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
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Relevance is relative to the goal. In my mind, the goal of walking through the rule with a fine-toothed comb is to understand why convention is the way it is. If the rules do not specifically state what to do, then referees must interpret them, and what is called at the highest levels by the best referees in the world becomes "convention." That does not mean it is not based on a rule. And as such if you understand the rule, you can understand the one currently accepted correct way to interpret it = Convention. People may not follow convention, but there is only one convention (even if it may evolve over time).
Having said all that, yes, the bottom line is that the way the rule is applied in real life is as such, regardless of discussion of the grammar/exact phrasing/etc. If you want the cliff notes version - it is called out at the top and reiterated at the bottom.
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
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.
The sections above on "covering" and "abnormal movement" I believe to be profoundly flawed. If a fencer ducks and places their valid target behind an invalid target, it is no different than placing valid target in front of valid target. By the rational given in the quoted area above, a fencer could have their unarmed hand just off to the side of their target and then sidestep their torso behind their arm, thus putting their valid target behind the arm, with no penalty. It does not work for the arm and would not work for the leg either. Whether the fencer puts invalid target in front of valid, or moves valid target behind invalid, no difference. Both deny access to the valid target through substitution. Both (assuming they are seen) should be carded.
__________________
I'm a foil fencer, and I can change, if I have to, I guess.
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.
Bold by me.
All of this appears to be spot-on. As far as covering with the leg it brings me to an aspect that I believe to be important in refereeing "covering" for infractions and that is opportunity. In photo 2, the fencer on the right is threatening at a certain height relative to the low lunging opponant. Access to the valid target is not denied by the leg/body position.
In the case where the FOR was attacking , riposting, etc, from extremely low, would you feel the same way?
__________________
I'm a foil fencer, and I can change, if I have to, I guess.
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:
As described, this is an unfortunate misapplications of the rules similar to the one posited by Purple Fencer near the beginning of this thread. You all were correct to feel it was erroneous.
Quote:
1. Was this type of "displacement" illegal sometime in the past?
I found copies of the USFA rule book from as far back as 2000, and t.21 reads the same. When I started fencing in '93, it was legal then as well, although I do not have a copy of the rulebook from then. Farther back than this, I do not know. http://www.amfence.com/rules99.pdf
Quote:
I wonder if this person is not up-to-date on the current rules.
I think that goes without saying.
Quote:
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"?
See above regarding recently added (no it was not). I do not know if the referee considered it an abnormal movement. But if he did, the correct application of the rules is Group 1 penalty +/- awarding a touch.
Quote:
3. In fencing, is displacement same as substitution?
No. Displacement is moving the body out of the way (jumping/ducking/spinning to the side/squirming/etc.). Substitution is putting something else in place of another (in the case of t.22.2 it is putting non-valid target in front of valid target).
The sections above on "covering" and "abnormal movement" I believe to be profoundly flawed. If a fencer ducks and places their valid target behind an invalid target, it is no different than placing valid target in front of valid target. By the rational given in the quoted area above, a fencer could have their unarmed hand just off to the side of their target and then sidestep their torso behind their arm, thus putting their valid target behind the arm, with no penalty. It does not work for the arm and would not work for the leg either. Whether the fencer puts invalid target in front of valid, or moves valid target behind invalid, no difference. Both deny access to the valid target through substitution. Both (assuming they are seen) should be carded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe biebel
[/b]
Bold by me.
All of this appears to be spot-on. As far as covering with the leg it brings me to an aspect that I believe to be important in refereeing "covering" for infractions and that is opportunity. In photo 2, the fencer on the right is threatening at a certain height relative to the low lunging opponant. Access to the valid target is not denied by the leg/body position.
In the case where the FOR was attacking , riposting, etc, from extremely low, would you feel the same way?
All fair points, Joe. The example you give of torso-behind-arm is appropriately ridiculous - a fencer who displaces their target into a position that they are then substituting with another part of their body. Which does beg the question, why then do we not penalize for covering with the leg (especially in the situation that prompted this discussion, i.e. ducking)? (I am not advocating that we do). But when was the last time you've seen it/called it? I don't know that I have ever seen it.
One question about the second quote I have is, "Does opportunity matter?" Perhaps the fencer in photo is attacking high because the other fencer is low. If it is so cut and dry when non-valid target cover valid target then the tactics of the opponent should not matter. So to answer your question you pose, no, it would not matter to me if the opponent was attacking high or low. Like you eloquently pointed out in your first statement, it is either covering or it is not.
I am not sure what you find flawed about the discussion on abnormal movement though?
Is there even such a thing as "abnormal" movement in fencing? Correct me if I'm wrong but this term likely came into use during the days when "form" was awarded touches or points. Abnormal means out of the range of normal - like maybe having seizures on the strip during a bout. This language is not helpful in the rulebook and should be deleted.
Human movement has a very large range before it becomes "abnormal" and the rulebook is usually quite good at addressing specific illegal movements, even though they fall into the normal range of human movement.
All fair points, Joe. The example you give of torso-behind-arm is appropriately ridiculous - a fencer who displaces their target into a position that they are then substituting with another part of their body. Which does beg the question, why then do we not penalize for covering with the leg (especially in the situation that prompted this discussion, i.e. ducking)? (I am not advocating that we do). But when was the last time you've seen it/called it? I don't know that I have ever seen it.
One question about the second quote I have is, "Does opportunity matter?" Perhaps the fencer in photo is attacking high because the other fencer is low. If it is so cut and dry when non-valid target cover valid target then the tactics of the opponent should not matter. So to answer your question you pose, no, it would not matter to me if the opponent was attacking high or low. Like you eloquently pointed out in your first statement, it is either covering or it is not.
I am not sure what you find flawed about the discussion on abnormal movement though?
"Substitution is putting something else in place of another (in the case of t.22.2 it is putting non-valid target in front of valid target"
This quoted phrase is where the problem lies for me. It is an interpretation of the rule (wrong in my opinion) and not he rule. Specifically, "putting non-valid target in front of valid target" is not what the rule says, and I suspect not what the rule means.
Opportunity matters very much. An example of this would be a fencer pulls up their pants on the front leg with their non-weapon hand while out of distance or while no offensive action is taking place. I can't recall a ref carding for this. Why? No opportunity. Of course, if this was done while being attacked it would most likely be a card.
If the rule regarding substitution were correctly interpreted, I think it would read something like this, "putting nonvalid target between the opponents weapon and valid target"
Also, if an offensive action from the right is underway and the FOL makes a duck that places invalid target between the attackers weapon and their valid target, when would this not be covering? If the attacker has to go to an alternate target, say because the groin (the original target) is blocked by putting it so low that the legs block access to it, well this just has to substituting.
Finally, I have seen it. I have also seen it called. I'm terrible with searches, but there was a post by Damon Skaggs with his experience on the subject, which was at a very high level competition.
I just realized this is a rehash. That is not to say that some new better point or opinion may result from this thread, but there is a lot of pretty good discussion and opinion in this thread covering target?
There is a post which I like (no doubt because it agrees completely with me ) by Damon in this thread.
__________________
I'm a foil fencer, and I can change, if I have to, I guess.
Last edited by Joe biebel; 11-01-2009 at 09:22 PM..
"Substitution is putting something else in place of another (in the case of t.22.2 it is putting non-valid target in front of valid target"
This quoted phrase is where the problem lies for me. It is an interpretation of the rule (wrong in my opinion) and not he rule. Specifically, "putting non-valid target in front of valid target" is not what the rule says, and I suspect not what the rule means.
Opportunity matters very much. An example of this would be a fencer pulls up their pants on the front leg with their non-weapon hand while out of distance or while no offensive action is taking place. I can't recall a ref carding for this. Why? No opportunity. Of course, if this was done while being attacked it would most likely be a card.
If the rule regarding substitution were correctly interpreted, I think it would read something like this, "putting nonvalid target between the opponents weapon and valid target"
Also, if an offensive action from the right is underway and the FOL makes a duck that places invalid target between the attackers weapon and their valid target, when would this not be covering? If the attacker has to go to an alternate target, say because the groin (the original target) is blocked by putting it so low that the legs block access to it, well this just has to substituting.
Finally, I have seen it. I have also seen it called. I'm terrible with searches, but there was a post by Damon Scaggs with his experience on the subject, which was at a very high level competition.
I just realized this is a rehash. That is not to say that some new better point or opinion may result from this thread, but there is a lot of pretty good discussion and opinion in this thread covering target?
There is a post which I like (no doubt because it agrees completely with me ) by Damon in this thread.
Joe,
First, thanks for the great discussion. I think the points you make about language are key. Since my last post, I found that thread as well. I would not be one to argue with Damon (for those who have not read the thread, I would encourage it - keeping in mind the discussion was from three years ago).
Which leaves me with the meta-question: that discussion was three years ago, and yet, in that time, both internationally and nationally, there has been no increase in penalizing fencers for covering with the legs while making a duck. Why is that? (Dunno any of us can answer that). I do not doubt that you have seen it called, nor that it will be called sporadically at high level international competitions. For my part though, over the past 10 years of reffing NACs, I have not seen that trickle down, nor have I seen the call made. Am I wrong, is this being called more internationally? downunder, any insight?
With regards to your example of pulling up pants while the opponent is not attacking: I am not sure the example illustrates what you are really trying to get at as the rules provide that the covering/substitution must be done "during the fencing phrase." (see t.22.2.a).
Let me give you a situation I have encountered before. Fencer X places back hand and arm on the lame over the groin/back hip. Opponent attacks to front shoulder and lands valid. I award touch for attack valid, and penalize fencer X for covering target. X says, "It's not covering target, she wasn't even attacking there." Should Fencer X be penalized because her arm was not between the opponent's blade and the target? In this case, the fencer had covered part of her lame and her opponent chose not to attack that part. It seems to me that if someone covers target during the fencing phrase, it does not matter the positioning of the fencers/who is attacking/where they are attacking/the relative placement of blade to target covered.
This is why I think your comment about "what the rule actually says" is so important. It is not, "puts in front" nor is it "put between" as you advocated. It is "protect" or "substitute by covering." You took issue with my statement,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Bhutta
"Substitution is putting something else in place of another (in the case of t.22.2 it is putting non-valid target in front of valid target"
I suspect you are disagreeing with the part in parenthesis because the part before that is taken almost verbatim from Webster's Dictionary.
I take issue with your statement of:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Biebel
"putting nonvalid target between the opponents weapon and valid target"
Perhaps we would both be more correct if we said, "putting non-valid target in place of valid target?" Perhaps the reason people say "in front of" when discussing this rule is because of confusion between displacment/subsitution that frequently comes up (see this earlier post from this thread and associated discussion).
One final thought about the following quote:
Quote:
Also, if an offensive action from the right is underway and the FOL makes a duck that places invalid target between the attackers weapon and their valid target, when would this not be covering?
One situation is if that non-valid target is their weapon arm. Again, by convention this is not covering target, even though the rules do not provide an exception for the weapon arm. It is just not called that way. It seems to me that for better or worse, the same treatment has been afforded to the legs while lunging/ducking.
Since we're already off topic, allow me to ask another question about the rules.
At a recent competition, I observed an instance where one fencer crossed the lateral boundary of the strip. The rules (t.28) say that the opponent gains a meter. In the situation I observed, the opponent was actually about 5 meters away. Where should the fencers be when the bout continues? Should the in-bound fencer simply gain a meter and the out-of-bound fencer moves forward to be at an appropriate distance? This somehow feels counterintuitive to me.
Since we're already off topic, allow me to ask another question about the rules.
At a recent competition, I observed an instance where one fencer crossed the lateral boundary of the strip. The rules (t.28) say that the opponent gains a meter. In the situation I observed, the opponent was actually about 5 meters away. Where should the fencers be when the bout continues? Should the in-bound fencer simply gain a meter and the out-of-bound fencer moves forward to be at an appropriate distance? This somehow feels counterintuitive to me.
It IS counterintuitive. If the opponent was 5 meteres away when I went off, he gains 1 meter, and should start 4 meters from where I went off. It can be kinda weird sometimes, but thats the way the rule stands.
__________________
"Sir, didn't I parry"
"You didn't take advantage of his blade enough, so no."
Ok, ducking is allowed by the rules. Have you seen anyone duck and not cover part of the lame' I agree its a language problem and it could be cleared up by a linguist but only if he/she were a fencer or even a referee. Substituting an invalid for valid target seems redundant to covering target and the confusion starts in t.22 after t.21 allows displacing and ducking. "By covering" must mean using non sword arm, leg or mask. As I said in my former post "abnormal movement" is misleading to referees at best. See t.49
In the tournaments I've seen in Thailand, only the deliberate or non deliberate use of the non sword arm and the mask have been called. I suppose that lifting the leg to cover the lame' would also be called but I've never seen that. That might look abnormal come to think of it, unless you are dog.
The office opinion is that that action would be covering target with the mask, even though the referee did not penalize me for it.
Agreed, this is covering target with the mask. The image that best shows this is between 5:26 and 5:27. Your back is parallel to the ground, and your mask is looking straight down.
Agreed, this is covering target with the mask. The image that best shows this is between 5:26 and 5:27. Your back is parallel to the ground, and your mask is looking straight down.
I'm curious about this one. It's not clear to me which part of the target is being covered by the downward head. From the near fencer's perspective, the other fencer's head is to the right of the torso. Therefore, it appears to me that the only target that is being covered is the non-weapon shoulder. However, that should would've been covered anyways even if the head was rotated towards the opponent.
A Substitution is putting something else in place of another (in the case of t.22.2 it is putting non-valid target in front of valid target).
If "substitution" is the same as "putting non-valid target in front of valid target," how is that different from "covering" or "protecting?" Because the rule, as written, depicts these three as distinct things:
Quote:
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
What is a specific example of an action that would fit into one of the three categories, but not the other two?
That's only two categories - the words 'either by' sit in there.
Ok, let's pose the question a different way.
According to the rule, "protecting the target" and "substitution" are two different things. What is the difference? What's a specific example of an action that involves the first one but not the second, and vice versa?
According to the rule, "substitution" and "covering," are two different things, as substitution sometimes involves covering, but sometimes doesn't. What is the difference between the two? What would be a specific example of "substitution" that was not also considered "covering?"
As far as I can tell, the rule as written is kind of a mess. If there is a clear meaning there, it shouldn't be too hard to answer those questions.
Linear Mode
