Re: New, almost approved FIE rule changes regarding foil.

I believe the report's recommendation is that it be applied
universally at all foil and sabre Junior World Cup competitions
on the 2004-05 season. One year away. Cost to the fencers will
be addition of the conductive bib to the mask and possibly a
conductive sleeve. Note that the sleeve would only work, i.e.
become conductive when the fencer places his arm across the
chest, i.e. when that action would under current standards
cover the chest with the non-conductive arm and make it
off target.

They didn't want to make foil too much like epee
Also note they want a the period open for the double hit
to be decreased from 1000 milliseconds to 200 ms for foil
and 120 for sabre. As compared to the 40 ms currently for
epee.

J.

magni wrote:
> This is from the FIE website:
> http://www.fie.ch/download/letters/2...0HOC%20ANG.pdf
>
> And it is a proposal discussed and approved by the committee.
> Apparently it hasnt been completely approved yet...but it sounds as
> though it will. When it will be enforced is anyone's guess.
>
> This means more equipment expense for foilists. Conductive mask bibs,
> a sleeve for your weapon arm down to your elbow(conductive) as these
> are proposed new target areas.
>
> Also, the letter i think describes a method of precluding flick
> actions by increasing the time the tip is in contact with the lame
> before it registers a hit.
>
> Also, they've decided to do away with the fleche for foilists...sad as
> i like this action.
>
> Finally, they are also going for something in re the box that makes it
> dificult for the lights to come on simultaneously.
>
> Thankfully they arent going for the idea that white lights dont stop
> the action. ICK.
>
>
> I really wish I knew when they plan to ratify this and enforce it....
>
> Thought yall should know....
>
> Magni

More equipment changes are not the answer. If the rules as they are
at present were enforced - most importantly, that the arm should be
straightened before an attack - then we would not need this nonsense.

Foil is going the way of sabre. There too, the application of the
"straight arm rule" would have obviated much of the supremacy of the
bent-arm fleche without need to ban that movement altogether.
If anyone can manage a flick from a straight arm that's pointed at
the target area, then good luck to them!
Cordially,
John (Rohde).

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:43:26 -0800, Harold Buck
>You are COMPLETELY misrepresenting the rules as written. The rules don't
>say the arm has to be straightened before an attack, they say the arm
>must be extendING. I'm no great fencer, but I can flick with an
>extending arm, and, in fact, without ever pulling my arm back like I'm
>going to cast a fishing rod.

Well, so you say but if you actually read the rules you will see:
"III. VALIDITY OR PRIORITY OF THE HIT
2. Respect of the fencing phrase
1. The simple attack, direct or indirect (cf. t.8), is correctly
executed when the straightening of the arm, the point threatening the
valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge or the flèche.
2. The compound attack (cf. t.8) is correctly executed when the arm
is straightened in the presentation of the first feint, with the point
threatening the valid target, and the arm is not bent during the
successive actions of the attack and the initiation of the lunge or
the flèche.
3. The attack with a step-forward-lunge or a step-forward-flèche is
correctly executed when the extending of the arm precedes the end of
the step forward and the initiation of the lunge or the flèche.
4. Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed
with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations,
laying themselves open to the initiation of the offensive or
defensive/offensive action of the opponent (cf. t.8)."

So the straightening of the arm must precede the attack and if the arm
is bent when the attack is executed, it does not have priority.
Nowhere is "extending" mentioned. It is one of those meta-rules
that infests fencing. Schopenhauer once took people to task for
saying a thing "conditioned" something when they intended to imply
that it "caused" it. So we have blades being "met" rather than beaten
or parried, we have arms "extending" rather than being straight (If
they are straightened before the attack is made and cannot be bent
during it, they must be straight to have priority).
Cordially,
John (Rohde).

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:11:08 -0500, Arrhae <shannyk@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>Rather than electrifying the outside of the arm when it covers the target,
>why don't they electrify the *inside* of it and rig it so that when it
>covers the target, the foilist receives a mild electric shock, thereby
>preventing them from doing it again?

But would that deal with the "box of death" formed by the fencers arms
and mask - the latter fielding what the former miss? And how many
presidents call reversing shoulders?
John (Rohde).

grbr25235@blueyonder.co.uk John (Rohde).wrote:
>
> If anyone can manage a flick from a straight arm that's pointed at
> the target area, then good luck to them!
> Cordially,
>
In epee you flick over the guard from essentially straight
arm. I've been attacked by Eric Hansen with a sideways flick
to the arm and body. It does take a very powerful individual
but ... It wasn't what I would call a straight arm but more
so than most foilists use.

J.

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:19:03 -0500, "Dirk Goldgar"
<dgoldgar@NOalumni.SPAMprinceton.edu> wrote:

>All of them I've ever run into.

In my last tournament I had an opponent who, after a little advice
from his coach, managed to get away with it 5 points in a row. He
simply swept his trailing arm and shoulder around and ended up facing
backwards. The president was mesmerised by the box and the clipboard
and never moved from the midpoint of the piste. Hew was not a novice
and it was not a small competition.
John.

On 11/10/03 19:28, in article 3fb62be9.27216889@news.blueyonder.co.uk,
"grbr25235@blueyonder.co.uk" <grbr25235@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> More equipment changes are not the answer. If the rules as they are
> at present were enforced - most importantly, that the arm should be
> straightened before an attack - then we would not need this nonsense.

Rather than electrifying the outside of the arm when it covers the target,
why don't they electrify the *inside* of it and rig it so that when it
covers the target, the foilist receives a mild electric shock, thereby
preventing them from doing it again?

Jonathan Jefferies wrote:

> They didn't want to make foil too much like epee
> Also note they want a the period open for the double hit
> to be decreased from 1000 milliseconds to 200 ms for foil
> and 120 for sabre. As compared to the 40 ms currently for
> epee.

By this change, they are not making foil like épée -- it is just clarifying the
specifications of the lockout time to be more in line to the reality to today's
current athleticism, and to take the referee's discretion out of the equation.

If we take the épée lockout time of 40ms to signify the basis for1 action within 1
fencing period (tempo), we then see that by setting sabre at 120ms (3 tempos) and
foil 200ms (5 tempos) -- this is realistic and approporiate.

Consider, that under the old lockout time of 1000ms -- representing 25 tempos, that
leaves alot of discretion to the referee -- can the referee, as humanly possible,
distinquish by the eye the 25 subdivisions of the lockout timing? No. However, with
the new lockout times, things will be much more apparent to the referee.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:20:45 -0600, David Neevel <neevel@execpc.com>
wrote:
>
>eliminating reversing the shoulders as an offense in foil.

But presidents will be expected to call covering of the target. IMHO
It is to be hoped that that includes use of the sword arm.
This rule change seems to be linked to the proposal to ban the
crossing of the feet, as in sabre - great day for private medicine as
knees have to absorb the forward momentum of skoots and flunges. The
demise of the fleche in sabre has just led to even more ugly flappings
- viz. the last World Championships.
The root problem lies with the arms not the feet. The sport has
been tumbling into disrepute since the straight arm ceased to be
enforced. Hence there are more entries for epee than foil these
days.
John (Rohde).

<grbr25235@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3fb34aac.35093375@news.blueyonder.co.uk
>
> And how many
> presidents call reversing shoulders?
> John (Rohde).

All of them I've ever run into.

--

Dirk Goldgar

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

Make sure you read page 10 of the report (the one after Page 9 that simply says End
of Report)-- that's the one where they list what they are actually going to
recommend the FIE go forward with next season for Junior World Cups only. The only
items they clearly
recommend implementing are the shortened blocking and contact times, increasing the
foil spring weight to 750 g, allowing just 1 cm bend in foil blades, and
eliminating reversing the shoulders as an offense in foil. Everything else they
either punt on or (like the metallic sleeve) fail to mention entirely. Also be
aware that these recommendations actually have to be passed, something which should
by no means be taken for granted-- the FIE is not as neatly wrapped around Rene
Roch's finger as he might like it to be. Making the foil bib target seemed to be a
sure thing about 6 years ago, but was ultimately shot down.

-Dave



magni wrote:

> This is from the FIE website:
> http://www.fie.ch/download/letters/2...0HOC%20ANG.pdf
>
> And it is a proposal discussed and approved by the committee.
> Apparently it hasnt been completely approved yet...but it sounds as
> though it will. When it will be enforced is anyone's guess.
>
> This means more equipment expense for foilists. Conductive mask bibs,
> a sleeve for your weapon arm down to your elbow(conductive) as these
> are proposed new target areas.
>
> Also, the letter i think describes a method of precluding flick
> actions by increasing the time the tip is in contact with the lame
> before it registers a hit.
>
> Also, they've decided to do away with the fleche for foilists...sad as
> i like this action.
>
> Finally, they are also going for something in re the box that makes it
> dificult for the lights to come on simultaneously.
>
> Thankfully they arent going for the idea that white lights dont stop
> the action. ICK.
>
> I really wish I knew when they plan to ratify this and enforce it....
>
> Thought yall should know....
>
> Magni

In article <3fb62be9.27216889@news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
grbr25235@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:

> More equipment changes are not the answer. If the rules as they are
> at present were enforced - most importantly, that the arm should be
> straightened before an attack - then we would not need this nonsense.
>
> Foil is going the way of sabre. There too, the application of the
> "straight arm rule" would have obviated much of the supremacy of the
> bent-arm fleche without need to ban that movement altogether.
> If anyone can manage a flick from a straight arm that's pointed at
> the target area, then good luck to them!


You are COMPLETELY misrepresenting the rules as written. The rules don't
say the arm has to be straightened before an attack, they say the arm
must be extendING. I'm no great fencer, but I can flick with an
extending arm, and, in fact, without ever pulling my arm back like I'm
going to cast a fishing rod.

You are right about one thing, though: if referees would enforce the
rules we have (by refusing to give priority to an arm that hadn't yet
begun extending) it would clean up foil a lot.

--Harold Buck


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

In article <Rg_rb.2$ic3.27593791@news.netcarrier.net>,
"Dirk Goldgar" <dgoldgar@NOalumni.SPAMprinceton.edu> wrote:

> <grbr25235@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3fb34aac.35093375@news.blueyonder.co.uk
> >
> > And how many
> > presidents call reversing shoulders?
> > John (Rohde).
>
> All of them I've ever run into.
>


If I were refereeing and you ran into me, I wouldn't call reversing
shoulders, I'd black card you for unsportsmanlike! :-)

--Harold Buck


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

In article <3fba59b6.38944008@news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
grbr25235@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:19:03 -0500, "Dirk Goldgar"
> <dgoldgar@NOalumni.SPAMprinceton.edu> wrote:
>
> >All of them I've ever run into.
>
> In my last tournament I had an opponent who, after a little advice
> from his coach, managed to get away with it 5 points in a row. He
> simply swept his trailing arm and shoulder around and ended up facing
> backwards. The president was mesmerised by the box and the clipboard
> and never moved from the midpoint of the piste. Hew was not a novice
> and it was not a small competition.


But obviously the guy wasn't a good referee--even if not a novice
(!)--if all he did was watch the box and clipboard and stand in the
middle of the strip. Thus, saying he allowed reversing of the shoulders
comes as no surprise, since he was obviously incompetent.

--Harold Buck


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

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:46:03 GMT, in rec.sport.fencing you wrote:

>It's always entertaining to read something posted by someone
>completely clueless about the rules.

You are easily entertained. If your own comprehension were equal to
your self-confidence you would have realised from my previous posts
that I am perfectly aware that the rules are at present interpreted in
the sense that any straightening of the sword arm, be it the most
minute, gives priority. My point was and is that that state of
affairs has arisen over the past few decades from "chinese whispers"
of interpretation that has made judging fairly nigh impossible, with
such twitches to spot.

>It just means that the arm can still be straightening during
>the lunge, fleche, etc (of a simple attack or step forward
>attack) and still have priority even without being completely
>straight from the start. It doesn't even have to be completely
>straight when it hits, it just needs to still be straightening.

The interpretation you give is the one applied by almost everyone but
is not consistent with:
"III. VALIDITY OR PRIORITY OF THE HIT
2. Respect of the fencing phrase"
In the first three articles of this section there is room for either
interpretation as they use, "straightening", "is straightened ", and
,"extending" (pace my previous post).
However article four:
"Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with
a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations, laying
themselves open to the initiation of the offensive or
defensive/offensive action of the opponent."
Is not capable of ambiguity - A bent arm is one that is not
straight. It does not say, an arm that has been bent, or that is
bending. If attacks cannot be executed with a bent arm, they must
needs be done with a straight one.
I realise that this interpretation may seem outlandish to some but
it seems less so to those of us who recal that it was once the general
usage of the sport.
IMHO until the judging of foil is addressed it will continue to
decline relative to epee.
Cordially and comprehensively yours,
John (Rohde).

grbr25235@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
> My point was and is that that state of
> affairs has arisen over the past few decades from "chinese whispers"
> of interpretation

Wow -- that's the first time I've heard George Kolombatovich's voice
described as a whisper. If you went to Land's End and waited a few
minutes, I bet you could hear him from the UK. (Remember the time
difference.)

Joe,
who thinks foil is doing just fine.

In article <3FBB5D88.70702076@patriot.net>, Joe Hoffman <jhoffman@patriot.net>
writes:

>Joe,
>who thinks foil is doing just fine.

I, for one, abhor the practice of allowing attacks with a bent, non-extending,
arm. And withdrawals, motions towards the body, during an "attack".

Which is why the Foil fencers run and hide when I am asked to referee Foil.

Bill Hall

I am SOOOOOOOOO lost in re this arm straightening thing.

So does the arm have to be straight..ramrod straight before the body
moves?

Heres an example. A person starts a chase with a bent arm attempting
to flick to the back. typically the arm is bent for this. The other
fencer is retreating to avoid it...but then decides to counterattack
due to this bent arm thing. as he does, fencer a lands the flick at
the same time, within tempo.

Whose point?

In saber, it seems the arm that moves forward first has priority..

Frankly, if someones arm must be ramrod straight before the attack,
before its considered an attack, then attacks will fail much more
often as the blade will be picked up.

This type of interpretation MAY, i say MAY, create longer
phrases...which i think will be beautiful, but disastrous since a
great deal of referees cannot seem to follow whats happening
currently.

Is this debate going on elsewhere in the world....? What does the FIE
think about this? Does it even matter?

So confuzzled.

magni

PS: Personally i think it obvious who the attacker is. Just find the
person whos retreating and or attempting to parry. thats the defender
right? the person then opposing him must be attacking, thusly he has
priority. Silly i know...but there ya go.





fencerbill@aol.com (Fencerbill) wrote in message news:<20031119095317.29815.00001809@mb-m21.aol.com>...
> In article <3FBB5D88.70702076@patriot.net>, Joe Hoffman <jhoffman@patriot.net>
> writes:
>
> >Joe,
> >who thinks foil is doing just fine.
>
> I, for one, abhor the practice of allowing attacks with a bent, non-extending,
> arm. And withdrawals, motions towards the body, during an "attack".
>
> Which is why the Foil fencers run and hide when I am asked to referee Foil.
>
> Bill Hall

> Heres an example. A person starts a chase with a bent arm attempting
> to flick to the back. typically the arm is bent for this. The other
> fencer is retreating to avoid it...but then decides to counterattack
> due to this bent arm thing. as he does, fencer a lands the flick at
> the same time, within tempo.
>
> Whose point?
>
> PS: Personally i think it obvious who the attacker is. Just find the
> person whos retreating and or attempting to parry. thats the defender
> right? the person then opposing him must be attacking, thusly he has
> priority. Silly i know...but there ya go.
>

And this is exactly how I was taught to referee foil by Andy Shaw. Any
action in and of itself could be an attack or not an attack. You have to
look at what the other fencer is doing. If he's reacting to it as an attack
(searching for the blade to parry, retreating out of distance and the like),
well, then, yea, its an attack.

Cheers,
David Sierra

To reply off-list remove NOSPAM from address

Just for the record, here I'm talking about sabre (and how *I* think
foil should be called ...

michael_lichtstrom@yahoo.com (magni) wrote in
news:23e9ba68.0311191244.1fc4fe45@posting.google.c om:

> I am SOOOOOOOOO lost in re this arm straightening thing.
>
> So does the arm have to be straight..ramrod straight before the
> body moves?

No. The attack *begins* with the *extending* arm. (In terms of
technique, the best attack is one in which the arm gradually extends
as the attack progresses, reaching full extension just as the blade
hits the opponent.)

You can look this up in the USFA rules, as I would if I weren't
feeling lazy... "extending" (or "straightening", I forget which), not
extend*ed*.

> Heres an example. A person starts a chase with a bent arm
> attempting to flick to the back. typically the arm is bent for
> this. The other fencer is retreating to avoid it...but then decides
> to counterattack due to this bent arm thing. as he does, fencer a
> lands the flick at the same time, within tempo.
>
> Whose point?
>
> In saber, it seems the arm that moves forward first has priority..

I won't venture to guess what monstrosity of a call would be given to
foil fencers (hehe). In sabre, if you are advancing with a bent arm,
YOU ARE IN PREPARATION. You DO NOT have right of way. If the
retreating fencer attacks, it will be his attack into the bent-arm
guy's preparation (or attack and bent-arm's counterattack).

Also, if you start the attack by (correctly) extending your arm, but
then you "break" your arm (bend it again) you lose right of way.

With fortunately few exceptions, this is consistently how I've seen
it called (and had it called, in my bouts) in all my National-level
fencing and in the regional tournaments that bring in real referees.

> PS: Personally i think it obvious who the attacker is. Just find
> the person whos retreating and or attempting to parry. thats the
> defender right? the person then opposing him must be attacking,
> thusly he has priority. Silly i know...but there ya go.

Oh no, oh no no no no no. Advancing is not attacking. Running at your
opponent is not attacking. Moving forward in an aggressive manner is
not attacking. All those things MAY be PART of an attack, but they
don't MAKE the attack. The extension of the arm with the blade
threatening valid target area is what constitutes the attack. That
can be done retreating just as well as advancing, though I'll grant
you that it usually is the other way around.

I just was the witness to a referee calling right of way by whoever
moved forward first. It was like watching a train wreck. Horrible.
It's no good trying to manipulate tempo and distance or do second
intention attacks if the referee assigns right of way by the feet.
Ugh.

(Like I said, this is all in reference to sabre, not foil.)

--Holly