How some foil referees break rules

Discussion in 'Rules and Referee Questions' started by Malicia, Mar 28, 2019.

  1. Malicia

    Malicia Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    39
    Oh, I really agree: what you are calling "foil" is just not fencing.

    Go out from your sect, come in the real world, with real people: ask them! Try to ask anyone, but a non-fencer (or a epeist...!): who is right (see the example below)... without any rules, just intuition.
    In fact, the answer is obvious: 10cm of the blade in the belly, then, afterward, reaction!
    What you are calling "foil" is just ridiculous, that's a joke, and everybody is laughting (No... in fact, people rather look something else, understandable, less ridicolous or more funny).

    World Championships : TORUN Cadet Men’s Foil Individual 2019 : Video (42min05sec) - Case n°17
    [​IMG]
    The referee has said : Attack from right.

    Article 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."

    [​IMG]
    Fencer on the left : straightening + threatening + lunge = Attack
    Fencer on the right : no straightening + no threatening + no lunge = no Attack

    Fencer on the right has'nt any priority when he was hitted : 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, laying themselves open to the initiation of the offensive or defensive/offensive action of the opponent"

    Fencer on the right has 10cm of the blade in the belly, then, afterward, he has reacted (counter attack).

    The referee has broken the rules.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2019
  2. garyhayenga

    garyhayenga DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    441
    Likes Received:
    74
    I cast a skeptical eye at your claim to have used a foil of any kind since steel was invented :-0
     
  3. lovefoil

    lovefoil Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    17
    It is very sad what is happening to foil. Lots of preps called attacks. The first intention should be to hit by the attacker and not to react. Reaction should be judged as preparation. It also becomes inconsistently judged.
     
  4. sdubinsky

    sdubinsky DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    84
    literally the theme of this entire thread is that they're consistently called attacks. Some people think that's a good thing, some people think that's a bad thing, but everyone agrees the calls are consistent
     
    InFerrumVeritas and Privateer like this.
  5. Michael Comte

    Michael Comte DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    30
    And I would add that it seems that some people have trained hard their bend-arm attack, so they don't want anything to change in the way the calls are made. It explain some violent comments here.

    I understand their point, but I still find this kind of foil ridiculous, and I am in favor of changing the way calls are made, because fencing like that is just boring.
     
  6. sdubinsky

    sdubinsky DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    84
    you think it's boring so everyone else should change?
     
  7. posineg

    posineg DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    37
    By "Everyone", you are referring to the Director's who are calling any forward movement as initiating a attack and/or calling forward movement with a absence of blade as initiating an attack, then yes "Everyone" needs to change their views on Foil Fencing.
     
  8. Malicia

    Malicia Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    39
    Oh no! that's not true.
    Firstly, this "foil" is INCONSISTENT with official rules, and secondly INCONSISTENT with fencing.
    And those calls are INCONSISTENT on their own.
    Mr Anton Fairfax has given the proof : he need to ask on a forum if there are any "changes to priority interpretation?". Because fencers don't understand (don't worry, people (non-fencers) don't understand too).
    In fact official rules are quite clear, and that's our "common law", democratic rules : everybody can read it, when they have doubt.
    Some people are successed in creating floating rules; breaking the official rules.
    To get 10cm of the blade in the belly, and to react afterward, that's not an attack!!! You don't need to be a fencer to understand.

    An example, about floating rules, floating calls?

    World Championships : TORUN Cadet Men’s Foil Individual 2019 : Video (46min22sec) - Case n°18
    [​IMG]
    The referee has said : Attack from left! Fencer on the left has asking video.
    And the referee has said : Attack from right!
    Who understand anything??? It's just ridiculous

    Some other views:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Article 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."

    [​IMG]
    Fencer on the left : straightening + threatening + lunge = Attack
    Fencer on the right : no straightening + no threatening + no lunge = no Attack

    Fencer on the right has'nt any priority when he was hitted : 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, laying themselves open to the initiation of the offensive or defensive/offensive action of the opponent"

    Fencer on the right has 10cm of the blade in the belly, then, afterward, he has reacted (counter attack).

    The referee has broken the rules.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2019
    Grey Sabreur likes this.
  9. ChrisL

    ChrisL DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    28
    The decision to try and appeal that the sport should be defined by the understanding of those who do not do the sport is interesting.

    At its core you are saying that group A: those who have not fenced or seen fencing and a minority who disagree with current convention (such as yourself) should have primacy in defining the sport over group B: those who compete, coach and referee in said sport at the highest levels.
    Its a rather strange strand of argument to choose.

    But I will give you, you make good gifs. Its a pity they cut off too early or start late in the action in most of them but they make good examples for people with misconceptions like you own. I may even use some when I'm doing a referee seminar for people who have similar incorrect views.
     
    NeilNZ and Privateer like this.
  10. sdubinsky

    sdubinsky DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    84
    It's also the attackers, meaning every fencer currently on the world circuit, all the coaches who coach fencers on the circuit, everyone at a lower level who wants to fence internationally, everyone at a lower level who thinks modern fencing is cool to watch, and any non foilist third party who understands that to try to read the rulebook literally leads to madness and also a broken game.

    And they should all change because mike up there finds the game boring?
     
  11. posineg

    posineg DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    37
    Nothing they are doing is wrong or illegal. The rules are not being applied as they are written. If a fencer wants to use absence of blade, fine, they should also be prepared to have attack into prep called against them.

    You can't have it both ways. Either fence the rules or change the rule to what you want, officially.

    The explanation in the other thread about how absence of blade started was nice and had shown that using the rules was a way to win, albeit a not fun way to lose for the slow people like myself. Parry-Reposte beats attack all day long but no clear attack should not beat a clear attack.
     
  12. sdubinsky

    sdubinsky DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    84
    The rules are still being followed pretty well. The section on the definition of an attack has been found to be worthless and actively detrimental to the sport, so people reinterpreted it. Any rewrite would probably run into the same problem eventually, so why bother?
     
  13. sdubinsky

    sdubinsky DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    84
    I see. This explains quite a lot. I wonder if mal and mike have the same problem?
     
  14. wwittman

    wwittman DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    252
    Likes Received:
    46
    I feel like we’ve really made great headway in this discussion.


    Not.
     
    NeilNZ likes this.
  15. NeilNZ

    NeilNZ Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2009
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    9
    Is this shit still going? I thought they would have disappeared into 19th century classical fencing land, or at the least, 1965 style foil world. Give it up already.
     
  16. Malicia

    Malicia Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    39
    I guess you won't give them the official rules (that you have not ever read), because they just have to listen to you (and not to think).
    Like the guru's sect.
     
  17. ChrisL

    ChrisL DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    28
    When I'm working with new referees I often give them the thought task of being able to explain current actions as they are refereed correctly from the wording in the rule book.
    They should be able to make the correct calls and explain them from a correct reading of the rules as they are written.

    Many newer referees struggle to do this (it can be tricky at times) but most strong refs can do so. Its a good tool since it also helps with discussions like this (which while uncommon at national level and beyond are not unusual at smaller regional events unfortunately) to bridge the gap between those who may perhaps have fenced in the past with less exposure to top level fencing than the average fencer has now.

    I usually start by asking a new referee, who might be able to give the correct call but not necessarily explain from the rulebook, to define some common and important foil calls:
    1) beat/parry calls (beat = preparation, parry stops attack, can't parry a prep)
    2) separations in 4 metres (distance component of an attack being a threat or not, first step preparation, etc. etc.)
    3) attack in prep against the march (distinction between a march that is waiting and a progressive action, not looking for what isn't there etc.)
    Usually if they can work through those they have a solid understanding of the fundamental principles
     
  18. posineg

    posineg DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    37
    Sorry, I should have put that into context with the thread/post I linked, meaning late parries mostly always win on a attack. Slower people will not be able to react to a parry-repost that happens 3/4 or later into there attack, just not enough time to recover for a counter parry, as Allen Evens explained about the absence of blade. You cannot parry-repost an attack late when the attack tries to arrive late.
     
  19. sdubinsky

    sdubinsky DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    84
    Sure you can. I mean, not you personally, maybe, but good fencers can.
     
    InFerrumVeritas likes this.
  20. Allen Evans

    Allen Evans Podium

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,903
    Likes Received:
    974
    Just to be clear, I don't think I ever made that assertion.
     
    sdubinsky likes this.

Share This Page