Do you know the rules?

[Craig]

Those are indeed the official definitions, but I'm wondering why they have a greater claim to being intrinsically the right ones. Is whoever wrote them a more credible authority than Alaux? Or has he/she merely gotten the imprimatur of officialdom for his/her version?

The US Fencing official definitions are the translation of the FIE official definitions. Why would Alaux be any more of an authority than the rules committee for the worldwide fencing federation?

For reference: http://www.fie.ch/reglement/default.htm

Cheers,
Craig

[Inquartata]

He wouldn't necessarily be. But then, he wouldn't necessarily be any less of an authority, either. So we're back to the original question: Who on that committee wrote the definitions in question? An equally respected and credentialed fencer/coach? A bureaucrat? A secretary looking up terms in a book? I've never seen a list of credits, if you will, for the authorship of the rules...

[kat2cute]

That second quiz repeated itself and the questions from the 1st quiz a lot. Made it easier to pass it.

[Inquartata]

Yes, but a few of the questions are still...well...questionable. Like the one about fencer X having a card for a brutal or vindictive hit, then having a fraudulently altered weapon, and NOT being
black-carded. And I was just told last weekend, by a highly qualified armorer, that there is NO thickness requirement stated for thumb pads---there is only a requirement that the thumb cannot be any closer than 2 cm to the inside of the bell. The thickness is thus implied but not actually regulated.

[Aoife]

Yay! I got 7/10, which despite being below average I'm utterly chuffed with, especially since we haven't been taught any of that side of fencing yet (right of way has been mentioned once)

I did guess several of them by what made the most sense though, but I'm stoill pleased I guessed them correctly.

It showed me how little I know about the rules in competition fencing, so it's something I'm going to have to read up on.

[oiuyt]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Yes, but a few of the questions are still...well...questionable. Like the one about fencer X having a card for a brutal or vindictive hit, then having a fraudulently altered weapon, and NOT being
black-carded. And I was just told last weekend, by a highly qualified armorer, that there is NO thickness requirement stated for thumb pads---there is only a requirement that the thumb cannot be any closer than 2 cm to the inside of the bell. The thickness is thus implied but not actually regulated.

Uhm, all I have to say is it's good you prefer french grips. Pistols require that the thumb be WITHIN 2 cm of the bell...

The pad has no minimum thickness, merely a requirement that it prohibit access to the wiring.

-B :)

[Craig]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Yes, but a few of the questions are still...well...questionable. Like the one about fencer X having a card for a brutal or vindictive hit, then having a fraudulently altered weapon, and NOT being
black-carded.

I suggest that you study the penalty chart on this one. The question is correct. You just have to know the rules to correctly apply them in assessing the correct penalty. You can find the penalty chart reference on page 62 of the USFA's 2002 rulebook, which you can download from the FOC web site.

Originally posted by Inquartata
And I was just told last weekend, by a highly qualified armorer, that there is NO thickness requirement stated for thumb pads---there is only a requirement that the thumb cannot be any closer than 2 cm to the inside of the bell. The thickness is thus implied but not actually regulated.

Actually, there is a maximum thickness to the padding on the inside of the guard explicitly specified in the rules. I suggest that you look up the technical regulations regarding equipment specifications. (Hint, look under "Material Rules - Fencers' Weapons and Equipment.)

The "I was told by someone..." teaching of the rules is exactly what we are trying to get away from. I have only posted the questions that I am 100% sure of the answer of so that the quiz can be a teaching tool, not a source of further misinformation.

Edit:Please note, by the above paragraph I'm refering to the tendency of some people to unknowingly pass on bad information in teaching based on how they were taught rather than verifying the information before passing it on.

Read the rules, know them, love them. They are your friend.



Cheers,
Craig

[JEC]

The padding must be less than 2 centimeters thick.

2002 USFA Rule book page 103

m 5
"2. Inside the guard there must be a cushion (padding) sufficiently wide to protect the electric wires from the fencer’s fingers. The padding on the inside of the guard must be less than 2 cm thick and must be arranged in such a way as not to increase the protection which the guard affords the hand."

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by oiuyt
Uhm, all I have to say is it's good you prefer french grips. Pistols require that the thumb be WITHIN 2 cm of the bell...


-B

Oops! I mistyped. You're right, should have been no FARTHER than 2 cm...

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by webmaster
I suggest that you study the penalty chart on this one. The question is correct. You just have to know the rules to correctly apply them in assessing the correct penalty. You can find the penalty chart reference on page 62 of the USFA's 2002 rulebook, which you can download from the FOC web site.

OK, but...damn! If intentional brutality AND outright cheating won't get you excluded, what do you have to do, kill someone and dance on his corpse while singing the "Horst Wessel Song"?

Actually, there is a maximum thickness to the padding on the inside of the guard explicitly specified in the rules. I suggest that you look up the technical regulations regarding equipment specifications. (Hint, look under "Material Rules - Fencers' Weapons and Equipment.)

Could this be a recent addition to the rule book? I see that the USFA has just released a new edition...

The "I was told by someone..." teaching of the rules is exactly what we are trying to get away from. I have only posted the questions that I am 100% sure of the answer of so that the quiz can be a teaching tool, not a source of further misinformation.

Yeah...but you expect certain people to know what they're talking about. If the "someone" was Dan Deschaine, for instance, one would be inclined to take his word for it on matters of technical specifications, no?

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
OK, but...damn! If intentional brutality AND outright cheating won't get you excluded, what do you have to do, kill someone and dance on his corpse while singing the "Horst Wessel Song"?

deliberate brutality IS a group four, as is manifest cheating. However, what they said in the question was "vindictive act" (group II), followed by "modified equipment" (group III). go with what they say, and you get the right answer.

-m

[Inquartata]

"Modified equipment" is not evidence of "manifest cheating"?!

[Craig]

Could this be a recent addition to the rule book? I see that the USFA has just released a new edition...

It's in the 1999 version of the rules as well.

Cheers,
Craig

[Craig]

Originally posted by Inquartata
"Modified equipment" is not evidence of "manifest cheating"?!

Well, modified equipment is much broader than manifest cheating. If you look at the rules referenced by the penalty chart, you can see how there are different levels of modification. Let's assume that there actually is a weapons control at a tournament. Now, after my weapon passes, I grind down part of the blade above the bell guard.

That's an illegal modification to the weapon, but isn't the same level as, say, installing a switch so that I can turn off-target touches to on-target or cause a touch while I'm hitting air.

I've found that the key to the rules tests are to apply the rules to the exact situation specified by the question. If you make any assumptions about the situation that are not specified in the question, then you will most likely answer it incorrectly.

I think that this is would be a great question to bring up when you go to the next referee seminar in your area.

Cheers,
Craig

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by webmaster
Well, modified equipment is much broader than manifest cheating.

Well, I cannot go back and look at the question again, since it just tells me that I "can't tsake the quiz again". But I could have sworn that it involved alteration of equipment "in such a way that it is apparent that fraud is intended", or something like that.

I think that this is would be a great question to bring up when you go to the next referee seminar in your area.

"Referee seminar"..."in my area"....ha ha, Craig, you jolly joker, you!

[magma]

question: i read in another posting about a russian blade that was much heavier in weight to the american made blades, are there are guidelines about the weight of a weapon in competition? the added weight would certainly assist in a parry, not that i feel like buying 'heavy metal'.. what does everyone think?

[mfp]

Originally posted by magma
question: i read in another posting about a russian blade that was much heavier in weight to the american made blades, are there are guidelines about the weight of a weapon in competition?

Yes. Read the rules. Search for "weight".

It's usually best to at least look at the rules before before asking a question that can be easily answered by ... looking at the rules.

Also, there no longer is such a thing as an American made fencing blade.

[Artisan]

[quote]Originally posted by magma
question: i read in another posting about a russian blade that was much heavier in weight to the american made blades, are there are guidelines about the weight of a weapon in competition? the added weight would certainly assist in a parry, not that i feel like buying 'heavy metal'.. what does everyone think? [/QUOTE

That Russian Blade (Vniti)was about 20% heavier.
Epee max weight 770g, Foil max weight 500g.
Typical electric weapons are lighter: Epees: 400-500 g, foils 300-350 g.

Heavier WILL wear you out quicker, don't know (doubt) it would "improve" a parry

I've found that balance (inertia) is more important than weight, especially as regards to point control. Part of what makes French grips favorable for bladework is the counterweight afforded by the pommel.

[pkt]

It appears to me that those who could not tell the diff between redoubllement and reprise attack have not read the rules, or have not read it properly...

As a rule of thumb, to start out, read the following sections first:
the general rules, (this is where the def. for redoublement & reprise can be found, right at the beginning of the rule book)
your own weapon - including the materials section
the disciplines (the cards...)
and perhaps the tournaments part.

Then graduate to the other sections.

PK

[pkt]

Craig,

Sorry to bother you again.

My answer to question 10 in the general rule quiz according to rule t.26 IS correct.

I know this rule has not changed.

The only way that my answer is wrong would be to mark it with a limited view of rule t.28 then I'd be wrong because the riposte might have taken place after the 'Halt!'

That said, even if one applies rule t.28, in most practical situations, since the riposte is immediate, the riposte would be 'with the halt' and therefore allowed. Therefore my answer would still be correct. Point for fencer Y.

So, I feel that your marking is wrong and I should get 10/10.

Look forward to your response.

An aside: How come there isn't a link to the USFA rule book in the USFA website?

Here's the link to the USFA rule book via the BCFA (British Columbia Fencing Association) web site:
http://sitka.triumf.ca/morgan/usfarules99.pdf

1999 Rev A 11

9. Crossing the limits of the strip

(a) Stopping the bout

t.26 When a competitor crosses one of the boundaries of the strip with both feet, the Referee must immediately call ‘Halt’ and annul everything which has occurred after the boundary has been crossed, except a touch received by the competitor who has crossed the boundary even after he or she has crossed it provided that this touch is made immediately as part of the movement in the course of which he or she crossed the boundary.

If one of the competitors leaves the strip only a touch made by the fencer who remains on the strip can be counted valid, even in the case of a double touch.


10. Fencer X makes an attack, which is parried. X is off the side of the strip in front of Y with both feet when fencer Y’s immediate riposte starts. Y’s riposte lands valid.

Your Answer: award a touch for Y
Your answer was wrong

PK
I'd rather be fencing, or refing.