Crossing shoulders

[ReverseLunge]

Can someone please explain to me why placing your non-sword shoulder in front is illegal? Make me feel like a whole dimension has been taken away from fencing.

[Cyranox11]

Hi
It is only illegal in foil.
It is illegal (but in my experience seldom enforced) because it makes it very hard for your opponent to score: either they hit off target (your non-sword arm) or spend their time trying to get past your arm and then you hit them while they are looking for a way through.
It is especially effective at close quraters.

[Chris]

Prevailing explanation/opinion that I get from most of the US FOC folks that I have asked is this, back in the late 80's, (for several reasons) the germans were enjoying a resurgence of success; many of the german foil girls/women were executing (or, perhaps, more correctly: following up their) attacks with a pivot of the hips &shoulders as well as a crossover step. This creates a fairly different challenge for the 'defender' to deal with, particularly with respect to riposte.

Even though there had been rules on the books prohibiting A. covering target (i.e. if the NON-weapon arm is not raised, it is now in front, thus blatantly covering), and B. closing , and certainly committing corp a corps to avoid a riposte, it was felt (or at least justified) by some (particularly, the french, supposedly, but obviously they had to rally other votes, too) that this particular technique was anathema to the philosophy of foil.

I imagine it was felt (or at least 'parrotted') that foil is supposed to be a more focused, theoretically driven game, while epee is more of a 'free-style' event, driven by pragmatic factors; As for sabre, well, being that intruding beyond the point has no purpose in sabre, I imagine they felt it would be absurd to execute this move in sabre, and one would get their just rewards by being hit. (OR, they just couldn't get votes to support implementation in those events.)

My experience in the USA (where I have fenced sinced the mid-70's, with periodic exposure to the national scene), is that I saw some of this sort of action, and I thought it looked frantic, and unpracticed, (perhaps what I saw, was) but I never really thought a lot about it being 'bad', except, of course, when target area was covered; now that the rule is on the books, and we have had 15 years, or so, for everyone to learn it, in the USA, I DO see it enforced, albeit, there is always the question of interpretation, and judgment, both intrinsic, and extrinsic (if I may): obviously (as with application of several other rules), from differing physical angles of perspectives, the fencers, referee, and various spectators, the perception that one (or both) of the fencers has actually reversed the shoulder is going to vary: even if they agree on how much turning is nominally sufficient (which, as we all know is NOT the case); we often disagree on how much actually happened, as well.

Additionally, there is the relativistic issue; i.e. that the judgement should be made relative to the opponent, and not the strip (which can become a little tricky when both people are moving!).

Futhermore, then there are referees who feel the the referee should 'let the fencers fence'; 'not interfere with the bout', or 'not be IN the bout' or 'not affect the bout'; and thus serve to further confuse the issue by NOT calling offenses when they feel that the opponent was not disadvantaged in any way.
This type of pseudo-logic officiating tends to irritate me as it is really shallow thinking:
The referee is IN the bout scenario to ensure that the rules are followed, and they can't get out of it with such sophomoric logic. NOT enforcing rules simply rewards the fencer most willing to break them! Can you deny that this WILL (more often, than not) affect the bout?!? And, perhaps, more importantly OTHER bouts, as other fencers and/or officials are (almost) always watching, and many will tend to integrate what they see, and often imperfectly: if they do not understand why a call is made/or not made, it will often result in their making the same call (or rather NON-call) in similar, yet distinctly different situations. (Not that this phenomenon is linited to this infraction, it is quite pervasive across many issues of infraction and priority.)

And finally, just to make you job as a referee, just a little more challenging; it should be noted that the rules reads (in english)
"In foil it is forbidden, during the course of fencing, to advance the shoulder of the non-sword arm in front of the shoulder of the sword-arm."

Which implies that doing it while retreating might be allowed; in French, t.46 reads
"Au fleuret, il est interdit, au cours du combat, de porter l'épaule du bras non armé en avant de l'épaule du bras armé"

Which, of course means little to me, being unschooled in French; but the AltaVista translator yields "With the foil, it is prohibited, during the combat, to carry the shoulder of the arm not armed in front of the shoulder with the armed arm."

This could certainly be another reason why people might feel they are seeing inconsistent enforcement of the rule.!

Personally, before they changed the rule, I never really even tried to do this move much (at that point, I pretty much had my hands full trying to not get hit, and not run into the other guy), and while, now, I probably could integrate this move into my technique, I don't do it now, and I expect others to not do it, and I expect referees to tell them, when they are.


Have a nice day!

[DHCJr]

The reason for the rule can be said in one word, SAFETY. The last death we had in fencing was because of that action. I hope I get the name spelled right. A German Foil Fencer named Behr, who is not little by any means would wind up and then using his whole body to drive the blade forward. The blade broke and went straight through the mask. The FIE used a computer to analysis the force of that blow. It was determined if his opponent had a solid 1/8" steel plate in front of the mask, it still would have not stopped the blade.

The rule was immediately applied from that point on.

[Tomas N]

I like the logic Donald. But why does it then only apply in foil?

Tomas

[Chris]

Originally posted by DHCJr
The reason for the rule can be said in one word, SAFETY.

Donald, this COULD be a good reason, (if you turn in this way, and keep your arm up, you ARE exposing the 'off-side', which, supposedly is much less protected by your jacket, and lack of underarm protector), but A. your logic doesn't support the actions taken, and B. neither do your facts;

The last death we had in fencing was because of that action. I hope I get the name spelled right. A German Foil Fencer named Behr, who is not little by any means would wind up and then using his whole body to drive the blade forward. The blade broke and went straight through the mask. The FIE used a computer to analysis the force of that blow. It was determined if his opponent had a solid 1/8" steel plate in front of the mask, it still would have not stopped the blade.

(TTBOMK) Smirnov was A. killed in '82, several years before this rule change was instituted, B. was NOT doing this move, nor was Behr; Furthermore, C. (even though, arguably, foil blades break more often, and the fencers tend to be in closer proximity) this safety issue would indicate the rule should be applied in epee, as well, which it has not been.

The rule was immediately applied from that point on.

No, I don't beleive it was: I was fencing fairly actively in the 80's up through '86 Nationals in NY, and then took about 2 years off, returning to full involvement in January of '89: the change took place in that time that I was not fencing; it's possible that the Smirnov-Behr accident, along with several other incidents in the preceding couple of years, in which two other foilists died gave rise to a re-evaluation process of safety issues, but I do not beleive this rule change can be directly attributed to the Smirnov-Behr accident; and it most certainly was NOT implemented immediately afterwards.

(Please be more correct in the future.)

Additionally, if your statement regarding the testing of blades on steel plate is accurate, it would imply that even the masks we have now are totally vulnerable...I would like to know if you have access to the source documentation.

Have a Nice Day!

[CarlKnoch]

Originally posted by DHCJr
It was determined if his opponent had a solid 1/8" steel plate in front of the mask, it still would have not stopped the blade.

I find that EXTREMELY hard to believe. The strength of 1/8" thick steel not being able to stop a thrust from a person using a foil? While I'm no engineer, I'm sure that it would be quite impossible to push a foil blade through a thick peice of steel like that.

Sounds like a story to frighten the children to me.

[DHCJr]

I do admit, what I stated is second-hand. I also do not have documentation. This is what I was told by Dan DeChaine who was there and did see the bout. I do not believe he was involved with the computer simulation. I think it was what was reported in a SEMI meeting. I should have used the word simulation in my previous posting. No testing with an actual blade was done.

I was not the one that said it was only Foil. I thought it was all three, but I do not know the T rules as well as the O and M, so I did not say anything.

I believe it was in the late 80's, not 82. Does anyone else have a confirmation on the date.

I did not say it made it into the rules immediately, but was applied. I should have said by the FIE. The USFA would not have applied it until it made it into the rules.

I will be seeing Dan this weekend and will check if he has any documentation.

CarlKnoch - I agree with you a 'thrust' would not go through a 1/8" steel plate. If it was only a thrust with the arm, I can not see it going through. But what I was told it wasn't just the arm. it was the whole body behind that hit.

[axelbcorlu]

Carl, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. Even a non-broken blade has more power behind it than most bullets (despite the difference in speed at the time of impact). Once the blade breaks, add the already existing strength behind it to the much more devastating one created by the snapping motion of the blade itself, and you have a tremendous force coming at you. A kevlar "bullet-proof" vest might not stop that, I believe. It has been a while since I read the exact physics of this, so if anyone has seen anything on it can put a link here, that would refresh our memory...

[veeco]

Originally posted by axelbcorlu
Carl, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. Even a non-broken blade has more power behind it than most bullets (despite the difference in speed at the time of impact). Once the blade breaks, add the already existing strength behind it to the much more devastating one created by the snapping motion of the blade itself, and you have a tremendous force coming at you. A kevlar "bullet-proof" vest might not stop that, I believe. It has been a while since I read the exact physics of this, so if anyone has seen anything on it can put a link here, that would refresh our memory...

Yes, the best bullet-proof vests cannot stop a jagged broken blade from penetrating. That's because the edge of the blade will basically push the fibers of the fabric aside instead of tearing them. If you think about it, a needle has to be able to go through for sewing the different pieces of fabric together...

[Chris]

Originally posted by RF
Defensive much???

oh, I'm sorry, so it's ok to be a dick if I say "I think?"

It's OK, with me, if you want to be a dick; though I can't believe you'd bother to ask now, after the fact!

I'm glad you've dealt with "people like me" before. So you understand why I think you're a dick? I'm not sure what's sadder, that you cared enough to actually look up the information pertinent to your argument, or that you actually knew where to look.

What I meant was that people seem to believe something they hear, especially if they hear it repeated, and then think anyone else who says different is some kind of jerk for making waves. I see nothing wrong with wanting people to have correct information; I know I want correct information.

If Don feels/felt I was disrespectful to him, he is welcome to let me know; that certainly wasn't my intent: things can read a little harsher in black and white print than they are intended to.

But, what would really be sad is, that it might appear that I actually care what you think about me: after your behavior, nothing could be farther from the truth.

However, I would like to point out that A. I really DIDN'T need to look it up, my recollection proved accurate enough; and B. out of respect for Don (yes, I imagine this probably seems hypocritical to you...), as he usually seems to be more 'on target', I wanted to check before I contradicted him in this forum.

A couple simple searches on google got me what I was looking for. It wasn't hard.

You're still a dick!

Oh, you repeated it; That must really mean something...

[DHCJr]

Chris,

I want everyone to know I did not feel you were disrespectful. I feel I did not explain what I was trying to say properly. Looking back over what I said, I never stated clearly that the Safety issue was only for the opponent. I saw why from what I wrote where it could be seen that way.

I went to Google and found the same information. I will need to rethink what I said.

Sorry about any misunderstanding,

[Chris]

Originally posted by DHCJr
(snip)

I did not say it made it into the rules immediately, but was applied. I should have said by the FIE. The USFA would not have applied it until it made it into the rules.

Yes, the USFA usually takes a year to implement documented FIE rule changes, so they can try to disseminate a consistent interpretation, and try to get them uniformly enforced at the same time across the country.

I will be seeing Dan this weekend and will check if he has any documentation.

If Dan was actually there, I'd be curious to know if he (or anyone else), can confirm the phrase action that was used: My understanding of the pivot/step-in move is that it tends, actually to lower the velocity of the blade (relative to the opponent), and, is used, in fact to avoid the riposte. I'd be very interested to know who attacked, and how, and who did what move.

CarlKnoch - I agree with you a 'thrust' would not go through a 1/8" steel plate. If it was only a thrust with the arm, I can not see it going through. But what I was told it wasn't just the arm. it was the whole body behind that hit.

Well, certainly, in one sense, whether the mass of the body is behind the point can make some diiference, but it is the 'springiness' of the blade that absorbs the energy in bending, and then, suddenly releases it, when the blade breaks, leaving the stiffer part of the blade to snap back straight(er), with a sharp, or very sharp, end on it.

Since it's likely that the fencer has a fairly firm grasp of the handle, (or the blade probably wouldn't be breaking to begin with), then it has a stable enough foundation for the 'snap-back' to have a good shot a penetrating something that might happen to be in front of it. If there IS penetration, I imagine the body dynamics behind the blade will have great affect on whether it stays superficial, or goes deep.

[Jupiter]

Why does it only apply to foil? Is the question. I have no historical, official reply. But in looking at this from a purely fencing perspective; it may be for many reasons: foilists do like to try to twist their way out of things - i did the very same thing in foil, it's irresistable! The foilist is trying desperatly to protect one tiny little target - it seems so unjust! but, what can we do Justice prevails in Epee - the fencer doesnt' stand a chance to twist or not to twist, it matters not! the target, being the entire enchillada is vast, large, unable to be disguised!!! In sabre; the fencer has the head, the arms as well as the torso to supply the adversary with plenty of space with which to do harm!!!

ALAS Poor Yoric, I knew Him Well!
[I went mad again, don't worry!]