Foil Commentary: Portland 2009 Division I, 2nd round of 12: Dupree vs. Shaito

[eac]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbmGIqmf6us

This is a slow bout because until time starts to run out, neither fencer shows particular confidence in his offense.

Some reasons this is true:
- This is the last bout in the repechage, to make the 8. This is probably Dupree's 7th DE (ask someone sometime to explain repechage if you want to know why), and he hasn't been competing (or training? I don't know) regularly. It's probably Zain's 5th DE as well (Could be 7th, in which case it would be Jed's 5th). So both fencers are fairly tired. Attacking at this level in foil is very high-energy, and so attacks are the hardest thing to keep as you tire.

- Zain's best actions in general as a fencer are his counterattacks of various flavors. He can attack fairly well, but counterattacks are arguably more his bread-and-butter.

- Jed is also very good at defense, although he is more on the ripostish side.


As the bout progresses, some trends become clear:
- Jed has a very high winning percentage when he does countertime.
- Jed has a fairly low winning percentage when he starts a phrase with an attack.
- Zain has a very high winning percentage on his fast long attacks when Jed doesn't run away sufficiently, which is bizarrely often; it could be fatigue.

[erooMynohtnA]

I liked that commentary a lot.

[downunder]

the touch would have stood even if he did hit the sleeve of his jacket.

[CyrusofChaos]

the touch would have stood even if he did hit the sleeve of his jacket.

yeah but you dont want your jacket to conduct so if he found that it was sweaty enough to conduct he would probably want to change it

[Superscribe]

I think it's funny how hard you were on Jed in your commentary. I guess you just expected a lot out of him?

I like the extrapolation and analysis you made beyond what was immediately obvious from the fencing action.

And I did not think drawing an attack with preparation was an example of countertime. I thought an example of countertime was your opponent attacks, you counter-attack so the opponent tries to finish attack, and then that enables you to parry the more committed attack and riposte.

Then again these are tactically very similar, and emphasis the same things.

[Superscribe]

yeah but you dont want your jacket to conduct so if he found that it was sweaty enough to conduct he would probably want to change it

I've had instances where it was VERY likely that the tip him my mask or hit my forearm, and then the green light went off. When i go to test, something about the contact of the jacket/mask and my body/lame is different, and a white light goes one.

Given i was able to replicate the situation where a tip to my mask/jacket would conduct, am to i understand that the touch in question scored by my opponent would still stand? My only reprieve would be to switch equipment and prevent further instances of conductive mask/jacket?

[catwood1]

And I did not think drawing an attack with preparation was an example of countertime.

Correct.

I thought an example of countertime was your opponent attacks, you counter-attack so the opponent tries to finish attack, and then that enables you to parry the more committed attack and riposte.

Then again these are tactically very similar, and emphasis the same things.

Incorrect.

A counter time is a parry riposte made against a COUNTER attack. So, if I prep, you go, and I parry, its not technically counter time, because you didn't counter, you attacked. If I make a correct attack, you go, then I parry riposte, then I have made a counter time.

Granted, the common usage of the term is a parry riposte made against an attack into prep.

Edit: Yes, if you find that your jacket or mask or knickers is conducting, the previous touch would stand, but you would definitely switch gear.

[CyrusofChaos]

A counter time is a parry riposte made against a COUNTER attack. So, if I prep, you go, and I parry, its not technically counter time, because you didn't counter, you attacked. If I make a correct attack, you go, then I parry riposte, then I have made a counter time.

Granted, the common usage of the term is a parry riposte made against an attack into prep.

i think also just finishing with the counterattack is considered a countertime too. the definition that they give in the book is any action made against a counterattack

[eac]

I think it's funny how hard you were on Jed in your commentary. I guess you just expected a lot out of him?

I did. The main thing was that he was clearly physically and mentally capable of a) following the draw-the-attack strategy, and b) running away fast when Zain attacked him from farther away.
When he did those, he won 90% of the time. Most of the touches against him were when he just didn't do those.

So from that perspective, it is somewhat surprising that the bout was so close.

[CyrusofChaos]

I did. The main thing was that he was clearly physically and mentally capable of a) following the draw-the-attack strategy, and b) running away fast when Zain attacked him from farther away.
When he did those, he won 90% of the time. Most of the touches against him were when he just didn't do those.

So from that perspective, it is somewhat surprising that the bout was so close.

you are also assuming that jed would be ready 100% of the time to pull his short but its hard to be ready all the time. zain doesnt just do his attack for no reason. if he is attacking it is probably going to be at a time that he thinks jed isnt ready to do anything. i dont think you are giving him enough credit

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Given i was able to replicate the situation where a tip to my mask/jacket would conduct, am to i understand that the touch in question scored by my opponent would still stand? My only reprieve would be to switch equipment and prevent further instances of conductive mask/jacket?

Correct it is up to you to make sure that your jacket/glove/mask are non conductive throughout the bout. You have the right to change those if you think they are conductive or soon will be, and you have some time to track down an extra jacket/glove/mask b/c they're not required as extra pieces of equipment on strip. But if you get hit in the bib and the light goes off, and you can reproduce it to that effect, it's still a touch for your opponent.

[peet]

Edit: Yes, if you find that your jacket or mask or knickers is conducting, the previous touch would stand, but you would definitely switch gear.

Correct it is up to you to make sure that your jacket/glove/mask are non conductive throughout the bout. You have the right to change those if you think they are conductive or soon will be, and you have some time to track down an extra jacket/glove/mask b/c they're not required as extra pieces of equipment on strip. But if you get hit in the bib and the light goes off, and you can reproduce it to that effect, it's still a touch for your opponent.

These are not correct.

It is a common misconception that it's the fencer's fault and the touch should stand when their jacket gets sweaty and conducts to the lame.

The rules clearly state that a touch should be annulled when it can be clearly demonstrated that a valid touch can be registered on non-valid target, with two exceptions explicitly stated in the rules: when either the lame or the mesh of the mask do not conform to the rules regarding being insulated.

I don't have time to look up the actual rule numbers since I'm at work, but I'll bet someone could look it up.

-p

[keropie]

From my understanding, counter time is classically an example where you feint, opponent attacks, you parry and riposte. A counter to a time thrust, as it were. The idea that you would actually be attacking and see a counter attack and rather than finish would attempt a parry/riposte with any consistency seems weird to me. I can see a fishing quasi attack designed to draw the attack/counterattack that you could then parry in a better position to make a real action, but that first action isn't much of an attack, technically. It's a false attack or feint, depending.

And I do not believe that counter time is necessarily against a counter attack, but rather a time thrust, which could be either a counter attack or an attack into preparation. If nothing else, the tactic of preparing/feinting to draw an attack into that preparation and then parry/riposte is much more useful than the other example.

[downunder]

These are not correct.

It is a common misconception that it's the fencer's fault and the touch should stand when their jacket gets sweaty and conducts to the lame.

The rules clearly state that a touch should be annulled when it can be clearly demonstrated that a valid touch can be registered on non-valid target, with two exceptions explicitly stated in the rules: when either the lame or the mesh of the mask do not conform to the rules regarding being insulated.

I don't have time to look up the actual rule numbers since I'm at work, but I'll bet someone could look it up.

-p

You've already made my point . A sweaty jacket is entirely an insulation problem, thus the hit stands and the fencer replaces the jacket.

[peet]

You've already made my point . A sweaty jacket is entirely an insulation problem, thus the hit stands and the fencer replaces the jacket.

But the rules do not require that the fencer ensure that his jacket is insulated. They do require that the lame be lined with a non-conductive fabric, and the mesh of the mask be coated with an insulating coating (i.e. paint).

For the example of the sweaty jacket, we can forget about the mask, so let's talk about the lame requirement: If I were fencing with a lame that had no lining, then I could see letting the touch stand. Some might argue that by virtue of the sweat, the lining has become conductive, and therefore is no longer compliant with the rules. I'd point to the fact that a sweaty jacket can easily (and often does) bridge the electrical contact simply by one of the arms touching the outside of the lame, leaving the lining out of the circuit entirely.

The relevant rules are here:

He must annul a touch which he has just awarded as a result of a touch signalled as on the valid target (coloured lamp) if he establishes, by tests made under his personal supervision, before the bout has effectively recommenced (the command ‘Fence’) and without any of the equipment in use having been changed (cf. t.35/d):
— either that a touch registered as ‘valid’ against the competitor against whom the touch has been awarded can be made without there being in fact a valid touch;

[snip]

(c) If a fencer’s equipment does not conform to the provisions of Articles m.27 and m.28, a touch made off the target which is registered by the apparatus as valid will not be annulled.

m.27 The mesh of the mask must not extend below the chin. It must be insulated internally and externally by a plastic material resistant to impact.

The interior of conductive jackets must be electrically insulated by a lining or by an adequate treatment of the conductive lamé material.

I understand that your interpretation is more common than mine, but I continue to believe mine to be correct, because it is within both the letter and the spirit of the rules. The letter is above. The spirit of the annulment rules in general is that if it's possible that a touch has been recorded through failure of the equipment, we throw it out, even if we're not positive it was non-valid. Overall, the annulment rules err on the side of not awarding touches.

As with all rule interpretations, if the head referee instructed me to rule the other way, I'd certainly do so. But the FOC here in the US is not all of one mind on this subject. I've heard both interpretations from multiple members of the FOC. So, I will continue with my interpretation for the time being.

Cheers!

-p

[CyrusofChaos]

I understand that your interpretation is more common than mine, but I continue to believe mine to be correct, because it is within both the letter and the spirit of the rules. The letter is above. The spirit of the annulment rules in general is that if it's possible that a touch has been recorded through failure of the equipment, we throw it out, even if we're not positive it was non-valid. Overall, the annulment rules err on the side of not awarding touches.

As with all rule interpretations, if the head referee instructed me to rule the other way, I'd certainly do so. But the FOC here in the US is not all of one mind on this subject. I've heard both interpretations from multiple members of the FOC. So, I will continue with my interpretation for the time being.

the problem though is that since a colored light came on you cannot annul the touch even if you are conducting because you cant prove that they didnt hit you on target. for all the ref knows you got hit on target, realize your equipment might be sweaty enough to conduct and try to have the touch annulled. there was a famous example in the bout with wang and montano in the finals of the las vegas world cup in 2007: montano hits wang on the glove when the score is 13-7 and gets a colored light. wang asks montano to test and montano tests the glove which then gives him a colored light. THE TOUCH STANDS. then at 14-7 wang asks to change his glove and everyone thinks ok go ahead, change the stupid thing. and then wang beat montano. my point is if they call it like that in the finals of a world cup thats probably how it is called

[peet]

the problem though is that since a colored light came on you cannot annul the touch even if you are conducting because you cant prove that they didnt hit you on target. for all the ref knows you got hit on target, realize your equipment might be sweaty enough to conduct and try to have the touch annulled.

I've already given my answer for that line of reasoning:

The spirit of the annulment rules in general is that if it's possible that a touch has been recorded through failure of the equipment, we throw it out, even if we're not positive it was non-valid. Overall, the annulment rules err on the side of not awarding touches.

The rules do not require the ref to be certain the touch was non-valid. Only that it can be demonstrated that such a spurious touch is possible. Similar examples include the fact that we annul a touch when an epee fencer's weapon fails a test, even though we're not SURE he hit his opponent. He may have, so we annul.

there was a famous example in the bout with wang and montano in the finals of the las vegas world cup in 2007:
[snip]
my point is if they call it like that in the finals of a world cup thats probably how it is called

I hear you.
On the other hand, all referees make mistakes, even FIE refs. For my case, I present the fact that during a ref seminar Bill Oliver, a 1-1-2 (US) and double-B (FIE) referee and Head of the FOC at the time, gave the rule my way. Other FOC members have given it your way. It wouldn't be the first time they don't all agree on something...


But I feel really bad for jacking the thread, so I figure I'll give it a rest now.

Sorry eac!

-p

[Allen Evans]

Catwood:

Why would you give up a perfectly valid attack to parry a counter-attack (which, by your own definition, is late)?

[Jason]

Why would you give up a perfectly valid attack to parry a counter-attack

Because you fence epee?

[epeeslasher]

For the last touch, it looked like Zaito overshot the flick to shoulder when Dupree came into distance too quickly and unexpectedly (with a flick to flank)