|
Post by kd5mdk on Mar 17, 2006 0:33:48 GMT -6
At the Reno NAC, I talked to Bruce Gilman, who is fairly knowlegable about USFA affairs, and he told me that the USFA will probably adopt the FIE's new passivity (or non-combativity) rule at the Summer meeting. He said the reason it wasn't adopted immediately is we're smarted than to change a rule like that mid-season, but we'll switch to the international rule at the end of this one.
For those not familiar, the FIE rule goes like this:
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Mar 17, 2006 11:41:57 GMT -6
I always thought that this was enforced across the board. Well, at least I have.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Mar 18, 2006 18:11:28 GMT -6
It used to be no yellow/red/black cards, suspensions, or skipping of the 1 minute breaks. Then the top-8 foilists at a Grand Prix refused to fence in front of Rene Roch (head of the FIE) with the TV cameras rolling as a protest of the new foil timings. Basically the finalists were placed according to either the flip of a coin or the competitors actually fenced that last minute. A couple minutes later, Roch had drafted a new passivity rule. The USFA is catching up to that version.
This is how it's been explained to me.
Dan
|
|
kb
Squire
Posts: 261
|
Post by kb on Mar 19, 2006 18:16:11 GMT -6
Okay, someone 'splain it to me....
Does that mean that fencers in the final seconds of a period of their DE that just move a little, salute each other, retreat to their end of the strip and let the clock run out will be called for "passivity" and started on their next period without the one minute break?
I saw this in every DE bout I was writing the score for this weekend at the NCAAs. I think the longest period on the clock was 15 seconds. The ref just stopped the clock and started the one minute break.
In an instance of low-score fencing, about a year ago I was watching a DE at the Longhorn (I think) and the final score was something like 2-1. The two fencers weren't engaged in heated footwork or bladework, just waiting and biding their time until a touch could be made.
Or is this a case of "you'll know it when you see it"?
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Mar 19, 2006 21:11:24 GMT -6
It's Epee. We are different!
One of the very best bouts I have seen in recent years was a 1-2 finish at time!
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Mar 19, 2006 23:59:20 GMT -6
Basically it's applied when 2 fencers just stand on strip outside of distance not doing footwork or bladework. If the fencer is doing either of those and at least close to some kind of distance it would be hard to justify applying this rule.
It could technically be applied to the epeeists (and foilists for that matter) who salute and walk away from each other before time expires, but it would probably get a little heated.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Mar 20, 2006 0:02:06 GMT -6
I'd like to go on record as saying it's a stupid rule. If the fencers won't fence, card them for delay of bout/failure to obey (the command to fence)/unsportsman-like conduct (might get heated again )/whatever if you feel you have to. Otherwise relax and enjoy the break. Dan
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Mar 20, 2006 1:07:35 GMT -6
Peet (the guy behind AskFRED) described the current rule like this: "It's a stupid rule that requires a flowchart to explain. Then again, it's a stupid game that needs a rule forcing you to play the game."
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Mar 20, 2006 9:17:09 GMT -6
Note: There is a difference between PASSIVITY, which is the current USFA rule, and NON-COMBATIVITY, which is the FIE rule under consideration for adoption in the USA.
Passivity is when both fencers aren clearly unwilling to fence - they back away from each other, and stay that way. If applied, it DOES allow for the one minute break. It is also perfectly appropriate to call it when, upon nearing the end of the period, the fencers back out of range. No need to keep the clock running - just call halt and get on with things.
Non-combativity is another beast entirely. It can be called when fencers are within distance, and doing footwork, and beating the blade a little bit, but neither of them is willing to take the chance and risk an attack. Basically, its an attempt to force more "action" and was originally constructed as a way to punish foilists who were protesting against the timing changes. However, I think its going to be difficult to pre-judge the effect this rule is going to have. Its entirely possible that it may function like the cross-over rule in sabre, and have positive benefits once competitors figure it out.
However, if I hear again the phrase "we're epeeists, we're different, we're special, it can't possibly apply to us, because of the special nature of our weapon" I'm going to be sick. Two people barely moving back and forth, occationally tapping each other's blade is NOT fencing. By the same token, a low scoring bout does not always imply non-combativity. If the fencers are actively engaged in maneuvers to draw out their opponent (false attacks, tempo changes, preparations while forcing the distance, etc) then its still fencing. And yea, we've all seen it. We know what it looks like.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 14, 2006 11:28:36 GMT -6
David, correct me if I am wrong. As I understand it there is no warning of the call. If the referee calls passivity, we immediately move to the break (in a DE) or final minute?
I just wish to be sure that I know what I causing to occur if I call passivity.
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Apr 14, 2006 11:41:58 GMT -6
That's as I understand it.
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Apr 14, 2006 16:20:20 GMT -6
There is no warning, except during the final period's first two minutes, in which the FOC flowchart has a spot for warning the fencers.
|
|
|
Post by MTD on May 1, 2006 21:16:04 GMT -6
Peet (the guy behind AskFRED) described the current rule like this: "It's a stupid rule that requires a flowchart to explain. Then again, it's a stupid game that needs a rule forcing you to play the game." Actually, the current USFA passivity rule is really pretty simple -- provided you rewrite it. And, notwithstanding a recent post, there is never any warning involved. Here's how I like to explain it. 0) You read the rulebook beforehand. You see mention of the third period of a DE bout, and you realize that it doesn't take into account that veteran 10-point DE bouts exist, and have fewer than three periods. (The rulebook also does not say when the eight-point break in a veteran saber DE bout occurs! But, you know that the unofficial rule says it occurs at five points.) But, you decide that what matters is whether a DE period is the final period, not the " third" period. You also notice that there is no mention of Y10/Y12 best two out of three DEs, and you don't know what to do. So, you are thankful that you never see true passivity with a pair of Y10 or Y12 fencers! 1) You (the referee) see passivity. 2) You think about whether the current time interval will produce a final score when it ends. (A pool bout -- yes; a final DE period -- yes; a ninth match encounter -- yes; a non-final DE period -- no; an encounter before the ninth in a match -- no.) Well, will time expiration produce a final score? 3A) Time expiration would produce no final score: Pretend time just expired. Do whatever would ordinarily come then (either a one-minute break or a next encounter of a match). 3B) Time expiration would produce a final score: The referee has to jump to the final minute, so reflect on whether the final minute has already started of its own accord. If so, ignore the passivity. Otherwise, halt, flip the coin in case of a tie, and immediately thereafter begin the final minute.
|
|
|
Post by MTD on May 1, 2006 21:47:24 GMT -6
Note: There is a difference between PASSIVITY, which is the current USFA rule, and NON-COMBATIVITY, which is the FIE rule under consideration for adoption in the USA. I'm not sure I can completely agree with this. The current FIE rule, available for possible future adoption by the USFA, is in FIE rule t.87. which has nine numbered sections. (The current USFA rule t.87 is modeled after an earlier FIE rule t.87 which had no section numbers, and the current USFA rule t.87 in turn has no section numbers.) Sections five and six deal with "non-combativité manifeste" for individual fencers and for teams respectively. There are big-enough differences between the current FIE t.87 and the current USFA t.87 (formatting, and changes unrelated to passivity/non-combativity) that one could argue that any conclusions about the differences between passivity and non-combativity are invalid. So, let's take a look at an older version of FIE t.87. Let's look at the June 2004 version. The FIE didn't make it easy to find the paragraph breaks, but they're still sort of there (the USFA paragraph breaks are quite obvious). The first two (FIE) or three (USFA) paragraphs (the USFA added a paragraph break) have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Then, it gets interesting. USFA: "... when both fencers make clear their desire to stop fencing or show evident passivity ..." FIE: "... lorsque les deux tireurs manifestent clairement leur volonté de mettre fin au combat ou font preuve de passivité manifeste ..." USFA: "... passivity ..." FIE: "... passivité ..." USFA: "... manifest passivity or unwillingness to fence ..." FIE: "... passivité ou non-combativité manifeste ..." (It is interesting but probably irrelevant that in the last pair of quotations, the USFA and the FIE differ concerning which of two items deserves the adjective "manifest" attached to it!) So, it seems that the USFA cares to use the term "unwillingness to fence" in exactly the same place as the FIE cares to use the term "non-combativité". And, despite the claim that the current USFA rule does not cover "non-combativity", it most certainly does mention it, as "unwillingness to fence". I suggest that the FIE merely muddied the water to use the term "passivité" sometimes, and the pair of terms "passivité ou non-combativité" in only one place. The FIE rules themselves offer no clarification on any difference between "passivité" and "non-combativité". I suggest that the second term was added 1) to make the text be a little less boring to read, and 2) remove any doubt about whether "passivité" should exclude non-passive activity which bears no resemblance to actually trying to score touches. The current FIE rules make no mention whatsoever of "passivité". The only term used is "non-combativité". So, I conclude that "non-combativité" and "passivité" are meant to be two ways to describe pretty much the same broad collection of behaviors. And, it's outside the scope of the rule book (USFA or FIE, old or new) what is and is not the behavior in question. It's all in the eyes of the referee, and is guided by standard practice, standard practice which is NOT derived from any actual instructions in the rulebook.
|
|
|
Post by MTD on May 1, 2006 21:59:57 GMT -6
Does that mean that fencers in the final seconds of a period of their DE that just move a little, salute each other, retreat to their end of the strip and let the clock run out will be called for "passivity" and started on their next period without the one minute break? I saw this in every DE bout I was writing the score for this weekend at the NCAAs.... Let's look at those final seconds. As an aide, note that NCAA fencing is not fencing. It does not follow the USFA rulebook. (It almost does, but doesn't exactly.) So, never draw any conclusions from something seen in NCAA fencing. But. I know of no differences between NCAA and USFA concerning passivity/non-combativity. The new FIE rule (which could become a new USFA rule) most certainly DOES have a bearing on two fencers in the final seconds of a period making clear they'd rather just have the period end. Under the current rules, the referee has only two occasions when he can compel the time of a period to be considered over when the clock has not actually expired. The first is if the clock fails, and the referee to the best of his estimation believes the current time on the clock really is zero seconds. The second is the passivity rule, which allows the tail end of a non-final DE period to be skipped. If the USFA rules change to mimic the FIE rules, or if one is fencing FIE fencing today, the referee now has no power to dispense with the final seconds of a period without invoking the passivity/non-combativity rule. And, if he does that, things start to get ugly. If he wants to avoid ugliness, he has to "fail to detect" the presence of passivity/non-combativity, and he has to allow the clock to expire on its own. I suspect the average referee will be quite forgiving when only five seconds remain on the clock (but such cannot be guaranteed with certainty). But, the referee will have no rule available to skip those final five seconds (without associated ugliness, and loss of the break). The remaining seconds will just have to tick off, while the referee doesn't react to the fencers backing away from each other.
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on May 1, 2006 22:05:43 GMT -6
[quote author=mtd board=Rules thread=1142577228 post=1146541644[/quote] I'm not sure I can completely agree with this. The current FIE rule, available for possible future adoption by the USFA, is in FIE rule t.87. which has nine numbered sections. (The current USFA rule t.87 is modeled after an earlier FIE rule t.87 which had no section numbers, and the current USFA rule t.87 in turn has no section numbers.) Sections five and six deal with "non-combativité manifeste" for individual fencers and for teams respectively. There are big-enough differences between the current FIE t.87 and the current USFA t.87 (formatting, and changes unrelated to passivity/non-combativity) that one could argue that any conclusions about the differences between passivity and non-combativity are invalid. So, let's take a look at an older version of FIE t.87. Let's look at the June 2004 version. The FIE didn't make it easy to find the paragraph breaks, but they're still sort of there (the USFA paragraph breaks are quite obvious). The first two (FIE) or three (USFA) paragraphs (the USFA added a paragraph break) have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Then, it gets interesting. USFA: "... when both fencers make clear their desire to stop fencing or show evident passivity ..." FIE: "... lorsque les deux tireurs manifestent clairement leur volonté de mettre fin au combat ou font preuve de passivité manifeste ..." USFA: "... passivity ..." FIE: "... passivité ..." USFA: "... manifest passivity or unwillingness to fence ..." FIE: "... passivité ou non-combativité manifeste ..." (It is interesting but probably irrelevant that in the last pair of quotations, the USFA and the FIE differ concerning which of two items deserves the adjective "manifest" attached to it!) So, it seems that the USFA cares to use the term "unwillingness to fence" in exactly the same place as the FIE cares to use the term "non-combativité". And, despite the claim that the current USFA rule does not cover "non-combativity", it most certainly does mention it, as "unwillingness to fence". I suggest that the FIE merely muddied the water to use the term "passivité" sometimes, and the pair of terms "passivité ou non-combativité" in only one place. The FIE rules themselves offer no clarification on any difference between "passivité" and "non-combativité". I suggest that the second term was added 1) to make the text be a little less boring to read, and 2) remove any doubt about whether "passivité" should exclude non-passive activity which bears no resemblance to actually trying to score touches. The current FIE rules make no mention whatsoever of "passivité". The only term used is "non-combativité". So, I conclude that "non-combativité" and "passivité" are meant to be two ways to describe pretty much the same broad collection of behaviors. And, it's outside the scope of the rule book (USFA or FIE, old or new) what is and is not the behavior in question. It's all in the eyes of the referee, and is guided by standard practice, standard practice which is NOT derived from any actual instructions in the rulebook.[/quote] Gee, Matt, can you now recite it backwards for us in Greek? You da Man!
|
|
|
Post by MTD on May 1, 2006 23:12:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Prudence on Jun 24, 2006 0:39:07 GMT -6
NCAA fencing is NOT fencing? Did I read that correctly? What drugs are you smoking Matt?
|
|
|
Post by Prudence on Jun 24, 2006 0:47:14 GMT -6
[However, if I hear again the phrase "we're epeeists, we're different, we're special, it can't possibly apply to us, because of the special nature of our weapon" I'm going to be sick. Two people barely moving back and forth, occationally tapping each other's blade is NOT fencing. By the same token, a low scoring bout does not always imply non-combativity. If the fencers are actively engaged in maneuvers to draw out their opponent (false attacks, tempo changes, preparations while forcing the distance, etc) then its still fencing. And yea, we've all seen it. We know what it looks like.] Well we epeeist DO take our time unlike the others, however, I really find it boring when 2 people are just tapping eachothers swords and neither are attempting anything... oh and about it being a dumb rule, or just a dumb game with a dumb rule forcing people to play the dumb game.. that's pretty funny.
|
|