An Explanation by Maestro Alberto Bernacchi
{mosimage}The new rules about the foil timings issued by the SEMI Commission of the FIE which became official August 20, 2004, have changed quite a bit the way to fence foil. The practical and observed consequences of these new rules are:
· fewer opportunities to execute flicks
· consequent reduction of reachable targets
· more attacks with “pumping” of the weapon arm
· fewer flying attacks
· more counterattacks
· fewer parry-ripostes
1. Signaling Times
Signaling times indicate a set of timings which can be measured with a chronometer and which relate to the effectiveness of the touch. Specifically:
impact time of the foil tip on the target’s surface, i.e., the time interval when the tip must be in contact with the surface of the hit target to allow the scoring apparatus to register the touch (light goes on)
blocking time, i.e., the time interval between a touch by one fencer registered by the scoring apparatus (one light goes on) and a touch by the other fencer so that this second touch can also be registered by the scoring apparatus (other light goes on), in other words the blocking time defines a time interval within which two touches can be registered.
The new FIE rules have modified both signaling times by changing the calibration of the signaling apparatus.
2. The Impact Time
The impact time, or contact time, is the chronometric time that the foil’s tip, after reaching the target, must remain in contact with the target to allow a signal to be registered by the scoring apparatus, activating either a red or a green light, and assigning a score to one of the fencers.
The new rules have changed, by increasing the impact/contact time, from 1-5 ms to 13-15 ms. They have also changed the feeling of the fencer at the instant of contact by the foil tip with the target. The hand grip and the tactical feedback given by the foil are modified by the need to keep the contact with the target long enough (13-15 ms now versus 1-5 ms before) to have the light coming on and indicate a touch.
One can observe that especially in the transition period from the old to the new rules, when the fencer’s feelings are not yet adapted to the new conditions, an increase in “straight hits,” such as those executed by first extending the weapon arm and then touch the target with the tip, which are not registered by the scoring apparatus. Often, before one gets used to the new impact timings, if he executes the touch with the same hand sensitivity he was used to before the new rules, it would not register: the fencer is sure to have touched and that the light should have gone on, but because of the new rules the touch is not registered by the scoring machine. This is why in the first tournaments run under the new rules, so many objections to the new rules were raised in particular by fencers with less experience who don’t specifically train to develop the sensitivity and feel of the weapon hand.
Furthermore, without going in greater depth of the foil tip mechanics, we can certainly say that the scoring consistency on different targets on the body, i.e., the hit absorbing index, is a factor that must now be considered more than ever. For example, “softer” targets like the abdomen and the chest absorb the hits much better — they produce a longer contact time between the tip and the target — than ”harder” targets like the collar bone or the upper part of the trunk.
The “flying attacks” like the flick, i.e., those where the arm weapon is still extending while the tip is reaching or about to reach the target, are now much harder to execute and score a point because of the longer impact time.
3. The Blocking Time
The blocking time is the time interval X that must run between the registration of a touch by the scoring apparatus and the blocking of the same, i.e., after the blocking time has run, no other touch can be registered by the apparatus. This blocking time which closes the window of opportunity for the opponent to score a touch also, used to be 750 +/-50 ms, and now is 300 +/-25 ms, i.e., it is less than one half than with the old rules.
What this means practically, is that after one fencer has hit his opponent (instant A) making a light go on (red or green light for a valid target, white light for a non valid target) the scoring apparatus will not accept any electrical input from the opponent and will not signal anything after 300 ms starting from time A. So if the other fencer will touch before 300 ms from the first touch, it will signal, but after 300 ms from the first touch, the scoring apparatus will not register a touch.
The changing (reduction) of the blocking time has an effect on the fencing action. Some actions which previously were effective, are not any longer under the new rules. This is the case of the parry-riposte executed slowly, but continuously, which now has a good chance not to be registered by the scoring apparatus if it is preceded by a continuation of the first attack or a touch on the riposte.
In foil, because of the convention, the parry [the deviation of the opponent’s attack] and the following riposte [i.e., the attack on the opponent after having parried his attack] always grants a valid touch and a point to the fencer executing the parry-riposte continuously, even if slowly. This is true even if the fencer whose attack had been parried continues/persists in his action by touching the opponent who parried him before his opponent could complete his riposte.
The new rules require a more rapid riposte because, if the riposte doesn’t take place within 300 ms after the persistent attack and touch of the opponent, the scoring apparatus will not register the touch of the riposte. This is the main reason why now instead of parry-riposte one is better off using a counterattack.
4. The Target and its Reacheable Area
In foil the target is represented by the lame which if reached by a touch gives the right to the fencer to score a point. The easiest part to reach of the lame is the front of the torso. The target represented by the shoulders or the back can be reached only if one can angle sufficiently the direction of the touch by taking advantage of the flexibility of the foil blade.
The most effective touch to reach targets which are naturally hidden is the flick. Now, with the new rules, it is not easy or becomes almost impossible to execute the flick. This is why one can say that today with the new rules we have a reduction of the target’s reacheable area.
5. The Flick
The flick is a particular ”flying attack” (in Italian ”colpo lanciato”), i.e., a touch executed with the weapon arm becoming fully extended after the tip has reached the target or just about at the same time, used by taking advantage of the flexibility of the foil blade. Without going into great details, it is executed by flexing and extending the wrist and the forearm in the final stage of the attack, giving the blade a desired bend and allowing the tip to travel perpendicular to the target, even when the targets are difficult to reach, like the shoulder or the back.
Once the tip touches this way the surface of the target, it’s evident that the time interval it stays in contact with the surface is quite short because of the natural tendency of the blade to return to its natural stage of equilibrium, i.e., straight, not bent.
The new rules make it difficult, if not impossible, to score with touches executed this way because the new impact time — which now is longer — doesn’t allow for the apparatus to register a touch when the tip does not “stay” on the target surface long enough (13-15 ms now versus 1-5 ms before). By increasing the impact time to score a touch, it makes it much harder to score with the flick.
6. The Flying Attacks (or ”open eyes attack” because one first watches the reaction of his opponent and only then decides where and how to finish his attack)
Attack is the action with the purpose to hit a valid target on the opponent. Until the new rules, one could use a flick attack against the opponent’s back, or by flexing the arm, present the blade in such a way that it would make it difficult for the opponent to predict which target was chosen for the conclusion of the attack. This would allow the execution of marching attacks (i.e., more or less running, almost like the triple step in basketball) kept “hanging”or suspended to better gauge the opponent’s possible reaction (the parry which he was about to execute or the counter-attack).
This is why it is called ”hanging attack” or “flying attack” or “open eyes attack” when the attacker does not stretch the weapon arm in a straight line, but he moves from one side to another changing the probable target for the conclusion of his action. This type of attack is at the limits of the rules interpretation, by often making difficult and controversial the judge’s call for reasons I don’t want to get into now, but which are connected to the concept of fencing tempo.
The practical impossibility under the new rules to execute the flick (because it seldom registers with the scoring machine) has also considerably reduced the choice of the target since now it is much harder to reach the back or the shoulder of your opponent.
The new rules predispose the fencer to execute attacks with a straight arm, by playing more with the depth of their execution rather than with their variety. This is easier on the judge and, according to the intentions of those who proposed these rules, increases the chance of the spectator to better understand the sequence (phrase) of the events on the strip. Under the old rules, the touches which had reached a valid target and trigger the light on the apparatus, often had to be annulled by the judge because they were not correctly executed from the point of view of the convention and the “fencing tempo.” This was a source of confusion for the public of non experts.
Nevertheless, the coupe or cut-over (”cavazione angolata” in Italian) which is the historical ancestor of the flick, is still doable. This is an action executed to avoid the opponent’s engagement and/or parry by moving the blade up or down — almost like the preparation for the flick — and then line it up perfectly an instant before completing the touch. Even though this would make it hard to hit the back or other targets which are hard to reach, this action allows a certain variety in the choice of the final target (chest, flanks/sides, at different heights).
7. Pumping Attacks
These are touches which are preceded by pulling back the forearm of the weapon arm with the double purpose of
(a) giving more force to the touch (and therefore influencing the impact time over certain surfaces), and
(b) to keep the attack hanging up to the last instant to maintain the opportunity to change your final action, depending on the eventual reaction of your opponent.
The new rules have caused a statistically significant increase of the touches executed this way. This is done to insure a better contact by the tip on the target, however, the risk is also to get the opposite result by increasing too much the absolute speed given to the tip and causing a consequent bouncing off target. This is the opposite of the desired effect, i.e., to insure a longer impact time.
Furthermore, this type of action is judged by some as non elegant and contrary to the pure fencing tradition, just as was the case of the flick which the new rules wanted to eliminate.
8. Counterattacks
In foil fencing, the fencer who first attacks, by using the ROW because of initiative (advancing towards the opponent) and threatening action (weapon lined-up to hit the opponent), will always have the right to score a point even if he was to be touched first by the opponent.
The opponent, to gain the ROW against the fencer who has started an attack, must first find the blade during the attack (i.e., hit with his blade, the blade of the opponent), or, as a last resource, parry the touch of the opponent and then riposte. Note that conceptually speaking, a riposte that follows a parry, represents an attack, i.e., a determination to hit the opponent, and therefore is part of the offencive actions like the attack.
You have a counterattack when instead of parrying the opponent, you either avoid being hit (”esquive”), or you deflect at the last moment his blade and at the same time you hit him [this is called stop hit with opposition]. We could go over this in greater depth, but as a general rule, the execution of a counterattack does not depend on the ability to anticipate chronometrically your opponent, i.e., to hit him before he hits you. He who first attacks is always right even if he is touched before he concludes his attack, unless the opponent has found his blade or he has lost a fencing tempo.
The new blocking times influence the execution of the attack because they make easier for the opponent to execute a counter-attack. In fact, the opponent can touch the attacker during his fully conventional and regular attack, preventing him to finish his attack within the 300 ms allowed by the new rules. Let’s give an example:
· Fencer A attacks with a compound attack. His movement is continuous and he doesn’t lose any fencing tempo, so he has and maintains ROW.
· Fencer B decides not to parry the last part of A’s compound attack but to make a counter-attack on A’s first or second movement (i.e. “inquartata,” or lateral esquive)
· If B touches A with his counter-attack while he is touched by A, he’s not right according to the convention, even if he has touched A just a little bit before being touched himself.
· Obviously A has to finish his attack to score a valid point and he has to be continuous in his execution.
With the old rules A had a 750 ms time to finish his attack after being touched by B’s counter-attack. With the new rules, A has only 300 ms to finish his attack. If fencer B makes his counter-attack at closer quarters by narrowing the distance, fencer A will have a harder time to find a target onto which to finish his attack, and will likely show a loss of continuity in his execution which will cause him to loose the ROW and the chance to finish the attack within the 300 ms allowed
9. Parries-ripostes
With the new rules we see fewer parries-and-ripostes than before. In fact it’s easier to counter-attack than to parry and riposte. This is because the new rules require a more rapid riposte: if the riposte doesn’t take place within the 300 ms after a remise of the opponent, the scoring apparatus will not register the touch.
This is the main reason why now, instead of parry-riposte, one is better off using a counterattack. Fencers fear that their riposte will be stopped by a counter-attack and prefer not to parry the opponent’s attack, but instead to make themselves a counter-attack on the opponent’s attack.
The same applies to attacks. Many fencers feel less confident in their own attacks, because they fear they will be cut-off by an opponent’s counter-attack. For this reasons people who disagree with the new rules say that foil is becoming much like epee, a weapon in which, for tactical reasons, making a stop-hit is more likely than attacking.
On the other side, those who agree with the new rules says that the phrase is more understandable by the public, because the action is now slower than before. This is because now, when you attack, you’re not so sure that you’ll score the point, or that you’ll get counter-attacked, so you prefer to wait for the opponent to attack you.
Final Comments
In a thread on Fencing.net http://www.fencing101.com/vb/showthread.php?t=18700
Barry Paul raises an important point that the FIE practically never consults with fencing equipment manufacturers and did not do so sufficiently when they introduced the new rules. In software development there is always a beta-testing period to flush out any lurking bugs in a new or updated product.
In the case of the new foil rules, the FIE did carry on experimental testing but it was done quickly and without a sufficiently diversified and valid statistical sampling. From the start parallel ”private” testing conducted with modified scoring machines and pressure measuring devices mounted on the foil tip had shown that the new rules could have some bugs in the sense that touches other than flicks did not register also. Tests conducted by the FIS (Italian Fencing Federation) confirmed these “anomalies” and the results were presented to the FIE. Nevertheless, the FIE decided after few months that the new rules were final on the basis of few and not very thorough tests conducted by the SEMI commission.
The end result of this ”rush to the press” is that touches which the new rules wanted to penalize like the flick, can sometimes still be deployed. Admittedly, this is true only in very special situations, depending on the distance, the difference in height and position of the blades during the action, and last, but not least, the strength in the wrist of the fencer. The proof is that in women foil fencing flicks have practically disappeared and only few men still manage, but the majority don’t.
On the other side, touches properly executed by extending the arm — those touches that the new rules wanted to preserve and encourage — paradoxically sometimes don’t register! Hence the attempt by many to ”pump” the weapon arm in the hope to improve the impact time. But in reality, as we discussed before, this often doesn’t happen because the speed of the tip is such that it bounces off immediately after impact before the elapsing of the impact time which now has been increased. This causes men to wear now a chest protector underneath which yields a reduction in the index of absorption of the tip on target. The current rules don’t prohibit men to wear a rigid chest protector — a serious fault — but they should, given the observed consequences.
Furthermore, the closer the fencers, the higher the risk that the tip bounces off the target. Skinny or not so skinny fencers and even newer lames which are softer than older and ”stiffer” ones can represent small, but significant, differences in impact time.
The issue of the proper insulation of 15 cm of the foil point is not so important for the flick, given the speed and the angle of the tip with respect to the target. But in the case of a straight thrust, where the blade can arch even 70 degrees against the target, it’s clear that it is even more important now to make sure that the blade is correctly insulated in the top 15 cm. By the current rules this is the maximum of insulation allowed.
This said, one can get a better impact only with a harmonious coordination between the intensity of the hand grip on the handle which must not be reduced too soon, but only at the right moment, and the movement of the forearm, the wrist, and the shoulder to make the entire action very “fluid” and carried forward in the correct manner. Practically, one must completely revise and in all the tactile details and feelings the feedback of each touch. Only foil fencers at a very top level can practice this at length during training. The regular fencer will neither have the time nor the desire to learn again how to execute a touch and therefore will feel quite frustrated by the new rules.
Are the new rules good or bad for foil fencing?
It’s not easy to answer either way. It seems that the public did not increase nor decrease after the introduction of the new rules, nor the disagreements with the referees calls during a bout. What the new rules have provoked is a wide debate (and this is always good) and in general a certain unhappiness amongst many foilists.
Have the new rules reached the declared goals for their adoption?
Personally, I believe that not much has changed, even though it will take a longer testing time to come up with a valid conclusion. When I happen to referee in local and non official competitions (in Italy the registered Maestri cannot be also referees at national events) I find that now refereeing foil is in effect easier, whereby saber refereeing is as hard as before if not harder, because uninformed fencers cannot understand some decisions made under the new rules.
As a Maestro, I find that the new rules have brought us back to a more traditional fencing, and I feel more comfortable because this is how I learned to fence about twenty years ago, when the flick was not so popular. My Maestri then who gave me my fencing "imprinting" did prohibit all beginners to flick. Purely from a teaching point of view, I think that for children or beginners in general it is much better to avoid widen the movements of the weapon arm as is required by the flick. This is because the habit of widen the movements can teach some defects which later on will be very difficult to correct. If however, one learns from the start to fence in line, then he’ll have no problem to widen his move should this be called for.
As a spectator and fencing fan I don’t like the slowing down of foil fencing, in particular for women fencers. Men’s foil fencing also is much less spectacular and you have the impression — shared also by non experts — that before the bouts were more "fought" than now.
I am also perplexed by what be described as a desire to slow down the natural evolution of the technical action. It’s as if one would impose to go back to the old and heavy wooden tennis racquets to make the movements of the players slower and more harmonious in the name of a certain "tradition."
However, in the end I think that all the pro’s and con’s of the new rules balance out in the natural evolution of any set of rules for any sport. Obviously, as a teacher I must adapt to the new rules and do all I can to make sure my students transition to the new rules as soon as possible. This is why I insist that they understand first the theoretical implications as well as the practical consequences of the new rules.
What about future talked about changes in foil fencing?
As for the future, foreseeable, and partly announced changes (meeting of the FIE Rules Commission in Lausanne, Switzerland, June 11-12, 2005), the elimination of the out of bound touch signal — white light — also for foil (as it is for saber today) which will not stop the action, and making the mask and the bib a valid target, I agree in essence in both cases. The first change will allow the elimination of the very expensive metal strips, and the second will not change substantially the way to fence. But I am totally opposed to make a third change, i.e., making the weapon arm also a valid target in foil. This would just flatten the differences between the way to fence the three weapons.
