Proposed changes to FIE rules and statues

[KD5MDK]

Get them here:
http://www.fie.ch/Fencing/Letters.aspx

Items of note.

From the Statues (FIE's bylaws, effectively)

Proposed by the Italian Fencing Federation:

These latter may nevert heless not hold the office of President, Vice-President,
Secretary general, Treasurer or any equivalent position , member of the
Executive Committee, or Presidents of Commissions indicated in the art. 4.4.
By fencing master is meant a person whose principal activity who is teaching or
practising fencing in return for payment.

This appears to be in regard to National Federations memberships and is only adding the text in yellow. It's not clear to me if this restricts who can be the mentioned officers of the FIE or of the National Federations.

A candidate for the Refereeing Commission must be or have been an A category
international referee at least at one conventional weapon in the past 8 years
preceding his candidature.

This replaces the previous requirement that they be an international referee in 2 weapons.

a) The right to vote at a General Assembly or Congress can be delegated to
another federation or a Member of Honour, who is not member of the Executive
Committee or President of a Commission as indicated in the art. 4.4.

This deals with proxy votes, and is adding the part in yellow.


Honduras, Belarus and Aruba all propose a term limit of 3 terms (12 years) for the FIE president.

Slovenia proposes the elimination of proxy votes, while Mexico and Bolivia both request the elimination of Proxy votes and that the travel of one representative for each federation to the Congress be paid by the FIE.


Now for the rules change proposals

Italians:
Proposal 1: A 6 person, 3 weapon (2 of each) team event proposal to replace the 3 separate team events we run in each weapon per gender.

Proposal 2: Electrify the foil bib and make it valid target.

Brazil (deferred from 2005 congress) - also with electrifying the bib, though with much less text and no diagrams.

Ukranians:

Ukraine Fencing Federation (UKR)
1. Publicity Code :
To add in Cf.2 c) as second proposition the following sentence :
A sports organisation as organiser of a sporting event may invite any kind of sponsor to
support the event, as long as its activity is not in contradiction with the FIE rules and the
Olympic Charter.
Motivation: to allow companies selling alcohol to be invited as sponsors.

emphasis added. It's just too stereotypical.

FIE Medical Commission:
Proposal that cramps and other non-injury medical conditions be treated the same as injuries for the purpose of the 10 minute break, etc.

Brazil:
Proposal to take indicators as a percentage of possible indicator to equalize indicators across unequal sized pools. Thus, wining 100% of your bouts with a +5 in a 6 man pool would be ranked higher than winning 100% of your pouts with a +5 in a 7 man pool.

Sam Cheris of the USA made the following proposals:

Sam Cheris (MH, USA)
1. Add at the end of m.33:
When a conductive overglove (manchette) is worn, the overglove must contain a device which
fixes the position of the overglove on the arm so that its position on the arm cannot be changed
during the bout.
2. Add to m.25 (7), following the third paragraph, a new sentence:
The mask must contain a horizontal safety strap at the rear of the mask, with the two ends of the
strap firmly affixed to the two sides of the mask. This strap may be elastic or other material
which may be approved by the S.E.M.I. Commission.
3.Add to m.32 (fifth paragraph, following "...and must be between 30 and 40 cm. long."
In the case of a coiled cable, the maximum length of the free cable cannot exceed 30 cm. when
the cable is at rest.
I would like to note that these are items were in the previous rule book, but somehow appear to
have been dropped when the rulebook was re-organized prior to the 1999 publication. Rationale:
These items will help improve both the safety and the smooth functioning of bouts.

FIE Executive Committee:

Originally Posted by t.22.2

If as a result of protection or
substitution of a valid surface, a hit correctly executed does not register, the fencer at fault
will be penalised as specified for offences of the 1st group and the hit will be added by the
referee.

This is a new addition, and appears to me making awarding the touch mandatory instead of optional for the referee.

They also propose to reword t.75 in sabre so that all forms of attack are over when the front foot hits the piste, and never include "or immediately after".

Cuba proposes reworking the entire system of World Cups, Grand Prix, etc to reduce the number (and so make it easier for poor countries to participate).

Lutefiskia proposes allowing fencers to include the results of their top 6 FIE compeitions, instead of forcing a fencer to replace satellite points with A grade ones.


France:

The hit made just before, during and after a fall, is annulled.

At sabre : delete the 1st sentence of article t.75.5 and replace it by « the forward
movement, the fleche and any forward movement with the rear foot crossing completely
the front foot, is forbidden ».
Motivation : the text seems more understandable for everybody.

Oddly enough, now I'm less understanding. Are they proposing to forbid "the forward movement" in sabre?

Delete the warning « simple corps à corps at foil and sabre ».
Motivation : if there is a corps à corps, it means that there is intention from one of the
fencer (or even both). It is very difficult, not to say impossible, to judge the fault as « a
simple corps à corps » or a « corps à corps to avoid a hit ». Furthermore, in order to
simplify and standardise the rules which govern refereeing, one single warning for the
« corps à corps » at all the weapons seems easier.

This appears to propose making corps a corps not a card in foil or sabre. The proposed justification is to make it easier for the referee who doesn't have to decide who was at fault. Also, they think having the same rules for the conventional weapons as epee will be easier. As if there aren't enough other differences.

In order to standardise refereeing, to award a yellow card when a fencer crosses the
limit of the piste with one or both feet.
Motivation : this is an offence of combat and as all offences of combat of the first group :
yellow card, then red card in case of repetition of offence.
- In the same spirit : annul all the hits of the fencer which crosses the limit of the piste
with one or two feet and warning (yellow card).
Motivation : as all the offences of combat, it seems unbelievable to win a match while the
fencer commits an offence in crossing the limit of the piste with a foot.

So, card for crossing the edge of the strip! Also, any touch scored while going off the side of the strip. If this passes and is adopted by the USFA I forsee bouts which have no colored lights awarded at all, just cards.

Final French proposal, an extended description of the Guard position and a requirement that fencers maintain it.


British - Propose a modification of the publicity code so that Leon Paul (and everyone else) will now be in compliance by expanding the allowed size of logos.

[KD5MDK]

Also, there is a modification of t.120 (the penalty chart) that would make non-combativity a grouped offence. Specifically, Group 3 Yellow, followed by reds. No mention of black card for it, either. Quite odd why they list it there instead of with the Group 1s.

[epeemike81]

The FIE has statues?? Two questions:
1) Who are the statues of?
2) Where are the statues housed?

-m

[qatet]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

The FIE has statues?? Two questions:
1) Who are the statues of?
2) Where are the statues housed?

-m

And here I read through this whole big long thing about rules (BO-RING!) to try to find out how many statues are being changed. Never again, KD5MDK! I'll never again trust you with leads for an art history project!

[Inquartata]

The statues are of the rear halves of horses. The rear halves only. They are created by Rene Roch, and kept at his palatial estate. Periodically, he makes another one himself and sends it on tour.

As to the changes:

1. Add at the end of m.33:
When a conductive overglove (manchette) is worn, the overglove must contain a device which fixes the position of the overglove on the arm so that its position on the arm cannot be changed during the bout.

"Contain a device"? I don't think I like the sound of that. I'm picturing something like a handcuff...

They also propose to reword t.75 in sabre so that all forms of attack are over when the front foot hits the piste, and never include "or immediately after".

HURRAH!

It will never pass, as it makes too much sense.

At sabre : delete the 1st sentence of article t.75.5 and replace it by « the forward movement, the fleche and any forward movement with the rear foot crossing completely the front foot, is forbidden ».
Motivation : the text seems more understandable for everybody.

I think it's intended to reduce referee uncertainty. Witness the diversity of opinion when I raised the question of how much of a fencer's back leg has to cross in order for it to constitute an illicit passe-avant? Some said "the whole foot or leg". Some said "any part of the foot or leg".

It would also make it easier for fencers to get away with crossing, of course. I'm not sure if that's an unintended consequence or an intended one.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

"Contain a device"? I don't think I like the sound of that. I'm picturing something like a handcuff...

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

-m

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

The FIE has statues?? Two questions:
1) Who are the statues of?
2) Where are the statues housed?

-m

I think KD5MDK had a small typo. I think he meant Statutes which are in the FIE Official section. You forgot the smiley!:}

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

I think KD5MDK had a small typo. I think he meant Statutes which are in the FIE Official section. You forgot the smiley!:}

no I didn't. I just figured some sarcasm is thick enough that it doesn't require a smiley...

-m

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Get them here:
http://www.fie.ch/Fencing/Letters.aspx

Proposal from Brazil:
Proposal to take indicators as a percentage of possible indicator to equalize indicators across unequal sized pools. Thus, wining 100% of your bouts with a +5 in a 6 man pool would be ranked higher than winning 100% of your pouts with a +5 in a 7 man pool.

If you compare fencers D and E in example 2 provided by the Brazilian federation, see part 3.2.1. of the letter, you will notice that they would be ranked tied for 1st under the proposed system, not #1 and #2 as is now. Also note that the Brazilian proposal already is used in Sweden and has been so for several years, with no bad effects noted. The beauty of intensive measures has shone upon their eyes!

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Lutefiskia proposes allowing fencers to include the results of their top 6 FIE compeitions, instead of forcing a fencer to replace satellite points with A grade ones.

Sigh. It was not funny the first time around, and not it is downright unfunny. Try going up to Tomer Or and calling his country "Bagelistan" or some such. Better yet, try it out on Jeff Bukantz. Do PM me and tell how it went over.

It is not one country, but several. The proposal was sponsored by Denmark, but supported by Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Finland.

The gist of the proposal (see pages 17-18 in the letter .pdf) is that fencers should never be punished for participation. Today, if one has gotten relatively many points in Satellite events, one can lose points by competing in i FIE A-grades if one can not match one´s satellite points results. It is not so that a bad result in the A-grades causes you to be stuck in one spot, you go backwards. This perverts the entire ranking/rating system, since some fencers get a motive to stay home. The Dutch/Nordic suggestion takes away this bad quirk.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Get them here:


This appears to propose making corps a corps not a card in foil or sabre. The proposed justification is to make it easier for the referee who doesn't have to decide who was at fault. Also, they think having the same rules for the conventional weapons as epee will be easier. As if there aren't enough other differences.



So, card for crossing the edge of the strip! Also, any touch scored while going off the side of the strip. If this passes and is adopted by the USFA I forsee bouts which have no colored lights awarded at all, just cards.

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.

[erik_blank]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

So, card for crossing the edge of the strip! Also, any touch scored while going off the side of the strip. If this passes and is adopted by the USFA I forsee bouts which have no colored lights awarded at all, just cards.

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.

t.26

When a competitor crosses one of the lateral boundaries of the strip with one or both feet, the referee must immediately call ‘Halt’.

If the fencer goes off the strip with both feet, the referee must annul everything that has occurred after the boundary has been crossed, except a touch received by the competitor who has crossed the boundary even after he has crossed it, provided that this touch results from a simple and immediate action. However, a touch scored by the fencer who leaves the strip with one foot only is valid provided that the action was started before the ‘Halt’.

If one of the competitors leaves the strip with both feet, only a touch made by the fencer who remains on the strip with at least one foot can be counted valid, even in the case of a double touch.

Still, the proposed rule confuses me since it does not specify WHAT limits of the strip they are talking about. After all, the rear limit is also a limit of the strip, does this mean that crossing the back line with one foot is now a penalty deserving of a card? Does crossing the back line with both feet the first time only assign you a yellow card? Are we reverting back to pre-1980’s rules where the director will have to verbally call out “Warning” when the fencer reaches the warning area? (that was always fun to fence with… (-fencer retreating - “was that a halt or…” *Buzzzz!*)

[KidLazy]

I wish they will pass FIE Medical Commission President's proposal to inculde cramp as a reason for the 10-minute break. It would have help me so much four weeks ago...

[OROD]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Oddly enough, now I'm less understanding. Are they proposing to forbid "the forward movement" in sabre?

I guess they want to make sabre more like epee.

.

[HDG]

I thought the proposal to make the foil bib target was dead and gone -- or was that just wishful thinking?

[edew]

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.

There is a rule already in place stating that going off the side of the strip to avoid a touch is a group 1 penalty. I've only seen it used once (against my opponent). Going off the side of the strip because one is not familiar with going straight backwards is still a meter back with no additional penalty. I think a yellow card is a better penalty than having the opponent gain a meter. Makes for consistent penalization and really prevents fencers from stepping off the side.

Still, the proposed rule confuses me since it does not specify WHAT limits of the strip they are talking about. After all, the rear limit is also a limit of the strip, does this mean that crossing the back line with one foot is now a penalty deserving of a card? Does crossing the back line with both feet the first time only assign you a yellow card? Are we reverting back to pre-1980’s rules where the director will have to verbally call out “Warning” when the fencer reaches the warning area? (that was always fun to fence with… (-fencer retreating - “was that a halt or…” *Buzzzz!*)
[/left]

I'll bet it's about the side limits.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by HDG

I thought the proposal to make the foil bib target was dead and gone -- or was that just wishful thinking?

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.

[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?