Magnetizing my Saber

[Wetmelon]

The only thing worse than your knowledge of fencing is your knowledge of magnetism.

Rofl. I agree. (When was the last time you did a beat-attack in sabre? )

[erooMynohtnA]

Really man? Seriously? Like, fur reel?

wow.

You are either marveling at how bad my document-searching abilities are, or you think referees should be able to card without justification in the rules? Given that you have offered neither a rule quote nor defense of carding, I assume it is the latter.

[catwood1]

If magnetizing my sabre so I will get auto-parries is NOT cheating, what is?!?!

Its really not much better than putting a button in an epee. Or is that not cheating either?

[erooMynohtnA]

Cheating is breaking the rules. If there is no rule against, how can it be cheating?

I would cite Appendix B or M.19.4 regarding the epee button. I think the rules are pretty clear that the tip being depressed on the other fencer has to score the touch.

[catwood1]

I don't think there needs to already be an explicit rule against it for it to be a back card.

If in the middle of an epee bout, if I enlist the fencer on the strip behind me to hit the referee in the shin, so the ref is distracted when I hit the floor and he allows the touch, this is a blackcard if its found out what I did.

I'm reasonable confident there is no explicit rule against it in the rule book.

Anthony, use your head here...

[erooMynohtnA]

Obviously this situation is impossible, so there doesn't need to be a rule regarding it.

However, I think that a card for something that isn't in the rules (so can't be against them) is one that should be quickly overturned. You need to cite some rule, even if it's a blanket rule. Remember chest plates worn directly under the lame? Was anyone ever carded for that? Was that cheating? I don't know, but it is now.

[catwood1]

This thread has conversation has degenerated into facedesk status...

[Wetmelon]

Remember chest plates worn directly under the lame? Was anyone ever carded for that? Was that cheating? I don't know, but it is now.

Huh? What's that do?

[SJCFU#2]

Huh? What's that do?

When the foil debounce time (the length of time which the tip must be pressed against a surface before the scoring machine registers a touch) was increased in 2004 the number of touches which failed to register because the tip would bounce off a hard surface (such as a plastic chest protector) without landing long enough to register as a touch increased dramatically (there by introducing the "duck and squirm" tactic). Some enterprising individuals realized they could maximize this effect by wearing their chest protector immediately underneath their lame, outside of their jacket, and thereby presenting the smoothest, hardest surface possible.

Suffice to say the FIE did not look kindly upon this practice. I can't say whether or not anyone was carded for doing it when it was first discovered however a new rule banning this practice appeared within days (if not hours).

[Fencergrl]

This thread has conversation has degenerated into facedesk status...

You say that as if it didn't start there to begin with.

[Purple Fencer]

(When was the last time you did a beat-attack in sabre? )

While bouting the other day, as a matter of fact. It's a perfectly valid attack..why not use it? Saying you shouldn't is like saying you should never parry in sabre.

[catwood1]

I have listened to Ivan Lee talking about the importance of using the beat in sabre. And yes, this is wayyy post "new" timing.

[Rockstar44]

Cheating is breaking the rules. If there is no rule against, how can it be cheating?

I would cite Appendix B or M.19.4 regarding the epee button. I think the rules are pretty clear that the tip being depressed on the other fencer has to score the touch.

How about "Dishonest fencing" (Red). Or, "Manifest cheating with equipment" (Black).

[Philistine]

Cheating is breaking the rules. If there is no rule against, how can it be cheating?

Surely breaking the laws of physics would constitute cheating....

Just out of curiosity....
What would happen if you put the Flux Capacitor in the TARDIS {snip}

It would become a Retardis.

I just have to say, that is damn near a perfect pun.

--Philistine

[migopod]

Surely breaking the laws of physics would constitute cheating....

Can we give the latest Indiana Jones movie a black card then?

BTW, en.wikipedia.org informs me that on this date in 1963 Dr Who first aired.

[Wetmelon]

While bouting the other day, as a matter of fact.

Yea, me too lol. But it's a little... "dangerous" if you miss their blade haha. (Now we're talking beat going forward, not prise de fer backwards, right?)

[Purple Fencer]

Yea, me too lol. But it's a little... "dangerous" if you miss their blade haha. (Now we're talking beat going forward, not prise de fer backwards, right?)

That's why you don't doa beat with a big windup....it's a snap with the wrist and fingers. Blade placement is also important...if you try to do the beat with the blades almost parallel, yer gonna miss....you have to make sure the blades are crossing (see Keeth Smart at the end of the Greenspan video when he's teaching an angulated beat cut....same thing)

[kalivor]

Yea, me too lol. But it's a little... "dangerous" if you miss their blade haha. (Now we're talking beat going forward, not prise de fer backwards, right?)

And attacking is dangerous if you get parried. This is why sabreurs never attack.

[erooMynohtnA]

How about "Dishonest fencing" (Red). Or, "Manifest cheating with equipment" (Black).

Manifest cheating with equipment is the code in the penalty chart, but it's based on rules elsewhere. You can't justify manifest cheating without a rule stating what cheating happened. I can't say that coating your uniform in Teflon is manifest cheating with equipment with no explanation, but there would be an explanation for it and that's the rule regarding the uniform being slippery.

I think dishonest fencing is pretty vague, and would cover it, but for that same reason, that's a pretty weak call, because it can cover basically anything.

My point is that it's not your job as a referee to substitute your judgment for the rules or to twist the rules until they match your opinion (that's what fencing.net is for). Can you imagine if a cop arrested someone and said "well, there's no law against what you did, but I think it's illegal"? Or "I think what you did should be illegal, but it's not, so I'm citing you for disturbing the peace"?

[Philistine]

{snip}
Can you imagine if a cop arrested someone and said "well, there's no law against what you did, but I think it's illegal"? Or "I think what you did should be illegal, but it's not, so I'm citing you for disturbing the peace"?

Other the fact that the cop doesn't actually say what is being arrested for is illegal, that situation is not completely uncommon.

Not trying to get too off-topic. OTOH, rules interpretations of factually impossible things smacks a bit of counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Kind of in the sense of asking whether sticking pins in a voodoo doll of your opponent would violate the rules if voodoo really worked.

--Philistine