On Covering With the Mask

[Joe biebel]

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.

I agree with this, but I think the ref only has what is to use for calls. If the FOL was in a 6 parry position when this particular duck takes place, then I do not see how it would not be substiting/covering target with the mask. Looking at where the FOL does threaten, it appears no target is denied via covering or substitution. It is also clear that the chest, which is probably the original target, is no longer available. That is perfectly okay so long as no rules are broken. You are not required to profer any particular target, merely required not to deny access to target by protection, substitution. This is precisely what I meant with my previous comments on "opportunity" and relative position.

Personally, I would prefer that refs card actions of this type on a regular basis, as the vast majority do cover target. Also, it would be my desire to see the the ducking fencer have the onus on them to make a very clear correct duck and have them take their chances when ducking.

One of the things that occurs to me is that the current timings afford a ridiculous amount of adavantage to the ducking fencer. I think the vast majority of hits to the mask (mesh) will not yield a light due to the debounce time. One possible remedy is timing change on the off-target timing back to what it was. It won't cause problems with a resurgence of the "dreaded flick" that had to be legislated away in order to save foil. Refs are loathe to give mask hits that don't even register off-target. Curently, if you duck and cover target the likely worst scenario for you is your touch is annulled and card. If hits could be scored on the mask, a more likely scenario might be to see a lot more mask hits called valid when covering takes place along with the card. Unfortunately, I think that the most common scenario when mask covering happens is the ref does not see it clearly enough in the brief moment it occurs and ignores it.

Back to the photo- The attacking fencer (at the moment the frame is displayed) has direct access from the perspective of their weapon to valid target. The mask does not appear to be in the way at all, and the amount of target that the mask protects looks less (relative to the angle of attack) than in a upright position, via the bib. This is a very dangerous (for the ducker) movement to do as it does appear on first view (usaully all a ref gets) to be covering target bigtime. I would not argue a bit (as the ducker) for being carded for this, unless their were video replay. It's just that in this case we have a pretty good "shot" of the exact situation at the moment it matters which appears, at least to my eye, to be a clean duck.

[Goldgar]

Refs are loathe to give mask hits that don't even register off-target.

As in, not permitted to.

[Joe biebel]

As in, not permitted to.

Your right obviously, wrong choice of words for what I wanted to convey.
How's this : "Refs are loathe to call covering when no off-target occurs and are not allowed to annul hits by the ducker even when an obvious dead-on strike to the mask occurs."

A straight down (legal) duck receiving a hit, square in the face, can and does often result in no light at all. Advantage ducker!

[Gav]

Your right obviously, wrong choice of words for what I wanted to convey.
How's this : "Refs are loathe to call covering when no off-target occurs and are not allowed to annul hits by the ducker even when an obvious dead-on strike to the mask occurs."

A straight down (legal) duck receiving a hit, square in the face, can and does often result in no light at all. Advantage ducker!

Is this despite the fact that the only arbiter of whether a hit was successfully scored (on or off target) is the light coming on the box?

[Joe biebel]

Is this despite the fact that the only arbiter of whether a hit was successfully scored (on or off target) is the light coming on the box?

Yes. The ref can overule an off-target to make it valid under the right circumstances, but could not for instance say "the FOL hits mask on the attack and it "bounces off", and despite the fact that the scoring machine did not register it, I'm call it off-target. One light valid stop hit from FOR is annulled, en-guarde". Just would not fly.

[Gav]

Yes. The ref can overule an off-target to make it valid under the right circumstances, but could not for instance say "the FOL hits mask on the attack and it "bounces off", and despite the fact that the scoring machine did not register it, I'm call it off-target. One light valid stop hit from FOR is annulled, en-guarde". Just would not fly.

If there's no light on the box and you are making a call based on one you have imagined then I am glad you are not reffing me.

[Joe biebel]

So what would you do if the tip of the weapon hit so hard as to knock over the ducker or twist their mask sideways with no light registering on the apparatus?

[Gav]

So what would you do if the tip of the weapon hit so hard as to knock over the ducker or twist there mask sideways with no light registering on the apparatus?

The only device that can decide whether a hit has been successful or not is the box. If there's a light (any kind) then you make a judgement based on that. If there are two fencers fencing and one light comes on - and it's valid - then you award the hit unless some other infraction has come into play.

If the squirming-ducking fencer has committed an actual offence then card him appropriately but don't make up a call. If the other guy has committed an offence then card appropriately but don't make up the call. I get what you are saying but please; I really hope I am never reffed like this, it's a bad call.

And despite being an Epeeist I do actually fence foil occasionally.

[Joe biebel]

And if the "ducker" then falls while making a stop hit?

Did the "not hit" (according to the machine) actually not happen or do you card the ducker for falling while making a hit?

[Joe biebel]

The only device that can decide whether a hit has been successful or not is the box. If there's a light (any kind) then you make a judgement based on that. If there are two fencers fencing and one light comes on - and it's valid - then you award the hit unless some other infraction has come into play.

If the squirming-ducking fencer has committed an actual offence then card him appropriately but don't make up a call. If the other guy has committed an offence then card appropriately but don't make up the call. I get what you are saying but please; I really hope I am never reffed like this, it's a bad call.

And despite being an Epeeist I do actually fence foil occasionally.

Gav, I get the strong impression you think that I would call something this way. Either I'm reading more into your post than is there, or your not reading mine correctly. I thought I was making it pretty clear that you are required to go by what the scoring machine indicates. A hit not registered can not be scored. A penalty, of course, is a different matter.

[Gav]

And if the "ducker" then falls while making a stop hit?

You are not allowed to score while falling.

Though I am going to admit that I am having a brain fault and can't recall whether we are carding for that right now.... I also can't be bothered to check, I am sure someone better qualified will chime in eventually.

Did the "not hit" (according to the machine) actually not happen or do you card the ducker for falling while making a hit?

Look, if there's no light then no matter what happened there's no light. You can't judge whether a hit was valid or not because nothing has happened. Have the fencers committed an offence? Yes or no? If yes card. If no, back on guard.

[Gav]

Gav, I get the strong impression you think that I would call something this way. Either I'm reading more into your post than is there, or your not reading mine correctly. I thought I was making it pretty clear that you are required to go by what the scoring machine indicates. A hit not registered can not be scored. A penalty, of course, is a different matter.

What are you saying then?

I have re-read your reponse to Goldgar a couple of times now and you are giving me the impression that in a situation where someone (call him fencer A) plants their foil point in the squirmer's mask - with no light - and the squirmers light comes up, that you would say that Fencer A's action (assuming it meets all the requirements) is off target and not award a hit?

Is this what you are saying?

I'm fine with you carding if there's an actual offence being committed.

[Joe biebel]

Yes. The ref can overule an off-target to make it valid under the right circumstances, but could not for instance say "the FOL hits mask on the attack and it "bounces off", and despite the fact that the scoring machine did not register it, I'm call it off-target. One light valid stop hit from FOR is annulled, en-guarde". Just would not fly.

Okay, you forced me to reread my previous post a couple of times and I think you are missing the underlined and bolded (by me) portion. I am not advocating overuling the apparatus. The quotes can also be a little confusing, sorry for any confusion.

[KD5MDK]

I believe Joe's point is that UNDER THE OLD TIMINGS that action would have resulted in an off-target light, and now it does not.

[Joe biebel]

Okay, one more time. A ref may overrule the apparatus regarding the validity of a hit in a covering/protecting situation. Example: Attack from the left registers invallid and the ref sees that it is on "substituted or covered" target. The ref cards for covering and awards the invallid hit as valid. Also in this case, if the penalized fencer already has a card when they get hit, the touch counts and a penalty hit is assessed as well.

The ref can not say that a touch either valid or invallid exists (no matter how obvious) if the apparatus does not indicate that it does.

[Omar Bhutta]

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.

To further elaborate on a point I made earlier, I do not think that opportunity has much to do with whether someone is covering target. Like you state above, "If you were refereeing...." What is relevant in regards to penalization is how it looks from the point of view of the referee. How would the action look from the viewpoint of the referee? How would it look from the viewpoint of the fencer (not from the camera that shot the video)? How would it look if the video camera was on the side of the other fencer? To follow your argument (not quoted in entirety) to its conclusion, how would it look like from the viewpoint of the attacker's weapon? Can we know? Does any of this matter?

If the fencer who ducked made the same action, but ducked directly towards the attacking fencer, would you consider it covering target? If so, then consider the fencer bending the same way but at a 90 degree angle to the attacker. At what (seemingly arbitrary) angle to the other fencer would it stop being covering target, and being legal?

If your answer is, "It depends on where the attacker is attacking" as your previous arguments would suggest, then we can never make a determination based on a still image since an attack can change lines over time. Supose a fencer starts attacking to the chest, the opponent makes this action at an angle to the fencer, and the fencer changes lines to hit them on the back - in my mind, this is still covering target, even if the fencer successfully adjusts.

Again, it does not seem that a fencer's tactics should determine if someone covers target, because a good fencer may be able to adjust. A moderate fencer may be able to attempt to adjust and not succeed. A poor fencer may not adjust and attack to the target that is being covered. Under your argument, the moderate fencer would be put at a significant disadvantage since they would not turn on a light.

I completely agree with your statement that "Looking down...should not be considered a lithmus test," as I also stated earlier. One can cover target with the mask without looking down.

Thoughts on this?

Cheers,

OJ

[Mac A. Bee]

...I completely agree with your statement that "Looking down...should not be considered a lithmus test,"...One can cover target with the mask without looking down...Thoughts on this?

Y-10er with over-sized mask. I've never heard of one being rejected for non-conforming equipment. Any F.net refs done it?

[Joe biebel]

To further elaborate on a point I made earlier, I do not think that opportunity has much to do with whether someone is covering target. Like you state above, "If you were refereeing...." What is relevant in regards to penalization is how it looks from the point of view of the referee. How would the action look from the viewpoint of the referee? How would it look from the viewpoint of the fencer (not from the camera that shot the video)? How would it look if the video camera was on the side of the other fencer? To follow your argument (not quoted in entirety) to its conclusion, how would it look like from the viewpoint of the attacker's weapon? Can we know? Does any of this matter?

I think opportunity is an essential componant regarding several infractions. The fencing, right of way, and penalties, have to do with opportunity and the relative positions of the fencers. It does not matter if the referee is denied access to the target, he/she is not fencing. I think that the refs job is made a lot harder by having to take into account the positions of the fencers relative to each other, but I also believe it is necessary and the only perspective that makes any sense.

From the Referee handbook. Covering Target: Not applicable for épée; it occasionally occurs in sabre; but it is a frequent occurrence in foil. Covering can be done with the back arm (including the hand), the head, and hair. As to the back arm and hand, it is important to remember that the covering must deny access to the target by the opponent. underline by me.

I'm going to use an analogy from a different rule that I think applies. The FOR attacks, FOL makes a prime parry and riposte with a half turn. Both fencers are right handed. The referee clearly sees the back of the FOL during the riposte and cards the FOL for turning. Obviously, completely wrong. From the referee Handbook- Turning the Back: In all weapons, it is illegal to turn one’s back toward the opponent. (This is not turning the head. Do not give fencers a card if they turn their heads so that they look behind themselves.) This warning should be given when the fencer turns her or his back toward the opponent; it is not judged by the angle to the strip.

In both cases (covering and turning) the angles the "opportunity" is relavant to the other fencer, not the referee or the terrain. I think far to many erroneous calls are related to an undeveloped referee perspective.

Omar makes many other good points in his post that I would like to address. It would be really helpful to me if someone would be kind enough to explain how to do the multiple quotes thingy. Nothing happens when I click on the button, so I'm assuming there's something I'm missing.

[oiuyt]

It would be really helpful to me if someone would be kind enough to explain how to do the multiple quotes thingy. Nothing happens when I click on the button, so I'm assuming there's something I'm missing.

Hit the MQ button on one or more posts. Then hit the Quote button on another post. You should go to a reply window with quotes from each of the selected posts.

-B

[catwood1]

For MQ, you can also just take the selection of the quote and put [.quote]* before the text, and [/quote] after the text. You can do this any number of times in an individual post of your's.


*Without that period in there, but thats the only way I could make it appear instead of accidently quoting myself.