U2F Mystery

Discussion in 'Fencing Discussion' started by Steve Khinoy, Feb 20, 2019.

  1. Steve Khinoy

    Steve Khinoy DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    80
    OK. A minute goes by without a hit. The ref gives a P-card to one or both fencers. Can we come up with a plausible scenario where one fencer is judged willing to fence and the other unwilling? Wouldn't require a highly subjective ruling from the ref?

    From the FIE FAQ: FAQ: for U2F:
    Q2. Is there only one definition for U2F?
    • YES, the definition is one minute of fencing without a hit or without a hit scored off the target. In order to win a bout, which should be the goal, a fencer should score hits...
    Q3. What does “When one or both fencers make clear their unwillingness to fight” mean?
    • The rule defines it as meaning that there has been one minute without a hit or without a hit scored off the target.
     
  2. Blackwood

    Blackwood DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    29
    I'm not sure I understand your question. The new rule says that if a minute goes by without a touch, the referee gives a P-card to the (one) fencer who is behind in the score; if the score is tied, the referee gives a P-card to both fencers.
     
  3. jkormann

    jkormann Podium

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,245
    Likes Received:
    250
    I'll take a stab at what (I think) Steve is asking.
    FoR is making attacks, which are parried or fail without landing a touch.
    FoL is intentionally parrying without riposte or parrying with distance.
    FoR is trying to land but failing; FoL is wasting time.
    This could be tactical: a) FoR has less points than FoL, and FoL wants to invoke the new U2F forcing FoR to become more desperate; b) score is tied, but FoR already has 3 P-cards.
     
  4. Strytllr

    Strytllr DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    772
    Likes Received:
    145
    i agree. this is not a judgement decision on the referee. if a minute passes, U2F is called. Cards are given depending on what the score is.
     
  5. tbryan

    tbryan Podium

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    322
    If a minute passes with no touches, one or both fencers get a P-card. If the fencers are tied, then we judge them both unwilling to fence, and they both get a card (except for a special case where that would be a double elimination by P-black cards). If one fencer is in the lead, then only the fencer who is trailing is judge as unwilling to fence. The new rule isn't subjective at all.

    If FoR is attacking repeatedly without scoring a touch, and FoL is never able to score a simple riposte, then was FoR ever really attacking? Or was he just making false attacks, trying to provoke FoL into his second intention action?

    If one fencer is trailing (or has more P-cards with a tied score), the new rule puts the onus on that fencer to come up with a touch. In that scenario, the leading fencer can be quite passive without being judged unwilling to fence. The trailing fencer has one-minute to create a situation where he can actually score a touch or at least take the risk to make a real enough action that his opponent scores.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2019
  6. sdubinsky

    sdubinsky DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    84
    > If FoR is attacking repeatedly without scoring a touch, and FoL is never able to score a simple riposte, then was FoR ever really attacking? Or was he just making false attacks, trying to provoke FoL into his second intention action?

    I think the idea is that FoL is unwilling to score, not unable.
     
  7. JSWGFA

    JSWGFA Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2015
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    3
    Not necessarily. FoL could be pulling the riposte, throwing in a feint on the riposte, or generally making a threat to FoR forcing one or more retreats. If FoR is way behind, then I agree, he/she needs to change the game, or lose. If FoR is only one or two points behind with plenty of time on the clock, then they rightfully should not be forced to take high risks, potentially falling further behind. Otherwise, just shorten the time of a bout.

    The onus for scoring was on the trailing fencer under the old rules as well. This is not new.

    We have all seen spectacular exchanges that can go a full minute or longer with only a few seconds in between the action and no touch. That doesn't mean either fencer is unwilling to fence.
     
  8. keropie

    keropie Podium

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,552
    Likes Received:
    216
    I sincerely doubt that tbryan disagrees with your assessments of 'unwillingness to fence' in standard English. However, as he (and others) have pointed out, the rule for 'unwillingness to fence' do not look at intent, effort, prettiness, common sense, or anything other than 'has a touch been scored within a minute.'

    The only place you could potentially create an argument (and I don't believe it would be appropriate) would be if you consider a fencer to be delaying the bout when he/she makes actions that are not intended to score in an effort to manufacture 'unwillingness to fence.' IMO, that level of interpretation around intent is too nebulous to either expect or allow referees to use it.
     
    jdude97 likes this.

Share This Page