Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

ViewtifulMisho · 06-02-2007, 02:28 AM

I'm hoping the USFA adopts the yellow card for one foot off rule ASAP.

I've had it with you run-off-the-side losers.

downunder · 06-02-2007, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by erik_blank

Errr… Hasn’t the USFA already been doing this for the side of the strip? (t.26)
As for annulling the hits, the USFA rules state that only the offender loses his/her point, but any hit recorded by his/her opponent is allowed.

Erik, if you take the time to actually read the passage you have quoted you will see that it is perfectly possible to go off the piste with one foot whilst making a valid hit.

downunder · 06-02-2007, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drifter

Actually these two proposals combined turn fencing into a contact sport.

I can't run off the side of the strip but I can run in to you? Sweet!! Let me get my shoulder pads.

You've obviously never heard of this concept called corps a corps with jostling, which is an offense at all 3 weapons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fencerbill

The proposed change to T.22 means that the referee can now award a touch when there is a substitution of target. So it is a yellow card and, effectively, an immediate red card, for the first offense.

Does this mean that if the offense is repeated it is a red card and an award of a touch - effectively a double red card?

Just clarifying that if this goes through (which would surprise me), that the fencer would be penalised with a touch against him (not a card) and then the appropriate penalty. So yes, it would be entirely possible to have 2 hits awarded. This is possible nowadays in the situation where someone covers targets when they are being attacked, and the attacking fencer still manages to hit.

Drifter · 06-02-2007, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by downunder

You've obviously never heard of this concept called corps a corps with jostling, which is an offense at all 3 weapons.

Huh? Really? Gee I was completely unaware of that. Having only been a fencer for 15 years it's never come up. Interestingly enough I was also completely unaware that apparently Australians are incapable of seeing humor on a messageboard.

downunder · 06-02-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drifter

Huh? Really? Gee I was completely unaware of that. Having only been a fencer for 15 years it's never come up. Interestingly enough I was also completely unaware that apparently Autralians are incapable of seeing humor on a messageboard.

i thought humour was supposed to be funny

Drifter · 06-02-2007, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by downunder

i thought humour was supposed to be funny

Oh I see. I suppose I could edit the first post to include a fart joke in it for ya.

downunder · 06-02-2007, 09:57 AM

trapped in this land of dry wit I do miss the subtleties of American humour.

DHCJr · 06-02-2007, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

If they're going to keep the new timings, I'd be all for it. It would help with the small fencers and those with chest plates. Even otherwise, it would give more target to hit, which promotes attacking.

Yes, let us encourage going for the most unprotected part of the body. Before you say it is not a problem in Epee and Sabre that is because the mask which is closer is also target area. If you made the bib target area in Foil it would be the closest target. It may have been voted down, but it seems to keep resurfacing.

Maybe it is the manufacturers who are pushing this. Just think, they will now be able to sell more masks. Every Foil fencer will have to buy a new mask. A fencer like Michael Marx will need to buy two masks one for Foil and one for Epee.

KD5MDK · 06-02-2007, 02:58 PM

I suspect Michael already owns at least one mask that would work for epee.

Monash_Armourer · 06-02-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drifter

Huh? Really? Gee I was completely unaware of that. Having only been a fencer for 15 years it's never come up. Interestingly enough I was also completely unaware that apparently Australians are incapable of seeing humor on a messageboard.

I take offence at this, and intend to write a series of letters in complaint to my nearest MP requesting that you be extradited from your country of origin, and then deported to New Zealand upon your arrival as punishment for your impudence.

HDG · 06-02-2007, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monash_Armourer

I take offence at this, and intend to write a series of letters in complaint to my nearest MP requesting that you be extradited from your country of origin, and then deported to New Zealand upon your arrival as punishment for your impudence.

Reminds me of a Simpson's episode…

Monash_Armourer · 06-02-2007, 04:36 PM

I'm looking at the amendments proposed by the British Fencing Association in regards to the publicity code, and in effect every amendment proposed appears to be aimed at securing more space for manufacturer labelling under the guise of securing more space to display FIE and CEN labels and making them clear and easier to read.

With the exception of perhaps the amendments to p.10.1.a so ask not to "exclude" LP's contour fit system masks under the publicity code, and possibly the alteration of p.10.1.h to allow advertising on sabre guards again (repealing the change made at the last meeting) can anybody see anything positive coming out of this? I'm trying not to be cynical, but I don't see this as anything but a guise to ensure that more space is available for branding, does anybody see this differently?

Monash_Armourer · 06-02-2007, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HDG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monash_Armourer

I take offence at this, and intend to write a series of letters in complaint to my nearest MP requesting that you be extradited from your country of origin, and then deported to New Zealand upon your arrival as punishment for your impudence.

Reminds me of a Simpson's episode…

Simpsons already did it?

Inquartata · 06-02-2007, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epeemike81

nope, just that finger loop you hate wearing so much.

-m

Meh, those aren't really "devices".

I realize that the FIE rules and their English translations have a penchant for terminological inexactitudes, but really...

HDG · 06-02-2007, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monash_Armourer

Simpsons already did it?

That's right Professor Chaos, "Simpsons did it".

KD5MDK · 06-02-2007, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monash_Armourer

I'm looking at the amendments proposed by the British Fencing Association in regards to the publicity code, and in effect every amendment proposed appears to be aimed at securing more space for manufacturer labelling under the guise of securing more space to display FIE and CEN labels and making them clear and easier to read.

With the exception of perhaps the amendments to p.10.1.a so ask not to "exclude" LP's contour fit system masks under the publicity code, and possibly the alteration of p.10.1.h to allow advertising on sabre guards again (repealing the change made at the last meeting) can anybody see anything positive coming out of this? I'm trying not to be cynical, but I don't see this as anything but a guise to ensure that more space is available for branding, does anybody see this differently?

They are presented as saying "Everyone is already out of compliance, let's change the rules to make it ok". As opposed to, say, changing their labels.

mrbiggs · 06-02-2007, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DHCJr

Yes, let us encourage going for the most unprotected part of the body. Before you say it is not a problem in Epee and Sabre that is because the mask which is closer is also target area. If you made the bib target area in Foil it would be the closest target. It may have been voted down, but it seems to keep resurfacing.

Maybe it is the manufacturers who are pushing this. Just think, they will now be able to sell more masks. Every Foil fencer will have to buy a new mask. A fencer like Michael Marx will need to buy two masks one for Foil and one for Epee.

I think that the bib would not be primary target, because it's small and easy to move. One could argue that it's also closer than the chest in epee, but you still see chest hits more often than bib hits.

OROD · 06-02-2007, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I think that the bib would not be primary target, because it's small and easy to move. One could argue that it's also closer than the chest in epee, but you still see chest hits more often than bib hits.

There's no need to make the bib target. That's all there is to it.

.

Drifter · 06-02-2007, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monash_Armourer

I take offence at this, and intend to write a series of letters in complaint to my nearest MP requesting that you be extradited from your country of origin, and then deported to New Zealand upon your arrival as punishment for your impudence.

:Sigh:

Again?!?

Though I really don't see why someone whose profile says they're from Mebourne, North Korea would take issue with my words. I mean I didn't even know Melbourne was in North Korea. Ya know we 'mericans aren't known for our geography. Particularly now that our moron in chief has mandated that all atlas' must be rewritten with 'us' and 'them' titles for all countries.

DHCJr · 06-03-2007, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I think that the bib would not be primary target, because it's small and easy to move. One could argue that it's also closer than the chest in epee, but you still see chest hits more often than bib hits.

I said it wrong. I should have said the closest target. I can usually tell a fencer who fences Epee from one that fences Foil. Do you know why? The dents in the mask. Since it is target Epeeist go for the mask more often than Foilist. I will ask you another question. Why make the bib target, unless it is because you want to hit that to score?