ANOTHER QUANDARY from poorly proofread rules!

[Chris]

Ahem!

This came as a (sadly, not very big) surprise to me when I read it in the epee section of the rules (where it's been since at least '99 - I am not looking back any further...):


C. CORPS A CORPS AND FLECHE ATTACKS
t.63...

The ‘flèche ending systematically in a corps à corps’ referred to in
this article must not be confused with the ‘flèche resulting in a shock
which jostles the opponent’ which is considered as an act of
intentional brutality in all three weapons and is punished as such (cf.
t.87, t.120).

Which CLEARLY indicates there is a difference to be looked for between a bump which might push your arm around, and something that makes you move your feet! You shouldn't be waiting to see someone on the ground for the card to come out!

HOWEVER, reading this more closely leads to some serious confusion:
While "Touches wtih brutality" are a Group 1 offense; and "Dangerous Action" is a Group 2 offense, "Deliberate Brutality" is a Group 4 offense!

MOREOVER, t.63 states that this applies to ALL weapons!!!

Now the original FIE French version uses the word "brutalité voluntaire" (voluntary) as opposed to intentional brutality, and in the chart, (or 'Schedule of Offenses'), the French say 'brutatlité intentionelle' as opposed to 'Deliberate Brutality'

SO, what's up with THAT!?!?

SERIOUSLY!

I would appreciate some input from an authoritative, knowledgeable source - i.e. FOC, or Examiner-type people - or corresponding role in your national organization.

Thank you,

Sincerely,

[KD5MDK]

I hold neither of these roles, I'm just a national referee.

You're combining corps a corps with jostling as "intentional brutality" and "deliberate brutality". I agree that the adjectives are practically synonyms in English, but they are distinctly different offenses in the fencing rules as will be applied as such when applied correctly.

If your opponent was carded for jostling you and you appealed the card they received stating "the rules clearly say that jostling (t.63) is intentional brutality and deliberate brutality is a black card" you would probably never got attention paid to any appeal you make again.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I hold neither of these roles, I'm just a national referee.

You're combining corps a corps with jostling as "intentional brutality" and "deliberate brutality". I agree that the adjectives are practically synonyms in English, but they are distinctly different offenses in the fencing rules as will be applied as such when applied correctly.

If your opponent was carded for jostling you and you appealed the card they received stating "the rules clearly say that jostling (t.63) is intentional brutality and deliberate brutality is a black card" you would probably never got attention paid to any appeal you make again.

Well, I have a 4 in epee, so that's why I asked for what I asked for; unless you have specifically discussed this issue with such a someone, your contribution really isn't beneficial.

MOREOVER, did you actually read what I posted, and look in the rule book where I am quoting?!?

I am not combining ANYTHING!!!
It's right there in the rules!
And it's specifically pertaining to a fleché attack, not just any old close infighting hipcheck, or lunge-redoublement bump...

I thought I made it clear I wasn't looking for the same old 'how much is too much' thread!

Thanks for nothing.

[KD5MDK]

You answered the real question in your first post. It's a bad translation. However, that doesn't mean it will be applied literally, so it doesn't particularly mean anything.

[downunder]

In my FIE refereeing exam Kramer made clear the poor translation and the difference between "brutalité voluntaire" and 'brutatlité intentionelle'.

In terms of my credentials I refereed 2 epee semi finals in Lignano JWC this weekend.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by downunder

In my FIE refereeing exam Kramer made clear the poor translation and the difference between "brutalité voluntaire" and 'brutatlité intentionelle'.

In terms of my credentials I refereed 2 epee semi finals in Lignano JWC this weekend.

What? Not good enough for the championship matches?

[downunder]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

What? Not good enough for the championship matches?

clearly. Actually one of the main reasons I refereed so far was the success of the Italian fencers. We had heaps of fantastic Italian referees there, but they couldn't be used from about the last 8.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by downunder

In my FIE refereeing exam Kramer made clear the poor translation and the difference between "brutalité voluntaire" and 'brutatlité intentionelle'.

In terms of my credentials I refereed 2 epee semi finals in Lignano JWC this weekend.

WELL, thanks for NOT sharing what he said!
I mean, that sort of WAS the whole point of this thread - we wouldn't want to actually get the answer in less than 10 posts!

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Chris

WELL, thanks for NOT sharing what he said!
I mean, that sort of WAS the whole point of this thread - we wouldn't want to actually get the answer in less than 10 posts!

Are you serious? I think the differences between "brutalité voluntaire" and 'brutalité intentionelle' are obvious to a referee, and the penalties are clear.

[pinkelephant]

Originally Posted by Chris

WELL, thanks for NOT sharing what he said!
I mean, that sort of WAS the whole point of this thread - we wouldn't want to actually get the answer in less than 10 posts!

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Downunder DID say that AK said it was a poor transaltion. Jostling is NOT intentional brutality, it is NOT a black card, it is Group 1.

[annacattiva]

I would say "Don't feed the troll," except that I think that "Don't feed the jerk" might be more appropriate.

Anna

[telkanuru]

I would invite the OP to follow the course of action suggested by my signature.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by pinkelephant

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Downunder DID say that AK said it was a poor translation. Jostling is NOT intentional brutality, it is NOT a black card, it is Group 1.

Are YOU? (Seems like it!)

I made it CLEAR, in my OP, that this thread was SPECIFICALLY pertaining to a certain passage which was (or seems to be) SPECIFICALLY making a distinction between jostling - in general, OR fleché with simple corps a' corps, and jostling in conjunction with fleché. (hence my referencing article t.63.3).

Moreover, t.63.3 starts out saying "Il ne faut pas confondre...' which (despite my limited skills with the French language ), clearly indicates an issue where there is commonly confusion - confondre...Responses from Downunder, et al. simply confirm that it is being ignored by many (which I already knew, thank you!), including M. Arthur Kramer (which I find interesting - not sure I am going to retain that bit.)

I happened across one of my older copies of the USFA rules: the '87 version with the '89 revision, that I had updated through '94; at the time, I was primarily interested in foil, so while I MADE all the updates, I really didn't pay much attention to the sabre & epee stuff, at the time. SO, when I found it yesterday, I spent some time with it during halftime, and I really don't seem to see this verbiage in there anywhere.

The rulebook has since been re-structured (and I don't have older french versions, anyway), so it's a little tough to say for certain, but I looked fairly hard, and it seems to me that this entirely new paragraph has been entered INTO the rulebook SINCE THEN, intending to make a distinction between 2 things - It's not just a 'bad translation': These words were ADDED IN for a reason, and I want to know what that reason is! As well as how it should be applied.

Previously, all jostling seemed to be treated equally. The only reason to add words would either to indicate that it should NOT be, OR that in fact not all jostling was being treated equally, and it should be.

Originally Posted by FIE Website 09Dec2007

t.63.3
Il ne faut pas confondre la "flèche finissant systématiquement en corps à corps" dont il est question dans cet article avec la "flèche se terminant par choc bousculant l'adversaire" qui, aux trois armes, est considérée comme acte de brutalité volontaire et sanctionnée comme tel (Cf. t.87.2, t.120).

Originally Posted by USFA Rules dated 20Sep2007

t63...
The ‘flèche ending systematically in a corps à corps’ referred to in this article must not be confused with the ‘flèche resulting in a shock which jostles the opponent’ which is considered as an act of intentional brutality in all three weapons and is punished as such (cf. t.87, t.120).

Again, I am not the most expert in French, but I believe the meaning of volontaire and voluntary are pretty close; in English, intentional, and deliberate are also, very close in definition, and often are used to define each other. (though, deliberate can be a verb, which implies some period of thinking, or considering...). While the intent is always debatable, ALL three words imply the willful commitment of the act, and the fencer must take responsibility for their actions; art t.63.3 seem to ME to say that, in this case the intent is assumed...

Anyone with something relevant to contribute, I would appreciate

Originally Posted by telkanuru

I would invite the OP to follow the course of action suggested by my signature.

Yeah! Good Luck with that!

[Chris]

Originally Posted by downunder

Are you serious? I think the differences between "brutalité voluntaire" and 'brutalité intentionelle' are obvious to a referee, and the penalties are clear.

If they were so obvious, why did M. Kramer see the need to make it clear to you?

[annacattiva]

Originally Posted by Chris

Are YOU? (Seems like it!)

I made it CLEAR, in my OP, that this thread was SPECIFICALLY pertaining to a certain passage which was (or seems to be) SPECIFICALLY making a distinction between jostling - in general, OR fleché with simple corps a' corps, and jostling in conjunction with fleché. (hence my referencing article t.63.3).

Strangely, the rules seem to be making clear the distinction between systematically ending fleches with corps-a-corps, and the single fleche which ends in a corps-a-corps. I mention this really just for unsuspecting curious people who might stumble on this thread and want still more clarification than has already been given.

Originally Posted by Chris

Yeah! Good Luck with that!

Actually, Telk, in a rhetorical kind of way, has entirely succeeded in inviting you to do what his signature suggests.

If you truly want people to answer your question, you might consider being slightly less rude and aggressive towards people who are, actually, quite well-informed and respected referees. Makes you seem more serious.

Anna

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Chris

Lots and lots of formatting...

So Chris I'd like to ask you what you're qualifications are? Seems only fair, if you are going to take on at least 2 FIE qualified referees that you do everyone the courtesy of stating what qualification you have for your demands.

[seak]

Well he apparently has a 4 in epee, so clearly that means he already knows everything.

And Chris you're making this waaaaay to complicated, you already have your answer it's just not the one you want. Yes the rules aren't written all that well, but I would venture to say that very few people who have actually passed the test (and most who haven't) are actually confused about this. Sorry.

If you'd kindly return to your cave now, the rest of us would appreciate it.

(wonders htf this dude has a higher epee rating then I do, and sighs )

[HDG]

Originally Posted by seak

(wonders htf this dude has a higher epee rating then I do, and sighs )

No necessary correlation b/w nitpicky questions of syntax and rule-hermeneutics and performance beside the strip.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Chris

If they were so obvious, why did M. Kramer see the need to make it clear to you?

Because the rules are sometimes written terribly.

"flèche se terminant par choc bousculant l'adversaire" is a red card. If you want an example of this look at Obry vs Fisher, Sydney 2000 Men's Epee Final about half way through where Fisher runs over Obry like a steam train.

If you want another example, what happens if you step off the piste with one foot? Your opponent obviously advances a meter and you assume distance. Look at t.102.