The disease (
malaise) started when a much more "physical" style of fencing then what we had previously took center stage. Forward motion and movements became more important (following the trend in saber) and certain techniques were developed like for instance the
"coups lancés." This disease could have slowly disappeared as was the case of the insurgence of other diseases when foil went electric, but in this case it grew more than ever.
The disease essentially derives from refereeing. The calls are more and more misunderstod and become more and more unpredictable depending on the referee. In fact the referees adapted progressively to the new way of fencing [foil]. Unfortunately, instead of applying the rules in a rigorous manner we started to propose interpretations of the rules without following neither the spirit nor the letter of the rules. The main problem comes from the concept of attack.
The original rules of foil are of an incredible perfection. Nevertheless, we still see flagrant disagreement in the analysis of
"phrases d'armes" even if just talking theory. This already supersedes what are the differences in perception and memory between referees (see
http://www.escrime-info.com/modules/...orumpost249842 and the following discussion).
After giving quite a bit of thought (see
http://www.escrime-info.com/modules/...er=ASC&start=0 ) to the definition of an attack, it seems that the rules had a very relative imperfection. The rules do not correspond to the philosophy which we find in the fencing treatises. Nowadays quite often, rather than applying the strict logic of the rules, we go off the tangent by taking some concepts from the treatises. Hence the hiatus in the interpretation.
And yet, we said this before, the rules are perfect. They are perfect if we are happy to use only what the rules say and only that. Thus, to be frank, we could well drop the notion of going back to the treatises and consider them indispensables from the pedagogical point of view or for a more clear and deeper study/analysis.
If we read the rules carefully, as far as
attack and
priority, we can be happy by keeping these two concepts which are sufficient to define the situation:
- an attack is the extension of the arm while threatening continuously the valid target of the opponent, before launching a lunge or a fleche (t.7)
- the point in line is a special position whereby the fencer maintains the extended arm and threatens continuously with the point of his weapon the valid target of his opponent. (t.10)
If we enunciate clearly these two gestures/movements which as far as foil are covered in t.56 to t.60, we can conclude that: displacements don't really matter in the analysis of the
phrase d'armes, only the arm counts. If we have an extended arm and we move forward, it is an attack according to the rules, and if we have an extended arm and we don't move or we move backward, is a point in line. In both cases we have priority.
Therefore, the only possible conclusion if we follow the rules
ad litteram is:
displacements, legs, carry no importance whatsoever to determine priority, only the arm counts.
Unfortunately, the referees don't judge by watching the simple extension of the arm, but more and more give weight to the displacement forward.
Now, if you move forward with a retracted arm you don't allow the opponent to parry. If we cannot parry, then the
pharase d'armes makes no sense whatsoever. The only thing that matters are a series of displacements and not what we do with the blade, i.e., to extend it to threaten or to parry.
In conclusion, here are the solutions to save foil.
- make again the fencing time a subjective evaluation (by the referee) by eliminating the blocking time. Foil is a conventional weapon which must obey the rules of the phrase d'armes. The electronic scoring apparatus must not play a role in judging priority. Therefore the blocking time must be suppressed to let only the referee decide the priority and the fencing time. The scoring machine should be only an indicator that the touch is valid or not (hit the target or not)
- apply the rules clearly pure and simply. The message must be clear as far as the interpretation of the rules. The rules state that the arm's extention is enough to get priority and it does not matter if we move forward or back. Therefore, the referee must focus on the arm's extention, that's all. And the referee must be instructed accordingly. The easier the principle, the easier its application. Just saying, watch the arms, will make refereeing much easier.
Thus, the reforms made so far by the FIE to save foil do nothing but harm. All we need to do is go back to the fundamentals because we are now living through an identity crisis of a weapon.
Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson
