Official criteria for non-combativity

[counterattack]

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

Pardon me if this was previously discussed, I couldn't find it in a quick search. The very bottom specifies how to call non-combativity:

* 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).

I think this is actually a very good definition. I cannot think of a situation where two out of three of these would be true and it couldn't reasonably be called non-combativity. I can imagine some borderline cases where one fencer or the other might not want it called, but they certainly couldn't argue anything more than "hey, I was being slightly combative, not non-combative", and that isn't a big quibble.

That would allow someone who saw the 1-0 full-time plus overtime bout in So. Cal. to say. whether it should or shouldn't have been non-combativity. Were they close? Did their blades keeping making contact? Based on these rules, if your blades are making contact pretty much anywhere but the tips then you can't be non-combative, since you must be within step-lunge distance also.

[bunbury]

Ever seen Vet Women's Epee?

There are plenty of times when this definition can be applied badly. Anytime you pull major distance, there will be a point where there is no blade contact and excessive distance. Heck, if I'm in the lead, have a previous yellow card in the same bout, and my opponent keeps attempting to get away and make a defensive touch (and thus refuses to attack), would I be in the wrong to take a few step backs and establish PIL? Would suck to lose the lead based off of some jerk of a ref giving me the red for the non-combativeness, don't you think?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by counterattack

I think this is actually a very good definition. I cannot think of a situation where two out of three of these would be true and it couldn't reasonably be called non-combativity.

Immediately after the referee says "Fence!"

There is no blade contact. (Criteria 2)

The fencers are outside of advance-lunge distance. (Criteria 3)

Immediate non-combativity, if the new rule is followed literally. Doesn't seem reasonable to me....

This is actually a great example of a very POORLY written rule.

-B

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Immediately after the referee says "Fence!"

There is no blade contact. (Criteria 2)

The fencers are outside of advance-lunge distance. (Criteria 3)

Immediate non-combativity, if the new rule is followed literally. Doesn't seem reasonable to me....

This is actually a great example of a very POORLY written rule.

-B

no foolin'.....what about if I'm doing sabre and intend to throw out a PIL? My habit is to jump or run back a few steps and establish the PIL. I should be called for non-combativity for PROPERLY establishing it when it's my opponent's job to take it from me???

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

no foolin'.....what about if I'm doing sabre and intend to throw out a PIL? My habit is to jump or run back a few steps and establish the PIL. I should be called for non-combativity for PROPERLY establishing it when it's my opponent's job to take it from me???

Almost ANY time a PiL is correctly established is non-combative, by this definition.

-B

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by counterattack

Pardon me if this was previously discussed, I couldn't find it in a quick search. The very bottom specifies how to call non-combativity:

A previous thread with 64 posts on the topic:

non-comabtivness 'clarification' (t.87)

Originally Posted by counterattack

I think this is actually a very good definition. I cannot think of a situation where two out of three of these would be true and it couldn't reasonably be called non-combativity.

Very good?? No, it's a horrible and poorly written definition. If followed, it would mean stupidly calling non-combativity in cases where it shouldn't be called or letting "fencing" continue in cases where non-combativity should be called.

[KD5MDK]

Look at it as a REALLY strong incentive not to get that initial yellow card.

[oiuyt]

Of course, as was pointed out in Dallas, the rules proposed and approved for use in the US accidently didn't include non-combativity as a grouped penalty.

Rather than treat this as a correctable typographical error, we've decided to treat it as "correct" until the Board goes through it's process to change it again.

So for right now a fencer can get both a yellow card for non-combativity AND a yellow card for any Group I penalty in the same bout held under USFA rules.

And we have one more thing for which fencers from abroad can make fun of us.

-B

[downunder]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

And we have one more thing for which fencers from abroad can make fun of us.

-B

I know I am

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Almost ANY time a PiL is correctly established is non-combative, by this definition.

-B

Which would've invalidated so many of Golubitsky's touches, since he was so good at it!

[counterattack]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Immediately after the referee says "Fence!"

There is no blade contact. (Criteria 2)

The fencers are outside of advance-lunge distance. (Criteria 3)

Immediate non-combativity, if the new rule is followed literally. Doesn't seem reasonable to me....

This is actually a great example of a very POORLY written rule.

-B

I suppose I have my fits of negativity too, so I shouldn't be too judgmental. Notwithstanding, you guys are a bunch of legalists. It seems to me that this rule wasn't written in a vacuum. We already know approximately what non-combativity looks like. This is an ADDITIONAL guide. I was thinking of it more as a list of things that can prevent you from calling it when you otherwise were going to.

E.g. "Those two fencers sure are non-combative, perhaps I should give them a card... wait, they are too close to be outrageously out of distance and dang it, I just heard some blade contact. I suppose I'll have to suffer through this ridiculous bout for another 30 seconds or so, at least."

However, if one were inclined to pick the rule apart one could certainly find a way. Or 89 ways, plus the posts in this new thread.

[OROD]

Originally Posted by counterattack

I suppose I have my fits of negativity too, so I shouldn't be too judgmental. Notwithstanding, you guys are a bunch of legalists.

A rule is a rule, and no matter how much it doesnt make sense or how much the letter might contradict the intent, some refs will still enforce it as it's written. If they wanted to specify what ISN'T non-combativity (double negative alert!), then that's what they should have written.

Originally Posted by counterattack

It seems to me that this rule wasn't written in a vacuum. We already know approximately what non-combativity looks like. This is an ADDITIONAL guide. I was thinking of it more as a list of things that can prevent you from calling it when you otherwise were going to.

If it is so obvious what non-combativity is, then it should be up to the directors to call it. After all, non-combativity is primarily about intent, and you cant measure intent with a yardstick and stopwatch.

.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Of course, as was pointed out in Dallas, the rules proposed and approved for use in the US accidently didn't include non-combativity as a grouped penalty.

Rather than treat this as a correctable typographical error, we've decided to treat it as "correct" until the Board goes through it's process to change it again.

So for right now a fencer can get both a yellow card for non-combativity AND a yellow card for any Group I penalty in the same bout held under USFA rules.

And we have one more thing for which fencers from abroad can make fun of us.

-B

I have been informed that the error will be corrected must sooner than that meeting implied. We'll see how quickly that means.

[Montoya]

Do I understand this correctly?

Fencer A has a yellow card for an equipment failure at the beginning of the bout, and is ahead of Fencer B, who has no yellow card.

Fencer A knows that his attacks are not terribly successful, so he hangs back, hoping that Fencer B will attack.

Fencer B hangs back and does not attack, hoping to get a non-combativity call.

Non-combativity is called.

Red card for Fencer A gives a touch to Fencer B.


If this scenario is correct, it seems like the rule encourages noncombativity in certain situations.

[KD5MDK]

It encourages Fencer A not to hang back but to pretend to be combative.

[veeco]

Originally Posted by Montoya

Do I understand this correctly?

Fencer A has a yellow card for an equipment failure at the beginning of the bout, and is ahead of Fencer B, who has no yellow card.

Fencer A knows that his attacks are not terribly successful, so he hangs back, hoping that Fencer B will attack.

Fencer B hangs back and does not attack, hoping to get a non-combativity call.

Non-combativity is called.

Red card for Fencer A gives a touch to Fencer B.


If this scenario is correct, it seems like the rule encourages noncombativity in certain situations.

Not only is it correct, it was called exactly this way at the last world championships.

[rsy]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

So for right now a fencer can get both a yellow card for non-combativity AND a yellow card for any Group I penalty in the same bout held under USFA rules.-B

So the fencer with a 1st group yellow card gets a yellow card on the first non-combativity call.

Is the reverse also true? Except for yellow cards for non-combativity, the fencers have no other cards and then fencer A covers target. As a result of covering target does fencer A get a yellow or a red card?

I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that if a fencer has a red card already and then receives the first card for non-combativity, that first card will be a red card based upon t.114 which says that a red card can only be followed by a red card or a black card.

-r

[KD5MDK]

I think the result will be that the USFA will quickly regroup the non-combativity cards.

[oiuyt]

The easiest way to answer these questions is to go to the rulebook.

t.87 particularly.

Non-combativity specifies that the first instance results in a warning (Yellow Card). It has been decided that absent this also appearing in the Group I listing in the penalty chart or a reference to t.114, t.116, t.120, that this does not constitute a grouped penalty and is completely separate from all other carded penalties.

It's a non-combativity card which happens to be yellow, rather than a traditional yellow card. It can follow a red card. It can be given in addition to another (traditional) yellow card.

Yes, this is somewhat foolish (at best) and is extremely likely to be fixed. Either by action of the EC or of the Board (the next Board meeting is in February, the EC could fix it at any time). Note that ALL of the above applies only to USFA fencing. The rest of the world is sensically treating this as a grouped penalty. Despite the fact that the British rulebook explicitly has the penalty in its own section of the chart and (therefore) ungrouped.

While we're talking about errors/omissions, the US (and British) penalty charts fail to include "Hair non-conforming" as a group I penalty. In this case, however, t.86 (the applicable rule) DOES cite t.114, t.116, t.120, so the penalty still applies and is still grouped.

-B