Can ONE fencer be non-combative (and not the other)?

[ysbadadden]

I'm asking because one of my fencers got carded the day before yesterday for non-combativity. It was a five-touch New York City HS match. My fencer planted his feet and waited for his opponent to attack so he could parry-riposte. My fencer got carded, the opponent didn't.
I argued that it takes two to be non-combative. The ref replied that she had been carded for non-combativeness in a NAC.
Was the rule correctly applied? -- and where can I find it?

[SFfencer]

Originally Posted by ysbadadden

I'm asking because one of my fencers got carded the day before yesterday for non-combativity. It was a five-touch New York City HS match. My fencer planted his feet and waited for his opponent to attack so he could parry-riposte. My fencer got carded, the opponent didn't.
I argued that it takes two to be non-combative. The ref replied that she had been carded for non-combativeness in a NAC.
Was the rule correctly applied? -- and where can I find it?

no,

http://www.fencingofficials.org/

t.87

5. Individual events

a) If during the two first periods of a direct elimination bout of 10 or 15 touches both fencers make clear their unwillingness to fight*, the Referee will award a warning (yellow card) against each of the two fencers and will proceed to the next period, without the minute rest.

b) If the offence is repeated, the Referee will each time award a penalty hit (red card) against each of the two fencers and will proceed to the next period, without the minute rest.

c) When both fencers make clear their unwillingness to fight* during the final period of a direct elimination bout:-

i) if there has been no occurrence of the offence during the preceding periods, the Referee will award a warning (yellow card) against each fencer, and will proceed to a last minute of fencing;

ii) if the offence has already been committed during the course of the preceding periods, the Referee will award a penalty hit (red card) against each of the fencers, and will proceed to a last minute of fencing;

This last minute, which will be fenced in its entirety, will be decisive and will be preceded by a drawing of lots to decide the winner should the scores be equal at the end of the minute.

6. Team events

a) If both teams make clear their unwillingness to fight* during a team match, the Referee will award a warning (yellow card) against each of the two teams and will proceed to the next bout.

b) If the offence is repeated, the Referee will each time award a penalty hit (red card) against each of the teams and will proceed to the next bout, and so on up to the last bout.

c) If both teams make clear their unwillingness to fight* during the last bout:-

i) if there has been no occurrence of the offence during the preceding bouts, the Referee will award a warning (yellow card) against each of the teams, and will proceed to a last minute of fencing;

ii) if the offence has already been committed during the preceding bouts, the Referee will award a penalty hit (red card) against each of the teams, and will proceed to a last minute of fencing;

This last minute, which will be fenced in its entirety, will be decisive and will be preceded by a drawing of lots to decide the winner should the scores be equal at the end of the minute.

[lefty_monster]

I had a loooooooooooong mid-bout discussion with the ref and opponent about this last weekend. Turns out that it's only passivity if both fencers are passive. I was fencing, he was not, ergo no card.

[KD5MDK]

If your opponent is being non-combative and you're ahead and don't have a yellow card and/or they do, then go non-combative and take the card, kill time.

If you're ahead but have a yellow card and he doesn't, don't get yellow cards.

If you're behind and your opponent is non-combative, it is imperative on you to SCORE POINTS or you will LOSE. Non-combativity just makes you work a little faster.

[erik_blank]

The rule states that it is to be applied durring the DE bouts for both individual and team events, but I can find no reference to individual pool events. Am I just being situationally blind, or is it not applicable to pool (5 point) bouts?

[oiuyt]

Non-combativity does not apply during 5-touch bouts. Whether pool, best 2-of-3 5-touch DEs, or scholastic/collegiate-style dual meets.

It is not possible for only one fencer to be non-combative.

-B

[RITFencing]

In addition to the excellent points presented, the thought on non-combativity is that if one fencer is actively trying to score and the other fencer is being non combative, then the fencer trying to score should be getting a whole bunch of touches (and there may be a black card for collusion coming.)

It definitely takes two to tango here.

[larkmaj]

I think the issue here is that the ref was not carded for mutual non-combativity at said NAC but passivity, which mutual non-combativity replaced relatively recently (year maybe?). Non-combativity does not apply in a five-touch bout, or in the final minute of the final period of a multi-period bout (team, open, veteran).

I don't remember the specifics of passivity, but I think it could have applied in your situation. However, that rule no longer exists. (although some high school leagues have funny rules).

[stu]

From a presiding point of view, it's also important to think about the weapon involved. A couple of days back, I was presiding a friendly epee fight. As a sabruer, I saw two people standing there doing nothing. Because it was just friendly, I couldn't penalise anyone, but I did mention it. They then seemed baffled, and said that's just the way epee is. Apparently, they leave the whole 'throw yourself at the other guy and shout' thing to the rest of us.

[Taomagicdragon]

Epee is very much a sport of seeking out the tiniest of opportune moments.

Generally, if both fencers are outside of their respective lunge distances, and neither are making an effort to seek out an opening, essentially just standing still, it's passivity. However, if they're are in lunge-distance and are seeking the opportunity, I generally don't see that as passivity.

EDIT: I tend to use passivity and non-combativity as synonymous when I speak.

[KD5MDK]

I don't see anything as passivity, as it no longer exists.
It's been clarified what non-combativity consists of, and for all the flaws in the new definition, your example is clearly not included unless they take a very long time and make no blade contacts (since they are in distance).

[peet]

Originally Posted by larkmaj

I think the issue here is that the ref was not carded for mutual non-combativity at said NAC but passivity, which mutual non-combativity replaced relatively recently (year maybe?). Non-combativity does not apply in a five-touch bout, or in the final minute of the final period of a multi-period bout (team, open, veteran).

I don't remember the specifics of passivity, but I think it could have applied in your situation. However, that rule no longer exists. (although some high school leagues have funny rules).

IIRC, the no-longer-existing passivity rule also applied only to both fencers, not to one. the language I have in my head (old rulebook is at home) is "should both fencers show themselves unwilling to fight".

Penalizing only one fencer was incorrect even under the passivity rule (AFAIK).

-p

[Chafunkta]

I know it's a bold statement, especially considering the rules of fencing, but I believe non-combativity may be the dumbest rule we have.

I don't see why we need it. If both fencers decide to stand there for 3 minutes and do nothing, that's really no skin off the referee's back. His bout will get done before almost anyone else's anyhow (assuming the delaying of a tournament is one of the reasons for this rule).

Now, there could be a reason why you would want passivity as a fencer: if you're in the lead. And if the fencer that's behind sits there for 3 minutes and effectively loses the bout, then there may be a question about collusion, or perhaps just blind stupidity.

I've only seen this call a couple of times, and those couple of times I thought it was too fast. Some refs are so intrigued by reading all the rule updates on this, as well as the multitude of threads on fencing.net, that they just can't wait to call passivity. Stop calling it so early! Or if you do want to call passivity, call it when it's blatantly obvious, i.e. when both fencers are at the far ends of their strips standing up with their foils on the floor.

Can anyone persuade me that we absolutely need this rule in fencing?

EDIT: Whoops, I've just read the other non-compativity thread and realized some people have the same exact feelings as me. And apparently the reason for the rule is TV. If our sport features athletes that don't even want to play, then our sport is doomed for television. We'd have a lot more to worry about than colored lights and alien masks.

Please don't reply to this post. Let this non-combativity thing die.

[larkmaj]

Originally Posted by peet

IIRC, the no-longer-existing passivity rule also applied only to both fencers, not to one. the language I have in my head (old rulebook is at home) is "should both fencers show themselves unwilling to fight".

Penalizing only one fencer was incorrect even under the passivity rule (AFAIK).

-p

You're right, 2005 rules:

During the first and second periods of a direct elimination bout,
and the first eight bouts of a team match, when both fencers make
clear their desire to stop fencing or show evident passivity, the
referee will immediately call ‘halt!’ and the two fencers will in
individual direct elimination take their regulation one minute rest,
in team matches will proceed to the next bout.
If passivity is determined during the first two minutes of a pool
bout, or during the first two minutes of the third period of the
direct elimination bout, the referee will call halt, and determine
priority. The fencers will then fence a one minute period, without
sudden death. The bout will end when one fencer reaches the
maximum score (5 or 15 points) or time expires.

[OROD]

Originally Posted by Chafunkta

I know it's a bold statement, especially considering the rules of fencing, but I believe non-combativity may be the dumbest rule we have.

I dont think it's dumb at all. If two people want to stand there and do nothing, they can do it outside the strip. You especially cant have this kind of stuff if you're trying to grow the sport by making it more spectator/TV friendly.

.

[pinkelephant]

The rule was invented as a knee-jerk reaction to a protest, at an A grade, about dropping certain weapons from the Olympic team events. The fencers had agreed beforehand to fence just one hit and then back off for the rest of the nine minutes, in order to make the FIE look stupid. Personally, I think they should just have been penalised under the collusion rule.

There have been many times that I wish it could be invoked in a pool fight (originally it could). I have invoked the latest version of the rule once in Men's Epee and once in Men's Foil - but we've had it in the UK since it was introduced by the FIE several months ago.

[OROD]

Originally Posted by pinkelephant

The rule was invented as a knee-jerk reaction to a protest, at an A grade, about dropping certain weapons from the Olympic team events.

I seem to remember that this particular protest was in regards to the new timings change, not the weapons that were dropped from the Olympics.

.

[peet]

Originally Posted by OROD

I seem to remember that this particular protest was in regards to the new timings change, not the weapons that were dropped from the Olympics.

.

There was that protest at a MF event in Seoul (IIRC) where the top 4 bouts were fenced as one-touch bouts, but the passivity rule predated that event. Perhaps the original cause of the rule was a different "protest" action (I don't know).

-p

[oiuyt]

The original passivity rule came in as a reaction to some ME fencers who decided that gold medal bouts are more dramatic when fenced to a single touch. Somehow I have Paris stuck in my head associated with the event, but that might not be true.

Giving black cards for passivity came in as a result of the World Cup cited above in Seoul when R.R. was embarassed by the four fencers in the L4 as a protest against the new timings. The FIE subsequently backed off of black carding the fencers to what we have now (through intermediate stages).

-B