Suppose we create an example. Let's say a fencer arranges their weapon-arm in such a way that:
1.) the elbow rests on the body, at about the level of the navel, and directed at the thigh of the leading leg,
2.) the weapon-hand rests on the body, on the non-weapon-arm shoulder, and
3.) the bib of the mask fills most (if not all) of the space between the weapon-hand and the weapon-arm shoulder.
As written, I doubt it would be a card.
In any case, please fence me like this. I look forward to fencing someone who is unable to move or parry.
I would not agree, and for two reasons. 1. Because it's the wrong call and 2. Because, as I pointed out earlier, calling covering target with the arm means that both fencers are nearly always covering target.
This is one of those rules where you can read the rulebook and even handbook either correctly or incorrectly, but you need to use your common sense to determine what's correct.
Also, I think that the correct interpretation is fairly clear seeing as that both documents specify non-sword arm.
1.) I was under the impression that reason (1) was the assertion under question. As such, wouldn't using it to support itself be circular logic?
2.) Isn't reason (2) addressed by the requirement (within t.49) that the fencer's position be "abnormal" (presumably, as distinguished from "normal" (or, at least, "not-abnormal") fencing stances and positions)?
3.) It would seem that t.49 is not specific WRT which non-valid areas to which it applies; that would seem to imply that it is applicable to any and all non-valid areas...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbiggs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormbringer
Suppose we create an example. Let's say a fencer arranges their weapon-arm in such a way that:
1.) the elbow rests on the body, at about the level of the navel, and directed at the thigh of the leading leg,
2.) the weapon-hand rests on the body, on the non-weapon-arm shoulder, and
3.) the bib of the mask fills most (if not all) of the space between the weapon-hand and the weapon-arm shoulder.
As written, I doubt it would be a card.
So, are you asserting that, regardless of how "abnormal" the position and/or orientation of the fencer's weapon-arm may be, or how actively and egregiously the fencer may be using said weapon-arm (still a non-valid surface) to, in the words of the handbook, "deny access to the (valid) target by the opponent", that one can never, ever be penalized for covering large parts of the valid target area with the weapon arm, and that t.49 applies to everything except the weapon-arm?
This, then, raises the following questions:
1.) What, then exemplifies/defines an "abnormal fencing position"? To what degree must a position be "abnormal" for t.49 to apply?
2.) What are the position and orientation of the weapon-arm during such stances? In what way(s), and to what degree(s) (if any), would changing only the position and/or orientation of the weapon-arm affect the overall "abnormality" of the fencer's position/stance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbiggs
In any case, please fence me like this. I look forward to fencing someone who is unable to move or parry.
I don't see how having the weapon-arm in such a strange position would necessarily hinder movement (footwork) to any significant degree.
(Not that that would help a non-foilist much against a B-rated foilist... )
1.) I was under the impression that reason (1) was the assertion under question. As such, wouldn't using it to support itself be circular logic?)
You: Why is 2+2=4?
Me: What?
You: I think 2+2=5.
Me: No, that's wrong. Here's a list of smart people who are knowledgeable and experienced in the field who think you're wrong, in addition to relevant texts who say you're wrong.
You: That's circular logic!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormbringer
3.) It would seem that t.49 is not specific WRT which non-valid areas to which it applies; that would seem to imply that it is applicable to any and all non-valid areas...
It doesn't and it's not.
In addition to having the weapon arm as an example of a non-valid surface which almost always covers target, what about the bib? That's almost always covering target. Your interpretation just doesn't make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormbringer
So, are you asserting that, regardless of how "abnormal" the position and/or orientation of the fencer's weapon-arm may be, or how actively and egregiously the fencer may be using said weapon-arm (still a non-valid surface) to, in the words of the handbook, "deny access to the (valid) target by the opponent", that one can never, ever be penalized for covering large parts of the valid target area with the weapon arm, and that t.49 applies to everything except the weapon-arm?
Yes. This is exactly correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormbringer
This, then, raises the following questions:
1.) What, then exemplifies/defines an "abnormal fencing position"? To what degree must a position be "abnormal" for t.49 to apply?)
Very abnormal. I've always taken the rule to mean that a fencing position that threatens the safety of the bout. For example, if one fencer is doing a handstand, they should be carded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormbringer
2.) What are the position and orientation of the weapon-arm during such stances?)
Entirely irrelevant. Either a stance is abnormal or it isn't. I can't think of a situation where the weapon arm would, by itself, make a stance abnormal, but I don't see any reason why it's excluded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormbringer
(Not that that would help a non-foilist much
I see that you're a non-foilist. I don't know if you have fenced foil much, but the weapon arm is used fairly extensively these days to block attacks to flank. I've never seen a fencer ask for a card nor a referee give a card for it, and if a referee WAS to card for it, it would be very bad.
Interesting...
[SNIP]
Suppose we create an example. Let's say a fencer arranges their weapon-arm in such a way that:
1.) the elbow rests on the body, at about the level of the navel, and directed at the thigh of the leading leg,
2.) the weapon-hand rests on the body, on the non-weapon-arm shoulder, and
3.) the bib of the mask fills most (if not all) of the space between the weapon-hand and the weapon-arm shoulder.
It would seem that this position would only be assumed for the purpose of intentionally using the weapon-arm (a non-valid surface) to cover a significant portion of the frontal section of the valid target, and that a referee who suspected this to be the case would not necessarily be incorrect in applying t.49 to such a situation.
Is this the case? If not, by what rationale is it not the case?
You lunge at me. I parry 4 and attempt to riposte directly. Remaining in lunge, you take an over-enthusiastic parry 4. Your elbow is in contact with your body and your guard contacts your non-weapon arm shoulder. You are not covering target, you are parrying deep 4.
...if you think that you can be carded for covering target with your weapon hand/arm you are.......Failed to recognized your video code, please enter the video ID or full video URL wich contains the Video ID.
Things have strayed into hypertechnical readings of the rules. Let's set a few things straight:
1. It is incorrect to card someone for covering target with the weapon arm. Yes I know the written rule doesn't make an exception, but it's simply not possible to NOT cover target with it, so common sense prevails.
2. Body parts have to go somewhere and in modern fencing attacks can come from unusual angles. You have to be reasonable in how you apply this. If my arm is straight behind me and you flick to my back and hit the arm, I am NOT covering.
3. It is illegal to cover target with any other body part. Yes, covering with the legs is illegal.
"I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, 'bad'?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbiggs
I mean that if that was called against me, I would ask the bout committee not only for an observer, but also for an exorcist.
It wasn't a serious question. I was just showing how that bit sounded to me. I put the quotes there to show that I was quoting from somewhere else. Dr. Peter Venkman in this case.
Last edited by tbryan; 07-08-2008 at 06:22 PM.
Reason: elaboration
Don't you just love those threads where A asks a question, B (a FIE referee) answers it, C, D, E and F all agree with B, but A still keeps on saying they don't agree. If their mind was already made up, why did they ask the question in the first place?
So, are you asserting that, regardless of how "abnormal" the position and/or orientation of the fencer's weapon-arm may be, or how actively and egregiously the fencer may be using said weapon-arm (still a non-valid surface) to, in the words of the handbook, "deny access to the (valid) target by the opponent", that one can never, ever be penalized for covering large parts of the valid target area with the weapon arm, and that t.49 applies to everything except the weapon-arm?
Yes. This is exactly correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damon Scaggs
Things have strayed into hypertechnical readings of the rules. Let's set a few things straight:
1. It is incorrect to card someone for covering target with the weapon arm. Yes I know the written rule doesn't make an exception, but it's simply not possible to NOT cover target with it, so common sense prevails.
2. Body parts have to go somewhere and in modern fencing attacks can come from unusual angles. You have to be reasonable in how you apply this. If my arm is straight behind me and you flick to my back and hit the arm, I am NOT covering.
3. It is illegal to cover target with any other body part. Yes, covering with the legs is illegal.
So, would it be fair and correct to say that we are in agreement that it is physically possible to cover the valid target with the weapon arm in such a way as to be contrary to the written rules of the game, but - for the purposes of addressing gameplay mechanics and ease-of-refereeing issues - that that particular instance is not to be treated as a penalizable offense?
Don't you just love those threads where A asks a question, B (a FIE referee) answers it, C, D, E and F all agree with B, but A still keeps on saying they don't agree.
Personally, I find these types of threads interesting, since they have the potential to allow for discussion that can lead to the proverbial heart - the actual reasoning behind the assertions, an
)
