okay then. As someone whose opinion really shouldn't be given much weight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGV
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?
I'd agree that protecting and substituting are often treated as near synonyms, in the context of covering target. However, the inclusion of both means that there is no lee way - I'd read it that way. If any non-target (other than the weapon arm) is in front of valid target you are, probably, in breach of the rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGV
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?"
The omission of displacement in the rule is what matters here - jumping/ducking/stepping back. Or how about; if I twist and you catch my non-weapon arm (held behind me) I have substituted that target for valid target but have not covered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGV
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.
I'd agree that protecting and substituting are often treated as near synonyms, in the context of covering target. However, the inclusion of both means that there is no lee way - I'd read it that way. If any non-target (other than the weapon arm) is in front of valid target you are, probably, in breach of the rule.
Well, if "protecting" and "substituting" both refer to placing non-target in front of valid target, then why not just say that "placing non-target in front of valid target" is prohibited? Instead, we have two different terms separated by "or" (a word that usually signifies that you're talking about two different things, at least in English).
Also, including the term "substitution" causes further confusion, because the meaning of the word in this context (placing one thing in front of another) contradicts the normal English meaning of "substitution" (replacing one thing with another). A substitute teacher doesn't stand in front of the regular teacher in the classroom. When I wear a sweatshirt over a t-shirt, I am not "substituting" the sweatshirt for the t-shirt. In this case, the usual, literal meaning of "substitution" leads directly to an incorrect interpretation of the rule.
Given all that, it's not surprising that the rule is sometimes applied incorrectly.
Quote:
The omission of displacement in the rule is what matters here - jumping/ducking/stepping back. Or how about; if I twist and you catch my non-weapon arm (held behind me) I have substituted that target for valid target but have not covered.
This doesn't make much sense to me. First, as a previous rule specifically says that displacement is allowed, why would there be any need to again say that displacement is allowed in the subsequent rule, except in an oblique and murky way and without actually using the word "displacement?"
Also, I'm not sure what you're describing in your example. Are you saying that getting hit in the non-weapon arm while twisting is an automatic yellow card? Because the rule, as written, clearly states that one can be penalized for "substituting" even if there's no "covering" going on. What I want is an example of a punishable substitution offense that occurs without any covering.
1) That a rule is, or is not, applied correctly is a function of the quality of the referee. Rarely does it have much to do with clarity of the rule.
2) If you read one part of the rule book independently of all others life gets confusing. Or if you forget the bit you just read after reading it .
3) Any simplified statement that says you cannot put non-valid surface in front of valid surface gets compromised by the required exceptions. Some of which have already been discussed, hardly a simplification.
I have just a thing or two to add to this discussion:
1. Remember, the USFA rulebook is an edited version of a translation of the french language FIE rulebook, and the effectiveness of its use of language shows it. Don't read each word as if it were gospel. Instead, try to understand the purpose of each rule, in context of the rest of the rules. To that end:
2. The covering rules are there to keep the game fair. Hiding the target tilts the game unfairly against a fencer making a correct action to valid target. Ducking and otherwise avoiding the hit (dodging, turning, etc) don't tilt the game unfairly, so they're not illegal, even if the exact verbiage in the rulebook could be interpreted to prohibit them. Remember: before the timing change, covering with the mask didn't tilt the game noticeably, so it was not penalized. After, it became a huge advantage, so much so that it had to be stopped by more strict enforcement of the covering rule.
peet - great post
So lets hope referees take heed and only call obvious covering (intentional or not)
Interesting point about the mask as well. I hope "abnormal" disappears from future rulebooks as its inaccurate, especially with the athletic moves by modern fencers.
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?"
Pulling on your lame so that it no longer covers the whole target area?
Remember: before the timing change, covering with the mask didn't tilt the game noticeably, so it was not penalized.
As I recall, it *was* penalized back then, by the higher-level referees -- at least at the national (US) level. ISTR George Kolombatovich pointing out that the mask could be covering, in a seminar well before 2005. However, it was not made a point of emphasis until after the new timings both reduced the efficacy of flicks to the back and made it more likely that the point would glance off the mask with signalling even an off-target touch.
As I recall, it *was* penalized back then, by the higher-level referees -- at least at the national (US) level. ISTR George Kolombatovich pointing out that the mask could be covering, in a seminar well before 2005. However, it was not made a point of emphasis until after the new timings both reduced the efficacy of flicks to the back and made it more likely that the point would glance off the mask with signalling even an off-target touch.
It wasn't penalized very much. I can't remember any specific example pre-timing-change, but I'm sure it was called in rare, particularly egregious cases. I do clearly remember being told by the head refs in numerous ref meetings at post-timing-change NACs in plain language: "we've never really called this much before, but it's really important now."
It wasn't penalized very much. I can't remember any specific example pre-timing-change, but I'm sure it was called in rare, particularly egregious cases. I do clearly remember being told by the head refs in numerous ref meetings at post-timing-change NACs in plain language: "we've never really called this much before, but it's really important now."
-p
I think it was more that it wasn't committed as much before the timing change. there was no point to ducking the head to cover chest before the change: you'd just get hit in the back.
Remember: before the timing change, covering with the mask didn't tilt the game noticeably, so it was not penalized. After, it became a huge advantage, so much so that it had to be stopped by more strict enforcement of the covering rule.
-p
Am I the only one that finds it MUCH easier to hit someone who ducks if they are covering target with their mask? If they have a nice low duck and keep their head up, its pretty hard to hit them. However, if they duck and drop their head, they give me all that nice easily accessible target on the back.
Maybe I'm just some new age fencer that only started flicking after "new" timing, but flicking someone in the back when they're covering with the mask really isn't that hard [read: taking candy from baby]...
__________________
"Sir, didn't I parry"
"You didn't take advantage of his blade enough, so no."
Am I the only one that finds it MUCH easier to hit someone who ducks if they are covering target with their mask? If they have a nice low duck and keep their head up, its pretty hard to hit them. However, if they duck and drop their head, they give me all that nice easily accessible target on the back.
Maybe I'm just some new age fencer that only started flicking after "new" timing, but flicking someone in the back when they're covering with the mask really isn't that hard [read: taking candy from baby]...
Covering with the mask seems to work best against someone who isn't controlling the distance well enough to go to the back flick, because they're already going too fast and too close to change targets. Or, defensively, because they can't set the distance to use it as a riposte; perhaps they allowed the distance to collapse too far on the attack (or on a remise), and they are not balanced enough to switch to a flick at the last second.
I get the feeling this was less of a problem when you had time to watch someone counter/remise-duck-and-cover, roll your eyes, and whip over a flick that still got a light because the lockout timing was absurdly long. The new lockout is less forgiving of indecision or off-balance ripostes, which means that unless you essentially defeated the attack before it finally resolved and had your pick of targets, you could be "squeezed" into a line that had a mask in the way.
I think it was more that it wasn't committed as much before the timing change. there was no point to ducking the head to cover chest before the change: you'd just get hit in the back.
Ducking straight down with mask/head up. Again, no covering so no card. (This is a controlled situation example.)
Craig
I would disagree on the covering with the mask on the first video. If I were refereeing my first impression would be covering. The video, because of the angle it is shot from, shows that no target is blocked, covered, or protected from the attackers perspective. The head is clearly off to the side and the attacker is coming from dead on. "Looking down" is one of those arbitrary rules of thumb that while may occassionally be right , should not be considered a litmus test for covering with the mask.
Believe me, I do not like this type of tactic and believe it should be punished, but as a ref, I need to be convinced that target was protected to make the covering call. First time through, without replay, I would have made the call. This is what I was talking about in a previous post regarding opportunity.
I can not support this viewpoint with anything but logic. Having reviewed many Beijing matches, I believe the consistancy of this call to vary noticably. Specifically the match between OTA and Joppich ends ( http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=.../6/_9Jonso76R0 at 8:40 approx.) with just this type of penalty where I would have carded even though the mask is clearly off to the side. The angle of the attack was such that it (Joppich's mask) protected the target, but the duck is marginal at best.
OTOH, the match between OTA and the Korean fencer (sorry, forgot his name) has several mask situations. The Korean fencer is penalized for marginally turning sideways to his opponent and OTA is delivered from a pretty obvious protection (mask and or legs) penalty on the last action ( http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=...16/W3Bx6MqfTwI ) at about 9:40, to win 15-14. There is also a pretty good close up slow motion of the action at 9:49.
In the videos from the Olympics and FIE worldcups, it would appear that the FIE refs have a much less generous viewpoint (for the ducker) than most American refs regarding covering with the mask etc. I'd be real interested in Downunder's view on this.
BTW, if you download these in HD, and use a video player like VLC, you can go frame by frame, or slomo ,etc. I wanted to include a couple individual frames from the video, but my home computer just crashes when I try.
Finally, only with video replay was any of this clear to me. I'm not confident I would get these infractions right the first time at normal speed.
__________________
I'm a foil fencer, and I can change, if I have to, I guess.
Last edited by Joe biebel; 11-09-2009 at 10:25 AM..
I would disagree on the covering with the mask on the first video. If I were refereeing my first impression would be covering. The video, because of the angle it is shot from, shows that no target is blocked, covered, or protected from the attackers perspective.
I don't see any target outside of the back that the attacker could possibly hope to hit here. If referees let me do that, I would no longer feel any need to parry 4.
I see what you're saying in that the mask does not literally block much of that target, but I think that the positioning of the mask makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to hit from a wide-angle 4 which would be the usual tactic in this situation.
Plus, it does block the top quarter of the chest which I think is fairly significant. Maybe the target is not blocked when considering someone who is able to hit without considering the positioning of the floor, but you can cover target with the arm while still leaving that target reachable from a sufficiently absurd angle.
Linear Mode
