Covering Target in Foil

[Stormbringer]

Originally Posted by Stormbringer

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?

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

No. It's not a card.

This isn't rocket science. Covering with the weapon arm is NOT a card. You can block target with it; indeed you almost always block target with it. However, it's not a part of the penalty "covering target."

Wait a minute...

At what point are the underlined portions of these statements not saying the same thing?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Stormbringer

Wait a minute...

At what point are the underlined portions of these statements not saying the same thing?

You seemed to be saying that the current interpretation contradicts the rules, or the spirit of the rules. It doesn't.

I'm done with this thread as this is getting silly.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

Also, rules are generally written or clarified when someone is abusing a situation. Do you often run into people that are covering target with their weapon arm so much that it affects the game?

Yes. I know some fencers who have a larger jacket than they need so they'll have a big sleeve that covers more of their target, and then tuck their arm against their body and across their chest a little. As a lefty, I'll say it can be difficult to hit anything except arm in the case of a right handed fencer doing that.

Is it a huge deal, no. Does it happen, yes. Is it a problem, I don't know.

[DieterS]

Soooo . . . . back to one of my original questions.

Is there anyone here who can pass along my observations to the referees?

As a uninvolved spectator, I noticed that some really blatant covering of the target in foil was not carded in the bouts that I watched. This involved several fencers and referees, not just one.

Thanks!

[Stormbringer]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

You seemed to be saying that the current interpretation contradicts the rules, or the spirit of the rules. It doesn't.

I take it that, then, you are taking issue with this segment of my statement:

...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...

That was meant to acknowledge - and agree with - the first point of Damon Scragg's response:

Originally Posted by Damon Scaggs

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.

I'm acknowledging - and, again, agreeing with - Mr. Scagg's point: that while the written rules do not provide the exception for the weapon-arm, there are some specific, identifiable parameters (anyone care to enumerate?) outside of the rules that have been judged to be of sufficient importance to over-ride the rules.

So, in conclusion, we have:
1.) It is physically possible to cover (/block/obstruct-access-to/insert-synonymous-phrase-of-one's-choice-here) the valid target with the weapon-arm.
2.) The written rules don't make an exception for the weapon-arm.
3.) There are specific, identifiable parameters (again, might anyone be willing to enumerate these?) outside of the rules that require one to make the exception.
4.) As such, the particular instance of covering target with the weapon-arm is not to be treated as a penalizable offense.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I'm done with this thread as this is getting silly.

I suppose this line of discussion has run it's course, hasn't it?

[bob46]

I think if you try covering with the front arm, you will find it a little hard. If the fencer you are fencing covers the chest, just hit him in the flank. If he covers the flank and does this kinda wavy motion with his arm to cover his chest, just find a way around...

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by bob46

I think if you try covering with the front arm, you will find it a little hard. If the fencer you are fencing covers the chest, just hit him in the flank. If he covers the flank and does this kinda wavy motion with his arm to cover his chest, just find a way around...

Oh yeah, just go around, why didn't I think of that!

[bob46]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

Oh yeah, just go around, why didn't I think of that!

lol

*evil coach*: FIND A WAY AROUND OR ELSE YOU LOSE

you: HOW???

*evil coach*: um... JUST DO IT!

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by DieterS

Soooo . . . . back to one of my original questions.

Is there anyone here who can pass along my observations to the referees?

As a uninvolved spectator, I noticed that some really blatant covering of the target in foil was not carded in the bouts that I watched. This involved several fencers and referees, not just one.

Thanks!

Back to the original question, I still don't have a great feel for the arm position you're talking about. It seems similar to this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig5POJH9TDI (particularly in the last third or so).

Is that the type of back arm stuff you're talking about in the OP of that other thread?

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

Back to the original question, I still don't have a great feel for the arm position you're talking about. It seems similar to this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig5POJH9TDI (particularly in the last third or so).

Is that the type of back arm stuff you're talking about in the OP of that other thread?

FotR covers at 1:12.

-m

[DieterS]

Maybe. It's hard to tell from as far back as the video was taken, but at 1:19, the FotR looks as though his non-weapon arm is held close to his body. In my opinion, if the fencers were in range, this position would warrant a card.

What if two righties or two lefties were fencing? The referee would certainly not be in a position to see whether covering of target was taking place for one of them.

[DieterS]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

FotR covers at 1:12.

-m

This is the style used by Simone Baur of Germany in World Cup tournaments. She consistently uses her upper weapon arm as a shield. It's very ugly in my opinion and I think it should be carded (but wasn't in the World Cup events that I watched).

Maybe this is why the FIE has considered on occasion to reinstitute the designation of the upper weapon arm as a valid target when it's touching the torso.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by DieterS

This is the style used by Simone Baur of Germany in World Cup tournaments. She consistently uses her upper weapon arm as a shield. It's very ugly in my opinion and I think it should be carded (but wasn't in the World Cup events that I watched).

Maybe this is why the FIE has considered on occasion to reinstitute the designation of the upper weapon arm as a valid target when it's touching the torso.

My comment was in reference to his NON weapon arm. As addressed above, you cannot be carded for covering with your weapon arm.

his back arm comes in and covers while in distance when he turns his shoulders. I can't really see the lights all that well, so it's possible the covering was after the halt.

-m

[DieterS]

Oh. The action was a bit of a mess, wasn't it? No, I couldn't tell whether there was any covering by the non-weapon arm. Who knows what was going on in there!

[TooLoftheDeviL]

Originally Posted by bob46

I think if you try covering with the front arm, you will find it a little hard.

Considering how easily I get away with this squirmy bull**** prettie much every competition I've entered as far back as I can remember... saying it's a little hard is comparable to much of the other statements in this thread... IT'S WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG ->

unless you meant committing the covering target offense with your front arm. But that's more than a little hard considering it's not possible.

[bigdawg2121]

Originally Posted by Stormbringer

Interesting...

In contrast to victord66, I would think that t.48 and t.49 would be more directly applicable:



With the key phrase being "...by reason of an abnormal position...".

That would imply that neither "normal" fencing actions (attacks, parries, ripostes, remises, counter-attacks, etc.) from the inside lines (which seem to generally necessitate having the forearm cross the body) nor the en garde position (regardless of which line it's in) are to be considered as covering the valid target.

But, what about those "abnormal" positions?

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?

Who are you? What club are you fencing at? I'm pretty sure that there's no way you're at Iana's place b/c she would have set you straight. I'm pretty sure neither Frank nor Vince are crazy enough to be supporting these position...is there a new club I should avoid visiting when I'm home?

Also, in case you were wondering, the sections of the rules that you are describing don't support calling covering target with the weapon arm. It really doesn't. I'm not that interested in discussing it though b/c you seem like you want discussion for the sake of proving yourself right through whatever technique of gerrymandering logic you can find.

Originally Posted by DieterS

Soooo . . . . back to one of my original questions.

Is there anyone here who can pass along my observations to the referees?

As a uninvolved spectator, I noticed that some really blatant covering of the target in foil was not carded in the bouts that I watched. This involved several fencers and referees, not just one.

Thanks!

Honestly, people are doing what they can. Sometimes it's hard to see. Sometimes you actually do need assesseurs to do the best job possible. Let me assure you that there's a good chance you were watching on a day when we were following all of the rules b/c that's every day. George will continue to show us pictures of ways we screwed up and lecture us on not screwing up as will everyone else.

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by DieterS

Maybe this is why the FIE has considered on occasion to reinstitute the designation of the upper weapon arm as a valid target when it's touching the torso.

Was there ever a time when the upper arm was a valid target (weapon or non-weapon)?

I ask out of curiosity. Epee is my preferred weapon but I fence foil occasionally. And when I do I find that I have the problem of keeping my non-weapon arm properly positioned. No I do not let it come forward but from epee I try to keep it directly to my side and down. Which when I in-fight in foil results in a card for covering target. So I try a number of different stratagems to keep it out of the way like putting my left hand on the back of my head - never have been able to do the hold the off arm high in the classical style. While I understand that foilists grow used to such positions it always seems to me that I'm having to contort my body/arm in order to keep from covering target. It's undoubtedly heresy but I've wondered why not just make the arm a target along with the trunk. Traditionally I understand that the foil target was so designated so to teach young duelists to make the deadliest attacks, i.e. to the trunk. But now it seems the only rationale is to differentiate foil from epee.

[Stormbringer]

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

Who are you?

Apparently, someone:
~ who apparently both thinks too much about some things, and is sometimes prone to over-analysis.
~ mused about a given situation, and arrives at a conclusion that - at the time - seemed both logical and supported (or, at least, not explicitly refuted) by hard evidence (i.e. documentation).
~ who, over the course of this conversation (and others), could actually see where and - much more importantly, I think - why what was once thought to be evidence supporting the assertion were thoroughly and systematically refuted.
~ who, after seeing all of what was once thought to be evidence supporting the assertion were thoroughly and systematically refuted, began (albeit slowly) to accept the opposing viewpoint.
~ who’s way of thinking has evolved, and, after compiling the previous arguments supporting the now agreed-with assertion, has adopted the now agreed-with assertion in place of that born from the original musing (and - much, much more importantly, I think - is now able to better understand and rationalize this view).

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

I'm not that interested in discussing it

Nor am I; since I now formally reject my previous assertion, and now agree with (and, I think, better understand) the once-opposing view, there is no need for further argument, right?

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

you seem like you want discussion for the sake of proving yourself right through whatever technique of gerrymandering logic you can find.

I did not mean to sound that way. I see now that I was wrong, and I offer my most sincere apology to everyone (particularly mrbiggs) for any undue aggravation and/or frustration I’ve caused.

*offers e-handshake* No hard feelings?