|
Post by schlager7 on Dec 18, 2011 12:58:31 GMT -6
I got the following in an email from Gary Van Der Wege. Just passing along...
Folks
A quick update on the proposed rule change going before the USFA Board, anticipated to become in effect soon.
If a competitor crosses one of the lateral boundaries of the piste, he must step back one meter from the point where he left the piste; and if he goes off the piste during an attack he must return to the position he occupied when he started his attack and then step back a further meter.
Also, if you are not aware of the recent 'modification' to the non-combativity rule, it is now stating:
Any ONE of these two things constitute non-combativity.
One minute with no TOUCH (no point in epee, no ON or OFF tagrget hit in foil)
OR
15 seconds with fencers out of advance lunge distance or no blade contact for 15 seconds.
NO 'cards' issued. Go immediately to next period. Do NOT call 'Non-Combativity' in pool bouts or youth 5 touch DEs.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Dec 31, 2011 8:35:27 GMT -6
The wording from the FIE Congress:
In the Technical Rules the part concerning the Lateral boundaries (as in when crossing them) has been rewritten: t.28.1 If a competitor crosses one the lateral boundaries of the piste, he must step back one meter from the point where he left the piste; and if he goes off the piste during an attack he must return to the position he occupied when he started his attack and then step back a further meter (but cf t.29). and t.102. Loss of ground on the piste (cf. t.28) If a competitor crosses one the lateral boundaries of the piste, he must step back one meter from the point where he left the piste; and if he goes off the piste during an attack he must return to the position he occupied when he started his attack and then step back a further meter. Effective January 1, 2012
|
|
|
Post by joevisconti on Jan 12, 2012 9:43:28 GMT -6
Sorry I didn't notice this post earlier. Was there some recent controversey involving how we had been dealing with fencers crossing the lateral boundary of the strip?
I'm trying to figure out what this change is supposed to "fix."
|
|