On Covering With the Mask

[Joe biebel]

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

For MQ, you can also just take the selection of the quote and put [.quote]* before the text, and

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. [/QUOTE]

Wow! Thanks guys.

[touchefriend]

Interesting post Joe. So tipping the head so the mask covers target would be obvious and likely deliberate, usually in standing position; ducking then, could include deliberate covering with the mask but more likely incorrect ducking technique. Ducking, to my mind is displacing target by movement, as is turning. All legal as they should be. This thread has clarified my thinking on these topics. (If thats possible!)

[Joe biebel]

Interesting post Joe. So tipping the head so the mask covers target would be obvious and likely deliberate, usually in standing position; ducking then, could include deliberate covering with the mask but more likely incorrect ducking technique. Ducking, to my mind is displacing target by movement, as is turning. All legal as they should be. This thread has clarified my thinking on these topics. (If thats possible!)

My thoughts are personal observations, I have no standing as an official. One of the things that has made me come to these conclusions is bias, on my part, as to quality referees. I've had a fair amount of experience on the strip, but really, can only look at what I see in FIE worldcup videos, etc. as examples. I have learned a bunch about fencing technique, tactics etc. from them, but more importantly, the videos serve to reinforce my ideas of proper calls, especially on infractions. I would say thet the video information I have seen, supports my opinion and conclusions. I also happen to think it makes sense.

In the US we have a much more lenient threshold (usually) for covering target with the mask. In a lot of the FIE videos, you see how little movemment (lowering the mask) is considered covering. Also, most of the infractions are called on a "challenge", a video replay. One of the tenants espoused in the referee handbook and occassionally refered to here by persons on f.net, is that, one of the important things that determines how calls are to be correctly made is: How do the best referee in the world make the calls?

Don't listen to me as to how things should be called. Download the videos. Watch them a few times to get over the novelty and you will see a wealth of information.

[Omar Bhutta]

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.

I re-read this, and what I intended to convey may not have been clear. Joe, you are totally right that covering target is based on the perspective of the fencers. The point I was hoping to make, is that the only information that this decision can be upon is from the perspective of the referee (because it is the referee making the decision). The referee never has the benefit of seeing what it looks like from the point of view of the fencer. That is what makes it relevant in regards to penalization.

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.

Not that I am advocating that it's correct, but it is interesting that the referee handbook does not say that you can cover with the legs, is it not?

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.

In my mind this is not a fair analogy, and I think you are making an assumption about the word opportunity in regards to covering target. The reason being is that the rule (not just the referee handbook) for turning the back gives guidance on its application. It says, "turn one's back on one's opponent." (t.21) This is in contrast to the rule on covering target, which makes no reference to position relative to the opponent. Nor does the handbook - it says that it must deny access, but nowhere is there the suggestion that the opponent must be attacking the area that is denied. Opportunity is a word that you have been using, but it is not a word used in the rules or in the handbook to my knowledge.

Let me present this to you. Look at rule t.86:

...Before the start of the bout, the fencers‘ hair must be fastened and placed inside the clothing and/or mask in such as way as to ensure that:

-It does not cover a valid surface (and thus prevent a hit from being scored).
-It does not conceal the name and nationality of the fencer.
- It does not need to be put back in place during the bout, thus interrupting it.
....

Although this is a different rule than we have been discussing (t.22), it addresses the issue of covering target as well. The application of this rule, as we have all seen it, is such that your hair cannot be on your lame, and if it is, it is a penalty. There is no convention that if your hair is on your lame, it is only covering target if someone is flicking to the back. What is important, is that it denies access.

Let's say that my opponent had long flowing locks that covered all of his back, and he was not penalized for it unless I attacked it (using Joe's concept of opportunity). Why would I even attack that area knowing I can't score there? That target has been effectively removed for me to attack. So tactically, I may never bother to try. My opponent knows he doesn't have to defend that area, so he can focus on defending his chest. I am put at a significant disadvantage. This is why the application of this rule is such that if your hair covers the lame at any time, you are penalized.

I would argue that this rule (t.86) is more analogous to t.22 than Joe's example of turning the back (t.21) because I think that the logic around covering target with the hair must be the same logic applied to covering with other parts of the body.

That's why I think you are either covering or not, regardless of where the opponent attacks.


I welcome all discussion about this,

Cheers,

OJ

[touchefriend]

Very informative Joe and Omar.
I have noticed calls for covering that I could not see the covering (FIE) and even slowing down the vid mostly because of camera perspective. So I do understand what you are saying. I have been carded as well here in Thailand for tipping my head too far and not just in ducking. But all in all at my level it hasn't been much of a problem. I believe Omar has the correct idea that it has to be from the refs perspective that covering is called. This seems difficult given the times I have or have seen others get away with some kind of covering. And the rules do not state you [U]can cover with legs but also do not say you can't[U] It seems to me that the legs would fall into the same area as the mask when ducking (correctly) and should not be penalized unless there is a deliberate lifting of the leg to cover the lame. Hope this makes some sense

[Joe biebel]

[QUOTE=Omar Bhutta;837515]I re-read this, and what I intended to convey may not have been clear. Joe, you are totally right that covering target is based on the perspective of the fencers. The point I was hoping to make, is that the only information that this decision can be upon is from the perspective of the referee (because it is the referee making the decision). The referee never has the benefit of seeing what it looks like from the point of view of the fencer. That is what makes it relevant in regards to penalization. [QUOTE]

You are correct, I did not understand your meaning.
[QUOTE=Omar Bhutta;837515]Not that I am advocating that it's correct, but it is interesting that the referee handbook does not say that you can cover with the legs, is it not? [QUOTE]

Imagine the size and complexity of the rulesbook or handbook if there was any attempt to cover all possibilities or permutations of a rule/situation.
[QUOTE=Omar Bhutta;837515]In my mind this is not a fair analogy, and I think you are making an assumption about the word opportunity in regards to covering target. The reason being is that the rule (not just the referee handbook) for turning the back gives guidance on its application. It says, "turn one's back on one's opponent." (t.21) This is in contrast to the rule on covering target, which makes no reference to position relative to the opponent. Nor does the handbook - it says that it must deny access, but nowhere is there the suggestion that the opponent must be attacking the area that is denied. Opportunity is a word that you have been using, but it is not a word used in the rules or in the handbook to my knowledge.[QUOTE]

Imagine the size and complexity of the rulesbook or handbook if there was any attempt to cover all possibilities or permutations of a rule/situation.
[QUOTE] Let me present this to you. Look at rule t.86:

[SIZE=1]

[SIZE=1]Although this is a different rule than we have been discussing (t.22), it addresses the issue of covering target as well. The application of this rule, as we have all seen it, is such that your hair cannot be on your lame, and if it is, it is a penalty. There is no convention that if your hair is on your lame, it is only covering target if someone is flicking to the back. What is important, is that it denies access.

Let's say that my opponent had long flowing locks that covered all of his back, and he was not penalized for it unless I attacked it (using Joe's concept of opportunity). Why would I even attack that area knowing I can't score there? That target has been effectively removed for me to attack. So tactically, I may never bother to try. My opponent knows he doesn't have to defend that area, so he can focus on defending his chest. I am put at a significant disadvantage. This is why the application of this rule is such that if your hair covers the lame at any time, you are penalized.

I would argue that this rule (t.86) is more analogous to t.22 than Joe's example of turning the back (t.21) because I think that the logic around covering target with the hair must be the same logic applied to covering with other parts of the body.

That's why I think you are either covering or not, regardless of where the opponent attacks. [QUOTE]

I chose the "turning the back" analogy because it relates to posture, and perspective, which was the theme of my post. It also is an "action" by a fencer, which I believe to be common with covering as well.

Hair is normally a static thing, it is not an action by a fencer. Hair covers or removes from the equation some portion of target 24/7. If hair were to used as an analogy, it would be more akin to bad spots on a lame or a lame that does not fit properly depriving the opponant of valid target.

Here is another observation from the FIE videos. There are fencers (Sanzo is a good example) with very forward, low, enguarde positions. When he attacks and defends it typically stays that way and is not carded. OTOH, there are fencers that fence very upright and change their position lowering the mask relative to the opponant as a tactic during exchanges. Perhaps not even as low as Sanzo's normal position, yet these "changes" are typically carded. It is usually the change of position, (relative to an opponants action) the active protection (even shallow) that I see carded. All pretty good evidence IMO that the card is dependent on opportunity and relative position.

As we know from the handbook, a long low attack, leaning forward is not considered covering. If a fencer is upright in their position, and an action from the opponant starts and they lower the mask, raise a leg, drop behind their knees, put their unarmed hand between the opponant and themselves, or pull their pony tail out onto their lame, these are all actions relative to the opponant and are an attempt to "protect" the target with invalid surface. The word "protect" in this case is a verb. You can protect inadvertantly as well, but in all cases it should deny access to target "relative" to the opponant.

[Omar Bhutta]

I chose the "turning the back" analogy because it relates to posture, and perspective, which was the theme of my post. It also is an "action" by a fencer, which I believe to be common with covering as well.

Hair is normally a static thing, it is not an action by a fencer. Hair covers or removes from the equation some portion of target 24/7. If hair were to used as an analogy, it would be more akin to bad spots on a lame or a lame that does not fit properly depriving the opponant of valid target.

Situation: Referee says "En Guard. Ready. Fence." We begin to fence, and I am out of distance. I place my back arm in front of my lame, and leave it there. By prior argument, you would suggest that this is not covering target as there is no attack taking place, and we are out of distance (you earlier gave the example of a fencer pulling up their pants while out of distance).

Then, leaving my arm in the same position relative to my lame (a.k.a. static) I launch an attack against my opponent. Your above argument suggests this would be legal, which we all know is not.

To comment on the piece above that says, "Hair covers target 24/7" I assume you are referring to the situation I posed? What about the fencer whose hair falls out mid action on the back? This is still covering target and should be penalized. The rules state this. How is this different than any other body part?

As we know from the handbook, a long low attack, leaning forward is not considered covering. If a fencer is upright in their position, and an action from the opponant starts and they lower the mask, raise a leg, drop behind their knees, put their unarmed hand between the opponant and themselves, or pull their pony tail out onto their lame, these are all actions relative to the opponant and are an attempt to "protect" the target with invalid surface. The word "protect" in this case is a verb. You can protect inadvertantly as well, but in all cases it should deny access to target "relative" to the opponant.[/B]

Again, I disagree that this is all relative to the opponent, and perhaps this discussion may get to why. I agree with every example you list above. I disagree with the statement in bold, and agree with the statement that is underlined.

You cannot make a claim that all of those examples are relative to the opponent unless you also state what the opponent is doing during them. The position you have advocated is that it is relative to the opponent's attack/action. What is the opponent doing during those examples you have listed?

I would suggest that what makes all those examples listed covering target is where those body parts move relative to the fencer's own lame/valid target. That might be the fundamental piece we disagree on? I am not sure, maybe it's something more. If you accept that it is relative to your own valid target (as the rules seem to suggest, at least to me) then I think the rest of my position logically follows. If you accept that it is relative to your opponent/your opponent's attack, then it does not logically follow. I just cannot find anywhere in the rules to suggest that it is anything other than relative to your own valid target.

Cheerio,

OJ

[Joe biebel]

[QUOTE=Omar Bhutta;837699]Situation: Referee says "En Guard. Ready. Fence." We begin to fence, and I am out of distance. I place my back arm in front of my lame, and leave it there. By prior argument, you would suggest that this is not covering target as there is no attack taking place, and we are out of distance (you earlier gave the example of a fencer pulling up their pants while out of distance). [Quote]

Yes.

[Quote]
Then, leaving my arm in the same position relative to my lame (a.k.a. static) I launch an attack against my opponent. Your above argument suggests this would be legal, which we all know is not.[Quote]

It does not suggest this, it suggests that protecting is a verb. I did not say that the opponent needs to have ROW to have opportunity. Leaving your hand in front of the target on an attack just because you stop moving it, does not make it not covering. Once the attack is launched from a distance that it could reach, only the fencing arm (by convention) may intercede the space between the opponant and target. Notice I said opponant and not their weapon. It only needs to be refined to the weapon in cases like ducking, where say, FOL makes a high parry and FOR ducks, leans forward to present an off-target substitution to the opponant. It may be that there is no hinderence to the FOL's lame to FOR's lame, but the lame is not used to score with.

[Quote]
To comment on the piece above that says, "Hair covers target 24/7" I assume you are referring to the situation I posed? What about the fencer whose hair falls out mid action on the back? This is still covering target and should be penalized. The rules state this. How is this different than any other body part?[Quote]

I was too subtle. The hair rule (1.15 on 2008 penalty chart) t.86.2 is not covering. It is in it's own category. More of a technical rule. If hair became an issue you would stop the match and card for hair. Should it come out in during an action and get hit, you could still award the hit, but I believe you would have to call it covering target. I just don't see it as germaine to this discussiion.

[Quote]
Again, I disagree that this is all relative to the opponent, and perhaps this discussion may get to why. I agree with every example you list above. I disagree with the statement in bold, and agree with the statement that is underlined.

You cannot make a claim that all of those examples are relative to the opponent unless you also state what the opponent is doing during them. The position you have advocated is that it is relative to the opponent's attack/action. What is the opponent doing during those examples you have listed?[Quote]

Attacking, riposting, making any kind of of offensive action.

I would suggest that what makes all those examples listed covering target is where those body parts move relative to the fencer's own lame/valid target. That might be the fundamental piece we disagree on? I am not sure, maybe it's something more. If you accept that it is relative to your own valid target (as the rules seem to suggest, at least to me) then I think the rest of my position logically follows. If you accept that it is relative to your opponent/your opponent's attack, then it does not logically follow. I just cannot find anywhere in the rules to suggest that it is anything other than relative to your own valid target.

Cheerio,

OJ

I agree that our difference lies in the concept of "relative". You obviously believe in relative to the lame. I am extending my interpretation to the weapon (see the example above) in cases where it matters. You say "the rulesbook says, or does not say" quite a lot. This does not bother me. That is what a forum like this is for...to help fill in the gaps. Unfortunately, the rulesbook is a static thing which does not take into account every case and possibility. Since it does not broach this subject in any great detail, one must try and look at what they (the writers of the rules) mean. Since there are an infinite number of possibilties, we must strive for meaning, in order to have any chance of "getting it right". As I said early on, I can't support any of this opinion with specific verbage in the rules. I am confident though that my intepretation is what was intended by the rules.

[downunder]

Apologies Joe, I haven't read every single word of this thread.

Is your view that, say, if someone attacks the back and the opponent drops the mask in effect making it easier to hit then there should not be a card?

If this is true, this is not an international interpretation and a card should be issued as well as a hit. By dropping the head in the front or to the side you are illegally forcing out a potential line in either the first or second intention. This is what the rule is there to penalise.

[touchefriend]

Sanzo should be carded for covering as his guard position covers part of his lame!! When he is attacked, fencers typically have to get him to uncover to a greater degree than "normal" fencers. This thread is becoming complex in that referees know covering when they see it but that perspective changes with the referee in many cases. Obvious covering is just that - obvious. Inadvertent (hair,etc) covering is rare at higher levels(in my humble observations) The original thread {ducking} is of interest in Omar and Joe's posts because it seems impossible to cover while ducking unless you tip your head a LOT or use the back arm or you are Sanzo. The position of the legs is not addressed in the rulebook in reference to ducking.

[downunder]

Sanzo should be carded for covering as his guard position covers part of his lame!!

What are you talking about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3MB_lWNU94

Sanzo doesn't cover at all really.

[Omar Bhutta]

Sanzo should be carded for covering as his guard position covers part of his lame!! When he is attacked, fencers typically have to get him to uncover to a greater degree than "normal" fencers. This thread is becoming complex in that referees know covering when they see it but that perspective changes with the referee in many cases. Obvious covering is just that - obvious. Inadvertent (hair,etc) covering is rare at higher levels(in my humble observations) The original thread {ducking} is of interest in Omar and Joe's posts because it seems impossible to cover while ducking unless you tip your head a LOT or use the back arm or you are Sanzo. The position of the legs is not addressed in the rulebook in reference to ducking.

I have not watched enough international fencing to make general comments on Sanzo, but the concept that his guard position covers his lame is illegal is confusing to me. By convention, you cannot cover with your weapon arm, if that is what you are referring to. If you are referring to his back arm, he does not do that at all in the video downunder linked to.

It is quite easy to cover target with the mask while ducking or not ducking; in fact, it is probably easier to do so while ducking than while not. We talk about how looking at your feet is an example of covering with the mask (such as the pictures that were posted, or the video that Craig posted), but it may be quite a bit more subtle than that. When ducking, a subtle movement of the head can create quite a disadvantage to the other fencer.

If some of my posts made you think it is impossible/near-impossible to cover target while ducking, please quote them for me, as I'd be happy to clarify if that's how you are reading them.

[Joe biebel]

Sanzo, does not cover target he oftern in a low forward enguarde position relative to his opponant.

I think "touchefriend" might have been referring to Sanzo's "enguarde" position rather than his "Guarde" position, which we usaually take to mean the bell-guard.

It would have to be a pretty ridiculous enguarde, to be illegal. Sanzo, was used in my earlier example to show the range of positions that are legit.

[touchefriend]

If a "subtle movement" can cover target with the mask, then I submit that Sanzo's forward lean is at least as covering with the mask as another "upright" fencers slight head movement. I suppose I'm being the devil's advocate here but my poiint is to emphasis the difficulty in making the call unless its as obvious or nearly so as Craig's posted vids. I apologize to Sanzo for using him as a bad example. I have been carded for leaning forward and my head was not tipped but upright - the angle denied access.

[Wetmelon]

I would give a card in that picture not for covering the target, but for exposing the back of his head! What is he thinking? That's as bad as turning around to look at the box :/

[downunder]

I would give a card in that picture not for covering the target, but for exposing the back of his head! What is he thinking? That's as bad as turning around to look at the box :/

Exposing the back of the head is not a penalty.

[Wetmelon]

Exposing the back of the head is not a penalty.

Lol since when? I was told that you are carded for "looking back at the box" because you're exposing the back of your head. That it's not a penalty is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[downunder]

Lol since when? I was told that you are carded for "looking back at the box" because you're exposing the back of your head. That it's not a penalty is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Christ.

http://fie.ch/Fencing/Rules.aspx
http://www.britishfencing.com/Britis...asp?PageID=183
http://fencingofficials.org/document...20-%20Sept.pdf

[Omar Bhutta]

Lol since when? I was told that you are carded for "looking back at the box" because you're exposing the back of your head. That it's not a penalty is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Since ever. Whoever told you that is wrong. Very very wrong.

[kalivor]

Exposing the back of the head is not a penalty.

Lol since when? I was told that you are carded for "looking back at the box" because you're exposing the back of your head. That it's not a penalty is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I figured that was bait not worth taking ...