Strip Tactics

[Phincer]

On the Fencing Discussion board, World Cup thread, around page 7, there is a description of one of the WC event bouts between Seth Kelsey (USA) and Boisse (France):

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo
Seth was up 11-10 against the French fencer Boisse, round of 16, well into the 3rd period. Seth has a yellow, Boisse does not. At the "fence" command, Boisse steps back, and put his weapon behind him, like he's content to let time run out and go to priority. Seth bounces a couple of times and stops. There are a couple of beats of time...and the ref calls halt...calls passivity, and pulls cards. Seth gets a red, Boisse a yellow...11 all...go straight to the priority extra period. Three double touches later on Seth's priority, its 14-all. With but a second or two on the clock, Boisse drives Seth to the end line and scores a one light win.

This (silly parent that I am) looks to me like a clear case of one fencer being clearly aware of the score, who has what cards, the time, and the rules.
Now, consider this scenario:

A few weekends ago, there was a youth epee event. The day after the event, one mom called me and said that she had been reviewing the movies they had taken of their fencer(Fencer Y). Her kiddo came out seeded in top 3 after pools, but lost in his first DE (after a bye) to Fencer X that he beat 5-0 in pools. In reviewing the tape, they noticed that Fencer X was constantly talking to the coach, would make fencing motions, but relatively very few points. Fencer X appeared to take a powder in the 5-0 bout. Fast forward to the DEs, Fencer X all of a sudden gains skills previously not seen in pools, knocks off Fencer Y, and proceeds to place very high in the tournament.

Now, Fencing Mom's question was "it sure looked like Fencer X planned holding back with his/her coach, does that use of tactics happen alot in fencing?". She isn't completely new to fencing, but is just now starting to take her fencer to more tournaments.

Since there was no advantage to any other fencer but Fencer X, I wouldn't say "collusion", but it might have been an attempt to manipulate Fencer X's place on the DE tree.

Our kiddo was taught every single point is important no matter if it is in pools or DEs. They above youth event scenario is an extremely dangerous game to play-it can backfire easily.

SO- my point is, and I do have one, what kind of tactical training using the rules do any of your fencers get? Do your coaches recommend everyone get referee training to know the rules better or do they just address things as they come up? Do they discuss rules? When to fence hard and when to sluff off?

[fencerwallet]

What advantage is there to find yourself seeded lower going into DEs? I don't see any. You simply cannot predict your future opponents during pools. Some kids are just more intense when the DEs start.

[Phincer]

Originally Posted by fencerwallet

What advantage is there to find yourself seeded lower going into DEs? I don't see any. You simply cannot predict your future opponents during pools. Some kids are just more intense when the DEs start.

If you're a fairly good fencer, and you seed lower, you draw a higher seed in your first DE. You're rested from not fencing so hard in pools and knock off the highest seed on your portion of the ladder and theoretically have an easier climb up. Like I said in my post, this is a dangerous tactic and may backfire in your face.

I really wanted to point out the tactics taken on strip (so maybe the seeding example is in the wrong spot-my bad) to take advantage of the rules to increase your score. Like the carding for passivity example noted.
It's a brilliant play-well within the rules, although, IMHO-not within the ethics of fencing.

Should we be teaching our kids these types of tricks? Or do we just wind them up and let them fence? When should kids learn the rules so well they can make them work for them, should we include that as a part of training?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by fencerwallet

What advantage is there to find yourself seeded lower going into DEs? I don't see any. You simply cannot predict your future opponents during pools. Some kids are just more intense when the DEs start.

Oh yes you can. After 2 of 3 pools were finished in a recent 15 person tournament, I correctly predicted the seedings of me and one of my teammates as well as who we would both be fencing.

If anyone has the last bout of the tournament, if they're quick with math and the tournament is small, they can predict exactly the number of touches they need to win or lose to fence who they want in DEs.

That being said, it's very, very risky to lose on purpose to affect seeding, especially if you don't have all the information. It only takes 1 or 2 fencers who didn't finish quite right to mess you up.

[HDG]

Losing on purpose, while not collusion, could certainly be considered an "offense against sportsmanship" (t.88). Intent might be hard to prove, however.

[Phincer]

Originally Posted by HDG

Losing on purpose, while not collusion, could certainly be considered an "offense against sportsmanship" (t.88). Intent might be hard to prove, however.

So would the above referenced Kelsey/Boisse be an offense against sportsmanship?

[RkfdFencer]

I'm going with no on that one. Carding for passivity, I agree on. It was a cheesy move, if truly intended to draw penalties for both. Why did Kelsey fall for it and also become passive?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by HDG

Losing on purpose, while not collusion, could certainly be considered an "offense against sportsmanship" (t.88). Intent might be hard to prove, however.

I disagree:

t.88 Competitors must fence to their utmost ability in a
sportsmanlike manner until the end of the competition in order
to obtain the best possible classification, without giving away
touches or seeking to be favoured by being given touches by
anyone (cf. t.114, t.119, t.120).

If I knew that a fencer was doing this, I think the correct response would be a black card.

[Allen Evans]

When I was fencing at a strong regional competition, one of my teammates lost a bout in the pool to someone I had beaten previously. My teammate was much better than I was, and I was surprised that he lost to this opponent, though it was his only loss in the pool, and didn't put him in any danger of not advancing.

When I asked him about the loss, he told me that he expected to see this fencer again in the DE, and by deliberately giving up one or two touches in the same way, my teammate expected to be able to take that action away from his opponent in the DE.

Strategy, or cheating?

I would certainly say, in this case, strategy.

AE

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

When I was fencing at a strong regional competition, one of my teammates lost a bout in the pool to someone I had beaten previously. My teammate was much better than I was, and I was surprised that he lost to this opponent, though it was his only loss in the pool, and didn't put him in any danger of not advancing.

When I asked him about the loss, he told me that he expected to see this fencer again in the DE, and by deliberately giving up one or two touches in the same way, my teammate expected to be able to take that action away from his opponent in the DE.

Strategy, or cheating?

I would certainly say, in this case, strategy.

AE

That would be fine under my (novice) interpretation of the rules because his intent is to win in the end. It seems to me that the rule was made so that in a pools-only format teammates don't lose bouts on purpose to let the other advance.