Regarding the new "no ducking" rule in foil...

[bob46]

Are you still allowed to stand up and infight? Standing up would technically be lateral motion as well. Just wondering

[KD5MDK]

Citation?

[bob46]

not exactly sure, i think it was in the usfencing magazine... i only heard it from references "no lateral motion"

[HDG]

I think you need to look up "lateral"; it doesn't mean vertical.

[catwood1]

D'oh!

[seven6ty]

Lol, don't worry, it happens to the best of us. :-P

[catwood1]

I kinda wish there was a no ducking rule...
Less covering with the head...
Less squirming...

Gazes off into the distance...


On second thought, its mad fun to know when someone's about the duck, make them duck, then flick them on the back....

[Guymelef]

Vat is das? Are you referring to the 'no tying shoes' rule. It's not that new.

[thekoby]

I would like some more information on this as well. If I recall correctly, a few years back they started allowing foil fencers to turn their shoulders again. We had a member of our club that took great advantage of this and would rotate his upper body so the opponent's blade would miss his weapon shoulder, then he would make an overhead attack to the opponent's chest, gaining a point from the counter-attack. This would be considered a lateral move, IMHO, and if that type of lateral movement is legal I am still against it and do not even mention it to my foil students.

My concern is the term "ducking" in the title of this thread. I have a foil student that has a tendency to curl up almost into a ball when someone is attacking him. I am trying to break him of this habbit since it could be considered covering target area by some judges, and it doesn't allow him to parry or riposte properly. My other question on this point is what I've heard called the 3-point lunge, where you have both feet and typically your non-weapon hand, planted on the floor in a rather deep, and dangerous, lunge. Would this be considered "ducking" an opponent's blade?

[KD5MDK]

thekoby - You're worried about the implications of a rule no one has been able to cite or document. You need to see the rule first before being able to interpret it.

[HDG]

thekoby - You're worried about the implications of a rule no one has been able to cite or document. You need to see the rule first before being able to interpret it.

QFT...

[rudd]

I would like some more information on this as well. If I recall correctly, a few years back they started allowing foil fencers to turn their shoulders again. We had a member of our club that took great advantage of this and would rotate his upper body so the opponent's blade would miss his weapon shoulder, then he would make an overhead attack to the opponent's chest, gaining a point from the counter-attack. This would be considered a lateral move, IMHO, and if that type of lateral movement is legal I am still against it and do not even mention it to my foil students.

Then your students are missing on on a legitimate and often used infighting move. It is not covering as log as the trailing arm is held away from the valid target

My other question on this point is what I've heard called the 3-point lunge, where you have both feet and typically your non-weapon hand, planted on the floor in a rather deep, and dangerous, lunge. Would this be considered "ducking" an opponent's blade?

Again a legit move. Guyard seem to thrive on it. Head must be up to avoid a covering target call. And why dangerous?

[peet]

Please please please, folks, let's not make up "new" rules willy nilly here*. If you ever have a question about prohibited actions (things that will earn you a penalty), first download the rulebook and check out the penalty chart about halfway through. This will give you a good idea what's illegal and what's not. It has a defined list of offenses: Covering target, Corps a corps, using the non-weapon hand, etc.

Then, if you have a question about one of those offenses, like "does X count as covering target?" this forum can be very helpful place to ask those questions (sometimes only too helpful).

Too often people seem to overhear some rumored "new rule" and then state it as a fact here, which leads to additional misunderstanding around the country about the rules.



* the FIE does that well enough without our help, thank-you very much!

[fdad]

As long as they still allow goosing in epee...

[wwalkerjr]

As long as they still allow goosing in epee...

Now I understand the true reason for the suggestion to wear a cup.

[bunbury]

I kinda wish there was a no ducking rule...
Less covering with the head...
Less squirming...

Gazes off into the distance...


On second thought, its mad fun to know when someone's about the duck, make them duck, then flick them on the back....

...or to conveniently be unable to stop as you run into them....

...or as the ducker takes you over his shoulder and tada! you're flat on the ground...

[NGV]

My other question on this point is what I've heard called the 3-point lunge, where you have both feet and typically your non-weapon hand, planted on the floor in a rather deep, and dangerous, lunge.

Sounds like a passata sotto. Hasn't that always been legal?

[KD5MDK]

Especially given it's mentioned in the rulebook.

[thekoby]

thekoby - You're worried about the implications of a rule no one has been able to cite or document. You need to see the rule first before being able to interpret it.

Understandable, but I also posted my example to get feedback from others on where this would fall into the rules of fencing. And yes, he does have a tendency to pull his back arm up against his side when he curls up (hence why I yell at him for covering target area).

And why dangerous?

In my opinion, it is dangerous if not done at the right distance. Too close you risk injuring your opponent and too far away you can't recover quick enough to counter any riposte that may occur. I also think that an more advanced move like this should not be taught to beginner or intermediate level students for the fear that it will be the only thing they do (for example I had a student that wanted to learn to fleche, but I told him no because I knew it would become his only method of attacking). But a discussion like that would be something to post in the Coaches Corner.

[peet]

Understandable, but I also posted my example to get feedback from others on where this would fall into the rules of fencing. And yes, he does have a tendency to pull his back arm up against his side when he curls up (hence why I yell at him for covering target area).

If he's covering target, then he just needs to learn to duck without covering. Other than that, there's nothing illegal, or even out of the ordinary about ducking (or reversing the shoulders).

I have had students who just couldn't seem to duck (or infight, or whatever) without covering target, so I would "forbid" them to do it in bouts for a short time while they trained themselves to do it legally in practice. But that's a coaching issue, not a rules issue.

-P