Trapping the Blade

[Taomagicdragon]

Hi all.

As a ref for some time now, I've seen fencers wrap the opponent's blade between their arm and torso, arm and thigh, upper arm and lower arm, etcetera. It has been called by many others as "Entrapment of the blade" and usually results in a Group 1 Yellow Card followed by a Red Card for further offenses.

My question, after going through the rule book a few times, is what ruling explicitly states that given that it's never stated clearly in the book?

I could see abnormal/disorderly fencing and possibly covering target as umbrellas that cover this issue but would like a more definitive answer if there is one.

Thanks!

[RkfdFencer]

Looking at the penalty chart, how about:

Using the non-weapon arm or hand (references t.22, but I have not looked at the actual rule)

[downunder]

lets assume epee for simplicity.

Basically if the blade traps you call halt and stop the action. If they use the unarmed arm or hand then it's a red card. If it's anywhere else then annul the hit where appropriate and get on with it.

[noodle]

lets assume epee for simplicity.

Basically if the blade traps you call halt and stop the action. If they use the unarmed arm or hand then it's a red card. If it's anywhere else then annul the hit where appropriate and get on with it.

i came here to say this.

if getting your blade "caught" under someone's weapon arm is a card, i'd play up the "oh no my blade is trapped" every time i missed there. it isn't.

[RkfdFencer]

Not sure of the date on the penalty chart I first looked at, but the most recent on the USFA site is dated 2008 and has different wording.

Touching/taking hold of electrical equipment - t.22 is still referenced and it appears to be a group 1 yellow for the first offense.

[fdad]

Not sure of the date on the penalty chart I first looked at, but the most recent on the USFA site is dated 2008 and has different wording.

Touching/taking hold of electrical equipment - t.22 is still referenced and it appears to be a group 1 yellow for the first offense.

I am quite certain the OP is talking about trapping the opponent's blade betwee the weapon arm and one of torso, leg, etc. There is no use of a hand and only use of the weapon arm.

[edew]

That's touching your own electrical equipment, not your opponent's (although I guess if you're close enough to touch your opponent's electrical equipment, like body cord or mask clip or something like that, someone's in range for a card of some sort).

If I actively trap my opponent's blade, then it may be a penalty. If my opponent's blade gets stuck, say, between my legs or, more frequently, between my weapon arm and torso (most common), the referee should call halt for one fencer (my opponent) not being effectively able to wield his weapon. It's not a hard halt, so if I hit at that time, I probably should get the point as well.

[Taomagicdragon]

To clarify, I am talking about the weapon arm.

I believe it falls under abnormal/disorderly fencing and a few fencers in CT have grown to use this intentionally to avoid the opponent's touch as well as to negate any chance of the opponent parrying an attack.

[Jvanhousen]

Cesspool!

[KidLazy]

Hey, stop polluting the cesspool any further.

[foibles]

Cesspool!

Correct. We are not qualified to offer thoughts on this question.

Taomagicdragon, please direct your question to: christine.simmons@usfencing.org


You'll be glad you did.

Thank you.

[tchwojko]

It has been called by many others as "Entrapment of the blade" and usually results in a Group 1 Yellow Card followed by a Red Card for further offenses.

Is it really that hard to get referees to just use the rather limited standard set of vocabulary to describe actions and penalties? At least on the first go? I understand that sometimes a more thorough explanation is helpful, but those cases are rare. Using the standard terms would actually decrease confusion.

Argh.

[noodle]

To clarify, I am talking about the weapon arm.

I believe it falls under abnormal/disorderly fencing and a few fencers in CT have grown to use this intentionally to avoid the opponent's touch as well as to negate any chance of the opponent parrying an attack.

why would it? see t.19. if fencers keep getting their blades caught, they should probably stop missing, or pick another target.

[Craig]

To clarify, I am talking about the weapon arm.

I believe it falls under abnormal/disorderly fencing and a few fencers in CT have grown to use this intentionally to avoid the opponent's touch as well as to negate any chance of the opponent parrying an attack.

Those fencers should learn to hit other lines then.

For instance: top of the weapon arm shoulder, deep chest flick

Personally, I have not seen the action described called as an infraction. *

Crying foul because you can't deal with a stall tactic like that is, well, like being an Italian winger in soccer.

Craig

========================
* YMMV. This poster is not a member of the FOC and therefore could be correct, but could also be just some crazed person at the keyboard chugging down Red Bull Cola
===========================

[downunder]

To clarify, I am talking about the weapon arm.

I believe it falls under abnormal/disorderly fencing and a few fencers in CT have grown to use this intentionally to avoid the opponent's touch as well as to negate any chance of the opponent parrying an attack.

I promise you it's not a card. I referee a lot of epee. Just call halt.

[Bonehead]

If I'm caught between my opponents arm and torso, I can't imagine that this is actually 'caught'. There is no way that the friction on a thin reasonably smooth blade and a clothed body should prevent me from pulling my blade back, even if my opponent twists a little. In any case, if they do twist and you drop your weapon, you can get a halt called to prevent them from hitting you, if they have hit you before they twisted the weapon out of your hand, then you were probably just hit anyway.

[Mike Ross]

..what ruling explicitly states that given that it's never stated clearly in the book?

t.19:

Fencing at close quarters is allowed so long as the competitors can wield their weapons correctly and the Referee can, in foil and saber, follow the phrase.

t.18.5:

The order 'Halt' is also given if the fencing of the competitors is dangerous, confused, or contrary to the Rules, if one of the
September 2008 Edition United States Fencing Association Rules for Competition 12
competitors is disarmed or leaves the strip, or if, while retreating, he approaches too near the spectators or the Referee (cf. t.28, t.55/6 and t.73/j).

To summarize, the fencer is unable to wield their weapon correctly.
Since the fencing is contrary to t.19 the referee must call halt. The referee should then replace the fencers appropriately, and continue the fencing.

[mrbiggs]

Hi all.

As a ref for some time now, I've seen fencers wrap the opponent's blade between their arm and torso, arm and thigh, upper arm and lower arm, etcetera. It has been called by many others as "Entrapment of the blade" and usually results in a Group 1 Yellow Card followed by a Red Card for further offenses.

My question, after going through the rule book a few times, is what ruling explicitly states that given that it's never stated clearly in the book?

I could see abnormal/disorderly fencing and possibly covering target as umbrellas that cover this issue but would like a more definitive answer if there is one.

Thanks!

To clarify, I am talking about the weapon arm.

I believe it falls under abnormal/disorderly fencing and a few fencers in CT have grown to use this intentionally to avoid the opponent's touch as well as to negate any chance of the opponent parrying an attack.

I've seen this called in and around CT as well. It is wrong. You do not card for trapping the blade unless a fencer is doing it in an extremely obvious and dangerous way. (And keep in mind I've never seen someone carded for this by someone who knows what they're doing, I'm just saying that sufficiently dangerous actions are always cardable)

[Taomagicdragon]

Thanks Biggs, that was my impression that on its own it's warranting only a halt but, if done in an obvious vindictive/dangerous manner, to penalize accordingly, thanks.

[Taomagicdragon]

t.19:



t.18.5:



To summarize, the fencer is unable to wield their weapon correctly.
Since the fencing is contrary to t.19 the referee must call halt. The referee should then replace the fencers appropriately, and continue the fencing.

Thanks much.