Directing at the Summer Nationals

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

The horse's mouth.

I went Arianna Klinkov's referee seminar yesterday evening, to, ah, gather intelligence...and because, let's face it, I had nothing better to do. He was in attendance as well.

And Ariana's clinic addressed foil interpretations??? that's kinda surprising...

-m

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

And Ariana's clinic addressed foil interpretations??? that's kinda surprising...

-m

No. But thread drift is not limited to f.net, it seems.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

And Ariana's clinic addressed foil interpretations??? that's kinda surprising...

-m

As opposed to George saying some random things?

[Stormbringer]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

And Ariana's clinic addressed foil interpretations??? that's kinda surprising...

-m

Why is that surprising that an FOC member would hold a refereeing clinic that would address foil-related rules interpretations?

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Stormbringer

Why is that surprising that an FOC member would hold a refereeing clinic that would address foil-related rules interpretations?

Because while Ariana refs foil (and,for that matter, epee) perfectly fine, she tends to spend the vast majority of her time concentrating on sabre.

[Mr.MightyMouse]

I kinda feel for kids fencing foil for a year or 2 - changing masks; going back to refine their attacks - should do wonders for participation retention.

[Stormbringer]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

The horse's mouth.

I went Arianna Klinkov's referee seminar yesterday evening, to, ah, gather intelligence... He was in attendance as well.

Ok, then...

I don't suppose that they provided anything along the lines of an enumerated list (preferably in writing/print/electronic form) of what other changes are in the works...?

Originally Posted by Inquartata

...and because, let's face it, I had nothing better to do...

Well, then, how about that stab at "the sabre side" mentioned in the other thread?

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I might have a go from the sabre side, but it will have to wait until one of those long nights in the hotel at Nationals ( when the porn gets boring ).

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Stormbringer

Why is that surprising that an FOC member would hold a refereeing clinic that would address foil-related rules interpretations?

Ariana Klinkov is our premier Sabre referee. While she has an FIE foil license (as well as Epee), pretty much any clinic she gives will have Sabre as its focus.

-m

[ysbadadden]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Prepare yourself for more change: According to George K. as soon as the USFA ratifies the FIE change the fall of the front foot of the lunge will end the attack just as in sabre.

Excuse a little thread drift, but does this rule lead to the following results:
1) Fencer R extends-lunges, falling short. His front foot lands. His attack is now over, but he is certainly point-in-line, no? Now, without stopping or pausing, he leans forward and hits. Fencer L has not parried. Touch for R.
2) Fencer R extends-lunges, falling short. Fencer L counterattacks. R's front foot lands. His attack is now over, but he is certainly point-in-line, no? Both fencers hit. Touch for L.
3) Fencer R extends-lunges, falling short. His front foot lands. His attack is now over, but he is certainly point-in-line, no? Now, without stopping or pausing, he leans forward and hits. Fencer L does not parry, but after the end of R's lunge, attacks and also hits. Either simultaneous actions or touch for R (whose continuation was instantaneous and therefore is the first offensive action after the end of his attack.)

Am I correct?

[AndrewH]

Originally Posted by ysbadadden

Excuse a little thread drift, but does this rule lead to the following results:
1) Fencer R extends-lunges, falling short. His front foot lands. His attack is now over, but he is certainly point-in-line, no? Now, without stopping or pausing, he leans forward and hits. Fencer L has not parried. Touch for R.
2) Fencer R extends-lunges, falling short. Fencer L counterattacks. R's front foot lands. His attack is now over, but he is certainly point-in-line, no? Both fencers hit. Touch for L.
3) Fencer R extends-lunges, falling short. His front foot lands. His attack is now over, but he is certainly point-in-line, no? Now, without stopping or pausing, he leans forward and hits. Fencer L does not parry, but after the end of R's lunge, attacks and also hits. Either simultaneous actions or touch for R (whose continuation was instantaneous and therefore is the first offensive action after the end of his attack.)

Am I correct?

Not addressing any of the specific situations in your post (i'll leave that to the real foil referees here), but it's been well established that PiL is a separate "state of being" that exists independent of the attack.

[Joe biebel]

Originally Posted by Goldgar

I disagree with this statement. Once the referee has actually called "halt", it would be unfair to allow a touch that landed thereafter, because the referee has instructed the fencer to stop defending himself. Therefore, the referee should not actually call out "Halt!" immediately when the infraction occurs, but only after the completion of the last action that the referee intends to allow.

Dirk,
For the most part you are correct. My initial statement was that there can be mitigating circumstances where a hit arrives after the halt is called and can be counted. This is not common.

Say, Dirk flesches at his opponent Joe. Joe parries and is run smack into by Dirk. the ref seeing the aggregious and dangerous action immediately calls "halt", yet amazingly, Joe manages to hit on his riposte before landing on his tush. Really, what referee would disallow this?

Joe flesches at Dirk, and leaves the side of the strip. Dirk makes a parry and riposte changing direction and manages to reach Joe. The ref calls halt when Joe passes the edge of the strip while Dirk's riposte is in progress. Now some might argue that the ref should not have called halt until after the riposte arrives, but the simple fact is that the riposte is underway and therefore allowed.

[HDG]

Originally Posted by Joe biebel

Say, Dirk flesches at his opponent Joe. Joe parries and is run smack into by Dirk. the ref seeing the aggregious and dangerous action immediately calls "halt", yet amazingly, Joe manages to hit on his riposte before landing on his tush. Really, what referee would disallow this?

I might as this scenario seems to add the additional complication of "a touch scored while falling", for which exclusion of the touch is explicitly mandated.


edit: Of course, last time I called this, I got my ass thoroughly chewed by an angry Ukranian (even though I was right).

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by HDG

I might as this scenario seems to add the additional complication of "a touch scored while falling", for which exclusion of the touch is explicitly mandated.


edit: Of course, last time I called this, I got my ass thoroughly chewed by an angry Ukranian (even though I was right).

I wouldn't say "touch scored while falling" would apply if the reason the fencer is falling is that they were knocked over by their opponent. However, if the action didn't START before the body contact, it shouldn't be allowed.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by Joe biebel

Joe flesches at Dirk, and leaves the side of the strip. Dirk makes a parry and riposte changing direction and manages to reach Joe. The ref calls halt when Joe passes the edge of the strip while Dirk's riposte is in progress. Now some might argue that the ref should not have called halt until after the riposte arrives, but the simple fact is that the riposte is underway and therefore allowed.

Good example.

I think that Goldgar was advocating waiting for Dirk to complete his riposte before calling halt.

I was just saying that the way it has been taught at every referee seminar that I have attended in the last few years is to call halt when Joe crosses the edge of the strip. That is, do not wait until Dirk finishes his riposte. Call halt at the crossing. Of course, in this case, the fact that referee said "halt" before the riposte arrives is immaterial. Award or annul the touch as appropriate, which we've already discussed toward the end of another thread.

[HDG]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I wouldn't say "touch scored while falling" would apply if the reason the fencer is falling is that they were knocked over by their opponent. However, if the action didn't START before the body contact, it shouldn't be allowed.

That's a tough one; your position totally makes sense, but the rules don't seem to distinguish -- falling is falling.



btw in my little aside earlier, there was no corp-a-corps involved.

[Joe biebel]

Originally Posted by HDG

I might as this scenario seems to add the additional complication of "a touch scored while falling", for which exclusion of the touch is explicitly mandated.


edit: Of course, last time I called this, I got my ass thoroughly chewed by an angry Ukranian (even though I was right).

I threw in the "landing on the tush" to see if anyone might misinterpret being knocked down with "falling while making a touch". You did, KD5MDK got it right.

In this case as well, a "mitigating" circumstance occurred. While the fencer "Joe" did fall while making the riposte, you have to look at the "mitigating circumstance" to correctly interpret the action. You actually have to understand the reason for the rule to make the right call. What could possibly be less fair, than the fencer that was run into and knocked down, having their riposte taken away as well?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Stormbringer

Well, then, how about that stab at "the sabre side" mentioned in the other thread?

The porn has not yet begun to pall.

Originally Posted by ysbadadden

Excuse a little thread drift, but does this rule lead to the following results:



Am I correct?

I don't know...because I don't know how foil is called. I only know the narrow bit of information I passed on.

However, there was a good deal of discussion of PIL situations in sabre. Essentially it's what most of us expected was what George K. meant in his letter: Line after an attack will only trump an attack if the latter is not immediate. If foil is going to be treated the same, then it will depend on what the opponent does after the foot falls and the extended arm and blade are left out. If he hesitates, it'll be PIL; if he doesn't, it won't ( assuming AL distance ).

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Ariana Klinkov is our premier Sabre referee. While she has an FIE foil license (as well as Epee), pretty much any clinic she gives will have Sabre as its focus.

-m

And this one did.

The seminar, though, was announced as being for all referees with ratings of 5 and above in sabre and/or foil. And referees ( and coaches ) kept asking how various general principles discussed would affect foil calls.

Although George's tidbit about foil incorporating the sabre footfall rule did as KD5MDK said come rather out of the blue, rather than in response to a particular question. I suspect he just couldn't wait to share the inside information.