Passivity call in 07 World Championships - epee

[jspierre]

If you saw it (live or on dvd), can someone help me understand the passivity call, touch against Kelsey v Boisse that made it 11/11 at the World Champs this yr in St. Petersburg?

I think Kelsey had a yellow card (corp a corp), he was up by one touch in the 3rd period of the DE, Boisse seemed to lull him into a stupor, then the director called a halt, gave, first, Kelsey a red card (touch against, which tied the score), then each fencer got a yellow card for passivity.

Kelsey protested, but lost the appeal from the strip. Seemed like a brilliant technical point - for a critical touch based on the rules, and psychologically at the juncture of the bout - by the French side.

Second, what did people think about Boisse's last touch in OT? Was he past on the remise, or even with Kelsey?

You have to say Kelsey stuck to a successful game plan up to the red card, keeping ahead, but finally lost on the award in favor of Boisse. So, in the end, it was Boisse's mastery of the rules and the final, critical single light to take the bout.

[bunbury]

Wait... the Kelsey got a red card and a yellow card for the passivity? Or was there another infraction thrown in there?

[jspierre]

Wait... the Kelsey got a red card and a yellow card for the passivity? Or was there another infraction thrown in there?

Not too clear to me. I thought he was carrying a yellow card for corp a corp (or jostling), then got hit with another yellow card for passivity. But the director showed him a red card first, awarded a touch to Boisse, then showed both fencers yellow cards.

[peet]

I'm pretty sure it was red for one fencer, yellow for the other.
It was discussed a bit in this thread.

[Timacheff]

Kelsey had a yellow card from earlier in the bout. When the non-combativity call was made, it caused Boisse to receive a yellow card and Kelsey a red card. That tied the score, and then they went into the final minute of fencing.

I was taking photos at this bout, which you can see here:

http://www.printroom.com/ViewGallery...7758&curpage=1

The photos don't reveal what was going on, however, in terms of the score, etc.

[jspierre]

So the second yellow for Kelsey meant he got a red card, cummulatively, and lost a touche while Boisse only got a yellow. Makes sense. But why did Kelsey allow himself to get into this situation? He knows he has a yellow card already, and Boisse backs off, basically trying to see if the Director calls passivity, which gives Kelsey a red card, and costs him a touch to tie the score (in a tight bout). Essentially, from what I saw on the tape, Kelsey was taking a totally passive approach to the bout to start. His single lights, which were few, were counter-attacks, otherwise they doubled the majority of the touches. And, Kelsey initiated almost no attacks. So you have to credit Boisse with smarts to try the passivity call. At worst, Boisse gets a yellow, and nothing more since he's actively fencing (get's three single lights from what I saw in the tape - a flick to the forearm, a fleche in 8 to the body, and the remise in OT).

[erooMynohtnA]

Some people were under the misconception that passivity was an ungrouped penalty, and its first infraction resulted in an ungrouped yellow regardless of pre-existing cards. Kelsey might have thought that. He also might not have thought about it. If you read the other thread, this is discussed.

Furthermore, fencing aggressively in the last period of an epee bout when you have a lead is not usually considered the best strategy.

[oiuyt]

So the second yellow for Kelsey meant he got a red card, cummulatively, and lost a touche while Boisse only got a yellow. Makes sense. But why did Kelsey allow himself to get into this situation? He knows he has a yellow card already, and Boisse backs off, basically trying to see if the Director calls passivity, which gives Kelsey a red card, and costs him a touch to tie the score (in a tight bout). Essentially, from what I saw on the tape, Kelsey was taking a totally passive approach to the bout to start. His single lights, which were few, were counter-attacks, otherwise they doubled the majority of the touches. And, Kelsey initiated almost no attacks. So you have to credit Boisse with smarts to try the passivity call. At worst, Boisse gets a yellow, and nothing more since he's actively fencing (get's three single lights from what I saw in the tape - a flick to the forearm, a fleche in 8 to the body, and the remise in OT).

Given the score, I suspect Kelsey had at least as many single-light touches as Boisse. Kind of how those things work.

-B

[Cry_Me_A_River]

Does anyone have a link to a vid of that bout?

[jspierre]

Does anyone have a link to a vid of that bout?

You may have to get the DVD to see it. I haven't seen any clip on line of this bout or the sequence leading up to the call by the Director.

I think the DVD's price is worth it just to see this bout (the now world's No. 1 ranked epeef encer against the most successful US epeeist in this year's World Championships - a study in contrasts, and this chess-like gambit that Boisse successfully pulls off).

Watching the bout, again, you could really detect the frustration Boisse must have felt trying to unlock single lights on Kelsey. He clearly knows Kelsey's strategy or bout plan is to fence double touches by counter-attacking in a defensive/passive mode, and patientely exploit mistakes. Were it not for the red card against, there's probably a better than 50/50 chance that Kelsey wins, but the red card not just tied the score but shifted the psychology, it seems, in Boisse's favor. You could see Kelsey step out of his bout focus to question/appeal the call from the stip to the Director. The Director clearly rejects the appeal. That's probably enough of an edge at this level of competition to help Boisse turn the bout in his favor.

[bunbury]

So the second yellow for Kelsey meant he got a red card, cummulatively, and lost a touche while Boisse only got a yellow. Makes sense. But why did Kelsey allow himself to get into this situation? He knows he has a yellow card already, and Boisse backs off, basically trying to see if the Director calls passivity, which gives Kelsey a red card, and costs him a touch to tie the score (in a tight bout). Essentially, from what I saw on the tape, Kelsey was taking a totally passive approach to the bout to start. His single lights, which were few, were counter-attacks, otherwise they doubled the majority of the touches. And, Kelsey initiated almost no attacks. So you have to credit Boisse with smarts to try the passivity call. At worst, Boisse gets a yellow, and nothing more since he's actively fencing (get's three single lights from what I saw in the tape - a flick to the forearm, a fleche in 8 to the body, and the remise in OT).

IIRC, you aren't "given" a second yellow card. If they throw a second yellow card at you, it is not the same as them giving a red.

[Inquartata]

But why did Kelsey allow himself to get into this situation?

He was just employing the deepest, most recondite skill set in all fencing! No one but a true epeeist can understand this, apparently, but I am told that there is really no such thing as passivity, and the call is just a plot by foilists to ruin the subtle beauty of epee...

[SFfencer]

Does anyone have a link to a vid of that bout?

http://enmuista.net/petersburg2007_boisse_kelsey.mov

114mb file, takes a long time to download, I'll try to upload it to Youtube.

[whtouche]

So you have to credit Boisse with smarts to try the passivity call. At worst, Boisse gets a yellow.

Your analysis that the number one ranked epee fencer in the world deserves credit for being both good and smart is very insightful

[mrbiggs]

So, in the end, it was Boisse's mastery of the rules and the final, critical single light to take the bout.

It wasn't a mastery of the rules, he took advantage of a ridiculous and nonsensical technicality to get a touch. I'm not surprised that Kelsey was unaware of it as this was something like the fourth change in passivity in the last two years. I think that people should spend time fencing and not following the monthly whims of the FIE.

EDIT: Actually, I'd say that this situation is specifically contrary to the spirit of the rules, because now the fencer with the lower point total is trying to cause passivity, while the winning fencer is actually obligated to attack. (But not necessarily to actually get a touch, which doesn't make any sense...)

[SFfencer]

Does anyone have a link to a vid of that bout?

Here's my footage of this incident. Sorry about the big video size (114MB).
http://enmuista.net/petersburg2007_boisse_kelsey.mov

I've uploaded it to Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyW8ASa6xH0

[Cry_Me_A_River]

http://enmuista.net/petersburg2007_boisse_kelsey.mov

114mb file, takes a long time to download, I'll try to upload it to Youtube.

Thanks

I've uploaded it to Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyW8ASa6xH0

I downloaded the QT file already, but I'll save this in mu favs just in case.

[jspierre]

It wasn't a mastery of the rules, he took advantage of a ridiculous and nonsensical technicality to get a touch. I'm not surprised that Kelsey was unaware of it as this was something like the fourth change in passivity in the last two years. I think that people should spend time fencing and not following the monthly whims of the FIE.

EDIT: Actually, I'd say that this situation is specifically contrary to the spirit of the rules, because now the fencer with the lower point total is trying to cause passivity, while the winning fencer is actually obligated to attack. (But not necessarily to actually get a touch, which doesn't make any sense...)

Not sure I agree: whether the rule makes logical sense or not is besides the point. Boisse understood the situation, the current rule, and found a way to gain an advantage, which was critical to him since he was down a touch in the final period of the DE.

The rule should be fixed, no doubt. But ignorance of the law is no defense....

[jspierre]

Just looking at the clip on Youtube compared to the DVD, what you miss, apart from the lead up to the situation in the prior two periods, is the gesture Boisse makes when the Director holds up the red card to Kelsey; the clip is shot from the opposite side of the strip than the recording made for the DVD. On the DVD, you actually see Boisse basically make a gesture of success, like he says, "....yessssss...." with an arm pump. In the clip, all you see is his back, though you do see him glance toward the Director just prior to the cards coming out, leading me to believe that he knew if he just stood there, and Kelsey fell for it, the touche could be his.

[erooMynohtnA]

Just looking at the clip on Youtube compared to the DVD, what you miss, apart from the lead up to the situation in the prior two periods, is the gesture Boisse makes when the Director holds up the red card to Kelsey; the clip is shot from the opposite side of the strip than the recording made for the DVD. On the DVD, you actually see Boisse basically make a gesture of success, like he says, "....yessssss...." with an arm pump. In the clip, all you see is his back, though you do see him glance toward the Director just prior to the cards coming out, leading me to believe that he knew if he just stood there, and Kelsey fell for it, the touche could be his.

Really?

If I were behind in an epee match I would just stand there waiting for time to expire and lose. He must have just pumped his fist because he was surprised, because he had just been planning to stand there and lose when time expired.