Covering Target in Foil

[ysbadadden]

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

I think it was until the late 1930's. We're talking about the upper weapon arm. The bib of the mask was also target. Both are completely logical in the non-electric weapon.

[SJCFU#2]

Originally Posted by ysbadadden

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

I think it was until the late 1930's. We're talking about the upper weapon arm. The bib of the mask was also target. Both are completely logical in the non-electric weapon.

I suspect that if if the upper arm or bib ever were considered legitimate target than it was changed even earlier than that. The following excerpt is from a small, very basic book on fencing written by Joseph Vince in 1937:

"The target in foil fencing is the torso, from the upper edge of the collar to the groin line (in back to a horizontal line passing across the tops of the hip bones). Touches made on all other parts of the body (mask, arms and legs) are foul touches. Although such touches carry no penalty, they invalidate any further action in the phrase. When a foul is made, the director of the bout interrupts the play by calling a halt.

"In women's fencing, the legitimate target is the same as for the men except that the lower limit is a horizontal line passing across the tops of the hip bones."

[geofmclean]

I read about a dispute at one of the early Olympics in "By the Sword" by Richard Cohen. It's been a couple of years (since I read it) but as I recall, the French foil contingent refused to fence because the upper arm was not considered valid target. Maybe someone with a copy handy could check on the year.

[thekoby]

Originally Posted by geofmclean

I read about a dispute at one of the early Olympics in "By the Sword" by Richard Cohen. It's been a couple of years (since I read it) but as I recall, the French foil contingent refused to fence because the upper arm was not considered valid target. Maybe someone with a copy handy could check on the year.

I seem to have misplaced my copy, which makes me sad. I wanted to reread it the other day :-(

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by geofmclean

I read about a dispute at one of the early Olympics in "By the Sword" by Richard Cohen. It's been a couple of years (since I read it) but as I recall, the French foil contingent refused to fence because the upper arm was not considered valid target. Maybe someone with a copy handy could check on the year.

I think this was before the formalization of fencing rules, perhaps the mid to late 1800's.

Allen Evans

[kuroutesshin]

Aldo Nadi's bouts with Lucien Gaudin were fenced with upper-arm target area, this was in the 1920s. See Cohen's book.

[Joe biebel]

I had numerous covering target calls in my matches at SN. The refs were "spot on" as to correct application.

One example is: a fencer flesches at me and passes as I make a riposte. Attacker has his back arm plastered against his body and I hit it (off-target) with the riposte. The call was attack/riposte, touch for me, yellow card for covering. It's not rare to have a covering card, but quite a bit more rare for the ref to see and be confident enough that the off-target hit was "in the zone" and call it valid.

A similar situation also happened with the same opponent. Fencer makes a flesche with a bind attack. I hit the brakes, fencer goes off the side of the strip, passes me (still controlling the blade) and hits me in the back arm with the finish of his action after the pass. Referee moves me up a meter while the fencer pleads that I be carded for covering. The ref states that: first, he left the strip, second, he was past me, third, that my arm was up and out of the way, and that I had not moved my arm in any way to deny the target. But other than that it was "covering". I think the complaint was a smokescreen to distract the ref because the meter I gained put him off the end of the strip. The ref was non-plussed. Touch!

In one other match with assesuers (sp?), it ended with a red card as my prime riposte was squarely on the arm covering target. This was one of the few tournaments I have had in a while, where these infractions were caught and correctly carded.

[TheNamelessOne]

You are right. Even if the back arm is behind the fencer, if it is up against the lame it is covering.

[CadetVet]

Some folks have noted the potential safety hazard in allowing the bib to become target. I tend to agree, but also understand the frustration that comes from hitting it when you're fencing small, squirly fencers.

What if, instead of the bib, we used half-sleeve lame's? Something like a short sleeve shirt. This way, the upper arm would be target - and it would reduce the intentional blocking of target with the weapon arm. On the back side, it would at least provide some open target for imperfect arm placement. It would probably be safer than the bib, too, particularly if it was solid cloth down to the wrist (with lame material only to the short-sleeve cutoff).

I'd hate to have to buy new lame's, for sure, but it could solve this problem in a way that is safer than electrifying the bib.

[Beloit Fencer of Old]

Originally Posted by noodle

............................................______ __
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?........................... ...........................\,
.................../.................................................. .........,}
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}
.............../.................................................. .,:”........./
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`..... ..._/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`..... }............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|........... ...`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,.............. .............`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\........ ..._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\

Am I the only one who thinks this looks like a certain fencing coach from Egypt?

[KD5MDK]

I think you are Mauro's hair doesn't look like that to me.

[notalent]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I think you are Mauro's hair doesn't look like that to me.

Its not like Mauro is the only member of the Egyptian Moffia, Im guessing he means Gamal, the guess is based soley on BFO's location.

[Grasshopper]

For every neck hit you don't do, I'll do two.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Beloit Fencer of Old

Am I the only one who thinks this looks like a certain fencing coach from Egypt?

Is this better?

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by notalent

Its not like Mauro is the only member of the Egyptian Moffia, Im guessing he means Gamal, the guess is based soley on BFO's location.

That makes sense, but I still think my response is more fun.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by notalent

Its not like Mauro is the only member of the Egyptian Moffia, Im guessing he means Gamal, the guess is based soley on BFO's location.

Nope. I'm assuming he means Gamil Kaliouby, who coaches at Wellesley, as that's at least somewhat reasonable (the hair is right for him).

That said, not exactly what comes to mind when I see that ascii...

-m

[irishfolker]

It was explained to me that the weapon arm was considered to be an extension of the weapon, and, therefore, could not be considered as covering target. Obviously, this only applies in foil.

[zorro19]

My biggest gripe is against individuals who, when in close quarters, reverse shoulders towards the opponent while keeping their arm at their side. This essentially gives a target area consisting of the side of the body which is almost completely covered. Many refs do not see this as covering target. It is maddening to fence individuals who automatically do this and don't even know that the are blocking target. The unarmed hand should be in the air so as not to cover target. Fencers are are not tought proper infighting and are just reinforced by not having the call made.

[CadetVet]

Originally Posted by zorro19

My biggest gripe is against individuals who, when in close quarters, reverse shoulders towards the opponent while keeping their arm at their side. This essentially gives a target area consisting of the side of the body which is almost completely covered. Many refs do not see this as covering target. It is maddening to fence individuals who automatically do this and don't even know that the are blocking target. The unarmed hand should be in the air so as not to cover target. Fencers are are not tought proper infighting and are just reinforced by not having the call made.

In the Junior MF Pools, I carded someone for doing just that - reversing shoulders, arm down, with a high, twisted arm riposte. I nullified the touch and issued the yellow card.

After the bout, the coach came up to me and said I shouldn't have carded the fencer because he was making that kind of riposte... one must wonder what is being taught out there.

[fencerbill]

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.

Slight apologies for commenting on a week old posting.

Leon Paul suggested, in the Armory, that the proposed Foil target bib be electrically connected to the Lame body by contact between a Lame flap on the back of the bib amd the body Lame. They reported it worked well in tests.

If you had the upper arm covered with Lame cloth but with a nonconductive gap between the Lame on the arm and on the Lame body, you could do this.

Arm extended, no contact, off target.

Arm in contact with the body, arm Lame in electrical contact with the body Lame, Touch.