Post by schlager7 on Oct 24, 2013 8:40:12 GMT -6
These are related proposals from the Hungarian Federation to be dealt with at the next FIE Congress:
Proposal 2
Motivation: This is only to clarify the existing rule, ie. the fencer should only be penalised by stepping back one meter in case the fencer crosses the lateral boundaries of the piste with both feet.
t. 17.9 If a fencer has crossed the lateral boundaries of the piste with both feet, he may be put back on guard at the correct distance even if this places him behind the rear line and thereby causes a hit to be awarded against him.
Opinion of the Refereeing Commission: Not in favour, the current rule is clear.
Opinion of the Rules Commission: In favour.
Opinion of the Executive Committee: In favour.
Proposal 3
Motivation: This is only to clarify the existing rule, ie. the fencer should only be penalised by stepping back one meter in case the fencer crosses the lateral boundaries of the piste with both feet.
t.28.1
If a competitor crosses one of the lateral boundaries of the piste with both feet, he must step back one metre 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 metre (but cf t.29).
Opinion of the Refereeing Commission: Not in favour, the current rule is clear.
Opinion of the Rules Commission: In favour.
Opinion of the Executive Committee: In favour.
Proposal 4
Motivation: This is only to clarify the existing rule, ie. the fencer should only be penalised by stepping back one meter in case the fencer crosses the lateral boundaries of the piste with both feet.
t.102
If a competitor crosses one of the lateral boundaries of the piste with both feet, he must step back one metre 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 metre.
Opinion of the Refereeing Commission: Not in favour, the current rule is clear.
Opinion of the Rules Commission: In favour, consequent to amendment to t.28.1.
Opinion of the Executive Committee: In favour.
Proposal 2
Motivation: This is only to clarify the existing rule, ie. the fencer should only be penalised by stepping back one meter in case the fencer crosses the lateral boundaries of the piste with both feet.
t. 17.9 If a fencer has crossed the lateral boundaries of the piste with both feet, he may be put back on guard at the correct distance even if this places him behind the rear line and thereby causes a hit to be awarded against him.
Opinion of the Refereeing Commission: Not in favour, the current rule is clear.
Opinion of the Rules Commission: In favour.
Opinion of the Executive Committee: In favour.
Proposal 3
Motivation: This is only to clarify the existing rule, ie. the fencer should only be penalised by stepping back one meter in case the fencer crosses the lateral boundaries of the piste with both feet.
t.28.1
If a competitor crosses one of the lateral boundaries of the piste with both feet, he must step back one metre 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 metre (but cf t.29).
Opinion of the Refereeing Commission: Not in favour, the current rule is clear.
Opinion of the Rules Commission: In favour.
Opinion of the Executive Committee: In favour.
Proposal 4
Motivation: This is only to clarify the existing rule, ie. the fencer should only be penalised by stepping back one meter in case the fencer crosses the lateral boundaries of the piste with both feet.
t.102
If a competitor crosses one of the lateral boundaries of the piste with both feet, he must step back one metre 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 metre.
Opinion of the Refereeing Commission: Not in favour, the current rule is clear.
Opinion of the Rules Commission: In favour, consequent to amendment to t.28.1.
Opinion of the Executive Committee: In favour.