|
Post by schlager7 on Sept 23, 2003 15:48:20 GMT -6
Pretty soon the FIE will be making a decision on the off-target light in foil. Is it going to go the way of sabre, with no stop in action for off targets?
More to the point, is this desirable?
Who wants to keep the "halt" after off-target foil hits and who wants to jettison them.
Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Passing Through on Sept 24, 2003 6:10:14 GMT -6
Stopping action for off-target hits is part of what makes foil, foil. Take it away and right-of-way soon goes and all you have is epee with a smaller target.
|
|
|
Post by Ivanhoe on Sept 24, 2003 10:26:27 GMT -6
I have listened to arguments that state that this may help clean up foil. Take this scenario for example.
Fencer A attacks, Fencer B performs a valid parry/riposte but misses to the arm. While this action is occuring, Fencer A does not parry but remises into Fencer B and hits valid target.
Scenario 1 In the current state of the rule, assuming the director calls everything correctly, the action is halted with Fencer B's off target riposte taking priority over the Fencer A's remise. Nothing is done and fencing starts over.
Scenario 2. In the proposed state of the rule, the action does not halt with Fencer B's off-target riposte, but at Fencer A's valid remise. In this case, the touch is awarded to Fencer A.
This may, from the surface, look like epee with a limited target, but I do not believe that to be the case. In which scenario is the concept of right of way most ingrained into the mind of Fencer B? Scenario 1 where the action is halted and no touch is awarded to either fencer? Or Scenario 2 where he is not awarded a touch but receives a touch against him?
On the flip side, Fencer A does not learn anything for he is awarded a touch for an improper action. However, if Fencer B concentrates more on performing a valid riposte, foil will look like foil because Fencer B will make sure his riposte is valid.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Sept 24, 2003 13:38:34 GMT -6
I kind of look at it all from the point of view of someone who finds it really painful to ref a bout with about 20 off target touches for every one on target. That is to say I doubt I'll miss a white light. I also doubt it would become anything like epee. Rather, it would encourage fencers to be patient and take their time on the riposte leading to better and cleaner fencing. The downside would be a number of people learning to essentially parry with their front arm which would be easily dealt with by making the upper arm target area.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Ivanhoe on Sept 24, 2003 14:51:23 GMT -6
Exactly Dan! I think this rule will clean foil up extensively. Ever since I read the rule and was convinced of its validity, I have stopped calling off targets in dry foil bouts around the club. It makes directing foil much easier. All of those halts for a touch to the arm just bogg the game down. This is another example given to me by an expert fencer on www.fencing101.com. Say we have a simular scenario as above. A attacks, B performs a parry/riposte and misses passe' across the stomach while A remises... you only get one light. This is a very simular situation from our no white light on the hit to the arm. B performs a riposte but misses valid target and A gets the touch on the remise.
|
|
|
Post by Majority Rulz on Sept 25, 2003 6:12:26 GMT -6
Not a foil fencer myself, but I wish they would get rid of right-of-way in sabre and fence it like epee. Double-hit, double points awarded.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Sept 25, 2003 10:24:26 GMT -6
They did double touches for a simulatious action for awhile. It sucked. Nothing but attacks until someone blinked and lost. It was even worse than the old priority system. I'd say the way it's done now is fine.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Ivanhoe on Sept 25, 2003 11:03:29 GMT -6
I was thinking on the same line. Epee rules for sabre would result in nothing but double touches.
|
|
|
Post by Passing Through on Sept 26, 2003 10:50:50 GMT -6
I dunno. Even epee is not all double-touches...
And THEY do fence by epee rules.
|
|
|
Post by Ivanhoe on Sept 26, 2003 11:59:06 GMT -6
This is my unlearned opinion, but I thought much of sabre was Engarde..... Fence .... WHAM!!! Buzzer goes off and the director calls the action either as attack/counterattack or attack/parry riposte.
From listening to countless sabreurs talking about their trade on fencing.net, I get the idea that sabre is more bravado and speed than tactical thinking, which is what I think of for foil and especially epee. Considering i've never truly fenced the weapon, I cannot say for myself.
I am sorry but I do not undestand what you mean by They do fence by epee rules. Is not sabre governed by the convention of right of way?
|
|
|
Post by LC Foil on Sept 26, 2003 15:56:26 GMT -6
I think they meant that Epee fencers already fence by Epee rules and don't get all double-touches.
just my take
|
|
|
Post by cowpaste on Sept 26, 2003 21:37:39 GMT -6
I see one major problem with removing the white light: suppose fencer A attacks fencer B. Fencer B decides to counter-attack and contort his body in some odd way. Fencer A ends up hitting arm, while fencer B lands valid. B gets the point.
I've been in this situation tons of times. I would do a nice, clean attack to the chest, and my opponent would lift up his arm and block it while counter-attacking. Using the current light system, I would get an off-target and no points would be awarded. While this is annoying as hell, at least it does not award fencer B for using his arm to block.
A rarer but similar situation is when fencer B ducks and fencer A ends up hitting the mask.
I know there's that displacing target rule, but it is already rarely enforced. I imagine it would be even more rarely enforced without the white light.
Making the upper arm target area makes sense and all, but then people would start to aim for the upper arm on purpose. That kinda defeats the whole point of foil in the first place, which is to hit your opponent fatally on the torso and stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Ivanhoe on Sept 28, 2003 15:43:47 GMT -6
That is a good point, Cowpaste. The only thing I can think of off hand is that the attacker is going to have to adapt to defender's attempts to substitute body target. Either that or directors are going to start enforcing the substitution of target area rule.
I hope all you foilists enjoy all the complex rules of your weapon. Its things like this that make me extra happy that epee is the weapon that drives me.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Sept 29, 2003 11:59:19 GMT -6
You know, I've been fencing 13 years now and have yet to see a foilist hit fatally on the torso or anywhere else. I saw an epeeist go down at a tournament once, but that was a congenital spinal condition and he was okay (eventually). Not that I'm complaining -- one of the things I love about fencing is that, in spite of what we call them, we don't actually use weapons.
The displacing target rule is just to keep people from blocking target area with non-target area. Referees shouldn't call it against people who cause an attack to miss by ducking or jumping. Now if your oppenent is using his or her head to parry, ask for side judges to keep an eye on him or her.
On another note, if you disengaged around the arm when your opponent blocked like that, it's still your attack, you hit on target, the presence or absence of off-target lights is moot, your referee loves you for doing clean actions, and your coach gets all happy that you're doing what I'm sure you've been taught to do.
On a completely different note, disengaging around the arm like that is why the extending not extended arm should be used for right-of-way. When the arm is fully extended it is harder to make small controlled actions which would make counter-attacks in this situation more effective. With the extending arm, the indirect attack is better at countering this pseudo-defense and forces the defender to actually defend through time and distance (which is what fencing is all about -- they're how you make the attack finish so you can parry it).
Dan
|
|
|
Post by cowpaste on Sept 29, 2003 22:49:38 GMT -6
I've always thought the displacement of target rule refered to arms and stuff too, but in the Big Book of Fencing, Rudy Volkmann mentions that it's important that you are not hit in the mask when you do a duck counter-attack since the ref could give you a card for the displacement of target rule. He knows more about fencing than I, so I'm gonna trust him for now.
I know I could disengage around his arm, but why should I have to? How would I react in time for that anyway? I know it is technically possible, but let's be practical here. If he does an arm parry at the last second, I'm not going to be able to disengage in time. Now let's say I'm super fast reflex man, and I *can* do it in time. I'm still at the disadvantage when I attack. Shouldn't that right of way thing make it so I have an advantage? My opponent doesn't remove my ROW in this case. He just blocks my point with his arm.
In addition to that, good disengages should be around the bell-guard, not the arm, am I correct?
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Sept 30, 2003 9:39:20 GMT -6
Good disengages are from a closed line to an open line. They are taught to be as small as possible so the phase "just around the bellguard" comes up a lot, but if that's too small to avoid whatever is blocking your target, then it needs to be bigger.
As for substitution of target area with non-target area, the rule book says:
and
T.114, t.116, and t.120 are the schedule of offenses and penalties, so they don't offer anything new to this.
So we can see that the only time we have to worry about the whole thing is when there has been an abnormal body movement. If I duck, the rules say that's okay, so I'm fine as long as I don't drop my head way forward into an unnatural position and have to worry about rule t.22. Same thing if I thrust my arm forward in a counter-attack. If the reason the attack ends up off-target is because the attacker couldn't avoid a legitiment displacement, then the attacker is at fault, not the defender. That's why it's important for the attacker to stay relaxed and be able to disengage once his opponent has shown a propensity to use such tactics. The ROW rules aren't meant to give the attacker the advantage, only to insure that the attack is respected in the limited scenerios where both fencers hit something.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Oct 20, 2003 23:51:32 GMT -6
My opinion is that the rules should reflect what we would expect to happen if the blades were live. Off target hits in foil are puzzling in this way, sometimes an off target hit would stop an attack to the target area and sometimes they wouldn't. Personally I find that worrying about off target hits slows the action too much and that it often rewards poor point control. Eliminating it would seem like a good idea, but then I know that fencers will start using the rule change to change the way they fence, creatively blocking the target area with off targets, then going for a quick counter.
I think they are trying to fix the car's engine by changing it's tires. The problem with foil is the way the interpretation of ROW has become a matter of fashion rather than rule, and yes it is largely because of the F-word (flick).
|
|
|
Post by Passing Through on Oct 23, 2003 11:41:45 GMT -6
So, did they 86 the white lights for foil, yet?
|
|
|
Post by Diego de la Vega on Oct 30, 2003 7:31:36 GMT -6
Realistically, I would be surprised if they changed any rules between now and the Olympics next summer.
After that...
I personally think the white light in foil is a goner.
Heck, as it's directed now, ROW in foil goes to the first to charge. I hear they want to make fencing more accessible to the American public. I guess they figure we are pretty darned dumb.
Of course, given ROW rules as foil is currently directed, I think I'll start a classical fencing salle.
It's time to get back to basics.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Oct 30, 2003 14:13:04 GMT -6
I really don't get your animosity towards foil refereeing. The last couple of seasons have been far more open to awarding attacks on preparation in foil, and we're really starting to see some clean, sharp actions in the local competitions. It's really led to a reduction in the running attacks I've seen, so the charging you speak of is not gone yet, and, really, I don't think it was ever too much of a problem in the first place.
Besides, what basics are missing in foil today? I refereed a competition this past weekend where I saw plenty of clean attacks, timed hits, ripostes, counter-attacks, second intentions, the list goes on. Granted it tends to be the better fencers doing the better actions, but I think that's true of any era. The athleticism of today's fencers make their actions exciting to watch, and I'm seeing younger fencers use more in depth stategy every season. I think the state of foil fencing is in great shape.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Nov 27, 2003 12:58:15 GMT -6
The FIE votes from Liepzig are in. The move to suppress the white light in foil failed 38 (to suppress) to 44.
That vote was pretty close.
|
|
|
Post by LC Foil on Nov 29, 2003 10:52:06 GMT -6
I guess foil stays foil for a little while, at least...
|
|
|
Post by Geezer on Dec 2, 2003 9:52:54 GMT -6
Greetings, All. The Light stays, but I think the assult, (insult), continues. Personally, I see no value in the change. (I don't mind doing things in a diferent way, but I hate Change.) The Form, and thus the Game, were designed to a specific purpose. From this comes an aesthetic in style and tradition. Inheirent in the foil game is the idea of "usefulness", described by Proper vs. Improper, and ideally, demonstrated by accuracy, speed, and grace. So, it's when these ideas are compromised by wild, uncontrolled, or unsafe actions, that fencing action is halted. Without this control, all off-target point control, failed attack vs. counterattack, or parry-riposte vs. remise becomes irrelevant and gives way to only a fortuitous "point and stab". The idea of this, I do not like.
I've heard only three reasons for the Light Change...to speed the action, to increase public understanding, and to simplify Directing. Action: is what it is. If it's a Game then let the Players play it. The Public: sure, let's dumb it down to the lowest for the slowest. (Hum, how do they handle Chess? I wonder...? What is "learnding"?) The Director(s): they see what they see and call what they call and only their personal Honor is at stake, they're not fencing the bout so who cares what they want!
Change the Light and change the style, changing the style will change the Game, and changing the Game will destroy the existing one. So, if you want a NEW Game, do it, but leave the present one alone. Besides that, I don't even like the idea.
|
|