|
Post by fox on Oct 6, 2005 13:58:21 GMT -6
Got this question from a friend. We never have these issues in epee...
Fencer X launches attack, ending with a lunge in which he has over-extended his body to the point where he is leaning forward as far as his body will reach.
His attack falls short.
Fencer Y makes a counter-attack and a remise of the counter, but fails to strike either time target due to the angle of Fencer X's mask, which is blocking access to the lame'
Fencer X then lands a valid hit with a remise.
Is there a card for covering target with the mask?
|
|
Katman
Squire
[ss:Default]
Posts: 269
|
Post by Katman on Oct 6, 2005 16:24:21 GMT -6
I'd have to see it. If he ducked his head down to look at the floor, then yah. If not, the only way I could see that as covering target is if you said he was doing it with his front leg. I've never seen that called for a lunge position though. I defer to the more experinced opinions on this one though.
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Oct 6, 2005 16:38:41 GMT -6
I'd give the card. Covering is covering whether it's intentional or not. You just have to be consistent.
(By the way, you're going to get lots of split opinions on this.)
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Oct 6, 2005 21:21:18 GMT -6
A tough question to be sure. This year at Summer Nats, George K. was on an absolute TEAR about this issue (among others). In fact, on one day, I asked three different FOC's and literally got three DIFFERENT answers. However, if you distill it down, it basically it is as you presented it, did the fencer "block access to the lame with the mask." The question arises as to what constitutes blocking the lame?
Looking down at the floor definitely counts. But what about halfway? Thats the judgement call.
So, gather your fencers together at the beginning of the pool, while you're doing your checks, and demonstrate for them EXACTLY what you're going to call covering with the mask. That way there are no suprises for anyone.
But to answer the original question, yes, it can be, and yes it is, called when the offending fencer is in the lunge position.
|
|
|
Post by Gary van der Wege on Oct 7, 2005 9:24:46 GMT -6
Quite simply...the accepted interpretation is: if the mask is parallel to the floor, it is covering. If you call it any other way, it is still your statement of fact, but don't dig yourself into a hole and try to explain it.
|
|
|
Post by Geezer on Oct 7, 2005 15:27:28 GMT -6
Ah, ha!!! So simple is the solution!!! Fence Epee!!!
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Oct 7, 2005 17:03:47 GMT -6
Here we go again with the illuminating help our expert friend. The situation presented in this thread is one that generates almost never ending controversies. In foil, you cannot cover the valid target with the non weapon arm nor by shifting the mask from its normal position to place the bib (a non valid target) over the chest. What is normal and what is not is a variable concept which depends also from the specific bout situation.
First of all about the problem of red-carding or not the fencer at fault, unless the situation is obvious, a competent and fair judge would give a yellow card for "jeu désordonnée" (disorderly fencing) (art. t.87) which protects the referee against fencers who can always protest that they were not covering the target, but they cannot protest a call of disorderly fencing in the execution of the fencing action.
If during the lunge the trunk of the lunging fencer leans forward and he ducks his head in a clearly defensive move while lunging, then the red card for covering the target is deserved, irrespective from what the opponent does in the meantime (that he counterattacks, remises, etc., is immaterial; the covering of the target has taken place, period).
If his mask is hit during the action, causing a white light because it was in an illegal position covering the valid target, the fencer should be carded for target substitution, and may have a hit awarded against him which he has not in fact received, because he has committed an offense which has prevented his opponent fencing -- the use of the mask as a shield of the valid target (t.104).
When does the head cover the target? What are tolerable limits for the head movement in the vertical plane, beyond which one is carded?
There are no clear cut answers to these questions because it depends on the height of the fencer, the action, etc. It is true that there is no need to find intention on the part of the fencer at fault to determine whether there was an illegal cover of the target or not. However, a fair and competent referee should not sanction a fencer who leans forward with his head because of inertia while lunging. If this happens repeatedly, after a verbal admonishment, the judge can and should red card the repeating offender. So, in a sense there is an intentional component to act in a certain way and the judge should evaluate and take it into consideration. In the end the referee should decide if the fencer is gaining an advantage by leaning/ducking -- repeatedly -- his head forward in a non natural way, but this is NOT a rule written in the book.
The conclusion is that rules must not be applied in an exaggerate strict way as some suggest. One should always take into consideration the context of the action and then use the referee's discretion -- which will be certainly influenced by the pressures he gets in the pre-competition briefing by the LOC, like, "Watch it! Zero tolerance this time for covering the target..."
Maestro Bernacchi
Another thorough and honest explanation of the problems and limitations encountered by referees.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Oct 9, 2005 23:25:13 GMT -6
This is wrong. If the referee sees an infraction, he or she should give the card for the infraction seen. To do otherwise is a disservice to the fencers and the sport. Also, once the referee has given the card for covering, it is a statement of fact and cannot be argued by anyone. Finally, covering target is a yellow card, not red (t.22, t.49, t.72).
This is also wrong. There is no intentional component to covering or substitution. If the fencer does it, the fencer should receive a yellow card. Sorry is not an excuse.
My vote for best answer in this thread goes to Gary.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Oct 9, 2005 23:34:42 GMT -6
Almost missed this:
To which I say (from t.22 of the USFA rules):
I believe the head would count as part of the body.
Finally, in regards to:
This is exactly the attitude that put fencing on in IOC's watch list. If a more aggressive attitude hadn't been adopted towards the enforcement of all rules, we'd have joined boxing on their "no money for you" list.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Oct 10, 2005 7:44:05 GMT -6
An excellent summary of recent points Dan. These were exactly the kinds of things that were drilled into us working at Summer Nats by George K at Summer Nats (who, as head of the FIE Abritrage Committee, should be considered the "final word" on the subject). Intention doesn't factor into it. Mitigating circumstances don't factor into it. Cover target area, with any part of the body not target area (hand, arm, mask) and its a Group I infraction (yellow card). Plain, simple, direct. The ONLY exception to this is the weapon arm.
A word is good to be inserted about side judges. If the fencer asks for them you are under obligation to IMMEDIATELY inform the FOC/Bout Committee that you need them. There are also circumstances when it is entirely appropriate for you as the referee to get them yourself, before a fencer asks for them. If you find yourself working with side judges, it is important to make absolute certain that the three of you are in exact agreement. If there was not a referees meeting at the start of the tournament and/or they missed it, then you need to make absolute certain that you instruct them on what you expect called. And if you find yourself working as a side judge, make absolute certain that you have the referee show you, the other side judge and the fencers what he expects called.
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Oct 10, 2005 11:38:54 GMT -6
So, if the fencer is leaning forward with the bib blocking target but his head is forward, is that cardable?
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Oct 10, 2005 23:17:51 GMT -6
How it was explained to me, and I'm quoting George K. verbatim here (which, since he beat it into my head this summer, I can still hear him saying in these exact words...)
"If the fencer's mask is positioned to give him an advantage by preventing the other fencer the opportunity to score on target area that would be accessable in the normal on-gaurd position, weather intentional or not, it is a card." (emphasis added by me)
Normal covering-target conventions follow for being within scoring distance, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Oct 11, 2005 8:46:31 GMT -6
That's exactly what I thought. Whether intentional or not (just like in turning the shoulders) is a card. Thanks for confirming that, David.
Now next question: A youth fencer (13 or 14 or so very small body) has a large mask where the bib covers a substantial amount of their shoulders and upper chest. Can we make him or her go find another mask or give a card or what? I feel as though I should do something because it is quite unfair to their opponent but I don't know what to do!
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Oct 11, 2005 13:15:47 GMT -6
Toughie that one. I've never seen this either carded or asked for change. I am speculating here, and guessing that if the mask was not firmly and securely fashioned to the head (loosely fitting, etc) that you could require the fencer to get another one for safety purposes. This kind of circumstance definitely gives an advantage, but, I don't know how to treat it. I'll put it on the list of questions to inquire of a higher authority.
On a similar note though, it IS permissable to refuse a fencer to fence with a lame that does not come down to their hipbones when they are in the on-gaurd position.
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Oct 12, 2005 8:51:39 GMT -6
Just a note please from the moderator of this board.
Off topic discussions, particularly those of a uncomplimentary and/or salacious nature will not be allowed. This board is for the polite, courtious and friendly discussion of the ins and outs of refereeing, and how and why specific calls are made in specific circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by bobb1211999 on Oct 14, 2005 8:07:02 GMT -6
Off Topic, but in your opinion what constitutes leaving the strip to avoid a touch. Example Fencer Y executes a fleche misses, and goes off of the strip, not passing or getting any closer to Fencer X.
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Oct 14, 2005 8:17:38 GMT -6
I'd say he/ she is ok.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Oct 14, 2005 10:59:01 GMT -6
Off Topic, but in your opinion what constitutes leaving the strip to avoid a touch. Example Fencer Y executes a fleche misses, and goes off of the strip, not passing or getting any closer to Fencer X. Better still, why not start a new thread with this question?
|
|