non-comabtivness 'clarification' (t.87)

[erik_blank]

Interesting 'clarification' to the rules of non-combativeness on the USFA rules update web page:

* Clear unwillingness to fight (non-combativity)
If two of the criteria below are combined, there is unwillingness to fight:
1. criterion of time : one minute of fencing without a hit
2. absence of blade contact
3. excessive distance (greater than the distance of a step-forward-lunge).

So, by the letter of the rules, if I retreate more than the distance of a step-forward-lunge, I am now guilty of noncombativity since by default, I am no longer able to create blade contact...
I LOVE IT when rules are cleard up like this! Now as a director I can help to keep the bout moving by constantly stoping the action to penalize people for not fencing agressivly enough just for the mere fact the fencers are out of simple attack range!

[oiuyt]

Yes, by the letter of the rules DE bouts are 1 minute long (with priority determined before the minute) and fenced to 13 touches.

*first period*
"On Guard!"
"Ready!"
"Fence!"
"Halt!" (fencers are 4 meters apart without blade contact)
"Non-Combativity" *yellow card to each*
*second period*
etc.

This, clearly, is not the intent of the rule change. Hopefully the FIE will fix their mistake and we'll follow suit. Or we'll fix their mistake and they'll follow suit.

-B

[chrisod]

It seems like the rule should be condition 1 plus either condition 2 or 3 is what triggers the card.

[Beloit Fencer of Old]

Yeah...and "greater distance than step forward-lunge." That's great. So...at the same time, the TALL fencer, with a longer step, and a longer lunge, is NOT satisfying the condition of non-combativity, while the SHORT fencer is...from the same distance, and in the same bout. Hmmmm. Maybe there IS an advantage for tall fencers.....

[erik_blank]

Better yet, how can anyone establish PIL with these rules?

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by chrisod

It seems like the rule should be condition 1 plus either condition 2 or 3 is what triggers the card.

I disagree. the entire point of the rule is to avoid everybody sitting there for a minute with two people who are obviously unwilling to fence. consider this situation: at the fence command, both fencers drop their points and back up, making an obvious decision not to fence. the halt should be immediate and non-combativity applied.

While a strict interpretation of their "clarification" can lead to some ridiculous applications, we all know what is meant and I personally think the situation I just outlined is the CLEAREST case of non-combativity. where it gets more fuzzy to me is when it's conditions 1 and 2. I've seen good fencing with no blade contact for over a minute in epee (rare, but I've seen it).

That said, if I had my way, it wouldn't be a card.

-m

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by chrisod

It seems like the rule should be condition 1 plus either condition 2 or 3 is what triggers the card.

Uh, you can't simply say 1 plus condition 2 or 3. Unless after a minute of intense fencing with blade contact but where no touch has scored, you think they should be called for non-combativity as soon that minute of intense but scoreless fencing has passed and the blades aren't in contact. That along with the other problems mentioned.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by fencerX

Uh, you can't simply say 1 plus condition 2 or 3. Unless after a minute of intense fencing with blade contact but where no touch has scored, you think they should be called for non-combativity as soon that minute of intense but scoreless fencing has passed and the blades aren't in contact. That along with the other problems mentioned.

under the clarification, yes this is non-combativity. the rule is 2 of the 3.

so, 1 plus 2 or three IS non-combativity.

chrisod's point (which I disagree with) he feels 2 and 3 without 1 shouldn't be non-combativity.

-m

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

This, clearly, is not the intent of the rule change. Hopefully the FIE will fix their mistake and we'll follow suit. Or we'll fix their mistake and they'll follow suit.

So why did the USFA BoD adopt that text/mistake at the Sept meeting in the first place??

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by fencerX

So why did the USFA BoD adopt that text/mistake at the Sept meeting in the first place??

Because we're matching the FIE's wording. The issue was also raised among (at least some of) the FOC. Hence the comment about a possibility of our fixing it and hoping they adopt our modifications.

-B

[chefencer]

How come there's no escape clause:
4. At the discretion of the referee...
Everything else is pretty much whatever the ref says - considering the godlike power of determination of matters of fact.

I thought the definition of non-combativity as 'when the ref gets bored' was funnier and more useful...

[erik_blank]

Originally Posted by chefencer

I thought the definition of non-combativity as 'when the ref gets bored' was funnier and more useful...

Or in old epee competitions: when spiders have started to weave webs between shoulder and weapon of fencer?

[chefencer]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

...chrisod's point (which I disagree with) he feels 2 and 3 without 1 shouldn't be non-combativity.

-m

Such an interpretation would avoid Mr. O's amusing scenario, but would run counter to the 'keeping things moving' dictum.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by chefencer

How come there's no escape clause:
4. At the discretion of the referee...
Everything else is pretty much whatever the ref says - considering the godlike power of determination of matters of fact.

I thought the definition of non-combativity as 'when the ref gets bored' was funnier and more useful...

Presumably because when the FIE had that standard they weren't happy with the results. Or the inconsistency in the results. Which, of course, was predictable for at least a time until things stablized a bit on a consensus.

Rather than wait for that process to take place the FIE started issuing various interpretations of how rigorously it wanted it applied. And spun through enough variants that presumably people finally rebelled and demanded objective criteria to an inherently subjective judgment.

This is an attempt to do that. A poor attempt at a solution to a difficult problem.

The best solution is probably to strip it back to just saying "non-combativity" and NOT defining it in the rulebook. But that would require admitting that the "fixes" have worsened the situation, which I find unlikely to happen.

-B

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by chefencer

Such an interpretation would avoid Mr. O's amusing scenario, but would run counter to the 'keeping things moving' dictum.

While such a definition would be implementable (although would turn into just clause 1, as clauses 2 & 3 happen extraordinarily frequently in all bouts, regardless of the combativeness), it isn't the intent of the rule, so is a poor solution.

-B

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

under the clarification, yes this is non-combativity. the rule is 2 of the 3.

so, 1 plus 2 or three IS non-combativity.

Yes that was my point. Simply saying condition 1 plus 2 or 3 means you could be penalizing fencers not for being non-combative but for not scoring for a minute -- despite them actively fencing. It really doesn't fix things any better than the current "if any two of the criteria are combined". The current "clarification" is broken. 1 plus 2 or 3 would still be broken.

It also doesn't solve the problem that a minute would have to pass for cases where non-combativity should be called.

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Because we're matching the FIE's wording. The issue was also raised among (at least some of) the FOC. Hence the comment about a possibility of our fixing it and hoping they adopt our modifications.

Hmmn.

On a couple of the past go-rounds of t.87 w.r.t. non-combativity (nee passivity) the USFA didn't follow the FIE completely off the bridge. Yet now when the FIE has come up with something so obviously braindead, the USFA jumps along side by side. That's pretty sad.

[Tomas N]

Originally Posted by erik_blank

Interesting 'clarification' to the rules of non-combativeness on the USFA rules update web page:

Where is the list of updates? The "updates" link on this page: http://www.fencingofficials.org/ goes to a 2004 document.

Tomas

[chefencer]

Originally Posted by Tomas N

Where is the list of updates? The "updates" link on this page: http://www.fencingofficials.org/ goes to a 2004 document.

Tomas

http://www.usfencing.org/usfa/content/view/2328/138/