Rule Question ... ?

[Rolls]

I fenced foil in a local tournament this weekend. There was one referee who directed my final d.e. that insisted my weapon point be held up before he would say fence (normally I fence in absence with my blad held low and pointed toward the ground or slightly horizontal). While I know that you can not began fencing with your point in line, I have never had any other referee (even at nationals) say anything about being in absence. Ultimately, my lack of patience lost me the bout, but I did find the referee's insistence that I raise my weapon before begining slightly unnerving. I know it should not have bothered me, but it did.

Without dicussing the efficacy of being on guard in absence, my question is this. Am I allowed to start in absence? What are the rules pertaining to begining fencing? And can I say anything to the referee if he asks me to raise my weapon in the future (politely of course).

Thanks,
Rolls.

[MikeHarm]

At the director's clinic I went to they said that when you came on guard your point had to be in a high line.

I think this is another of the rules like having the right socks that stay up far enough where you can get away with it at the local level for a while then suddenly have someone jumping on you for it in a DE in the middle of a tourney and it throws ya off if you haven't been following it.

[Rolls]

Well, thanks.

I'll have to work some mental prep out. I would just as soon start every bout off high and then have to move to absence. I like to have consistency in my game.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know the reason for this?

ROlls.

[Craig]

It's just not a big enough deal to even ask about, IMO.

Get en guard in high line, as soon as the ref says "fence" move back to low line and go from there. (That's how you'll see a lot of foilists on the int'l level work, esp in women's foil.)

The proper en guard has been rehashed in another recent thread. Suffice it to say, coming into a proper (high line) enguard is enforced at the international level, so we enforce it at the national level and it trickles down from there.

Cheers,
Craig

[Rolls]

Ok, I just read through the rules, and must say I'm even more frustrated.

Here's what it says in the rules:

The fencers must come on guard correctly and remain completely still until the command ‘Fence’ is given by the Referee. In foil and saber fencers may not come on guard in the ‘in line’ position.

So, I'm guessing what you're saying is that because I'm not in a high line; I'm not in a "correct" on guard? Is there anything else that applies? Is there a place in the rules that describes a "correct" on guard postion?

If this is rehashing a previous thread, can you please post a link to it and ignore my questions.

Rolls.

[mollusk]

This is from the Referee's Handbook:

The question of a "correct" on guard position is no longer open to interpretation. Referees are to have the fencers take the position indicated by the drawings in the Rules Book that show the targets for each weapon.

You can get to it by navigating from the USFA site or directly by:

http://www.fencingofficials.org/Info...htm#_Toc976813

I hope this clears things up.

[Rolls]

I could be completely wrong about this, but I was interpreting it rather than asking the fencer to conform to anyone's opinion of what a "correct" on guard is (which is in my opinion is inconsistent, subjective, and serves no real purpose), it is saying that it must be correct (or in accordance with the rules). For instance, the off weapon shoulder could not be turned in front of the weapon shoulder. This makes much more sense to me.

Rolls.

[swordsen]

Prehaps that does make more sense. but when the governing body decides something is "correct" you either grumble and do it or you become the next Evangelista.

[Inquartata]

Yes, in foil it shouldn't matter under normal circumstances: there is time to shift your guard after the ref says "Fence".

In sabre, by the time you go from that "correct" guard to quinte or seconde or whichever position you favor it may already be too late. You may already have lost ROW. Fortunately refs seem to be a bit less anal directing sabre. I have only had a seconde guard questioned once, and after pointing out that it was THE standard guard in the old Italian school the matter was dropped. Though I must admit that I haven't ever tested my luck with quinte...

[Rolls]

Well, I think that a governing body can be wrong, to my knowledge the FOC never claimed to be infallibale. I also think that this governing body is specific has changed its interpretation of rules. I think the recent case of if a fencer loses balance is an example.

However, to me its worse to have the rule and not enforce, than not to have the rule at all. I reliterate that I have never had other referees say anything about this.

Rolls.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Rolls
I reliterate that I have never had other referees say anything about this.

Rolls.

I've had refs ask this of me at local, regional, national, and international tournaments since 1999. Not all, very rarely at locals, and at first it annoyed me, especially since I fence epee. After a second though, I realized that it made no difference to me and got on with my fencing.

[Wizardly]

I guess you managed to stay on the improbable side of things for a long time then. The longer you fence, the more you'll see this. It's not uncommon.

[Rolls]

Yea, and really, it doesn't effect my fencing at all. But it does bother me for some reason. Mainly, I guess because I can't see the reason behind it at all. How does this benefit or make a differnece on the bout. To me, it looks like a misinterpretation of the rules.

Rolls.

[Rolls]

One, more point. I finally found the image that mollusk was referrnig to in his post. This again seems to be a very strange interpretation of the rules. The image in question has the fencer in somewhat of a classical position with off weapon arm behind the fencer.

Now, why would it matter that the fencer's weapon arm is in a different position but not the off weapon?

Oh, well, I'll drop this subject on the forum, because I don't think anyone else cares.

Rolls.

[Wizardly]

Look at it this way: coming on guard in the correct position is a way of demonstrating readiness. It removes any suggestion of impropriety when fencers start in the same position. It makes it more difficult to hit the floor to stop the bout (whether accidental or not). It allows the director to guage starting distance so the fencers don't start too close to each other. Refusal to defend yourself can be interpreted as unwillingness or inability to fence in the first place.

[Rolls]

Well, I see your point. But I don't see how having an on guard in a low line could be construed as refusing to defend once self.

Thanks though for everyone's input.

Rolls.

[MikeHarm]

Another On guard issue I've seen in competition at the local level was making folks be in the lateral center of the strip at the on guard point.

Sometimes it was never mentioned by the director at all, some of them went with making you go to the lateral center at the start but not on halts for off target or simuls too, others were into enforcing it at every point you came on guard from beginning to the end of the bout.

I've gone with just starting in the lateral center with guard in high line after every halt to avoid these issues.

[vegan]

rolls,
So - heres one reason that was given to us at a ref's clinic a year or so ago. . . The low line on guard is usually not in an actuall parry (i should be the "8" parry is suppose) that is to say holding a blade in this position does not actually defend any target (while I think that the 8 parry is quite nice, most people are past their hip when in low on guard, or lower then their lame- thus not defending target) and therefore is not a "proper" on guard. The bade up thing is real common at nationals and nacs as well as world cups (several people here in NYC's world cup got caught on it). I would just start in six and lower your blade!!!
Cheers,
B.
Ps. if both fencers start in the same place it negates any advantage for one or the other- I guess thats good!

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally posted by Rolls
Yea, and really, it doesn't effect my fencing at all. But it does bother me for some reason. Mainly, I guess because I can't see the reason behind it at all. How does this benefit or make a differnece on the bout. To me, it looks like a misinterpretation of the rules.

Rolls.

screw whether or not you're actually going to parry or not, screw if it makes sense, or anything else-

demontrating the accepted on gard position means you're ready-

not ready to defend or attack immediately-

to have someone with a blade attack you with a blade.

your shoes are tied, you know the director is going to call fence, your hair isn't lodged in your eyeball, your sweat in in a well directed river away from your eyes, all your body parts are still attached.....

if you're not in the standard ready position, how does the director know you're really ready?? if you don't have to have your blade up, is having your blade behind you acceptable?

how many times will directors call "fence" when you're not ready, simply because they couldn't tell?

[pkt]

Originally posted by mollusk
This is from the Referee's Handbook:

The question of a "correct" on guard position is no longer open to interpretation. Referees are to have the fencers take the position indicated by the drawings in the Rules Book that show the targets for each weapon.

...

I hope this clears things up.

Again, this is so, so, so wrong. Not you, mollusk, but the quotation. They are using the figures for purposes the authors do not intend them to be used.

Fig.4 and 6 show the 2 femcers almost in close quarters when they should be at least 2 extensions apart. Fig 4 for foil and 6 for sabre.

Fig. 5 for epee shows the fencer on the left in a lunge and the fencer on the right doing a low-line parry... Not what one would call on-guard positions...

PK