Urgent Rules update

[downunder]

After the meeting of the Rules Commission, which was held in
Lausanne on 26 and 27 May 2007, during which the proposals for the
Congress were studied, the Executive Committee decided to take the
following urgent decisions, following the discovery of certain
anomalies :
a) Article t.22.1
The use of the
non-sword hand and arm to carry out an offensive or
defensive action is forbidden (cf. t.114, t.117. t.120). Should such an
offence occur, the hit scored by the fencer at fault is annulled and the
latter will be penalised as specified for offences of the 2nd group
(red card).


b) Article o.79.3
For
Grand Prix competitions, entries are limited to a maximum of 8
fencers per weapon per country. The organising country may enter up
to 12 fencers, plus the number of fencers needed to make up the
pools, that is a maximum of 20 fencers.


Please make sure this is passed on to those competing this weekend.

[Redblade]

Originally Posted by downunder

The use of the non-sword hand and arm to carry out an offensive or
defensive action is forbidden.

Can't wait to see "defensive" interpreted when an epeeist turns his inside line toward the opponent and the opponent's blade slides past his arm. Yeesh.

[Inquartata]

That part is already in the rules. What's new is the card.

[lindajdunn]

Does this mean that the next time I'm fencing sabre and my opponent attacks and hits my NON-WEAPON HAND and I counter attack with a valid hit, my touch is annulled and I'm given a red card?

One more reason to keep my non-weapon hand out of the way.

[oso97]

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

Does this mean that the next time I'm fencing sabre and my opponent attacks and hits my NON-WEAPON HAND and I counter attack with a valid hit, my touch is annulled and I'm given a red card?

One more reason to keep my non-weapon hand out of the way.

Only if 1) you deliberately block with the off weapon hand, and only if 2) you're fencing at a World Cup event or other event where this rule will hold force. The USFA BOD has not adopted these changes for competitions under the auspices the USFA (so far as I'm aware, and I'd like to think they'd announce such a change!).

[Jay Young]

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

Does this mean that the next time I'm fencing sabre and my opponent attacks and hits my NON-WEAPON HAND and I counter attack with a valid hit, my touch is annulled and I'm given a red card?

One more reason to keep my non-weapon hand out of the way.

I would say no. You should keep it out of they way because it's target anyway. I would believe the "new" rule is meant for foil and epee.

[fencerbill]

If they intended the non-weapon hand to be target we would be wearing conductive gloves.

What they may crack down on some day is the use of elastic on the non-weapon hand which is above the wrist bone. I have seen some recently which take away about 3 square inches of what should be target.

[H Man]

Having watched fencers swipe an attack away with the unarmed hand and only receive a yellow card has always sat in my craw. Always thought it should be a group 2 offense.

[Redblade]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

That part is already in the rules. What's new is the card.

Ah. My bad.
Thanks.

[larkmaj]

Just to clarify, if and when the USFA adopts this rule, does that mean covering target with your non-weapon hand in foil is a group 2 offense? Or is it only if it actually blocks the attack, as the wording says "carry out" a defensive action?

[peet]

Originally Posted by larkmaj

Just to clarify, if and when the USFA adopts this rule, does that mean covering target with your non-weapon hand in foil is a group 2 offense? Or is it only if it actually blocks the attack, as the wording says "carry out" a defensive action?

Don't worry, this does not concern covering target. This only concerns using the non-weapon hand/arm to block, etc.

In the rules, there is "covering/substitution of valid target" which includes covering with the back arm, the mask, the legs, etc., and then there's "using the non-weapon arm or hand" which means actually using it to parry or the like.

HTH,

-p

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by peet

Don't worry, this does not concern covering target. This only concerns using the non-weapon hand/arm to block, etc.
In the rules, there is "covering/substitution of valid target" which includes covering with the back arm, the mask, the legs, etc., and then there's "using the non-weapon arm or hand" which means actually using it to parry or the like.
HTH,
-p

I'm trying to be more careful about this as I've been tagged by KD for this particular offense in epee. But if one's hand is held down by the side and a maneuver brings the arm in contact with the opponent's blade is that still considered parrying? I'm trying to differentiate between actively manipulating the arm to parry and placing the off arm somewhere it is nominally out of the play.

[peet]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

I'm trying to be more careful about this as I've been tagged by KD for this particular offense in epee. But if one's hand is held down by the side and a maneuver brings the arm in contact with the opponent's blade is that still considered parrying? I'm trying to differentiate between actively manipulating the arm to parry and placing the off arm somewhere it is nominally out of the play.

Basically it's up to the ref. If it looks to him/her like an accident, you're cool. If it looks like you "used" the non-weapon arm to parry, you're in trouble.

-p

[edew]

I don't like to give the referee too much leeway on making such decisions. It's not possible to refute as a fencer and if the referee doesn't like you or made a mistake and want to cover up, the ref can always BS an "intentional" use of the non-weapon arm. Too arbitrary for my taste, as a fencer (and as a referee too).

[downunder]

Originally Posted by edew

I don't like to give the referee too much leeway on making such decisions. It's not possible to refute as a fencer and if the referee doesn't like you or made a mistake and want to cover up, the ref can always BS an "intentional" use of the non-weapon arm. Too arbitrary for my taste, as a fencer (and as a referee too).

as aside from phrasing every hit in the conventional weapons?

[KD5MDK]

Card allow you to award points to fencers who haven't even turned a light on. In priority, there's only so much you can do without the fencer's cooperation.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Card allow you to award points to fencers who haven't even turned a light on. In priority, there's only so much you can do without the fencer's cooperation.

you obviously haven't seen some of the refereeing that i've seen

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by downunder

you obviously haven't seen some of the refereeing that i've seen

Kind of hard when you hide an ocean away.

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by edew

I don't like to give the referee too much leeway on making such decisions. It's not possible to refute as a fencer and if the referee doesn't like you or made a mistake and want to cover up, the ref can always BS an "intentional" use of the non-weapon arm. Too arbitrary for my taste, as a fencer (and as a referee too).

As someone who is vertically challenged and resorts to closing and scrambling in Epee, I have found it annoying when someone uses the off arm to prevent me from getting my point on target and then excuses it as "well the arm is target".

I applaud the rules change.

[notalent]

I dont agree Peet, The rule doesnt say intentionaly, if you use your non weapon arm to deflect your opp. blade you get a red card. So in answer to JJ's question i would have red carded him for that action at DitD had the rule been as it is worded now.