Covering Target in Foil

[DieterS]

Since the original thread the included this question drifted drifted a lot, I'd like to repost the question in a new thread.

At the Summer Nationals, I noticed that a number of foilists fenced with their non-weapon hand in front of their chests, some were marginal, others extreme.

1. When should a referee caution a fencer about covering target?

2. During an action, does the non-weapon hand have to be touched to get a penalty? If so, how can a referee be sure that a hand, arm, or sleave was not involved (especially if the fencer's back is to the referee)?

3. Is it permissible to wave the non-weapon hand in front of the chest near the bell guard when in fencing distance if the hand whips out of the way before the action starts?

Just wondering. Thanks.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by DieterS

Since the original thread the included this question drifted drifted a lot, I'd like to repost the question in a new thread.

At the Summer Nationals, I noticed that a number of foilists fenced with their non-weapon hand in front of their chests, some were marginal, others extreme.

1. When should a referee caution a fencer about covering target?

When the fencer is covering target, and they should do it using a yellow card.

Originally Posted by DieterS

2. During an action, does the non-weapon hand have to be touched to get a penalty? If so, how can a referee be sure that a hand, arm, or sleave was not involved (especially if the fencer's back is to the referee)?

If the non-weapon arm was touched you even start to get into "use of the non-weapon hand" territory, which is a group 2 offense now. But no, it does not have to be touched. This is called the same way as your last question; the referee needs to go through this process:

1. Is the fencer covering target?

If yes, card them.

If no, don't.

Originally Posted by DieterS

3. Is it permissible to wave the non-weapon hand in front of the chest near the bell guard when in fencing distance if the hand whips out of the way before the action starts?

Kind of. It's up to the ref to determine if the fencer is covering target and whether or not the fencers are in distance. I'd be surprised if a fencer employing such a strategy didn't at least occasionally meet a referee who cards them like crazy for this, though.

[Grimaldi]

If the opponent has the off hand up by the bell guard, what happens if you whack it delibrately? I figure a tap or two would smart enough to discourage that kind of activity?

[LTranter]

I have run across a few opponents who do this. At the club it's easy, I just nicely point it out to them. At a tourney though, I am leery of pointing out to a director for fear he'll through some bad calls my way for doing his job, or that my opponent will unleash his/her fury on me. Besides, no one likes a tattle tale.

L

[Guymelef]

Tell the ref. He or she won't look for it unless you point it out to him. If the ref gets upset that you did this, that's a problem with the ref. Referees only get better if they get challenged.

[thekoby]

have their non-weapon hand by their bell guard?? that itself sounds like a stupid action....but that could just be me. I for one don't feel like getting stabbed in a portion of my body that is not protected.

[tbryan]

1. "Caution" for covering? Never. If it's covering target, the referee should give a penalty card. If it isn't, the referee shouldn't mention it.

2. No, of course you don't have to hit the off hand. That was more like advice on how you, as a fencer, may be able to influence the referee to call covering target or get the opponent to stop covering. If the referee won't call the covering and then you make an attack that the referee sees hit the opponent's hand while it's covering target, the referee might suddenly realize, "Oh...that fencer was covering target." If the referee still doesn't call it, the fencer might decide to keep his hand behind him more because he doesn't like getting hit on the off hand.

Basically, if they're covering and the referee won't call it, don't waste energy trying to "get around" the off hand to score. Sometimes, that'll throw you off and make you hit nothing. Ignore the hand. Go for target. If you hit the hand, at worst, it should be an off target and not your opponent's touch. And if you can never hit hand since it's always out of the way, maybe he's not actually covering target.

3. Maybe. As long as it's not covering target. The idea is that we don't want to card a fencer, for example, when he adjusts his mask out of distance. When doing that, he probably covered target, but it would be silly to call a halt and award a penalty for it. But once you're "in distance" the off hand should already be out of the way. Of course, it's up to the referee what "in distance" means and whether the hand is "in the way" with respect to the opponent. Different referees have wildly different thresholds for what they'll actually call.

[thekoby]

Here is a picture of one of my foil students at the Purdue Spring Open (on the left):

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pi...id=40810081264

Even though I would yell at him all the time for doing something like that at practice, the ref did not call him for covering target area. However, he has been called on it before at other tournaments. So I agree with tbryan in that it sometimes depends on the ref's understanding of what is covering target area or not.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by victord66

but there is such a thing as covering target with the weapon hand/arm as well

no

with the mask and other parts of the body too. Some fencers like to attack with the head down, doing which their mask covers the top section of the lame. I'm am training myself to watch more closely for this and at my club it's done quite a lot, so I'm getting good training there.

yes, covering with the mask is covering target and should be dealt with as per usual...

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by victord66

there is such a thing as covering target with the weapon hand/arm as well

No, this isn't true.


If anyone is concerned about their opponent covering target, they should, after the touch, politely ask "sir, can you watch for covering target?" and then thank the referee when he says "OK" or whatever. It's non-confrontational and points out the problem politely. A referee would have to be crazy to hold this against a fencer, especially since this method is very common. (More so nowadays with new timings foil and the rampant covering during the insane counterattacks).

[DieterS]

Thanks everyone for the explanations.

Yes, I did see some consistent and blatant covering of target at the Nationals. I should have filmed a couple of the worst ones and posted it here. Also, there were a few "mask parries," one of which a fencer complained about.

For the bouts that I watched, I did not see any cards for this infraction by any referee. And no, I had no one fencing in the tournament--my son and I were simply spectators.

Is there anyone here who can pass this observation along to the referees? In general, they did a great job.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by victord66

Just to clarify from the rules:

"t.23. 1. If during a bout the Referee notices that one of the fencers is making
use of his non-sword arm and/or hand, or is protecting or covering
the valid target with a non-valid surface, he can call for the help of
two neutral judges who will be designated by the Directoire Technique"

Notice it says: "or covering the target with a non-valid surface...", so yes, covering with your weapon arm is still covering......

you're simply wrong. you've now been told so by an FIE licensed foil referee (B, I think?) as well us some of us lowly domestic schmucks. You may want to consider changing your opinion in light of this new data.

-m

[foillion]

Originally Posted by victord66

Just to clarify from the rules:

"t.23. 1. If during a bout the Referee notices that one of the fencers is making
use of his non-sword arm and/or hand, or is protecting or covering
the valid target with a non-valid surface, he can call for the help of
two neutral judges who will be designated by the Directoire Technique"

Notice it says: "or covering the target with a non-valid surface...", so yes, covering with your weapon arm is still covering......

Leland! How do I get Dr. Cox to respond to this?

PS. This is wicked wrong.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by victord66

Just to clarify from the rules:

"t.23. 1. If during a bout the Referee notices that one of the fencers is making
use of his non-sword arm and/or hand, or is protecting or covering
the valid target with a non-valid surface, he can call for the help of
two neutral judges who will be designated by the Directoire Technique"

Just to clarify from reality: weapon arm isn't covering.




Seriously, though, it's a common misconception which is propogated by the fact that it seems to make sense. However, there are three things to consider. First, the rulebook mentions "non-sword" arm. Why would they specifically mention that it's the non-sword arm if either one works? Second, you're almost always covering target with the sword arm unless it's entirely extended, so this rule would be silly to enforce. Third, the referee handbook, which clarifies possibly misleading parts of the rulebook (like this one), says that covering can be done with the back arm, the head, and the hair.* And then you should also take into consideration that even though I have no qualifications to know what I'm talking about, downunder certainly does.

*this specific passage from the handbook isn't actually entirely right because it leaves out the legs, which can be used to cover target. However, that's a very rare occurance and isn't relevant to this thread. I just thought I'd mention that even the handbook can be misinterpreted sometimes.

[lauralitz]

In my daughter's pool the other day there was a fencer with a bib (foil) that covered her lame on her front shoulders completely. Is this covering? I noticed that this fencer fenced with this mask for a couple events but was wearing another mask with a regular sized bib for the last event my dd fenced.

Did anyone hear if this fencer was told to use a different mask later in the competition? Or did she change out of the kindness of her heart?

LL

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by lauralitz

In my daughter's pool the other day there was a fencer with a bib (foil) that covered her lame on her front shoulders completely. Is this covering?

No. It may or may not be legal, but it's not the penalty "covering target."

I'm not too familiar with the material rules, but I can't find a requirement for the bib other than that it must be 10-12 cm. (It also must extend below the clavicles in epee, but that's clearly irrelevant). So unless I'm missing something, if the bib is legal for someone to wear, it's legal for anyone to wear.

[Stormbringer]

Originally Posted by downunder

no

Originally Posted by victord66

Just to clarify from the rules:

"t.23. 1. If during a bout the Referee notices that one of the fencers is making
use of his non-sword arm and/or hand, or is protecting or covering
the valid target with a non-valid surface, he can call for the help of
two neutral judges who will be designated by the Directoire Technique"

Notice it says: "or covering the target with a non-valid surface...", so yes, covering with your weapon arm is still covering......

Originally Posted by epeemike81

you're simply wrong. you've now been told so by an FIE licensed foil referee (B, I think?) as well us some of us lowly domestic schmucks. You may want to consider changing your opinion in light of this new data.

-m

Interesting...

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

2. Touches off the target
t.48 A touch which is made on a part of the body other than the
target (whether directly or as a result of a parry) is not counted
as a valid touch, but it stops the phrase and therefore annuls all
touches which are scored thereafter (but cf. t.49).

3. Extension of the valid target
t.49 However, touches which arrive off the target are counted as
valid whenever, by reason of an abnormal position, the fencer
has substituted this non-valid target for the valid target. The
Referee may question the judges about this, but he alone must
decide whether the touch is valid or not.

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?

[Stormbringer]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Just to clarify from reality: weapon arm isn't covering.




Seriously, though, it's a common misconception which is propogated by the fact that it seems to make sense. However, there are three things to consider. First, the rulebook mentions "non-sword" arm. Why would they specifically mention that it's the non-sword arm if either one works? Second, you're almost always covering target with the sword arm unless it's entirely extended, so this rule would be silly to enforce. Third, the referee handbook, which clarifies possibly misleading parts of the rulebook (like this one), says that covering can be done with the back arm, the head, and the hair.* And then you should also take into consideration that even though I have no qualifications to know what I'm talking about, downunder certainly does.

*this specific passage from the handbook isn't actually entirely right because it leaves out the legs, which can be used to cover target. However, that's a very rare occurance and isn't relevant to this thread. I just thought I'd mention that even the handbook can be misinterpreted sometimes.

The excerpt from the referee's handbook, states:

Covering Target: Not applicable for épée; it occasionally occurs in sabre; but it is a frequent occurrence in foil. Covering can be done with the back arm (including the hand), the head, and hair. As to the back arm and hand, it is important to remember that the covering must deny access to the target by the opponent. That means that even though a fencer’s hand and arm are in front of her or his metallic vest during an adjustment of the fencer’s mask when the two fencers are far apart, no card should be issued. Covering with the head in foil is to be called when the fencer places the head down so that the back of the head and the spine are parallel to the strip; it should not be called when a fencer makes a long and low lunge. Any touch scored by the fencer who covered target is annulled.

The handbook states that covering can be done with the non-weapon-arm, the head, and the fencer's hair; it does not say that it can't be done with the legs (as you've pointed out) or the weapon arm. I would suspect that, in most cases, using these to cover the valid target would require relatively abnormal positioning of those body parts, which would then bring t.49 into play.

Would you agree? If not, why not?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Stormbringer

Would you agree? If not, why not?

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.