Petition to establish a working group for revising the rules

[erik_blank]

OK, Lets face it, a predominnce of the fencing related questions on this board directly relate to the poor wording and mistranslation of the rules set forth by the FIE (not to ention the interpretation of them by the USFA).
Is there anyone out there willing to start a petition to create a orking group that would be empowered to go over the rules, clean up the ambiguities and re-write them so that the are clear to both well established fencers and those that are new to the sport?

Would it be worth it to do so? (I think so, but others may disagree.)

How can such a project be started?

I know that I am a relative no-body to the fencing community as a whole, and that I have no real clue as to the inner politics of the powers that be in our sport, but I am frusturated regularly by the poor wording of the current rule book, and I see on a regular basis agruments and confusion over how they are written and the way they are interpreted. Someone HELP!

[oiuyt]

Go for it.

Rewrite some of the rules that you find most problematic.

I recommend starting with rules where there's no real dispute involved, but merely poorly constructed language or a literal meaning that differs from current "interpretation".

I further recommend attempting to keep the tone/feel of the new language consistent with the current tone/feel of the rulebook (other than being clearly-worded).

Once you have a batch of suggestions prepared, release them for comment. Get more people involved. Start looking for champions for the project that are further up the food-chain and can start effectively lobbying for them to actually get put into place.

-B

[erik_blank]

Thank you for your confidence, but I know my limitations! While I can often read and understand the rules, I have by no means high enough training in the sport, nor literary ability to re-write what others have created before me....

Or perhaps it is just the procastinator in me that is yelping at the concept?

I know that the only way true change takes place is for a dedicated individual to stand up and take the lead, pulling the rest of us along kicking ans screaming every inch of the way.

OK, I'll take a stab at a few of the rules... But don't expect me to make anything better than a freak show at the end of this!

Anyone have suggestions for rules that are unclear that they want to have ceared up?

Thumfingered ID-10-T is willing to stab at it (repeatedly, with a wet noodle, until it is no longer alive)

[MyrddinsPrecint]

In a web 2.0 world, you only need to advance things a bit, and then other people can help. So, even if you just started a list of the rules that you think best typify what Oiuyt was describing, even if you don't have many, and even if you're not sure how to best reword them, other people can keep going with the task.

[fencerbill]

Do we need to rewrite the rules or do we need to rewrite the translations?

Hard to believe there aren't people who can do a better job than what we have.

Outstanding example: The rule on names on the back of jackets/Lames. We were told the "width" of the letter should be 1-1.5 cm. Later we find that it should have been the stroke width that should have been 1-1.5 cm.

The ideal would be to find a fencer who knows both French and American English (we need pools, not poules). Maybe that might have to be several people.

The rules have to be official in a language. Then we have to make them understood in another language, in our case Americlan English. Right now the situation ain't too good, we deserve better.

[oiuyt]

Do we need to rewrite the rules or do we need to rewrite the translations?

With few exceptions the translations look to be very good.

Note that the American rules have 2 translations involved. French->British then British->American. Coming up with better French->American translations can help our rulebook, but has minimal chance of moving back up the line into the other versions, unless it gets picked up as a better French->British translation by the Brits (which, in turn, requires that the "improvement" not merely be the difference between American English and the authetic flavo[u]r, but an actually better translation from the French).

-B

[fencerbill]

One problem in removing the ambiguities in the rules is determining which fork of the road to follow.

You can wait a long time for George K. and Emik Kaidanov, for one example I witnessed, to agree.

There is a classical phrase "who watches the watchers"?

In our case it is more like, "who referees the referees"?

[oiuyt]

One problem in removing the ambiguities in the rules is determining which fork of the road to follow.

Hence my first recommendation in post #2.

Go after the low-hanging fruit. Build a process and build a history of success. Then work on the controversial bits.

-B

[erik_blank]

Hummm... Translation is OK? I'm not sure how to go about refuting that since I personally am no longer able to read french (at 7 I was reading Tintin adventures in their original French, but since I have lost all my french from dissuse... besides Herge didn't do a lot of sword play in his works....).
So, having said that does anyone have some suggestions of rules that stick out like sore thumbs that shuold be re-written?

[Timberwolf_CY]

I think one of the biggest problems with rewriting the rules, though I am in favor of it, is the issue of detail vs. conciseness. Right now, considering the vast amount of ground the rules cover, the rules are pretty concise; most of the individual rules don't take up a lot of space, and still spell out most of what's going on.

Take the rule for point-in-line for example:
"t.10 The point-in-line position is a specific position in which the fencer's sword arm is kept straight and the point of his weapon continually threatens his opponent's valid target (cf. t.56, t.60, t.76, t.80)."

Concise, yes, but as many know and realize, and as the famous "Rules of Referees" or whatever letter points out, glaringly poorly written and doesn't actually describe much of anything.

Better?:
"The point-in-line (PiL) position is the act of keeping the weapon and arm continually extended and threatening the opponent's valid target area, begining from the point before the opponent begins any new attack. PiL is said to be in play when taken from en guard, advancing or retreating, or after the execution of a lunge with attack, but before the recovery of the lunge."

I play a lot of war/roleplaying games, so this kind of "lawyer-speak" is normal for me, because many players use/abuse the rules to make rediculous plays and the only way to defend against them is to really, really know the rules. Anyway, I think my new version is much more detailed and less open to interpretation, but it also takes up twice the space. Imagine if most of the rules were re-written like this...do we really want that? I'm not saying no, but I think people really need to consider what they're getting into when they want to rewrite rules, for anything. It took me nearly ten minutes just to come up with that, and I'm sure a soon as I post it, the next five posters will post "critiquing" it/me. I think rules clarification is something we direly need, but the written word has limitations when used to describe something like fencing, as I am learning with my refereeing study.

Anyway, just my 2C.

[fencerbill]

Do we need to rewrite the rules? Or do we need to amplify on them to remove ambiguities?

Will we ever get any agreement on how they should be changed?

There used to be a referee's handbook on the FOC web site that amplified on the rules and the procedures that referees were to follow. At other times I couldn't find what I remembered. Had things like steps if a weapon was presented for test, things to do at the beginning of a pool and at the beginning of a bout. Things to watch out for to avoid stepping in spit. Like watch the losing fencer until he unhooks or turns his back. Is there anything there now like this?

Even if FOC members can't agree on a point, they can present 2 (or more) viewpoints. Struggling referees like myself would have more to support us than trying to untangle the rules in the book. Publish their interpretations of the rules (then tell us how many other FOC members agree or disagree with them).

Yes, you can learn a lot by watching good referees at NACs. But can't we develop alternatives that can reach a larger audience sooner?

[Inquartata]

Since any "rewriting" is going to have to be done to the FIE originals, I'd say that this is a fairly pointless discussion for us to have in the US, at least below FOC level.

I mean, unless you want to move the USFA version farther from the FIE one, which is unlikely to help us with international results.

Exceptions like name on rear leg or not requiring 800N uniforms is one thing, but having two different sets of actual game rules? Better to leave well enough alone.

[KD5MDK]

But can't we develop alternatives that can reach a larger audience sooner?

I don't know. Consider how easy it is for people to misunderstand written rules. I think any instruction method which doesn't allow an instructor to take questions, ask questions, and see where the learner is going wrong is risky.

[oiuyt]

Since any "rewriting" is going to have to be done to the FIE originals, I'd say that this is a fairly pointless discussion for us to have in the US, at least below FOC level.

Already covered...

Once you have a batch of suggestions prepared, release them for comment. Get more people involved. Start looking for champions for the project that are further up the food-chain and can start effectively lobbying for them to actually get put into place.

-B

[Inquartata]

Yeah, and that's worked SO well with Lexan masks already.

[fencerbill]

The FIE rules were adopted in 1914 and haven't been changed very much since then, other than changes due to electrical scoring.

Trying to get the FIE to adopt any changes that are developed in the US has about as much likelihood of success as Americans winning Olympic Medals. Wait, let me change that, time has overtaken that statement.

So if we want less confusion about applying these rules in US fencing, we must do something that will lead to a uniform understanding and application of the rules.

That doesn't have to be rule changes.

And it really must lead to application of the rules that agrees with how it is done at the Olympics and at other FIE competitions. Or we will select the best of the American fencers who will then come home without success.

[PeterGustafsson]

Go for it.

Rewrite some of the rules that you find most problematic.

I recommend starting with rules where there's no real dispute involved, but merely poorly constructed language or a literal meaning that differs from current "interpretation".

I further recommend attempting to keep the tone/feel of the new language consistent with the current tone/feel of the rulebook (other than being clearly-worded).

Once you have a batch of suggestions prepared, release them for comment. Get more people involved. Start looking for champions for the project that are further up the food-chain and can start effectively lobbying for them to actually get put into place.

-B

Here is an example of low-hanging fruit, the blade fatigue test description.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[erik_blank]

While I am not that interested in making changes to the ideals of the rules, I AM interested in creating a new text that more adequately explains what we as fencers and referees actually do now. Clear and concise descriptions in place of those rules that are ambiguous or just confusing. One of the biggest issues I have is the use of the phrase "On the Other Hand..." I found this used 1o times in the USFA rule book. (t.41; t.54 - TWICE!; t.60; t.63; t.80; 0.43; Appendix D - twice) Who decided THAT was a clear phrase for explaining things? (Obviously from the paragraph above, I would probably be one of them.... Sigh)

[ysbadadden]

I think one of the biggest problems with rewriting the rules, though I am in favor of it, is the issue of detail vs. conciseness. Right now, considering the vast amount of ground the rules cover, the rules are pretty concise; most of the individual rules don't take up a lot of space, and still spell out most of what's going on.

Take the rule for point-in-line for example:
"t.10 The point-in-line position is a specific position in which the fencer's sword arm is kept straight and the point of his weapon continually threatens his opponent's valid target (cf. t.56, t.60, t.76, t.80)."

Concise, yes, but as many know and realize, and as the famous "Rules of Referees" or whatever letter points out, glaringly poorly written and doesn't actually describe much of anything.

Better?:
"The point-in-line (PiL) position is the act of keeping the weapon and arm continually extended and threatening the opponent's valid target area, begining from the point before the opponent begins any new attack. PiL is said to be in play when taken from en guard, advancing or retreating, or after the execution of a lunge with attack, but before the recovery of the lunge."
...
Anyway, just my 2C.

The rewritten rule doesn't mention that the threat has to be with the point. "Arm kept straight" and "keeping the weapon and arm continually extended" are the same thing unless the rewrite means to specify that the arm and weapon must form a straight line. Also, it's not clear to me that one can't have PIL while recovering from a lunge, or for that matter that it isn't maintained during the lunge.

The famous Kolombatovich Kodicil kovers all kases: Point in line is point in line. And ranks #1 in the priority list. The only question about the rule is the ref's decision about when it was established.

So the rule is clear ... enough ... as written, except for a little ambiguity about what "straight" means.

We don't need to rewrite the rules. We do need to publish a series of authoritative, but mutable, interpretations and emphases.

[ysbadadden]

And we don't need to change the FIE rules -- we just need to add "Notes" to the USFA Rules like the ones already there, where the US practice is different -- or, in the case of rule interpretations, just not mandatory for the rest of the world.