changes to priorty interpretation?

Discussion in 'Rules and Referee Questions' started by anton_fairfax, Nov 12, 2018.

  1. ccadet

    ccadet Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    52
    If u understand that's refering killing our sport... I can understand that's applies rules, will kill your... So what ? Make 2 différents weapons ?
    One who just change refering (common law), the other who continue without explicit law and logic.

    You will find that's strange... I think, you just don't care about foil fencing, if referee change the application of rules, you will just follow it without questionning. That's why i think, we don't need 2 weapons, we just need make FIE refering applie rules (and you'll can see some "attack on preparation", some "incorrect attack". You will see fencing threatening with point, you will see real attack with more technical move, and more tactic. And you also will see some long fight where nobody want to take the risk of attack (as Epee))
    And that's not old school, (Some French refere refering as it 10y ago when i was in national competition, and i'm referee (learned 10y ago), i just apply what ive learn...)
    That's a question of coherence between referee too.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2019
  2. ccadet

    ccadet Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    52
    And metaphor can help to understand problem :

    If u got a 2-way road, the maximum speed is 130.To judge speeding, police use his interpretation of this law.
    Some motorist with less speed than 130 are sonctioned and Some motrist with more speed than 130 are not.
    They finish to, with inductive reasoning, find that's "common law" of most police is : speeding is when you are on the left side of road.

    There is many possibilities. But I think :
    - Accept it, they know what they do (Argument of autority) that's not a real argument. "Let the police do the job !"
    Another metaphor : Im scientist, scientific consensus is a good argument, many of time, it's good (as FIE refering). But If im scientifics too, and got better argument on specific thing, then i want give them to scientific consensus, they should change the consensus (That's just how sciences work)
    And that's cool, i got good argument to say : FIE refering are wrong and that's dangerous for the credibility.of foil (And of FIE foil refering)
    - Police use other criterous to help follow the rules, ok, but if the new criterous make the old rules bad, what's they should do ? Change the law ? And if the initial law make sense, if u make this old rules bad, that's need to make new sense ! (What's the sense in foil to try to being attack (as t.9, go read the rules) to touch and got the point)
    In the exemple, there is no sense too. Every motorist will be on right side, and will go at speed they can/want. That's just the same thing for foil. (We no more judge speeding, we just judge an other thing. Better, i suppose ?)
    And you can say : "But everybody do it" "That's not my problem". Some people said it many time : Godwin. But that's not argument. And actual bad cops don't have too (argument).
    - It's not police roles to make law. They have the law, they try to apply it, If they can't know the exact speed of mororist for exemple, they can do estimate and judge only when they are sure +130 (to dont sanctioned people who are less than it). They estimate, and give sanctioned around of 130.
    If there is law with freedom of interpretation, as :
    "The Referee must replace the competitors on guard each time that there is a double hit and he is unable to judge clearly on which side the fault lies."
    "clearly" is a freedom of interpretation that need "common law", but "must replace the competitors on guard each time that there is a double hit and he is unable to judge" isn't.
    - Im on the police, i want to give justice, what should i do ? Follow the common rules is a good idea, many of the time when systeme is good, that's work well. But if police are out of law, i just follow the error.
    Im not a sheep, ive learn refering by Fédération, read and understand the rules book. See that's FIE referee don't read or understand or don't care about the rules and make some new (without telling what is it., "initiative" "each one his turn" ? Seems easy to write on rules no? That's cool, rules are review all year !)
    - If the police is corrompt, and if the police is the gouvernement too, the only way is revolution...
    But i think referee don't are the FIE, and FIE have option to stop this absurdity.
    Police can stop this from themself.
    But for that, people have to tell them to do something. (Iaon pop did and tried, i suppose he was no the first and i just continue to tell it...)

    I want to talk with FIE comission and referee, to manager, not try to argue with random people who don't care about foil (Foil as i fence it, foil as i learn it, foil as i referee it, foil as i like it. And i got rules with me vs common rules. I think i can win the trial, we'll see each other in court if FIE don't "tune out" as she do from 20y.)
    But to find a manager... U must alert people, u must be onerous... And that's the way to change "common law" too, without FIE, just with people (thx to internet).
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2019
  3. Malicia

    Malicia DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    108
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    France
    The technical rules use 21 times the word « fight ». The rules in french use « combat » more often.
    But indeed, the modern fencing is not a fight, modern fencing is a combat sport (what you call “game”), a simulation of armed combat.
    (Fencers use to not assume that they practice a combat sport – but that’s just a cultural problem).
    I propose you, when you welcome new fencers in your club to say : “Modern fencing is not a fight”.
    We will see the result.

    Twenty years ago, problems already existed.
    FIE have changed the electronic timing in 2005, and it’s worst.
    So, let’s come back to 700ms blocking time (and keep 14ms for debounce).

    But, the real solution is elsewhere : you just have to understand the fencing time (technical rules begins with the definition of fencing time – t8) rather than electronic timing.

    Poor wrist, poor hand, poor back…if the blade was sharp or not blunt.
    Simulation is un-perfect, because fortunately the security is not negotiable.

    We are talking about international rules, and the Common law is not a reference for people from other countries (most of countries have civil (continental) law).

    If the law says « white », and you say « black », that’s not interpretation: you are breaking law.
    Those referees do not interpret, they break rules.
    For example,
    [​IMG]
    Art T15 : The point in line position is a specific position in which the fencer’s sword arm is kept straight and the point of his weapon continually threatens his opponent’s valid target
    Art T89-5-a : Only the fencer who attacks is counted as hit: a) If he initiates his attack when his opponent has his point in line (cf. t.15) without deflecting the opponent’s weapon.
    The referee (who'va said attack from right) hasn’t made an interpretation, the referee has broken the rules.
    That’s just fraud.

    That’s the point (But maybe in australia, The Parliament vote law but judges do what they want)
    Referees don’t choose the rules : the rules are written, the referees applie the rules, with a part of interpretation. The referees must not say the opposite of the rules.
    In fact, written current rules are logical and fair (not perfect, but quite good). You have just to respect : the attack definition.
    Art t83-2-a : The simple attack, direct or indirect, is correctly executed when the straightening of the arm, the point threatening the valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge or the flèche.
    And careful :
    Art t83-2-d : Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations...
    Is it difficult to understand, is it illogical ? No. So just use it.

    That’s a contradiction: you have said that you don’t consider the value of written rules! Written rules would not permit change.
    Apparently, you prefer to ask on this forum what are those unwritten rules: that’s the present subject.

    One year ago, I have rewritten rules.
    20% less words than current rules.
    Simplest, fairest, more logical.

    I’m not so romantic, since two years, I’ve analysed 330 cases when referees break rules.
    But, when you welcome new fencers in your club show this (image below) to them, and say this “Don’t be so romantic, the right fencer hasn’t committed suicide. We will learn too, to receive the blade in the belly! Be sure that foil doesn’t kill, neither ridicule
    [​IMG]

    Because, you don't understand fencing so well.
    There is no true fencing, but there is truths in fencing.
    But that's a long story.





     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2019
    Michael Comte, Stellan and ccadet like this.
  4. DangerMouse

    DangerMouse Podium

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    3,304
    Location:
    Eugene, OR
    I see the attack from right starting before point in line is established. That makes it a counter-attack per the rules. The interpretation part is how it is decided when the attack starts. The key part is "a) If he initiates his attack when his opponent has his point in line (cf. t. 15)" If the attack was already initiated when a fencer tries to establish point in line, then the attack has priority. That's what I see in this example.
     
  5. Malicia

    Malicia DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    108
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    France
    [​IMG]
    No interpretation. Rules are clear.
    t83-2-a : "The simple attack, direct or indirect (cf. t.10), is correctly executed when the straightening of the arm, the point threatening the valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge or the flèche."
    The attack has :
    - a beginning : straightening of the arm, the point threatening the valid target
    - a end : the lunge or the flèche

    You can not start the attack by the end ("precede") because t83-2-d : "Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations"
    The attack begins with : straightening of the arm (+ point threatening valid target)
    [​IMG]
    At this time, right fencer is running, she 's not attacking (steps are simply preparation), she 's not threatening the valid target (ground is not a valid target :oops:).

    At this time, without any rules, just the eyes, everybody has understood that's right fencer will be pinned like a butterfly (ask an non-fencer!).
    Everybody excepted foil international referees.

    So, nowadays, for simple spectators (never ave read rules), foil fencing is a non-sens, thanks to foil international referees.

    (Respect rules, because rules have sense)
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2019
    Michael Comte, Stellan and ccadet like this.
  6. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    37,164
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere in your nightmares!
    And what constitutes "established". That is also subject to the endless flux of "interpretation".

    Frankly, I am less incensed at the referee consensus interpretations of the rules than I am at the flux. Make your interpretation if you must, fine. But then stick to it. Don't change it 6 months down the road because fencers have adjusted to the interpretation in ways of which the referees and the FIE disapprove. And then don't change it again...and again...and again.

    The argument most often proffered in defense of the "referee consensus interpretation" paradigm of rule enforcement is that it promotes consistency in how the calls are made. This consistency is presented as a desideratum. But then the rules get changed, and/or the interpretations of the rules change, with some regularity. That does not promote consistency; it institutionalizes inconsistency.

    tl;dr Leave it alone and quit tinkering with the damned rules.
     
    jdude97 likes this.
  7. anton_fairfax

    anton_fairfax Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2017
    Messages:
    88
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Newcastle, Australia
    *googles desideratum*
     
  8. ccadet

    ccadet Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    52
    Malicia is better than me to explain rules, that's sure.

    So describes what you see. What criteria ? What is your definition of attack ?

    Im agree of definition of malicia of "point in line" and "attack". And you can see it.
    We see Left "point in line" before right begin "sraightening of the arm, the point threatening the valid target" (Im pretty sure Right begin lunge after "line" too, but as Malicia said, it doesn't matter)
    We can see, at the begin of fencing time of Left "point in line" at this moment, Right was point on ceiling, then, i can see Right armed his arm, then go (2 simples actions done after the "point in line", "position change with shorten the arm and bring back the point" and attack that's begin in straightening of the arm and threatening the target with point.)...
    1 complete fencing time lost between "point in line" of Left, and attack of Right...

    _____________________

    In Malicia exemple,
    we see 2 fencing time or arm, step point in the sky, bending arm, coming back point (can we call it "threat" ?)(1) in begin lunch, then straighting arm (2). When left, we see, one step back position "en garde", no move position "en garde", straighting arm then finish to establish the line (1). 1 fencing time or arm.
    We don't need who go forward or back here (and... I think, we never (?) need it), just see if "precede (...)" but rules never talk about go back. (But talk about go forward and make fault xD)
    But, to touch when attack is not "I go forward, no real fault of attack"... You can't attack without preparation and good timing and great distance breaker (That's the original use of fente and flèche). No really need good rules on who initiate the shortening of distance, the attacker must do it during his attack if he want to touch... (And if he try to shortening of distance before attack, that's just dangerous, if opponent begin attack before him, he did the leg's job for him and must avoid or parry (that can be a tactic too)... <= That's can be hard to referee at high level (Bent arm fencer will try to find the good moment to attack where referee will don't/can't see the attack on preparation.) Who begin before who ? (but with video... Less mistake possible))

    _____________________

    I'll help you to argue vs Malicia :
    (Malicia, if i write something bad, u can correct.)

    We need an International referee who talk (In our country, International and National referee are ashamed, so : or they don't talk or they don't see the difference between rules book and common rules... Or they say that's is not his fault... It's the system. Poor referee. It's because, Foil in our culture is important. That's why we see "omerta"... But FIE just kill it (foil), i suppose that's another bad side of globalization. (Use other culture and emptied of its originals meaning))

    But i find on this site : https://www.fencing.net/441/the-attack-in-foil/#respond
    Bill Oliver (2004, of the US fencing officals commission, National and International referee)
    “The attack is the initial offensive action made by extending the arm and continuously threatening the opponent’s target, preceding the launching of the lunge or flèche “
    "This seems fairly obvious:In order to have the priority of attack, one must extend one’s arm and threaten the opponent’s target before beginning the lunge (the final action of the attack.)In other words, stick your arm out, charge down the strip and poke your opponent in the ribs.Key words:extending arm, continuous threat, preceding the launching of the lunge."
    He is agree.

    BUT

    He made an "interpretation" : of compound attack.
    "It doesn’t necessarily follow that bending of the arm constitutes an incorrectly executed attack."
    How did he do ? He used compound attack on rules book : "the arm is not bent during the successive actions of the attack and the initiation of the lunge or the flèche"
    That can be interpretat this way ? (That's FIE referee logic, i let u "interprete" this interpretation)
    He just change, extending in first action and not bent during successive actions into : You bent during other actions that's threat. So, we don't give a freaking. (Successive actions... Définition of successive actions in a compound attack ? That will help you to understand interval of fencing time. And what is a simple fencing action ? Compound attack is not a simple fencing action.)


    Then, there is just to "threat" as : We can't really know what is it... Just do a continually threat (without definition = no use), and... advances toward the opponent (Talk about rules, then, we lost it... Why advances ? That's for threat ?)
    So the attack definition, he just "sht on", after said what it is agree... That's what "interpretation" is.

    Sorry, i can't help you, I can't stand this "argument".
    But that's can explain to give attack for Right on this ? So they don't know what's an compound attack.
    [​IMG]

    That is the "reality".
    Not, "of course somewhere between tradition and aggressive action (footwork, bladework, bad breath)".
    Because that you call tradition, that's rules and that you call aggressive action, that's corrumpt rules (as your "interpretation" of compound attack is not an interpretation. That's just changing sense of some words. And if words can be change by opposite, nothing have sense...)

    And at the end... please, read this interpretation of "stop hit by an interval of fencing time"... He just don't understand it, that's a cause of his first error of that's a compound attack, then trying to understand how a counter-attack can have a priority on a compound attack that's not a compound attack. Saddening.
    And he give stop hit by an interval of fencing time as the attack on preparation (that's just an other rules...)
    And no more have to understand what's an interval of fencing time, we don't need it for judge it, no problem... What an "interpretation" !
    He can't be international referee... That's an honnor question.

    I'm really bad at english, it's late, i hope, i am wrong... I hope all international referee don't have this really bad level of "interpretation".
    But if i use the argument, that's not for build a straw man. That's because, we see the use "interpretation" on youtube.

    But i'm agree in something :
    "Le temps d'escrime est la durée d'exécution d'une action simple."
    "Fencing time is the time required to perform one simple fencing action."
    I know what's a simple action (several movement is not simple action, it's compound action. This is action made with several fencing time, in compound attack. The feint(s) and the attack. And feint definition is "looks like attack"). And with that's definition, you can't fail interpret... Is fencers feint attack ? no ? They aren't in a compound attack... Is fencers feint then bent arm ? He didn't attack yet, that's just a feint then nothing.
    Most of the time... Nobody have priority... Gain priority is privilege of attack, "point in line", ripost.
    Then there is situation where other move can give the point cause of fault or lost fencing time.

    Im not sure what's a simple fencing action ? (a compound attack is a simple fencing action ?)
    That can be an error source ?


    According to Wittgenstein, philosophical problems arise when language is forced from its proper home into a metaphysical environment, where all the familiar and necessary landmarks and contextual clues are removed.

    I think that's it. We lost the sense of attack in this landmarks and this context.
    (And here, we read the sense, then change words to give new sense that's you need to justify referee fault. That's not interpretation. Please...)

    3 hours lost to try understand and try sentence, im tired.
    And i just see the answer... Your argument is an inductive logic. If referee make deductive mistake interpretation (like Bill), that's give inductive logic who give inductive logic... Circular argument.
    But if u think rules is sht, that's not my pb, that's your honour.
    "By accepting a position as referee or judge, the person so designated pledges his honour to respect the Rules and to cause them to be respected, and to carry out his duties with the strictest impartiality and absolute concentration"
    But i suppose that's someone who don't care about the rules, don't care about this one.
    And if you don't like translation, official language is french, and i will be happy to explain rationally why your logic is false (and if we have to talk of epistemology in french, it will be a pleasure).

    That's my last contribution on this. if you think, im wrong and want me to see answer, u can mail me, i'll respond
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2019
  9. ccadet

    ccadet Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    52
    Voila la réponse une des réponses que j'ai pu avoir : Yves Cordier :
    "Bonjour,

    J'ai bien reçu votre mail qui a retenu toute mon attention. J'ai moi-même débuté par l'arbitrage du fleuret que j'ai arrêté quand je me suis heurté à la difficulté de vouloir continuer à arbitrer selon le règlement écrit ce qui provoquait la colère des tireurs et des coaches. Comme j'étais dans la minorité, j'ai préféré stopper cette mascarade.

    J'ai transmis votre mail aux membres de la CNA et je laisse aux spécialistes du fleuret le soin de vous répondre.

    Cordialement,

    Yves Cordier"

    Avec votre logique, les bons arbitres sont obligés de stopper l'arbitrage au fleuret (comme Yves Cordier).
    Il ne reste que ceux qui acceptent de se plier à cette "mascarade".
    Il ne reste qu'une 'interpretation pseudo-consensuelle (vu qu'on n'en voit pas la couleur, on voit beaucoup de désaccord sur ce consensus)" de ces gens qui acceptent cela, s'auto-validant.
    (Dont vous avez l'air de faire parti. Bien que peut-être pas, vous n'êtes pas arbitre je suppose ?)

    J'ai hate d'avoir la réponse du CNA tient... (2 mois que j'attends)
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2019
  10. DangerMouse

    DangerMouse Podium

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    3,304
    Location:
    Eugene, OR
    There are a lot of fencing actions that are not well defined in the rules. Analyzing actions with freeze-frame from a video may illustrate exact timings, but it is not possible to do that during live bouting.

    In the video clip above, we only see the final advance lunge. The current interpretation of the rules seems to be that if priority is established earlier in the phrase, then the defender must do something to take it away otherwise any close decisions go in favor of the attacker. Since an attack is defined by t9.1 as "the initial offensive action made by extending the arm and continuously threatening the opponent’s target, preceding the launching of the lunge or flèche," this indicates that it is possible to establish the attack before the final action. What you are arguing is the interpretation of what continuously threatening target means. I think this interpretation should shift more towards what you are arguing for, but it is still an interpretation of t9.1 and what "continuously threatening" means.

    *emphasis added to the quote from t9.1
     
    anton_fairfax, wwittman and Goldgar like this.
  11. Malicia

    Malicia DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    108
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    France
    Oh, oh !
    You are very confused in your remarks.
    The technical rules are clear :
    - t9 : The attack is the initial offensive action made by extending the arm and continuously threatening the opponent’s target, preceding the launching of the lunge or flèche
    - t83-2-a : The simple attack, direct or indirect (cf. t.10), is correctly executed when the straightening of the arm, the point threatening the valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge or the flèche.

    First, you must extend arm (with point threatening...). If you don't, you are not beginnig an attack. No interpretation, no confusion, here. And t83-2-d is logical with this : "Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations".
    To begin an attack, extend your arm, you have the priority, and you can use it.

    Your words reminds me the accused in court who explains : "Yes, your honour, I shoot him, but I didn't kill him. He died because he has bleed". In fact, if you are broken rules, you can defend you as you want : seriously or with non-sense.
     
    Michael Comte likes this.
  12. tbryan

    tbryan Podium

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,117
    Location:
    Durham, NC
    The attacker can also lose the attack through an error.

    To be fair to Malicia's argument, I think that the focus is on an the attacker's error.

    Edited to add: oops. I see that Malicia while I was typing my reply. :oops: Better just to read that post.

    You could see it as a lot of movement (fencers just working for distance, but there's no presumed attacker or defender), and the piece of the clip here is right when the fencer on the right makes decides to attack with advance-lunge. The attacker's mistake is that the arm does not begin extending until well after the start of the lunge. The argument would be that, according to t.9.1, the attacker doesn't establish the attack until the start of the extension, which is well after the point-in-line is established. Therefore, point-in-line is in time.

    Even if you grant that fencer on the right in that clip was on the offense the whole time, you can clearly see that the arm is bent during her maneuvering steps. Then the argument goes to
    t.83.4 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.10-11).​
    Therefore, everything that the fencer on the right is doing is a preparation, and again, we judge the start of the attack when she finally starts extending her arm toward target (during the lunge). Therefore, the point-in-line is established during the fencer-on-the-right's preparation, and the point-in-line is in time.

    Of course, I've been hearing these complaints about the bent / extending arm since I first started competing in foil back in the 1990s. :rolleyes: I may have even made some of those complaints myself. I'm fine with the convention as it is. As a fencer, I find it easy to understand the convention and why actions are called the way that they are. I find the game fun and fairly well-balanced. (I would argue that foil should lower the debounce time from 15ms to maybe 10ms.) The convention has changed quite a bit since the 1990s, especially after 2005 and the timing changes. I'm just happy that the refereeing seems to be much more consistent these days in the U.S. from local to regional to national events.
     
    anton_fairfax likes this.
  13. tbryan

    tbryan Podium

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,117
    Location:
    Durham, NC
    [meta]
    BTW, this thread has drifted far from its original topic, which was about "a slight shift in the refereeing towards favouring attacks into preparation." The original purpose of the rules and refereeing sub-forum on F.net was to help give clear answer to questions about rules, penalties, and how specific actions should be called in the current convention. I think that preserving that focus for this sub-forum is valuable. If anyone wants to discuss alternate conventions for right-of-way in foil and epee, then consider starting a new thread about it in the General Fencing forum.
     
    jdude97 and Goldgar like this.
  14. Belegur

    Belegur Made the Cut

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    176
    Location:
    Australia
    Aren't there classical fencing forums somewhere for these people to rage against the wind about the state of modern fencing?
     
  15. DangerMouse

    DangerMouse Podium

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    3,304
    Location:
    Eugene, OR
    I agree with this entirely. My only real point was that any reading of the rules ends up being an interpretation. The rules are nowhere near as clear as Malicia seems to think they are. I also agree that the current interpretation of what is threatening target is not the same as the literal interpretation of the rules, which tells me that the rules should be updated to match a little better.

    I have no problem with the current interpretation of priority in foil. Nor have I had any problems with any interpretation in the 25 years I've been involved with the sport. What I have had a problem with is the constant changes in the interpretation that make wild swings in how the game functions. That is what drove me to epee years ago.
     
    anton_fairfax likes this.
  16. Malicia

    Malicia DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    108
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    France
    Maybe you don't know that classical fencing (in fact, foil at the end of the 19th century) was critized because it was so unrealistic, so far from a real fight... And epee was created!
    In fact, when international referees breaks rules, that's the same problem : so unrealistic, so far from a real fight.
    For example, when a referee have said that the left fencer was attacking... (video 1H12min23s)
    [​IMG]
    Try the experience, ask anybody (except a international referee), who have won ? People will tell you (without any rules) : obviously, left fencer should be hurt, so, I guess that right fencer should have the point.

    Classical fencing was quite a non-sense, and what those international referees are doing, is non-sense.

    Fortunatly, we don't have too create anything else, nowadays : just to respect writen technical rules, and everything will be fine (no need of classical fencing or epee).

    So much people (fencers and referees) has gone away from foil, because rules are broken (and because some foilists says that not a fight!!!).
    An maybe, International Olympic Committee will push away because rules are obviously broken and foil looks like a non-sense.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2019
  17. ChrisL

    ChrisL DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    143
    Location:
    London
    Only applicable if you think this is a problem. Many including international coaches, fencers and referees enjoy the sport as it is. A sport not a reenactment of a fight.
    I often prefix beginners classes with a caveat that fencing is not a martial art where you do set moves and katas, not a reenactment of a sword fight (go do HEMA if you want that) but a game to score points.

    Fencing has a rich history but to force it to remain about enacting certain movements in a set style determined by what was previously effective is to stagnate.

    Situations like yours are sad to me because you clearly care a lot about fencing and yet you do not see it as a sport as so many do. I genuinely feel you would be happier doing HEMA or one of the other reenactment type martial arts where you can be closer to traditional fencing but trying to restrict the game many of us play and enjoy a lot because it does not conform to your ideas of "proper" is sad.
     
  18. ccadet

    ccadet Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    52
    That's interpretation of rules, that's Malicia do, she read to rules and try to make sense of what is written.

    She do because, referees no more read the rules, and that give priority were rules explicit rules said they don't have to...
    ex :
    t.83 2. In order to judge the correctness of an attack the following points must be considered
    d) 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

    That is not interpretation... That's reality. They DON'T interprete the rules. They violate it.

    Now, we try to understand... And we see problems : Referee no more know what's a fencing time, confused compound attack with preparation, confused stop hit with an interval of fencing time with attack on preparation and give none good.
    Confused that's fencing is with arm (extending of not) and weapon (threatening or not)... The target is corpse...
    You can't try to get priority with the target in go in without extending arm and threat with weapon and call it "attack" !
    That's just logic of fencing !

    And we can try to understand with a logic of foil, that is :
    Care about your target (your life) BEFORE trying to touch (kill).
    Forced by rules. (That's not the incentives of Epee)

    Interpretation of rules : (If you are in danger), if you are attacked, you "must be parried or completely avoided" (How to do it if attack is done without weapon and arm). (t. 83. 1)
    You must deflect the opponent's blade if he is "point in line" (t.84 1)
    So, blade incentives with rules is to be forward... "Ok, but so, we'll just see beat the blade for priority ? That's pretty, no sense too, no ?"
    Beat the blade don't give any priority on rules.
    Only thing in rules are the parry (Beat the blade on opponent who feint or attack, and you understand why blade MUST be forward threatening target on attack or feint... The sense of feinte is make a reaction of parry to avoid it. If feinte or attack don't try to this, there is no sense, i'm agree)
    If no more incentives to real attack or feint, no more incentive to parry... (Until the real attack coming) No more sense about what we do (than be in agreement with FIE referee)

    What's other in rules about beat on the blade ? => t.85 Attacks by beats on the blade:
    1 In an attack by beating on the blade, the attack is correctly carried out and retains its priority when the beat is made on the foible of the opponent’s blade i.e. the two-thirds of the blade furthest from the guard.
    2 In an attack by beating on the blade, when the beat is made on the forte of the opponent’s blade i.e. the one-third of the blade nearest the guard, the attack is badly executed and the beat gives the opponent the right to an immediate riposte.
    That's rules, call that's beating don't give priority (you can "retains" it (you gain it on attacking see t.9) but you can lost it EVEN if attacking !
    And the point 2... Have is logic too : attack by beating the blade is to open target (and generaly provoque reaction, so feint on this target and do compound attack). Try to hit on one-third of the blade nearest the guard, you'll do nothing.
    And it's an other criterious until attack by beat, and parry (where is made the "beat").

    "But if the blade are forward... Will they have discussion with weapons ?" (that's we no more see)
    Yes, and on this "discussion", you must considere this :
    t.84 2. If the attacker, when attempting to deflect the opponent’s blade, fails to find it (dérobement), the right of attack passes to the opponent.
    As we said beat don't give priority, u need attack to get priority, so if you try attack by beating on the blade and be "dérobement" (if you don't find it), the right of attack passes to the opponent (Not the priority ! The right of attack !)
    So, if u don't stop your attack and opponent attack, he got priority.
    (=> u can let a fencing time (that enough) to initiate an attack because, all foil fencing is about fencing time, that's a must have to understand foil... And the right of attack can't be more than one fencing time. If opponent finish an other action that's not an attack after the derobement, there is no more "right of attack")


    According to Wittgenstein, philosophical problems arise when language is forced from its proper home into a metaphysical environment, where all the familiar and necessary landmarks and contextual clues are removed.

    We must talk about fencing language. We must talk about fencing time ! We must talk about attack and compound attack ! We must talk about prepration ! About beat the blade !
    And we must do it with bad FIE referee who no more talk about fencing.

    page 31 https://issuu.com/corpsacorps/docs/fie-no-38---mise , from 2001, read FOIL'S IDENTITY CRISIS who talk about an international commission of maîtres d'armes. (That's explain the point of view of "Maîtres d'armes" by the Technical Director of FIE Ioan POP (himself Maître d'arme))
    Extract : "The FNMA (Fédération Nationale des Maîtres d'armes) held a metting (...). The subject for consideration and collective debat was the current identity crisis of foil together with the disappearance of its whole rationale. The discussions, hightly professional and very probing, were extremely constructive.
    There was common and unequivocal agreement : the way foil is fenced in competitions completely ignores the techhnical definitions in the Rules and the conventions. Therse no longer correspond with the way fenging is taught, nor do they reflect the way coaches are trained. Etc, etc etc... "
    "Refereeing foil has become a "fashion, a "style" of refereeing instead of being a judgement which respects the letter of the Rules.
    The main aberration are the following :
    - The definition of a correctly excuted attack is no longer the analytical yarstick used by the referees.
    - Successive steps forward withou threatening the target with the weapon are interpreted as attack.
    - A bent arm with the point somewhere above one's head is considered to be a feint by coupé.
    - (...)
    Etc"

    That's reality... FIE Refereeing force foil's fencer to no more fence foil... And force other férération follow this to get international result. SAD.
     
  19. ccadet

    ccadet Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    52
    I'm agree that morale is subject to interpretation. And what's a problem is, is from morale.
    And if you are nihilist, i can not explain it to you... And if u want to talk about phisolophical thing (and epistemology). I really need do it in french cause it's all but not simple. And it finish = You can't be nihilist. Or society has no sens. Or morale have no sens. And sure, there is no fact, there is "alternative fact", and all interpretation are of equal values.

    List of what's could be a problem (not limited) :
    It's martial problem.
    It's a problem that rules is not according to referee (or referee according to rules)
    It's a problem that's refereeing said them interprete rules as they don't and failed on logical fact.
    It's a problem that's there are fact to say FIE referee disnonour themself :
    "By accepting a position as referee or judge, the person so designated pledges his honour to respect the Rules and to cause them to be respected, and to carry out his duties with the strictest impartiality and absolute concentration." And Malicia gave u fact.
    http://www.escrime-info.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=15358 (More than 300 case of objective out rules call and she continue to fed and discusses who brought us here, some people say that you can't understand cause of your culture. I'm not agree. I hope we at least give you some thought)
    It's a problem that's refereeing can't describe the criterious they used.
    It's a problem of logic : How can you gain priority with the target ?
    It's a problem of credibility of foil. (Is foil still fencing ?)
    It's a problem for teach it, for explain it to new player.
    It's a problem for spectator and commentator.
    It's a problem for people who fence foil this way (that's not an art... Or less than the new way...), and can no more get structure for fence and competition.
    it's a problem for history of foil and history of competition, in JO. If it's not more the same sport (Because we touch about the sense of our sport). How continue to count medal ? I prefere think, that's just a bad period for foil that's will be fix. not you ?
    Waiting for FIE to do fix it from 15 years. W

    I suppose that you can have many other reason to find logical problem and try to fix it. There is a way to fix all without anybody hurt... Change actual way of refering...
    Sheep will continue to follow, fencer will continue to respond to incentives, and if there is other problem, pls, tell me (Some people will cry because of the change ? Pls, who ? The people who said that they follow common rules ? No... They will follow "new" common rules, and still find fun on this "new" game.)
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2019
  20. Malicia

    Malicia DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    108
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    France
    I thank you for your condescension.
    I am offered classical fencing, hema, reenactment, soon the epee: in fact to stop foil. I understand that you would prefer to exclude me (self-exclusion in fact), because I ask the respect of the rules.

    I think we are living in states of law. In a state of law, you respect law and rules. Even in common law (or civil law), a judge have to give the grounds for the judgment.
    In foil, international referees have decided to break the rules, and they never explain anything.

    Foil community looks like a sects.

    But, don't worry, I'm not sad. I'm not crying, I'm laughing.
    For example, the referee have said that the right fencer is attacking (video 16min 20sec).
    [​IMG]
    So funny, so ridicule.
     

Share This Page