extension of the valid target

Discussion in 'Rules and Referee Questions' started by Strytllr, Oct 11, 2017.

  1. Strytllr

    Strytllr Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    23
    While I was rereading through the rules some bit ago, I came across T.49 and I started wondering why I never seem to see this rule called in bouts:
    Specifically, I wonder because I continue to notice fencers intentionally positioning their weapon arms during a lateral parries in such a way to completely or mostly cover their target areas so that disengage attacks always seem to hit off target...

    So my question is whether the higher level refs on the board do or do not ever make calls based on this rule. If so, what are the parameters in which you would call an off-target touch valid. And if not, why not?
     
  2. keropie

    keropie Podium

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,382
    Likes Received:
    112
    Firstly, I've never seen anyone make that call, at least as far as I can recall.
    As for the weapon arm, I'd have a hard time imagining it being called. I see it more likely (though far from likely) that someone would give the touch against someone who was ducking, turning, jumping, getting their legs in the way, or something like that. It would be very difficult to confidently decide that a lateral parry was made in such a way to constitute 'abnormal fencing,' at least in my experience.
     
  3. Mac A. Bee

    Mac A. Bee Podium

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    112
    From an Olympic-final ref's seminar: A previously-Yellow Carded foilist who substitutes invalid- or valid target, upon which a touch is made shall have both a touch awarded against as well as penalized with a Red Card.
     
  4. Gav

    Gav Moderator!!

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2000
    Messages:
    3,378
    Likes Received:
    468
    They key part is "abnormal position". It's very hard to fence in such a way that your weapon arm is in an abnormal position.........
     
  5. downunder

    downunder Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    439
    You can't be penalised for covering with your weapon arm. By definition, your weapon arm is always covering target

    The rule is applied is if there is obvious covering target (i.e. hand/arm pressed against the lame) and the action directly hits that hand/arm in the unusual position. In this situation penalise the fencer with a group 1 card and award the touch.

    Please don't go out giving this double call for every covering target you call. You have to be certain that the fencer would have hit if not for the covering - there are very few foil actions I see that are certain to hit. Accordingly, this is a very rare situation, I've only ever seen it once in 15+ years.
     
    Privateer likes this.
  6. Strytllr

    Strytllr Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    23
    Thank you. I hadn't planned on calling it really, it was just one of those arcane rules that I noticed and then started wondering about.

    I've always agreed that the weapon arm doesn't count for covering for exactly that reason, but does there happen to be a rule somewhere that states it specifically? I haven't found it.

    What I specifically keep seeing are fencers who make hard lateral parries with their weapon arm bent double, their elbow very low and sword hand up near the mask and the entire arm very specifically placed to cover nearly the entire chest. If it happened once in a while by accident, I would discount it as such and ignore it. But I have seen it used so routinely by various fencers, almost as a cheat against the concept of "the weapon arm can't be called covering", that it bugged me. And it happens enough that I've started pointing out to my students those fencers who do it religously and what they have to change to account for it.
     
  7. s.brookes

    s.brookes Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    4
    I saw this called at a collegiate event. Won the bout (and therefore the match) for my team... the other team was understandably upset and normally I'd be a little wary to brag about it, but it was done under the supervision of a very qualified national and international level referee...
     
  8. Strytllr

    Strytllr Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    23
    what part of the body was "substituted"?
     
  9. downunder

    downunder Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    439
    I dont have the rulebook in front of me but I suspect it is implicit in the other areas that reference the non-weapon arm.

    It's not in my top-10 concerns about the rulebook, speaking frankly!
     
    Strytllr likes this.
  10. Jvanhousen

    Jvanhousen DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    31
    [QUOTE="
    What I specifically keep seeing are fencers who make hard lateral parries ...[/QUOTE]

    If the attacker is parried, I'd be more concerned about the riposte than remise opportunities...
     
  11. InFerrumVeritas

    InFerrumVeritas DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ooh, what are your top ten concerns?
     
  12. s.brookes

    s.brookes Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    4
    Back arm was pressed against the lame.
     
  13. Strytllr

    Strytllr Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    23
    I never said they were always successfully making the parries... specifically, if the attacker is doing a disengage, the attack tends to end up hitting off target on the weapon arm, because the arm now covers the entire target area. it's just another challenge to overcome. Thanks for the all the feedback. :)
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2017 at 9:23 AM

Share This Page