violent or vindictive action, blow with guard or pommel", and the rule cited is t.87, which is long, and contains information on a wide variety of topics, including when and how to salute, passivity (or whatever we're calling it today), can't take off your mask, can't undress on strip, and signing the score sheet. Nothing about dangerous, violent, or vindictive actions.

Now, there are a few questions floating in my mind, including "When should one give a card to a brand new high school student for what amounts to just being very very bad" (which, of course, is debatable, and depends on whether he's hurting his opponent, and whether or not it'll possibly help the situation, and isn't a question that one can answer without a very specific senario).

But my questions that might have answers are first and foremost--- Where is the rule that says that a dangerous action can be awarded a group 2 red? (I have looked.....) When that rule is found, should someone email someone so that the correct rule is noted in the rulebook?

Also, I'm assuming that the difference between the red and black card is intent-- "dangerous" being different from "deliberate brutality"........ but doesn't "vindicitive" imply intent??


{PS: While a few other threads discuss brutality/etc, none cite the actual rules, which is mostly what I'm looking for. Interestingly enough, the brutality yellow card doesn't even have a rule citation........}

[RPI Epeeist]

(from dictionary.com)

Vindictive (adj)

1. disposed or inclined to revenge; vengeful: a vindictive person.
2. proceeding from or showing a revengeful spirit: vindictive rumors.

Sounds to me like intent is required for a vindictive act. I mean, I suppose subconsciously you can perform an act of revenge, but I doubt it.

Now... maybe t.63 would clear things up a tiny bit? It has a section stating...

"The fleche ending systematically in a corps a corps refereed to in this article must not be confused with the fleche resulting in a shock wich jostles the opponent which is considered as an act of intentional brutality in all three weapons and is punised as such (cf. t.87, t.120)."

[Joe biebel]

Occasionally, there is clear intent, to the referee, that one competitor is trying to cause harm to his/her opponent. This is a black cardable offense and is covered by several rules. There is also the possibility that a fencer with little or no control is banging into or hitting very hard unnecessarily, but without intent. That is where, I think, brutality in delivering a hit comes into play.

I look at it like this. Intentional brutality, your done (black card) for the day. Accidental hard hit, touch annulled (if one occurred) and a red card for brutality in delivering a hit. I know this may get "flamed" but I have even applied it to badly (incredibly hard) flicks. In my opinion, the rules are saying you may not hit hard. Obviously, that is a judgment call. If you hit hard purposely, black card. If you hit hard due to lack of skill, too much adrenaline, whatever, red card.

As a competitor, and as a referee, I have a low tolerance for unnecessarily hard hits. As a competitor, you have very little (besides a little whining) you can do if the ref thinks the hits are okay.

There is the opportunity, especially with the rule that states "blow with the guard" that is a red card, to get it completely wrong. This is a very easy call to blow. I had a one light attack touch annulled and a red card given (touch against me) by a referee at an NAC when I flesched at my much taller opponent, he ducked and counterattacked with a flesche and head-butted my guard. My call (assuming the action is exactly as I said it occurred) is: Attach, from the left, counterattack from the right, touch for the left, yellow card for corps-a-corps to the fencer on the right. The important thing to remember is that it is not necessarily the fault of the fencer attacking if there is a corps-a-corps, and it does not automatically mean the fencer whose guard hits the opponents mask is the one at fault. If you get a call like this wrong, the net result is a two touch error, and the wrong fencer is in “card jeopardy”..

[ToeSmasher]

Did you try looking at the 2006 USFA rules?

http://www.fencingofficials.org/Rule...USFA_Rules.pdf

It's bound to be somewhere in there...

[HDG]

Did you try looking at the 2006 USFA rules?

http://www.fencingofficials.org/Rule...USFA_Rules.pdf

It's bound to be somewhere in there...

The OP cites the relevant rules; she's just asking for some clarification.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Now... maybe t.63 would clear things up a tiny bit? It has a section stating...

"The fleche ending systematically in a corps a corps refereed to in this article must not be confused with the fleche resulting in a shock wich jostles the opponent which is considered as an act of intentional brutality in all three weapons and is punised as such (cf. t.87, t.120)."

That still cites t.87, which is very clearly unhelpful. I'm starting to think that perhaps a PREVIOUS version of t.87 did have the pertinent data, but it was either moved or removed. Of course, I don't know where I would go to find a pdf of a modern but non-current rules!!

This helps in giving an idea of what is punished with what, but I had a vague notion of that before. This does, however, underscore my belief that there's something weird going on in rules cited though....

Occasionally, there is clear intent, to the referee, that one competitor is trying to cause harm to his/her opponent. This is a black cardable offense and is covered by several rules. There is also the possibility that a fencer with little or no control is banging into or hitting very hard unnecessarily, but without intent. That is where, I think, brutality in delivering a hit comes into play.

I look at it like this. Intentional brutality, your done (black card) for the day. Accidental hard hit, touch annulled (if one occurred) and a red card for brutality in delivering a hit. I know this may get "flamed" but I have even applied it to badly (incredibly hard) flicks. In my opinion, the rules are saying you may not hit hard. Obviously, that is a judgment call. If you hit hard purposely, black card. If you hit hard due to lack of skill, too much adrenaline, whatever, red card.

This is helpful, but where does the yellow card option fall into your scheme, or does it?

Did you try looking at the 2006 USFA rules?

http://www.fencingofficials.org/Rule...USFA_Rules.pdf

It's bound to be somewhere in there...

.......... did you try reading my post? I do, in fact, quote the 2006 USFA rules. In fact, it may be the fact that I'm reading the 2006 rules (and no year previous to that) that I can't find the pertinent information..........

[HDG]

Of course if on the command fence you walk up to your opponent and crack them over the head with your weapon and then knee them in the groin you have probably committed the group 2 offense (regardless of whether or not you actually hit them with the guard or pommel)

Knee to the groin = Grp 4 black card. The very definition of brutal.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Of course if on the command fence you walk up to your opponent and crack them over the head with your weapon and then knee them in the groin you have probably committed the group 2 offense (regardless of whether or not you actually hit them with the guard or pommel)

..........

Joe ignores the yellow card option, and he openly admits he's more harsh on brutality than others. This makes sense.

This is a sport where being angry enough to throw your mask or weapon (need not even be anywhere near another person) gets you thrown out of the building, but you suggest that kneeing someone in the groin is about as bad as forgetting to get your mask checked by the people doing that, or showing up without your name on your lame/jacket when it's required. HUH?

Group 2 reds are always reds, no matter how many times you commit the particular crime, as opposed to group 3 reds, which turn into a black the next time.

There are a number of situations in which I would find it difficult to give someone a black card. A situation in which one person knees their opponent in the groin while fencing is not one of those situations in which I would have a whole lot of trouble........

[rcmatthews]

I don't think that you actually have to hurt your opponent in order to draw a card. There are lots of hits that I have taken that didnt hurt me, but would fall under my personal definition of red card brutality.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

just remember that fencing rules are the same as pornography.

Lost in the annals (or anals? ) or the rulebooks???

[Joe biebel]

This is helpful, but where does the yellow card option fall into your scheme, or does it?

I mistakenly put in "red card" for the first time offense for "brutality". It is in fact a yellow card. The term brutality, at least as far as fencing rules go, I take to mean, hitting too hard, inadvertently. The fact that it is a yellow card supports this interpretation. Purposely smashing or hurting your opponent is covered by vindictive action and sportsmanship rules and has much more severe penalties. This is yet another situation that calls for the referee’s interpretation of intent. The exact same physical action can result in two or more possible different penalties based on the judgment of the ref.

Example 1: Fencer attacks or counterattacks or ripostes so hard that injury or serious pain is probable. ref feels it was inadvertent, yellow card.

Example 2: Fencer attacks or counterattacks or ripostes so hard that injury or serious pain is probable. ref. feels it was deliberate, red card for vindictive act, or black card for sportsmanship.

Example 3: Fencer attacks or counterattacks or ripostes so hard that injury or serious pain is probable, ref. has no cajones, en-guarde.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

oh for the sarcasm smiley.

just remember that fencing rules are the same as pornography.

What???

I do not see any similarity at all. Care to explain?

Anyway, I think that the rules could do with a lot of cleaning up. Editorial work not intended to change the content, but to make the message definitely impossible to miscontrue even if one wants to.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[HDG]

Hi!




What???

I do not see any similarity at all. Care to explain?n

It comes from a famous legal decision in which -- in lieu of a definition of pornorgraphy -- it was stated that one knows it when they see it. The implication is that it is the same with brutality and vindictive acts.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

It comes from a famous legal decision in which -- in lieu of a definition of pornorgraphy -- it was stated that one knows it when they see it. The implication is that it is the same with brutality and vindictive acts.

That makes sense. I am aware of that legal decision, but I thought that the reference was to fencing rules vs. porn, not B&VA vs. porn.

Oh well.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Mo]

Say a fencer has found a way to intimidate other fencers by dropping his hand and making a blade ride up the front of the lame until it stabs the opponent in the neck.
This fencer can win a bout by doing this and uses it repeatedly.
Is this an "illegal move?"
Isn't allowing someone to stab other club members in the neck kind of stupid?
If given the choice I would black card the fencer every time they did it but it isn't my choice.
Whatchallsay??
The fencer justifies it in saying that the other kids should learn to block it. Well that is true, they should, but is a bout at a club worth possibly killing someone?
How would you ref people classify this and how would you stop?
Momster

[keropie]

Well, I'd have to see it to call it, of course, but if it ever appears to me (as an official) that is an intentional action with the purpose of injuring an opponent, especially in the neck, I have no issues calling that an offense against sportsmanship and relieveing them of the need to fence (i.e., group 4 penalty, thank your waitress, don't let the door hit you on the way out).

[annacattiva]

Well, I'd have to see it to call it, of course, but if it ever appears to me (as an official) that is an intentional action with the purpose of injuring an opponent, especially in the neck, I have no issues calling that an offense against sportsmanship and relieveing them of the need to fence (i.e., group 4 penalty, thank your waitress, don't let the door hit you on the way out).

Amen to that. I've also warned fencers when it looked like an action that they were making was both dangerous and not deliberate. I figure that if they are aware that the ref thinks something is dangerous/violent, and then do it again, then... bye bye.

[Joe biebel]

Amen to that. I've also warned fencers when it looked like an action that they were making was both dangerous and not deliberate. I figure that if they are aware that the ref thinks something is dangerous/violent, and then do it again, then... bye bye.

I have seen fencers purposely and accidentally fence in a dangerous fashion. To my eye the most common is the fencer that intimidates their opponant with couterattacks that force the attacking fencer to break off their attack to try and avoid injury. "Jumping in their face", so to speak. With a seasoned fencer and a good referee, this type action will end with a corps-a-corps that the counter-attacker will be carded for. This also happens with beginners and I think referees need to be watchful of this type of action or tactic and put the kybosh (sp?) on it quickly. It's one thing to get a touch with a well timed, well executed counterattack that surprises the opponant and quite another to dive at their face. A violent action, one that does not preserve the "frank and courteous encounter" provision under T.87 is subject to a red card.

[Xenoflame]

I saw two yellow cards at the Hangover Classic. One time, a sabrist flunged at his opponent, nearly knocked him over, and was appalled at the prospect of receiving a card. Reason? He apologized.