Timeline of decisions on proposed rule changes for foil and sabre

[Epeecurean]

I thought I'd post this as a follow-up to the thread Peter Gustafsson started on ROW but that thread seems to have disappeared...

Anyway, according to this FIE schedule of meetings, the Ad Hoc Commission for Foil and Sabre will be submitting its report at the World Championships in Havanna on October 3, 2003. Then the Executive Committee, the Rules Commission, and finally the Congress will be presumably making a decision on the report at their meeting in Leipzig on November 20-23, 2003. Any decision on rules changes would likely not be implemented till the start of 2005 (i.e. after the Olympic year).

FIE Meetings and Events for 2003

As you may know, here are the changes being evaluated by the ad hoc committee:

"The Congress [Epeecurean notes: Havanna 2001] has decided that some proposals regarding foil and sabre will be submitted to tests in laboratories or in competition, to be made in the presence of members of an ad hoc committee and to be filmed. The conclusions of the Commission must be reached by March 31, 2002 and Antalya’s General Assembly will be authorised to make a decision on the proposals below [Epeecurean notes: the ad hoc committee did not complete its report in time for Antalya so it was deferred to 2003]:

Commission ad hoc composed of: Arthur Cramer(President), Marcello Baiocco, Ralf Bissdorf, Mihai Covaliu, Stephan Haukler, Steve Higginson, Emmanuel Katsiadakis, Tamas Kovacs, Grzegorek Krzysztof, Gilbert Lefin, Andrea Magro, Ioan Pop, David Tyshler and Edoardo Mangiarotti as member of honour.

a) Distance between the two competitors when taking one’s guard. That the referee places each of the two competitors in such a way that their rear foot touches the on guard lines.

b) Foil
– Reversing the line of shoulders of the non sword arm in front of the sword arm shoulder;
– That the hit made off the target is not registered by the apparatus; it is therefore not considered as a hit, it does not stop the fencing phrase and does not cancel subsequent hits;
– that the blocking time be reduced (to be determined);
– That the impact time be increased (to be determined);
– That the step forward crossing the legs, the fleche attack and any movement forward crossing the legs are forbidden; any offence will be penalized as specified in articles t.114, t.116 and t.120; any hit correctly executed by his opponent will be counted;
– that the electric sabre mask be used at foil, thus making it valid area.

c) Sabre
– That the blocking time of the second lamp be reduced (to be determined). The counterattack will be valid when only one lamp is on. When both lamps are on, the attack will be valid."

You can find this text on p. 5 of the following pdf of Escrime International:

Decisions of the 2001 Congress

This might make an interesting poll on fencing.net

Cheers!
Epeecurean

[Wizardly]

I'll limit my remarks to foil, since it is my weapon of choice...
Thankfully, at teh very least, we have a while yet before things have to change (note the choice of wording instead of "improve").

1) What about reversing the shoulders in foil? What're they going to do? Repeal the rule? Make it a second group offense? What? More importantly, why?

2) What're they trying to accomplish with this?

3) Faster ripostes yeah yeah. Not sure I see the logic behind establish a quantitative definition of "fencing time."

5) Okay, so we're going to pick up the speed of the action by items 1 and 3, but then we're going to make crossovers illegal. Throw in 6. Wow, we now have saberfoil. The epeeists are trying to get rid of ROW and make epeefoil. It's starting to feel like the FIE just doesn't like foil anymore.

6) Yeah, a shot to the face would be lethal. I'm a little light on the history as to why the mask was excluded in the first place. Can anybody fill me in? The possibilities are interesting...it would be quite a radical change!

[SJB]

a) Distance between the two competitors when taking one’s guard. That the referee places each of the two competitors in such a way that their rear foot touches the on guard lines.

So now you'll have people attacking like crazy straight away.This,as pointed out,will make foil like sabre and sabre well...crazy.

b) Foil
– Reversing the line of shoulders of the non sword arm in front of the sword arm shoulder;
– That the hit made off the target is not registered by the apparatus; it is therefore not considered as a hit, it does not stop the fencing phrase and does not cancel subsequent hits;
– that the blocking time be reduced (to be determined);
– That the impact time be increased (to be determined);
– That the step forward crossing the legs, the fleche attack and any movement forward crossing the legs are forbidden; any offence will be penalized as specified in articles t.114, t.116 and t.120; any hit correctly executed by his opponent will be counted;
– that the electric sabre mask be used at foil, thus making it valid area.

I'm not sure how you can put your non sword arm in front of your sword arm shoulder without covering target.
Elminating off taget would speed things up a bit I suppose.
As for the time changes,harder to land a whip with impact time increased.As for blocking time I'm unsure of it's definition.
Banning the fleche in foil is un-called for.It's not like people are getting killed or hurt from fleches like Sabre years ago.
As for the sabre mask used in foil,great now you'll have these idiots trained to attack your throat.Brilliant.

Everytime the FIE proposes changes I'm less and less convinced it's for the good of the sport and more convinced it's for the old "classical" style men in charge of the FIE and to make the referees job easier.Rather then say,bring in cameras to determine actions.Or better train the referees.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

the proposed foil changes sound like it would be a great NEW FREAKING WEAPON to check out, might be fun to try out once or twice....

but... really doesn't seem to make that much sense for the most part--

other than the off target thing. that might be good.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by SJB
Everytime the FIE proposes changes I'm less and less convinced it's for the good of the sport and more convinced it's for the old "classical" style men in charge of the FIE and to make the referees job easier.

As Ed McMahon used to say, "You are CORRECT, sir!"

[Wizardly]

SJB,
blocking time is the time interval after the first hit before the box blocks any further inputs. Other threads suggest that this time will be between 450 and 250 milliseconds. My guess is that reducing the blocking time will only exclude slower (albeit composed) attacks, while also eliminating many incidental hits (such as attack off target, remise on target).

As for establishing a new weapon, you're in many ways right. Proliferation of nuance...and this sport has only recently (and grudgingly) fully adopted all three weapons for both genders.

I feel like dishing out some retribution; why don't we just apply all these new rules to epee instead of foil...simply remove the arms as target and remove the fleche' from epee. They've gotten bye far too long without having to buy a lame' like the rest of us, IMHO. How tolerant do you think the epee community would be if the basic nature of their sport were changed?

I forgot, the closer on-guard...rear foot on the line... favors the taller. I wonder if starting in a lunge and making an immediate redouble would be useful. What if both fencers start in this position? Wont they be too close? Remember teh justification for removal of crossover for saber? Too many simultaneous quick-starts, action happenning too fast, etc...and we're going to make it faster by starting closer? Wow, someone had their head someplace the sun don't shine when they came up with this idea.

[JEC]

Originally posted by Wizardly
I feel like dishing out some retribution; why don't we just apply all these new rules to epee instead of foil...simply remove the arms as target and remove the fleche' from epee. They've gotten bye far too long without having to buy a lame' like the rest of us, IMHO. How tolerant do you think the epee community would be if the basic nature of their sport were changed?

Epee would remain the weapon closer to dueling rapiers. No tweaking is necessary. The complexity of ROW weapon rules entices FIE officials to outsmart each other. Let's keep complaining, so that they continue to "perfect" the artificial weapons.

Foil is art, Sabre is theater, and Epee is truth.

[afc fencer]

Uggggg, why do they have to keep changing things. Sabre is good the way it is now. It ain't broke so why are they trying to fix it?

[R. Exnicios]

Freakishly
Illogical
Europeans

[dreadfoil]

It seems almost futile to protest anything, we may as well start practicing without the halt. I did a little foil fencing the other night, we halted for the off targets, and then fenced, and did a little non-halting for off targets. What it really boils down to the the fencers ability to perceive what's going on. It does speed things up, but if that's the reason behind it, how will speeding the bout up make foil a more beautiful sport?

[wflaschka]

This is fascinating reading. I find myself agreeing with many of the Foil proposals.


- Reversing the line of shoulders of the non sword arm in front of the sword arm shoulder;

Thumbs up. I've never really noticed reversed-shoulders causing a problem. We already have rules against covering target and corps-a-corps.


- That the hit made off the target is not registered by the apparatus; it is therefore not considered as a hit, it does not stop the fencing phrase and does not cancel subsequent hits;

Thumbs up. I'm really, really looking forward to this. There were some past threads on this idea.


- that the blocking time be reduced (to be determined);

Thumbs up. With this rule change, defenders will be able to stop-hit slow attacks. This means attackers will have to be tighter and more point-oriented. This means lazy fencers can no longer pusillanimously hide behind the textual definition of an attack when they make long, continuous, slow, clumsy attacks that finish with a flick to the tailbone.


- That the impact time be increased (to be determined);

Thumbs up. There are too many nonsense touches in foil; prolonging the tip-down time during a hit will ensure that the touches are actually good touches. Flickers won't be impacted by this change; whip-flickers will lose their whole game. Mu-haha.


- That the step forward crossing the legs, the fleche attack and any movement forward crossing the legs are forbidden; any offence will be penalized as specified in articles t.114, t.116 and t.120; any hit correctly executed by his opponent will be counted;

Thumbs up. I'd be sad to see the fleche go. However, its removal from Sabre footwork has given Sabre a fascinating distance game that frankly didn't exist with fleching sabre. Sabre footwork is now stunning in its speed, complexity and its demands for sensitivity to tempo even at the lowest levels. I'd love to see this for foil.


- that the electric sabre mask be used at foil, thus making it valid area.

Thumbs sideways. I don't understand the motivations for this. I worry about point-attacks on masks, or flicks to the back of the head -- but Epee has no problem with this. Epee fencers live unjustly long lives, so it must be safe. Good-bye septime lifts!



Lots of these rule changes seem engineered to:

[1] Elongate fencing phrases. The moves which conclude an action -- fleches, cross-overs (that too-often end in corps-a-corps), shoulder turning, off-targets -- these moves are getting deleted. The result is that an action will stop if and when an actual touch is scored. Nice.

[2] Improve fencing form. Some people care about whether fencing looks beautiful. I don't care, personally, but I find that a beauteous form naturally improves fencing results. Now, off-targets are no longer rewarded. Glancing hits aren't rewarded. Fast-timed actions that hit solidly and on-target are rewarded.

[3] Reduce the effectiveness of hesitatory or late-arriving attacks. You know those yucky marching attacks -- long galloping steps, hand arcing up, flopping down, hitting the shoulder. Sure, they're continuous, sure, they're fun... but the current rules make these attacks artificially effective. With the boxes giving more consideration to stop-hits, marching attacks will be more difficult.

[Wizardly]

- Reversing the line of shoulders of the non sword arm in front of the sword arm shoulder;

Thumbs down A fencer can now allow his back shoulder to entire face his opponent. The seam of a front-zip lame is now exposed, allowing for greater probability of off target. The back arm is always in the way, even when it is straight up, straight out, it is always conceivably obstruction some action of the opponent's blade, unless the fencer has no back arm, and I sure as hell am not going to cut mine off. However, I have no objection to allowing a fencer to reverse the line of his shoulders so long as the plane of his shoulders continuously face the opponent , i.e. as an opponent runs bye or later. I assume this is not allowed; I assume crossing the shoulders was with respect to the opponent and not the strip.

- That the hit made off the target is not registered by the apparatus; it is therefore not considered as a hit, it does not stop the fencing phrase and does not cancel subsequent hits;

Thumbs Down Unlike saber with fairly continuous target area (no off-target arms) past a certain point of the body (hips up), and fewer passe attcks, foil will be FAR more prone to jabbing with no clear ROW. Furthermore, hits to covered target will not be recognized when they occur. Actions will happen much sooner, and the incidence of corps-a-corps will (conceivably) increase when fencers are unable to clear their blades from outside teh target area and must run through the opponent or be hit.

- that the blocking time be reduced (to be determined);

Thumbs Down If a defender has enough time to stop-hit a slow attack, the defender has enough time to effect a defense and riposte. This is the essence of ROW. Either that, or the defender must make it 1-light. This is an unnecessary change. It ain't broke, don't fix it. However, I do agree that the interpretation of an attack needs to be changed. Changing "extending" to "extended" would have solved the whole flick problem right there.

- That the impact time be increased (to be determined);

Thumbs up I do think flicking is a bit overused, and with lack of clarity where directors are concerned, should be curtailed. This is the only effective means I can think of beyond the actual use of epees to stop the flick (an idea I'm not a fan of either). This seems to be a well thought out idea, provided that the evidence is accurate and straight attacks are not inhibited say 95% of the time.

- That the step forward crossing the legs, the fleche attack and any movement forward crossing the legs are forbidden; any offence will be penalized as specified in articles t.114, t.116 and t.120; any hit correctly executed by his opponent will be counted;

Thumbs down Just because it's had an attractive effect on saber (to those of such an opinion), does not mean that character should be shared among the other weapons. The three weapons do NOT necessarily need to be homogenized in every respect but the target. Furthermore, the fleche is not a dominant move in foil as it was in saber. This change is not necessary, either to establish right of way, for safety, etc...

- that the electric sabre mask be used at foil, thus making it valid area.

Thumbs down Why??? What is the justification for this? Why is it necessary to make the face a target area? Why undo DECADES of tradition for this whim? Why magnify the expense to foilists? Again, why homogenize the weapons?

[wflaschka]

Good points, Wizardly!!

In the thread Abolish off targets stopping the action in foil? I try to give a bunch of reasons why removing the off-target would improve fencing.

Originally posted by Wizardly
- that the blocking time be reduced (to be determined);

Thumbs Down If a defender has enough time to stop-hit a slow attack, the defender has enough time to effect a defense and riposte. This is the essence of ROW. Either that, or the defender must make it 1-light. This is an unnecessary change. It ain't broke, don't fix it. However, I do agree that the interpretation of an attack needs to be changed. Changing "extending" to "extended" would have solved the whole flick problem right there.

Presently, a fencer can view an oncoming attack, decide to counter, place a stop-hit, do a retreat, duck, and still lose the touch. That's two body displacements and an arm movement, for a combination that would stop a real-life attack dead, and it's not being rewarded for some reason. For all we know, it's because we're using standards from old technology; maybe vacuum tubes from the 1950's couldn't measure the time difference adequately. In my view, it's broken but fixable.

For what it's worth, these changes aren't whims. They are heavily discussed ideas put up for testing by people skilled in the art. Proposed in 2001, these changes have been (alledgedly) evaluated at high-level competitions, and may go into effect in 2005. That's 4 years to discover the ramifications of a 250 milisecond scoring-box change. The sport of fencing which I came to love was also a result of the FIE decision process; change is interesting.

I'm looking forward to seeing these changes in action. Longer actions, because all the normal things that stop a bout (off targets, corps-a-corps, running past opponent) have been smoothed away. More emphasis on precision blade-work, because off-targets don't make you safe anymore, and hitting near (but not on) the lame leads to a high S.O.L. factor. More hitting from distance, because opponents can't run up your leg, and if they do they get eliminated early. Less sabre-like feeling because arc attacks hit less often than point attacks. Marching attacks that are controlled, thereby safe from counter-time, and (for once) definitive.

[edew]

Originally posted by Wizardly
[...]

- That the hit made off the target is not registered by the apparatus; it is therefore not considered as a hit, it does not stop the fencing phrase and does not cancel subsequent hits;

Thumbs Down Unlike saber with fairly continuous target area (no off-target arms) past a certain point of the body (hips up), and fewer passe attcks, foil will be FAR more prone to jabbing with no clear ROW. Furthermore, hits to covered target will not be recognized when they occur. Actions will happen much sooner, and the incidence of corps-a-corps will (conceivably) increase when fencers are unable to clear their blades from outside teh target area and must run through the opponent or be hit.

While your hypothesis sounds rational, the practice does not match your hypothesis. The elimination of the off-target light will not do much to change foil fencing. Fencers will not be more inclined to try to use their sword-arm to cover target. Moving your arm to try to block is quite cumbersome and slow, compared to the movement of the blade. The square-on hits to off-targets are obvious to both fencers, and so the attacker who makes such a hit will (after some training) be prepared and realize that it's not going to stop the action, and so will be ready to make counter-parry ripostes.

On the other hand, there are glancing off-targets that also hit on. Those will now be just "on-target" and thus gives the attacker his due.

I've fenced in a tournament without the off-target lights and I will say that it won't degenerate into jabbing for first light.

- that the blocking time be reduced (to be determined);

Thumbs Down If a defender has enough time to stop-hit a slow attack, the defender has enough time to effect a defense and riposte. This is the essence of ROW. Either that, or the defender must make it 1-light. This is an unnecessary change. It ain't broke, don't fix it. However, I do agree that the interpretation of an attack needs to be changed. Changing "extending" to "extended" would have solved the whole flick problem right there.

Read my comment of Walter's reply to this issue.

- That the impact time be increased (to be determined);

Thumbs up I do think flicking is a bit overused, and with lack of clarity where directors are concerned, should be curtailed. This is the only effective means I can think of beyond the actual use of epees to stop the flick (an idea I'm not a fan of either). This seems to be a well thought out idea, provided that the evidence is accurate and straight attacks are not inhibited say 95% of the time.

Don't know exactly how this will pan out. They might eventually determine that the impact time couldn't be much more than the present for the fencers to accept the change. Many fencers react quite quickly after the hit.

- That the step forward crossing the legs, the fleche attack and any movement forward crossing the legs are forbidden; any offence will be penalized as specified in articles t.114, t.116 and t.120; any hit correctly executed by his opponent will be counted;

Thumbs down Just because it had an attractive effect on saber (to those of such an opinion), does not mean that character should be shared among the other weapons. The three weapons do NOT necessarily need to be homogenized in every respect but the target. Furthermore, the fleche is not a dominant move in foil as it was in saber. This change is not necessary, either to establish right of way, for safety, etc...

Agree. It's not as though foil fencers are cross-stepping or fleching like they're going out of fashion. Many fleches are calculated moves. I never see foil fencers (of any good caliber) advance with a cross-step. Only beginning fencers ever advance crossing the feet. They think it's an "advanced" step because it's usually taught after the basic advance.

- that the electric sabre mask be used at foil, thus making it valid area.

Thumbs down Why??? What is the justification for this? Why is it necessary to make the face a target area? Why undo DECADES of tradition for this whim? Why magnify the expense to foilists? Again, why homogenize the weapons? [/b]

Agree as well. What the? I'll just aim to the upper chest and force my opponent to sweep the attack onto the mask. I also worry about the danger of constant pummeling of the mask with straight shots.

Epee fencers as a rule don't go for the mask. That makes sense, as the mask is quite far away from other available target. It's the third of all possible targets. However, in foil, it would be a common target because it's no further back than the torso, and indeed is usually closer to the opponent's blade than many other parts of the body. That makes the mask a prime target area and the constant jabbing onto it will make serious safety problems. Swacks and cuts in sabre to the mask don't yield the same stress to the mask.

[edew]

Originally posted by wflaschka
Good points, Wizardly!!

[...]

Presently, a fencer can view an oncoming attack, decide to counter, place a stop-hit, do a retreat, duck, and still lose the touch. That's two body displacements and an arm movement, for a combination that would stop a real-life attack dead, and it's not being rewarded for some reason. For all we know, it's because we're using standards from old technology; maybe vacuum tubes from the 1950's couldn't measure the time difference adequately. In my view, it's broken but fixable.

If a fencer can make a stop-hit, retreat, and duck and not get the call, then it's clearly a problem with the refereeing, not with the lock-out timing or anything.

[Wizardly]

Originally posted by wflaschka
Presently, a fencer can view an oncoming attack, decide to counter, place a stop-hit, do a retreat, duck, and still lose the touch. That's two body displacements and an arm movement, for a combination that would stop a real-life attack dead, and it's not being rewarded for some reason. For all we know, it's because we're using standards from old technology; maybe vacuum tubes from the 1950's couldn't measure the time difference adequately. In my view, it's broken but fixable.

At some point, a parry would have been a good idea. For sake of hypothetical argument, let's always assume that if there isn't one space of fencing time between the stop-hit and attack landing, your opponent would have killed you with is dying breath. I for one am not willing to find out if two quick displacements (note: which failed to elude the attack) following a stop hit would have prevented the other guy from killing me anyway. Perhaps you should double-retreat instead and force your opponent to add a period of fencing time. How about a retreat-jump-back? And for goodness sake, if we're talking about real life, DEFEND YOUR TARGET AND PARRY! ROW is there to penalize a lacking defense; if you still got hit, you didn't defend. One other point to consider. A parry has the right to riposte...at any speed. Some ripostes are longer than .350 seconds if a remise in countertime lands on target.

The sport of fencing which I came to love was also a result of the FIE decision process; change is interesting.

Indeed. Change is interesting. Evolution has yielded us an interesting sport to say the least, if not one torn between it's past and it's future. However, I think the FIE should be very careful about evolving the sport into whole new species than it was originally. Fluid changes are one thing, like the change in the length of bouts, and the passivity rule. Sharp corners, like crossover abolishment in saber, or any of the essential character alterations like mask targets in foil, tend to greatly upset things. Change can be good; I don't debate this. But we should be neither too willing nor too affraid of change, especially without dialogue. I wonder how good a feel of the fencing community the FIE has at times.

I'm looking forward to seeing these changes in action. Longer actions, because all the normal things that stop a bout (off targets, corps-a-corps, running past opponent) have been smoothed away.

The director must still halt the bout when fencing become dangerous, confused, or contrary to the rules. I doubt actions will be longer so much as they will be more confused after teh initial actions.

More emphasis on precision blade-work, because off-targets don't make you safe anymore, and hitting near (but not on) the lame leads to a high S.O.L. factor.

Why artificially emphasize a concept that is up utmost importance anyway? It's not as though an attack is made intentionally off target when arriving on target is the goal. Counterattacking may even become more prevalent since an attack off target does not half the action while a counterattack on target scores an uncontested point. How is the director, apparently unable to discern if actions are too late (as evidenced by the decreased blocking time), going to catch a hit to covered target without always having hand judges?

More hitting from distance, because opponents can't run up your leg, and if they do they get eliminated early. Less sabre-like feeling because arc attacks hit less often than point attacks. Marching attacks that are controlled, thereby safe from counter-time, and (for once) definitive.

You lost me at this point. I'm not sure what you're concluding here. It's late, so I'm nto really trackign well. Please elaborate.

[Wizardly]

Originally posted by edew
While your hypothesis sounds rational, the practice does not match your hypothesis. The elimination of the off-target light will not do much to change foil fencing. Fencers will not be more inclined to try to use their sword-arm to cover target. Moving your arm to try to block is quite cumbersome and slow, compared to the movement of the blade. The square-on hits to off-targets are obvious to both fencers, and so the attacker who makes such a hit will (after some training) be prepared and realize that it's not going to stop the action, and so will be ready to make counter-parry ripostes.

On the other hand, there are glancing off-targets that also hit on. Those will now be just "on-target" and thus gives the attacker his due.

Actually, I don't mean to say that the non-weapon arm will be placed in front of a specific attack. I'm talking about an arm that is in general in the target area and gets hit. Normally, such an off target will be counted as a valid touch, but because the director may only use the scoring appratus to determine the materiality of a touch, he/she is cannot award such touches if off targets do not halt the action.

Not all hits to off target are so clear cut. Hits just at the edge of the lame, for example, are not so easily discerned. And you are right, off-to-on hits will now be valid. Hits that do not find their way on target are not always so easy to spot. I can say that on occasion, I've made a reflexive valid hit, parry, counter-riposte, also valid, and lost the ROW because the director did not see the first valid hit. I would not like to make a habit out of this due to the necessity of such a reflex when I was unable to tell if I was off target or not. Furthermore, most skin puncturing injuries I've recieved have been due to hits off-target. I am VERY thankful for the halt in the action.

It might have been interesting if the FIE had instead posed the rule that attacks that hit both off and on target during the same action should be counted as valid. Frankly, i agree, the attacker should be given his due as he did succeed in finding the target uncontested by any defense, even if during the course of that one action he eventually hits off target as well. Two separate actions shouldn't halt the action.

I am not wholly opposed to removing off target halts, but I fail to see how removing them is technically feasible unless the back arm and hand is also made valid target. I'm not very keen on such a change. Other than that, eh, I could grudgingly live with changing what halts the action.

I've fenced in a tournament without the off-target lights and I will say that it won't degenerate into jabbing for first light.[/b]

What about at lower levels of fencing, in the trenches among the U's, who are not so well trained, and who do already jab when no target is found on the first attack? The director, in these cases, will have to call halt due to the recklessness rather than the white light hits. You're right, this wont happen at the upper levels, but I'm more worried about the local level events.

You make some very good points about the saber mask issue. it's also ironic, really, given then FIE's whim on changing mask requirements for the Olympics to PC shielded visors. Foil, even moreso than saber, will never be able to use such masks if the face becomes target. Please, somebody tell me what they were thinking here?

[wflaschka]

edew
If a fencer