Covering target

I could look this up, but this newsgroup has been so lame lately we
could use the traffic.

Fencer A covers target while hitting fencer B. Yellow card for A, touch
is annulled, correct?

Fencer A--who has a yellow card--covers target while getting hit valid
by Fencer B. Red card for A, but does the valid touch count as well? In
other words, two touches for B, or one?

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:05:59 GMT, Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com>
wrote:

> I could look this up, but this newsgroup has been so lame lately we
> could use the traffic.
>
> Fencer A covers target while hitting fencer B. Yellow card for A, touch
> is annulled, correct?

No. Yellow card, touch for A is awarded.

> Fencer A--who has a yellow card--covers target while getting hit valid
> by Fencer B. Red card for A, but does the valid touch count as well? In
> other words, two touches for B, or one?

Two touches for B.

-Mark-

Fencer A cannot score on an illegal action. The correct call in the initial
example is yellow cardfor A and A's touch is annulled. If this were not
true, then in foil I could score on while commiting corps a corps, or while
parrying with my off-weapon hand.

In the second example, I would consider, as a director, "why did I call
halt?" Was it because I saw an infraction, or because I saw a touch? I am
leary of "2-point plays", things are rarely simultaneous.

--
Roach - Insert witticism here

"Mark C. Orton" <ortonmc+rsf@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3ef3b5d0.900726@news.verizon.net...
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:05:59 GMT, Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I could look this up, but this newsgroup has been so lame lately we
> > could use the traffic.
> >
> > Fencer A covers target while hitting fencer B. Yellow card for A, touch
> > is annulled, correct?
>
> No. Yellow card, touch for A is awarded.
>
> > Fencer A--who has a yellow card--covers target while getting hit valid
> > by Fencer B. Red card for A, but does the valid touch count as well? In
> > other words, two touches for B, or one?
>
> Two touches for B.
>
> -Mark-

In rec.sport.fencing on Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:44:09 -0400
Roach <theroach_nospam@apk.net> wrote:
> Fencer A cannot score on an illegal action. The correct call in the initial
> example is yellow cardfor A and A's touch is annulled. If this were not
> true, then in foil I could score on while commiting corps a corps, or while
> parrying with my off-weapon hand.
>

Hrm.. A covers target, but nothing is said about what B is doing.

If B stands there with the foil tip pointing straight backwards, and A
has the off hand covering a bit of their own torso, does A's touch get
annulled?

Or only if B's tip is trying to hit A's torso and A's hand gets in the
way, so B hits off target?

Is A's action illegal of itself, or only if it stops B's score?

Zebee

"Roach" <theroach_nospam@apk.net> wrote in message
news:bd38qo$itc$1@plonk.apk.net
> Fencer A cannot score on an illegal action. The correct call in the
> initial example is yellow cardfor A and A's touch is annulled. If
> this were not true, then in foil I could score on while commiting
> corps a corps, or while parrying with my off-weapon hand.

Sorry, but you're mistaken. The rule book clearly specifies which
"fouls" require annulling the touch and which don't.

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

That's an interpretation of covering target (when/where) rather than how
cards/points are annulled given it has occurred.

A valid question - but not the original one.

j

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> In rec.sport.fencing on Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:44:09 -0400
> Roach <theroach_nospam@apk.net> wrote:
> > Fencer A cannot score on an illegal action. The correct call in the initial
> > example is yellow cardfor A and A's touch is annulled. If this were not
> > true, then in foil I could score on while commiting corps a corps, or while
> > parrying with my off-weapon hand.
> >
>
> Hrm.. A covers target, but nothing is said about what B is doing.
>
> If B stands there with the foil tip pointing straight backwards, and A
> has the off hand covering a bit of their own torso, does A's touch get
> annulled?
>
> Or only if B's tip is trying to hit A's torso and A's hand gets in the
> way, so B hits off target?
>
> Is A's action illegal of itself, or only if it stops B's score?
>
> Zebee

I heard recently that all offences cause annullment, in the past I thought
it was only some - is or isn't it true since we now have two conflicting
opinions?

james

Dirk Goldgar wrote:

> "Roach" <theroach_nospam@apk.net> wrote in message
> news:bd38qo$itc$1@plonk.apk.net
> > Fencer A cannot score on an illegal action. The correct call in the
> > initial example is yellow cardfor A and A's touch is annulled. If
> > this were not true, then in foil I could score on while commiting
> > corps a corps, or while parrying with my off-weapon hand.
>
> Sorry, but you're mistaken. The rule book clearly specifies which
> "fouls" require annulling the touch and which don't.
>
> --
>
> Dirk Goldgar
>
> (to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

In rec.sport.fencing on Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:25:39 +1200
James Russell <apo@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
> That's an interpretation of covering target (when/where) rather than how
> cards/points are annulled given it has occurred.
>
> A valid question - but not the original one.
>

So if a body part strays, say a weapon arm, then it's an offence? I'm
trying to visualise being on guard and not having your weapon arm
between your torso and your opponent....

So does "covering target" ever happen if said cover doesn't get in the
way of a touch?

You said you can't score on an illegal action, so is it only illegal if
you stopped someone else scoring, stopped the double touch?
Zebee

NNTP-Posting-Host: news.tranzpeer.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: lust.ihug.co.nz 1056261899 10994 202.180.64.19 (22 Jun 2003 06:04:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@ihug.co.nz
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 06:04:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U)
Cache-Post-Path: radsrv1.tranzpeer.net!unknown@202.180.111.69
X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
Xref: news.freenet.de rec.sport.fencing:51696

> So if a body part strays, say a weapon arm, then it's an offence? I'm
> trying to visualise being on guard and not having your weapon arm
> between your torso and your opponent....
>

There was some talk at FIE a while back about introducing lames on arms, so if
they cover target they become 'live'.

> So does "covering target" ever happen if said cover doesn't get in the
> way of a touch?

From my observation, covering target is invoked
a) if the referee needs a way to spite a fencer
b) if it DID stop a touche
c) if it keeps happening generally ('drifting') - then usually a verbal
warning, followed by card (usually caused by the opponent's incessant
whinging).

> You said you can't score on an illegal action, so is it only illegal if
> you stopped someone else scoring, stopped the double touch?
>

I didn't say anything - did you mean someone earlier? 'illegal' = cardable
offence.

"James Russell" <apo@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3EF53E1B.7254D5FB@slingshot.co.nz
> I heard recently that all offences cause annullment, in the past I
> thought it was only some - is or isn't it true since we now have two
> conflicting opinions?

Only some. This has not changed. Check the rule book. Among the most
common offenses that *don't* cause annullment are covering target and
simple corps-à-corps.

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

In article <3ef3b5d0.900726@news.verizon.net>,
ortonmc+rsf@erols.com (Mark C. Orton) wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:05:59 GMT, Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I could look this up, but this newsgroup has been so lame lately we
> > could use the traffic.
> >
> > Fencer A covers target while hitting fencer B. Yellow card for A, touch
> > is annulled, correct?
>
> No. Yellow card, touch for A is awarded.
>

Yeah, duh on my part. I got this confused with the "falling" provision
(which I know has been changed somewhat in the past year).

> > Fencer A--who has a yellow card--covers target while getting hit valid
> > by Fencer B. Red card for A, but does the valid touch count as well? In
> > other words, two touches for B, or one?
>
> Two touches for B.

I assume this would be along the lines of "If the attack begins before
the covering takes place, two touches for B, but if the covering comes
before the attack begins then the attack is after the action that caused
the halt, so one touch for the red card only."


--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:44:09 -0400, "Roach" <theroach_nospam@apk.net>
wrote:

> Fencer A cannot score on an illegal action. The correct call in the initial
> example is yellow cardfor A and A's touch is annulled. If this were not
> true, then in foil I could score on while commiting corps a corps, or while
> parrying with my off-weapon hand.

This is a popular misconception. It is true that a fencer cannot
score on *some* (in fact, most) illegal actions. It does not follow
that a fencer cannot score on *any* illegal action, and it is in fact
not the case. The rules specify exactly which infractions are
penalized by a card, and which are penalized by a card and anullment
of a touch scored.

See article t.120 in the rules.

> In the second example, I would consider, as a director, "why did I call
> halt?" Was it because I saw an infraction, or because I saw a touch? I am
> leary of "2-point plays", things are rarely simultaneous.

Things are often simultaneous.

Fencing actions are not events that occur at a single moment in time.
They take a period of time, in some cases a significant fraction of a
second, to occur. In addition, you have to consider that there are
two fencers, and each fencer has two legs and (usually) two arms that
are all moving, and these various appendages can all be doing
different things.

It is not at all far-fetched to imagine an action in which A begins an
attack, and at the same time starts to move his back hand forward so
that it is covering target before the attack lands; B retreats while
trying to parry the attack and at the same time sneakily pulls his
bodycord clip off his lame with his back hand, and in the course of
retreating goes off the side of the strip with one foot.

The referee has to consider not just "why did I call the halt?"
(althouth this is still an important question), but "which of these
multiple actions *began* before I called the halt?"

-Mark-

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:11:44 GMT, Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com>
wrote:

> > > Fencer A--who has a yellow card--covers target while getting hit valid
> > > by Fencer B. Red card for A, but does the valid touch count as well? In
> > > other words, two touches for B, or one?
> >
> > Two touches for B.
>
> I assume this would be along the lines of "If the attack begins before
> the covering takes place, two touches for B, but if the covering comes
> before the attack begins then the attack is after the action that caused
> the halt, so one touch for the red card only."

Yes. I was reading the former interpretation into the phrase "while
getting hit".

-Mark-

In article <3EF54848.F80BD7B6@slingshot.co.nz>, James Russell
<apo@slingshot.co.nz> writes:

>whinging

Whinging? Is that singing while whining?

Bill Hall

Fencerbill wrote:
>> whinging
>
> Whinging? Is that singing while whining?


http://english2american.com/dictionary/w.html#whinge


--
John Twernbold
jtwernbold (at) yahoo.com

Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message news:

> Fencer A covers target while hitting fencer B. Yellow card for A, touch
> is annulled, correct?

As has been pointed out extensively, yes. Call "Halt!" issues YC for
A and *write it down on the scoring sheet.*

For those of us in the United States, go read t.22, t.23, t.72.

> Fencer A--who has a yellow card--covers target while getting hit valid
> by Fencer B. Red card for A, but does the valid touch count as well? In
> other words, two touches for B, or one?

The scenario is flawed, given the question asked: IF Fencer B scored
THEN by definition A was NOT covering target, QED. Record touch for B,
say "En garde," and get on with it.

The real concern comes when A, having a YC for CT already, again
covers target and B's touch arrives off-target *as a result* of that
covering. However, t.49 handles this situation nicely:

t.49 (page 21, USFA 1999 rules):

However, touches which arrive off the target are
counted as valid whenever, by reason of an abnormal
position, the fencer has substituted this non-valid
target for the valid target.

Certainly a back arm across the chest is an "abnormal position." Since
the referee is the one who says "A was covering target and B's touch
landed off as a result," the reconstruction of the phrase may not be
disputed.

Hence, we are NOT awarding "Two touches." We are awarding a touch for
the fencer who *should have scored* and imposing a PENALTY on the
offending fencer, for repeating an offence she has already been warned
for.

(Sidebar: similarly, a fencer going off the end of the strip is NOT
PENALIZED; rather her opponent is AWARDED a touch.)

Coaches, do tell your students about this BEFOREHAND, and the result,
so as to prevent the following which recently happened to me while
refereeing:

Fencer A has a YC for CT. A CTs again, in preparation, and B
attacks in A's prep, which lands off-target on the offending arm.
RC for A (touch for B), valid touch recorded for B. Score is now
4-3 in B's favor. Fencer A (a rated competitive fencer) goes
ballistic, tells referee "That's not allowed," calls for a Bout
Committee meeting.

BC upholds my imposition of penalty and awarding touch to B,
and I issue A the RED CARD for "Unjustified Appeal" (t.122).
Bout ends 5-3 in B's favor.

Thus Fencer B, much to her surprise, just scored three points on one
action. A is given a stern talking-to by her coach. (A later
apologized, much chastened; she was quite gracious.)

Cheers,

TC
--

tcate@zoo.uvm.edu (Thom Cate) wrote in
news:4c1bba3.0306260803.48673ea4@posting.google.co m:

>> Fencer A--who has a yellow card--covers target while getting hit
>> valid by Fencer B. Red card for A, but does the valid touch count
>> as well? In other words, two touches for B, or one?
>
> The scenario is flawed, given the question asked: IF Fencer B
> scored THEN by definition A was NOT covering target, QED. Record
> touch for B, say "En garde," and get on with it.

No... Fencer A may not have been covering the exact *spot* of target
that B hit, but A was still *covering target*.

Looking at t.22 and t.23 (as you suggest) tells us:

t.22: "In foil and sabre, it is forbidden to protect the target area
or to substitute another part of the body for the target area, either
by covering or by an abnormal movement." Nowhere does it say "...and
by doing so, causing the opponent to score off target." I have been
(correctly) carded for covering target even when *no* touch has been
scored, on or off target. t.22 is pretty clear - covering the target
is illegal, period.

t.23 just tells us what recourse the referee has in watching for
covering target: "If during a bout the Referee notices that one of the
fencers is making use of his non-sword arm and/or hand, or is
protecting or covering the valid target with a non-valid surface, he
or she can call for the help of two neutral judges... These judges,
one on each side of the strip, will watch one fencer each and will
indicate... if the non-sword arm or hand has been used, or if the
fencer has protected or covered the valid target with a non-valid
surface." Again, no mention of when this takes place - it doesn't have
to be in circumstances that cause the opponent to hit off-target, it
can be at any time.

t.49 does say "touches which arrive off the target are counted as
valid whenever, by reason of an abnormal position, the fencer has
substituted this non-valid target for the valid target." So this gives
the referee recourse to award a touch to the fencer who hit off target
due to the other covering target; however, this is orthogonal to
whether or not covering target gets a penalty (which it does).

The penalty chart (t.120) is also pretty clear. It doesn't say
anything about whether or not covering target causes the opponent to
hit off target; it simply says that "covering/substitution of valid
target" is an offense in the first group. It references t.49,
presumably to remind referees that they can also award the touch if
necessary.

I'd say that the only issue here is "when does the halt occur" with
respect to B's attack and A's covering target. But assuming that
they're simultaneous, it seems to me that it would be correct to give
two touches to B - just as if B scored on A while A ran into him in a
corps-a-corps (with a yellow card already).

--Holly

"Thom Cate" <tcate@zoo.uvm.edu> wrote in message
news:4c1bba3.0306260803.48673ea4@posting.google.co m
> Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message news:
>
>> Fencer A covers target while hitting fencer B. Yellow card for A,
>> touch is annulled, correct?
>
> As has been pointed out extensively, yes. Call "Halt!" issues YC for
> A and *write it down on the scoring sheet.*

But -- as has been pointed out extensively -- A's touch is *not*
annulled. However, if A covers target first and *then* makes an action
to hit B, that touch would not count as it's after the halt.

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

In article <4c1bba3.0306260803.48673ea4@posting.google.com> ,
tcate@zoo.uvm.edu (Thom Cate) wrote:

> Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message news:
>
> > Fencer A covers target while hitting fencer B. Yellow card for A, touch
> > is annulled, correct?
>
> As has been pointed out extensively, yes. Call "Halt!" issues YC for
> A and *write it down on the scoring sheet.*
>
> For those of us in the United States, go read t.22, t.23, t.72.
>
> > Fencer A--who has a yellow card--covers target while getting hit valid
> > by Fencer B. Red card for A, but does the valid touch count as well? In
> > other words, two touches for B, or one?
>
> The scenario is flawed, given the question asked: IF Fencer B scored
> THEN by definition A was NOT covering target, QED. Record touch for B,
> say "En garde," and get on with it.


Huh? How does the fact that I hit you in one spot prove that you weren't
covering the target in another spot?

Also, I take issue with your later interpretation that the non-weapon
arm in front of the target area constitutes substitution of non-valid
target for valid target. The position isn't abmormal, just illegal (and
it's perfectly legal in epee) and if they meant for that to apply to
covering target, there wouldn't be separate rules about covering target!

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

"Holly E. Ordway" <OUTordwayWITHTHIS@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<Xns93A680F87D7175439754hjkgfdjio5408@206.127 .4.25>...

> No... Fencer A may not have been covering the exact *spot* of target
> that B hit, but A was still *covering target*.
>
> Looking at t.22 and t.23 (as you suggest) tells us:
>
> t.22: "In foil and sabre, it is forbidden to protect the target area
> or to substitute another part of the body for the target area, either
> by covering or by an abnormal movement." Nowhere does it say "...and
> by doing so, causing the opponent to score off target." I have been
> (correctly) carded for covering target even when *no* touch has been
> scored, on or off target. t.22 is pretty clear - covering the target
> is illegal, period.

[snip]

> t.49 does say "touches which arrive off the target are counted as
> valid whenever, by reason of an abnormal position, the fencer has
> substituted this non-valid target for the valid target." So this gives
> the referee recourse to award a touch to the fencer who hit off target
> due to the other covering target; however, this is orthogonal to
> whether or not covering target gets a penalty (which it does).

Allow me to acknowledge, as I remove foot from mouth, that Holly is
perfectly correct,and I was mistaken in my earlier statement. Thanks
for the lesson, Holly!

> I'd say that the only issue here is "when does the halt occur" with
> respect to B's attack and A's covering target. But assuming that
> they're simultaneous, it seems to me that it would be correct to give
> two touches to B - just as if B scored on A while A ran into him in a
> corps-a-corps (with a yellow card already).

I was just wracking my brain for another "double touch"
scenario--although, at least from the perspective of teaching young
fencers, this is not a "double touch," but a "single touch, penalty
for opponent" situation. (yes, my $0.02, thanks for your continued
indulgence.)

Cheers,

TC
--