When will The F.I.E. Referees Commission get it's act together?

[swordsen]

You get the same problem here in the US tryig to get many FOC members to commit themselves to an interpretation of the rules. It is sad.
I was pleased the last time I was at the coaches college though that they mentioned they had plans to start a refrees college too.

[dunastor]

Reglement technique of the FIE

t.8
Remise:
Action offensive simple immédiate qui suit une première action, sans retrait de bras, après une parade ou une retraite de l'adversaire, soit que celui-ci ait abandonné le fer sans riposter, soit qu'il riposte tardivement, ou indirectement ou en composant.

sans retrait de bras = without retracting the arm

une retraite de l'adversaire = a retreat of the opponent


What fencer A is doing is therefore a remise, and an immediate riposte always has ROW over a remise.

whether this is apliccable in this particular situation or any other situation is as always subject to the view of the director...

[vegan]

Barry,
Last year here in NYC, all of international refs seemed to call this the same way (including the french), as a touch against a, if b's action starts without delay.
Just curious what caused you to imply that this is a national difference, and where you observed refs calling it for a.
Cheers,
B.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by edew

That said, in the scenario you painted in your post suggests to me that fencer A may have right of way: to me, fencer A is merely taking a long-winded approach towards making a point in line. The question is whether the point in line is established prior to the commencement of fencer B's attack.

That is, fencer A makes a lunge, maintains the point threatening the target area. At no time did A drop the arm or pull back the arm. If B commences the "riposte" or "attack" after A has established that posture, then A should get the point for having a point in line.

If B commences the attack while A is still in that lunging mode, then B should have the right of way. Why? The movement of A, during the lunge may be construed either as an attack or an attempt to establish a point in line. In either case, the attack failed as the point did not hit anything by the time the lunge is completed, or the point in line was not established prior to the initiation of fencer B's attack. B had that window of opportunity to avoid the attack and overtake the point in line. If B timed the attack properly, B should be awarded the point for a properly executed attack (or riposte).

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by edew

That said, in the scenario you painted in your post suggests to me that fencer A may have right of way: to me, fencer A is merely taking a long-winded approach towards making a point in line. The question is whether the point in line is established prior to the commencement of fencer B's attack.

That is, fencer A makes a lunge, maintains the point threatening the target area. At no time did A drop the arm or pull back the arm. If B commences the "riposte" or "attack" after A has established that posture, then A should get the point for having a point in line.

If B commences the attack while A is still in that lunging mode, then B should have the right of way. Why? The movement of A, during the lunge may be construed either as an attack or an attempt to establish a point in line. In either case, the attack failed as the point did not hit anything by the time the lunge is completed, or the point in line was not established prior to the initiation of fencer B's attack. B had that window of opportunity to avoid the attack and overtake the point in line. If B timed the attack properly, B should be awarded the point for a properly executed attack (or riposte).

I don't think that Barry described any kind of lunge here....just a simple "point in line." PIL is actually established out of distance, and as long as the attacker continues moving in the direction of the defender it remains PIL regardless of distance.

As for taking right of way by avoiding the attack with distance I would certainly agree with that....but only if the attack has exhausted itself. for example when the attacker is all stretched out in a lunge and has nowhere left to go and his point has come up short of the target.

[Craig]

I agree with Barry's point. We continue to go back and forth about it and generally agree how we think it should be called, but nobody from the FIE Rules Committee has stepped up and said "OK, this is what we mean and this is how we want to see these actions called." Until they do that, we'll continue to debate how to call A vs B or Fencer X vs Fencer Z.

[Christopher J Umbs]

Originally posted by wflaschka
If your attack fails, you're over-committed, off balance, and exposed.

What makes you say that? There's no reason to ever be over-commited or off balance... even if your attack "fails".

[dunastor]

Originally posted by Craig
nobody from the FIE Rules Committee has stepped up and said "OK, this is what we mean and this is how we want to see these actions called."

Maybe some of us should join said committee...and make them see our point (not litterally though)

[wflaschka]

Originally posted by Christopher J Umbs
What makes you say that? There's no reason to ever be over-commited or off balance... even if your attack "fails".

Well, that's the storybook version that we give to children. The reality is much more interesting. The lunge, the largest controlled displacement in fencing; if it were suitable as a defensive platform, we'd be teaching our students to sink into a backwards lunge when they are attacked. We like to imagine that fencers can be so l33t and joy-joy powerful that their attacks are always perfect... but that's not the case. Attacks are reigned-in chaos; the fencers who realize this have an edge over fencers who romanticise the issue. I agree that controlled attacks are a nice goal to have.

And, about t.60, t.10, t.8... aren't we wonderful space-lawyers? It sounds to me like we have this whole thing explained... in one day. Maybe we shall be picked to marry the next FIE princess and take over the kingdom.

Perhaps the FIE panel didn't indulge the question, because the FIE panel felt the answer was self-evident? I really can't imagine any situation in which socks would trump a RoW discussion. Well, I can imagine one: These officials are aware of rule changes in the near future which will render the question moot.

[MikeHarm]

Maybe.. are you thinking of the off target lights going away? Jump onto PIL with your arm, stopping their point from going off while hitting them in the lame with a shot to the backside or such?

[wflaschka]

Well, as soon as I wrote the last message, I was thinking what rule changes might obviate the referee's question.

One thing might be that foil attacks will be rewritten like sabre attacks, where there seems to be no doubt about when the attack ends (with the landing of the front foot). From there it's a short jump to calling an immediate line a remise in the event of double lights.

Another thing might be the proposed change in block-timing. If the timing is shortened, then there would be many fewer double lights. This would get rid of a lot of "false" simultaneous lights, since the machine is distinguishing timing that the director is currently trying to distinguish as a non-machine (subjectively).

About covering target with the arm/head -- people seem worried about this. Even high-level types. Maybe I have less faith in the skills of fencers, but I think if this were going to be a problem it would be one already. It almost never occurs to me to move my arm, when a parry will work better and faster (and moreover, leave my arm unmoved).

That said, Ion Drimba, a 60's(?)-era Romanian(?) Bronze medallist -- he apparently had a signature move inviting to his flank, and then dropping his arm to brush the tip aside and stepping in. But that's the only one I can think of.

[pkt]

Why are we debating this since Barry's point is, as Craig reiterated and me here again, that two diff't viewpoints on this exits in the FIE's highest echelon. It's a shame that they do not intend to make our lives easier by agreeing on ONE interpretation of the rule.

I was going to make the pint that perhaps it's the difference between the Romance law vs the common law systems. That was when I remember that the French, for once, are on the same side as the English and they're the creators of the Napoleonic codes.

Barry, you omitted to say where the other fencing power - the Russians - landed in this 'debate'. Too bad the Russian Fed do not have the same clout as the Soviet Union.

How about the Chineses? The S. Koreans? and the Americans? These are the upcoming fencing powers.

Thank you for the expose', Barry.

BTW, my 2-arm sabre plastron is great.

PK