On Covering With the Mask

[Gav]

Okay; here's another question for PF:

Your opponent attacks. You (somewhat implausibly) attempt a leaping circle-six with a flick riposte and whiff on the parry; while you are in mid-air (stay with me here, it's hypothetical) your opponent's point lands on your leg off-target.

But you put your legs where your chest would normally be. If you hadn't made the (miraculous) leap, you'd have been hit in the chest. Substituting valid target? Covering? Card?

The funny thing is that I know someone who does this move. Over here we call him "Biker Andy". Nice chap. Complete nutcase though.

[rsy]

Ducking is legal, but you can't cover target while doing it. These photos have been posted before: Photo 1, Photo 2, and Photo 3.

Are some of them, all of them or none of them substituting or covering? My .02, they all are due to the thigh covering the chest or flank.

-r

[Omar Bhutta]

Ducking is legal, but you can't cover target while doing it. These photos have been posted before: Photo 1, Photo 2, and Photo 3.

Are some of them, all of them or none of them substituting or covering? My .02, they all are due to the thigh covering the chest or flank.

-r

Photo 1 and 3 are examples of covering target with the mask. In both cases, the fencers has his head looking towards the ground.

Although the angle in Photo 2 does not show it, I would wager that the fencer on the left is covering target with his back arm. I say that based on how his back shoulder is in front, and you cannot see his back arm sticking out behind him. Again, the angle does not allow for clear determination. Note the difference in head/mask position between this photo and the other two.

I would be hard pressed to penalize the fencer in Photo 2 for covering target with leg when he appears to have simply made a deep lunge.

[downunder]

Photo 1 and 3 are examples of covering target with the mask. In both cases, the fencers has his head looking towards the ground.

Although the angle in Photo 2 does not show it, I would wager that the fencer on the left is covering target with his back arm. I say that based on how his back shoulder is in front, and you cannot see his back arm sticking out behind him. Again, the angle does not allow for clear determination. Note the difference in head/mask position between this photo and the other two.

I would be hard pressed to penalize the fencer in Photo 2 for covering target with leg when he appears to have simply made a deep lunge.

I agree with all of this.

[Purple Fencer]

Photo 1 and 3 are examples of covering target with the mask. In both cases, the fencers has his head looking towards the ground.

So would you aware a touch for #1? #3 is a hit to the lame lining, which couldv'e happened anyway. (this presumes the point landed before the shutter clicked). From the positions they both look like attack right, counter left (#2 being the only one that looks like attack left).

Gotta say...the armorer in me cringes at the blade bends in #1from the left!!

[notalent]

I would be hard pressed to penalize the fencer in Photo 2 for covering target with leg when he appears to have simply made a deep lunge.

Looking at the photo it seems he is remesing after a deep lunge, depending on how long he stays down there I might card him. However I have been called a covering nazi.
Does that count as a godwin law violation?

[Dev]

(#2 being the only one that looks like attack left).

Actually, I'd say #2 looks like left attack parried, right riposte, left remise.

[Purple Fencer]

Actually, I'd say #2 looks like left attack parried, right riposte, left remise.

I could see that....but I've seen the actual action I described, which is why I thought of it.

[Omar Bhutta]

Looking at the photo it seems he is remesing after a deep lunge, depending on how long he stays down there I might card him. However I have been called a covering nazi.
Does that count as a godwin law violation?

Actually, I'd say #2 looks like left attack parried, right riposte, left remise.

I could see that....but I've seen the actual action I described, which is why I thought of it.

This discussion is indicative of why discussing rules applications with a static image (or worse, no image) is so challenging. Each of us makes different assumptions that lead to different logical conclusions. I personally have no idea what the right of way in these situations is, which makes analysis tricky.

So would you aware a touch for #1? #3 is a hit to the lame lining, which couldv'e happened anyway. (this presumes the point landed before the shutter clicked). From the positions they both look like attack right, counter left (#2 being the only one that looks like attack left).

Gotta say...the armorer in me cringes at the blade bends in #1from the left!!

PF, I assume here, you are referring to rule t.22?

t.22

...If, during the fencing phrase, as a result of protection or substitution of a valid surface, a touch correctly given is registered as not valid, the fencer at fault will be penalized as
specified for offences of the 1st group (cf. also t.49, t.72) and the touch will be awarded by the referee....

Let's make the assumption that the fencer on the right has right of way. Let's also make the assumption that as the referee, in real time, you were able to clearly tell that the white light occurred on the portion of the mask (not just any part) that was covering valid target. Then in that case, yes, you should penalize with a group 1 offense, and award a touch, the same way you would if someone covered with their hand and it hit their hand.

Those are important assumptions though. For instance, in the scenario that someone covers the front of their lame with their back hand but not with their arm, if the off target occurs from hitting their arm, you should award a group 1 penalty, and not award a touch. That is a hard distinction to make in real time. Even more so with the mask. And unless you know 100% that the light would have been colored if not for the substitution, you should not change a white light into a colored light.

Unless I saw this action live, I would not know if I would award a touch along with a Group 1 penalty.

Hope that helps.

[Purple Fencer]

It does....and it also explains why I've never seen the point awarded in that situation...just too fast to tell.

GREAT picture quality on the photos, tho!

[Dev]

This discussion is indicative of why discussing rules applications with a static image (or worse, no image) is so challenging. Each of us makes different assumptions that lead to different logical conclusions. I personally have no idea what the right of way in these situations is, which makes analysis tricky.

Agreed. "What's this supposed to be called" on F.net is nearly always a loaded question and involves some personal bias--or just plain assumption--on the part of both the inquisitor and the respondents. I probably wouldn't have flapped my yap without the aid of the picture, and even then, it's to be taken with a significant chunk of rock salt.

I once overheard Greg Dilworth tell a young referee that essentially, refereeing is pattern recognition; and the pattern recognition software, just based on that snapshot with the fencers' relative body positions compared to actions seen in the past, said "I bet left is remising and right is riposting from close range." And such was then blurted out apropos, of course, of nothing--just general nit-pickiness. It wasn't meant to be a definitive rendering of how to call the action.

[notalent]

This discussion is indicative of why discussing rules applications with a static image (or worse, no image) is so challenging. Each of us makes different assumptions that lead to different logical conclusions. I personally have no idea what the right of way in these situations is, which makes analysis tricky.
.

Images like these while better than nothing, don't provide enough information to make definitive proclamations. Which is why I qualified my assessment. I won't even bother with ROW threads that don't have video anymore.

[BlackPelican]

This thread has gotten a little off topic. but whatever. What about covering in a duck with your front leg for a same handed opponent vs an opposite handed opponent?

[OROD]

What about covering in a duck with your front leg for a same handed opponent vs an opposite handed opponent?

What about it? Do you think whether or not you're covering target depends on whether your opponent is right or left handed?

.

[touchefriend]

I've always wondered what "abnormal movement" is referring to. Jumping straight up is the reverse of ducking and displacing your target can involve some sinuous moves. Hope one of the commentators can clear up this slippery mess.

[oiuyt]

I've always wondered what "abnormal movement" is referring to. Jumping straight up is the reverse of ducking and displacing your target can involve some sinuous moves. Hope one of the commentators can clear up this slippery mess.

Ask Justice Potter Stewart.

-B

[Omar Bhutta]

This thread has gotten a little off topic. but whatever. What about covering in a duck with your front leg for a same handed opponent vs an opposite handed opponent?

This is off topic also? (On Covering with the Mask...) But that's okay also.

First off, the rules are the same regardless of the handedness of your opponent. So, I guess I don't understand what about that situation would change things?

Second, by convention, you do not penalize a fencer for covering target with their legs when they make a simple duck. Some discussion of why this is follows.

As noted by Mike Ross, t.22.2 says

In foil and saber, it is forbidden to protect the target area or to substitute another part of the body for the target area, either by covering or by an abnormal movement (cf. t.114, t.116, t.120); any touch scored by the fencer at fault is annulled.

Protect = In the case of a duck, a fencer is not moving their leg in front of their chest with the purpose of defense - they are displacing their body downwards which is legal (t.21). On the other hand (pun intended), if the fencer places their non-weapon hand in front of their lame, this affords extra defense (whether consciously decided by the fencer or not).

Covering = Again, this implies action of the part of body that is covering target. The fencer is the scenario described is not moving his leg in front of the lame. Take the example of a fencer in an en-guard position. His opponent attacks. He lifts his leg up in front of the lame. This is an example of covering target with the leg.

Abnormal Movement = This is not defined anywhere in the rules, and thus is open for interpretation. There is no list. This is at the discretion of the referee. The fact that this is nebulous is one reason that you rarely if ever see this called. But, a duck is acceptable as noted in t.21, and thus this does not apply to the scenario being discussed.

Short of this discussion, I can simply say that it is not convention to penalize someone for covering target with the leg when making a simple duck, and should not be done. The same way that it is convention that you cannot penalize someone for covering target with their weapon arm.

Hope that helps.

[rsy]

Second, by convention, you do not penalize a fencer for covering target with their legs when they make a simple duck. Some discussion of why this is follows.....

****

....Short of this discussion, I can simply say that it is not convention to penalize someone for covering target with the leg when making a simple duck, and should not be done. The same way that it is convention that you cannot penalize someone for covering target with their weapon arm.

Hope that helps.

Isn't the convention the only thing that is relevant? Regardless of how you parse the rules, (and they can be interpreted in so many different ways), in the end the way it is called is the way it is called.

To paraphrase the umpire joke, the inexperienced ump thinks that he calls them the way they are, and the jaded ump thinks he just calls them the way he sees them, but the true ump knows that they ain't nothing 'till he calls 'em.

-r

[KD5MDK]

However, convention varies from place to place, time to time and person to person, and depending on the topic a call which matches somebody's convention is still subject to appeal.

[Fiat Slug]

I was watching a bout recently where a fencer ducked straight down while keeping the head erect. The other fencer lunged before the duck and ended up hitting the mask. There was a white light. The director awarded the touch. When the other fencer questioned this, the directed said "displacement". I believe he felt that the mask displaced the valid target so he awarded the touch despite of the white light. I talked this over with my coach and several clubmates and we all agree that the call was erroneous. I have a few questions:

1. Was this type of "displacement" illegal sometime in the past? I wonder if this person is not up-to-date on the current rules.
2. I know the rules explicitely states that ducking is legal. Was that clarifying statement added recently and this director considered the duck an "abnormal movement"?
3. In fencing, is displacement same as substitution?