2018 FIE Congress rule change proposals published

Discussion in 'Fencing Discussion' started by mfp, Oct 27, 2018.

  1. mfp

    mfp Podium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,073
    Likes Received:
    357
  2. Mac A. Bee

    Mac A. Bee is a Verified Fencing ExpertMac A. Bee Podium

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    180
    Oy vey!:(:mad::eek:o_O
     
  3. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    36,819
    Likes Received:
    1,331
    Good grief.

    The sabre one about allowing the fleche again says that "the use of fleche will be obligatory during the finals". So---what would be the penalty for failing to fleche on every action?

    Gonna make for a really strange bout.

    I also see that when a country is bidding to hold an event it must pay for something like 9 members of the FIE to come and "study the candidature...at the venue". Or is that "have a little vacation on your dime"?
     
  4. Purple Fencer

    Purple Fencer Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2001
    Messages:
    16,361
    Likes Received:
    587
    The way I read the sabre fleche proposal is NOT to allow the track meet that it was back in the day, but to simply allow the legs to cross forward AFTER a hit has registered and the actual action has finished. This COULD be pitched as a safety measure to prevent falling after some actions.

    Not even going to touch the NC proposals...that way lies madness.
     
  5. mfp

    mfp Podium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,073
    Likes Received:
    357
    Not quite.

    The "study the candidature...at the venue" group in part 1 of that rule is "an ad hoc delegation designated by the Executive Committee". It's not the laundry list of people mentioned in part 2 of that rule. They certainly don't send all the refs for the event (mentioned in part 2 f) to study the candidature.

    Part 2 lists the people the World Championships organizer has to invite and pay for during the event itself, not for the "study the candidature" phase.

    The rule already exists and has been around for some time. All the proposals are doing is increasing the number of medical delegates at the event itself.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2018
  6. Quinn

    Quinn Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2013
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    6
    I appreciate that they're cleaning up the wording in many rules to make them more concise. I wish they could manage to rewrite the RoW in a way that would correctly reflect the current convention, but that's probably too much to expect.

    I'm not sure why the non-combativity proposals are designed around punishing the fencer who's behind, since the leading fencer is typically the one who is fine with waiting out the clock.

    Does sabre really need any changing? Maybe some clearer rules or guidelines regarding priority in the box would be nice, but I don't see anyone complaining that saber isn't fast enough.
     
  7. Mergs

    Mergs Podium

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2000
    Messages:
    3,559
    Likes Received:
    237
    Good grief, would someone please stop schwacking at the Good Idea Pinada?
     
    Inquartata likes this.
  8. neevel

    neevel Armorer

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2000
    Messages:
    3,358
    Likes Received:
    309
    With regards to the (perennial) no-foil-off-target, the sabre fleche, and all the non-combativity schemes, pay attention to the fact that the advising commissions are generally against them before getting too hot and bothered.
     
  9. jkormann

    jkormann Podium

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,016
    Likes Received:
    205
    That they all got this far is bothering.
     
  10. ktinoue3

    ktinoue3 DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    16
    Someone really likes saber.
     
  11. jkormann

    jkormann Podium

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,016
    Likes Received:
    205
    Salemanship! "Foil. Foil, as is known, is the most technical weapon .."
    Epee seems humble without those lead-ins.
     
  12. Ancientepee

    Ancientepee Podium

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,160
    Likes Received:
    346
    The outrage I'm seeing posted about the proposal to eliminate the off-target in foil reminds me of the similar outrage expressed years ago when it was proposed to eliminate the off-target from sabre. After sabre eliminated the constant halts caused by off-target hits with no touches being awarded as a result, I think that it was less than a year before all objections to the elimination ceased.

    Can someone address the question as to why a fencer who hits off-target should be awarded by preventing the opponent from getting credit for hitting on target?

    I would point out that in the early 1950s when foil was first being electrified, equipment manufacturers were having difficulty designing circuitry that correctly turned off the registering of off-target touches that occurred immediately after valid touches and so actions that landed on the lame but slid off and ended up hitting the arm would cause both lights to come on. So there were still "discussions" about whether the off-target hit was before or after the on-target one. It is also the case that many off-target hits are registered after the initial action is parried and so "discussions" were also eliminated as to whether the off-target hit was after a successful parry or the result of a malparry.

    As a result, the Midwestern collegiate conference adopted a "no-foul foil" rule that ignored off-target touches in foil (and also sabre) bouts in matches between schools in their conference. It was used for four years. A survey was taken of the coaches, fencers, and referees to see whether the "no foul foil" rule should be adopted throughout the US. All three groups in general expressed support for the rule and the "no foul" rule was used throughout the NCAA during the 1954-1955 season including the NCAA Championships. Some Divisional competition throughout the country also held "no foul" foil competitions during that season. Contrary to some of the current comments that this would make foil fencing the same as epee fencing, this was not the case. Max Garrett said "...the "no foul" rule does not change the conventional character of the foil in any way. The style of fencing is the same." Stan Sieja said "Although some judges take a while to get used to it, the coaches think it is working nicely."

    But by then the equipment manufacturers had worked out the bugs in their circuitry and the FIE decided in March 1954 to use electrical scoring machines at the World Championships and Olympics beginning with the 1955 Worlds and so the "no foul" rule was shelved in the US in order to keep us in conformity with international fencing.

    So the current hysteria about the demise of foil fencing if the off-target is eliminated is not justified. I'm attaching two articles from American Fencing. One was by Stan Sieja, the Princeton coach, in the June 1954 issue and the other was in the October issue about the adoption of the "no foul" rule by the NCAA.
     

    Attached Files:

    Kalledix likes this.
  13. keropie

    keropie Podium

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,466
    Likes Received:
    172
    I did not fence in the 50s (or breath, for that matter), but by stories I've been told fencing was very different. In the current environment, the speed of delivery and the frequency of counterattacks, coupled with the difficult of hitting with 15 ms of depression seem to make additional punishment of off target actions substantially more severe. It would make attacking more difficult and more risky, and it's hard to imagine that it wouldn't therefore reduce the number of attacks. Certainly after an attack was made there would be next to no reason to make an attempt at counter riposte rather than the remise.

    This was likely not true in the 50s, especially in a small population of fencers. This is also not true in saber where hitting valid target is essentially inevitable, and where the amount of target is substantially larger. In foil, where squirming is already effective, I think that removing any significant portion of the construct of Right of Way (such as the protection of off target hits) would be deleterious to the character of the weapon.

    I'll admit, I'm biased; I like flicks, I still flick, I would be happier if it were easier, so I'll always prefer a solution that moderates the current depression timing (and I believe the blocking timing should be lengthened as well). But even from a philosophical point of view, the fact that we are continuing to consider rule changes to resolve issues that were created or exacerbated by the timing change leads to me question: was the timing change a good thing? Shockingly, I'll say 'no.'
     
  14. Strytllr

    Strytllr DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    669
    Likes Received:
    113
    If i remember correctly, all of those same groups were against the RBOD as well...
     
  15. Ancientepee

    Ancientepee Podium

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,160
    Likes Received:
    346
    So you think that nowadays there are almost no attacks attempted in sabre because the off-target touches were eliminated?
     
  16. keropie

    keropie Podium

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,466
    Likes Received:
    172
    Due the larger target area, the easier methodology of hitting, and the fact there isn't an arbitrary technological barrier (at least, not without capteurs!) the impact of removing off target is substantially smaller.
     
  17. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    36,819
    Likes Received:
    1,331

    IIRC, the change of the guard line positioning for sabre, aka the "Russian Box of Death", was passed despite every committee voting "not in favor" except the Executive Committee, which was "in favor".

    And in this case, the EC is sending the change for the fleche in sabre to "testing" in Junior World Cups despite 3 of the 5 committees being against it and another being a qualified "in favor".
     
  18. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    36,819
    Likes Received:
    1,331
    On the other hand, that they are actually considering restoring the fleche to sabre is testament to the enduring outrage over that particular rule change this many years afterward. ( And I still talk to sabre fencers who pine for the fleche to return. Not all of them are old-timers, either. )
     
  19. mfp

    mfp Podium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,073
    Likes Received:
    357
    Committees don't vote on rule change proposals before the FIE Congress; they state whether they're "in favour" or not for proposals and provide feedback. They're advisory.

    The voters in the FIE Congress are the FIE member federations, not the Committees.

    .
     
  20. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    36,819
    Likes Received:
    1,331
    I never said anything about "the Congress". I said that all of the committees except Executive voted against the proposal but it went through anyway. IOW neevel's point about the committees being against a thing is not a reason to not worry about it.
     

Share This Page