Important Facts We Should All Know
Item
-
Title
-
Important Facts We Should All Know
-
Date
-
November 27, 1937
-
volume
-
2
-
issue
-
16
-
page start
-
7
-
page end
-
8
-
content
-
en
IMPORTANT FACTS WE SHOULD ALL KNOW
By Miguel A. de Capriles
The A.F.L.A. has completed a wholesale revision of the rules of fencing. The new rule-book, which is designed to bring American fencing rules into agreement with the international practice, should be in the hands of all members of the A.F.L.A. by this time. Since this rule-book was prepared in collaboration with the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the Intercollegiate Fencing Association, its provisions now control most of the fencers in the United States. I wish to take up with you the main rules changes, and to tell you something of the background of the new rules.
First, however, let me point out that there are two definite parts to the rule-book. The first part, which deals with the classification of fencers, and the organization of competitions, is the least important one. The A.F.L.A. rules in this connection are designed to meet the particular problems of the A.F.L.A. tournaments. The I.C.F.A. and the N.C.A.A. each have different problems, and their rules in this connection are different from those of the A.F.L.A. There are some interesting variations in this section of the rules, however, which might be of interest to all fencers, regardless of the organization which controls their particular competitive activities.
Most important of these is the method of handling the annoying situation which occurs when a fencer withdraws from a round-robin pool in a competition while he still has some bouts to fence. The problem is how to determine the relative standing of the remaining fencers, some of whom have not fenced the withdrawing contestant. The old rules gave the organization committee (the Bout Committee) an option of two courses of action: to annul all bouts fenced by the withdrawing contestant; or to let those bouts stand and score the unfenced bouts as 5-0 or 3-0 defeats for the withdrawing contestant. The Bout Committee was to be guided by the principle that the standing of the remaining fencers should be altered as little as possible. But, whichever method were followed, substantial injustice would be done to the remaining fencers. The first operated chiefly to the disadvantage of the fencers who had won their bouts against the withdrawing contestant; the second to the disadvantage of those who had been beaten by him.
The new rule is an ingenious device based on the principle that the men who have not completed their bouts, and who would have a chance to place or qualify if they had beaten the withdrawing contestant, must be given a chance to gain their possible ranking by a fence-off. The principle was developed in an article which appeared some two or three years ago in the official organ of the International Fencing Federation (F.I.E.), "L'Escrime et le Tir." It was tried out and found to be a fairer method of handling this situation. It looks complicated on paper, and yet if you try it out, you will see that it is quite logical and the best way out of a dilemma. (Rule D-2-b)
Of general interest also is the rule for individual competitions which governs the scoring of a bout when one of the contestants withdraws before it is completed (Rule D-2-a). There was no provision for this contingency under the old rules. In the case of such a withdrawal during a team event, the old rules provided that a substitute might be sent in (if the withdrawal was due to injury or other cause beyond the control of the fencer) and the bout fenced over. The new rules provide that the substitute takes up the bout at the point where the injured man leaves off. This is obviously a fairer rule to the opponent who might be well ahead at the time of the injury to the withdrawing fencer. The rules governing the withdrawal of teams during a competition are also clarified and, in the event of round-robin competitions, they follow closely the procedure outlined for cases where an individual withdraws.
Another interesting variation is the establishment of a Jury of Appeal, composed of the Bout Committee and other officers of the A.F.L.A. present at a competition. This body hears appeals on the interpretation of the rules and its decision is final. The old rules, in practice, permitted appeal to the Board of Governors. This was an unsatisfactory situation because the whole competition might have to be fenced over if the Bout Committee’s interpretation was overruled by the Board. This has happened several times, although the undesirability of permitting the Board of Governors to make a retroactive decision in such cases was recognized last year in connection with the Junior Epee Championship. Hereafter, the decision of the Jury of Appeal controls the competition then in progress. This makes for more certainty and better management. However, if the Jury of Appeal errs, in the opinion of the Board of Governors, the interpretation of the rules may be changed, and the change affects future competitions only. The new set-up is generally regarded as much the better principle of government for competitions, and is the one in effect in international tournaments. The I.C.F.A. reaches the same result by giving to its Bout Committee full authority. The A.F.L.A. however, felt that a larger body was desirable because, in practice, it frequently happened that there would be but one non-competing member of the Bout Committee present at any one tournament.
Other minor but interesting changes:
(1) The rule stating the desirability that clubmates fence one another first in a round-robin has been extended to apply to all rounds, instead of only to the final. This seems obviously the best procedure, as it will tend to do away with certain criticisms of the Bout Committee Championship, even though the action of the committee then was perfectly legal. (2) The inclusion of the prescribed order of bouts for team events. (3) The rule requiring a fence-off for first place when two or more teams tie in match victories. This is the international rule. In the past, A.F.L.A. events which ended in a tie in match victories (as in the case of a three-team final, where each team won and lost one match) were decided on the basis of bouts. This cannot be done any longer. (4) As a time-saver for large competitions, however, the Bout Committee may prevent a three-cornered final by granting several byes in the first round. (5) The rule which requires a count of touches in the original pool, to be added to the touches made in a fence-off, when two or more fencers are still tied in bout victories for second or third place after the fence-off (Rule D-1-b-iv). Previously, only touches of the fence-off were counted. The new rule is in agreement with the international practice. (6) The rule which recognizes the principle of the seeded draw in team events, instead of pairing by lot. The rule makes for a climax final round, which is always interesting. (7) The inclusion in the rules of special regulations covering the conduct of epee competitions with the electrical apparatus. (8) The prohibition of mixed bouts between men and women in formal competitions or exhibitions. The background of this rule is the unfortunate publicity given a formal exhibition where a chivalrous man fencer allowed himself to be beaten by a woman of manifestly inferior fencing ability. (9) Various rules prescribing the method of making entries in competitions, the publication of schedules of events, and the procedure to be followed by the Bout Committee in organizing tournaments.
The second part of the new rule-book deals with the rules and conventions of fencing and it is this part of the book that the A.F.L.A., the N.C.A.A., and the I.C.F.A. are generally in agreement. It is this part of the book that affects all American fencers, and I shall discuss these new rules in detail in my next article.
