On Covering With the Mask

[BlackPelican]

The only way to duck in foil and not cover with the mask is if you go straight down, without your spine bending forward, but what if you are right up close to and opponent? ducking will effectively mean the only available target is your back, but at the same time it seems consistent with the written rule. Will foil judges call covering if you duck when you are infighting?

[Wetmelon]

Well, think of the realistic logistics of this:

Fencer A ducks at infighting range. This means that Fencer A's torso is now farther away, making it EASIER for Fencer B to hit Fencer A. Fencer A has trouble getting his arm far enough back to properly make contact on Fencer B.

... So what's the point of ducking at such a close range?


P.s. I got ducked fencing sabre today. Like wtf? Am I that easy to read?

[BlackPelican]

Actually, it is a very effective infighting move. I have attended many clinics with Magdy Conyd, a man who fenced on two olympic teams, and he used to do it in foil and epee all the time. However, that was a long time ago. So I don't know if it would be valid in foil anymore. So whether you think its effective or not, I really want to know if it is against the rules. Are there any foil refs here?

[Purple Fencer]

The only way to duck in foil and not cover with the mask is if you go straight down, without your spine bending forward, but what if you are right up close to and opponent? ducking will effectively mean the only available target is your back, but at the same time it seems consistent with the written rule. Will foil judges call covering if you duck when you are infighting?

Probably not covering....but if you displace target by ducking -- effectively substituting your mask for your chest -- and then get hit in that spot, the rules DO allow for a valid touch to be awarded (never seen it happen, tho)

[OROD]

Probably not covering....but if you displace target by ducking -- effectively substituting your mask for your chest -- and then get hit in that spot, the rules DO allow for a valid touch to be awarded (never seen it happen, tho)

Ducking is NOT substituting target. Substituting target means you put something else that's not target, like your non-weapon arm, in between your target area and your opponents point.

.

[Purple Fencer]

Ducking is NOT substituting target. Substituting target means you put something else that's not target, like your non-weapon arm, in between your target area and your opponents point.

.

I would think that if I ducked and put my head where my chest would normally be, that's a substitution....head's not target in foil...no different from the non-weapon arm.

[BlackPelican]

But when you are right up against someone, you are substituting target, because you are blocking much of what they can hit with their mask when you duck. It isn't like ducking when someone fleches at you or something, because in that situation, they can actually still hit that target. Ducking at close range blocks your front target.

[mrbiggs]

I would think that if I ducked and put my head where my chest would normally be, that's a substitution....head's not target in foil...no different from the non-weapon arm.

You would think so because the rules are poorly worded, but a duck is not covering target.


Also, you can bend your spine so long as your head is still facing forward and it's not covering target. Ducking while infighting is not covering target even though the person is difficult to hit.

[Purple Fencer]

You would think so because the rules are poorly worded, but a duck is not covering target.

True....but I NEVER said ducking was covering...I DID say it was displacing....2 different things.

[Omar Bhutta]

But when you are right up against someone, you are substituting target, because you are blocking much of what they can hit with their mask when you duck. It isn't like ducking when someone fleches at you or something, because in that situation, they can actually still hit that target. Ducking at close range blocks your front target.

6. Displacing the target and passing the opponent

t.21 Displacing the target and ducking are allowed even if during the
action the unarmed hand comes into contact with the strip....(rule continues, I have truncated this)

7. Substitution and use of the non-sword hand and arm

t.22 The use of the non-sword hand and arm to carry out an offensive or defensive action is forbidden (cf. t.114, t.117, t.120). Should such an offence occur, the touch scored by the fencer at fault is annulled and the latter will be penalized as specified for offences of the second group (red card).
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.

Your questions are reasonable, BlackPelican. I have quoted the two relevant rules above. Importantly, the rules specify that ducking is legal, as is displacement. There is no mention of at what distance this is the case - as such, it is legal at any distance.

Your statement that "ducking at close range blocks that target" is simply not true, though. It makes it very difficult to hit it, which is what makes it an effective move. Again, ducking at any distance is legal. The head does not cover target any more at one distance than in another; it is just harder to get your weapon into position to hit the front....same as if someone didn't duck.

The current application of covering with the head is one of the more challenging rules to apply consistently. At most levels, it is not applied uniformly, which leads to a lot of frustration on the part of most fencers. As a general rule of thumb, if the fencer is looking at their feet, they are probably covering with their head. Their back does not need to be parallel to the ground to cover target. In the same vein, if your back is parallel to the ground, and your head is up, that is not covering target. Please note that simply applying that written statement carte blanche to an active bout will not get 100% of calls right....it is very dynamic and is best illustrated with video/live demonstration.

But can you duck while infighting? Absolutely. As long as you keep your head up.

[Omar Bhutta]

I would think that if I ducked and put my head where my chest would normally be, that's a substitution....head's not target in foil...no different from the non-weapon arm.

You are also correct, Purple Fencer. If you duck and put your head down while doing this, it is substitution. If you duck, your head must remain up.

Having said that, ducking is legal. Just keep your head up.

[Dev]

I would think that if I ducked and put my head where my chest would normally be, that's a substitution....head's not target in foil...no different from the non-weapon arm.

Okay. Fine. Your opponent attacks, you step back (displacing backward). You substituted empty space where your chest would normally be. Empty space is also not target.

Card?

[Omar Bhutta]

Okay. Fine. Your opponent attacks, you step back (displacing backward). You substituted empty space where your chest would normally be. Empty space is also not target.

Card?

I would think that if I ducked and put my head where my chest would normally be, that's a substitution....head's not target in foil...no different from the non-weapon arm.

Purple Fencer, perhaps I misread what you are saying? If you are making the argument that ducking and putting your head down while doing that is covering target with your mask - then I would agree.

If you are suggesting something similar to the appropriately ridiculous scenario posed by Dev (you are standing up, then you duck, and now head occupies the same space your chest did moments ago, but you are not covering target in the present), then you are incorrect. The rule is intended to prevent you from "protecting or substituting another part of the body for target area." Displacement of target is completely legal (see t.21).

[downunder]

I would think that if I ducked and put my head where my chest would normally be, that's a substitution....head's not target in foil...no different from the non-weapon arm.

This is not how foil is refereed. Even if one new fencer goes away and applies this in his club then you have needlessly propagated seriously incorrect information.


To the OP: for me, if the head stays up I'm usually happy with it.

[NGV]

Okay. Fine. Your opponent attacks, you step back (displacing backward). You substituted empty space where your chest would normally be. Empty space is also not target.

Card?

Right... if one interprets "substitution" as Purple Fencer does, then fencers would have to be on roller skates to avoid cards, as even normal up-and-down bouncing en garde involves putting a little bit of the mask where the lame was previously.

That's why "substitute another part of the body for the target area" seems like a pretty poor choice of words for a rule which is really about blocking the target area.

[oiuyt]

That's why "substitute another part of the body for the target area" seems like a pretty poor choice of words for a rule which is really about blocking the target area.

No, it's why reading only part of a sentence is a poor choice of method of interpreting rules.

It says "to substitute another part of the body for the target area, either by covering or by an abnormal movement". Ducking (properly) is neither covering nor an abnormal movement. The rule doesn't apply. The rule is written fine. Taking only parts of it and then trying to interpret them is a source of failure.

-B

[NGV]

Ok, give me an example of a prohibited "substitution of another part of the body for the target area" that a. involves an abnormal movement and b. doesn't also involve covering.

[catwood1]

And just for the OP's information, DownUnder and Omar Bhutta are two of the highest rated foil referees that regularly post here. 1 is an FIE ref, and the other is a 2.

(If Omar has his FIE license and I don't know about it, I do apologize...)

[Insipiens]

...
(If Omar has his FIE license and I don't know about it, I do apologize...)

US refs with an FIE ref license should be listed here:

http://www.fie.ch/Licenses/LicSearch.aspx

a list of the USA Male referees doesn't include an Omar Bhutta

[epeemike81]

US refs with an FIE ref license should be listed here:

http://www.fie.ch/Licenses/LicSearch.aspx

a list of the USA Male referees doesn't include an Omar Bhutta

That list seems awfully incomplete... For example, it doesn't list the referee we sent to World Championships this year...

That said, Omar is not an FIE ref: http://foc.askfred.net/Referee/refDe...id=67&page_id=

He's easily that caliber of referee, though.

-m