-
Title
-
Important Facts We Should All Know
-
Date
-
December 18, 1937
-
volume
-
2
-
issue
-
17
-
page start
-
12
-
page end
-
13
-
content
-
en
IMPORTANT FACTS WE SHOULD ALL KNOW.
by Miguel A. de Capriles
The New Rules (2)
Probably the most spectacular change in the rules of fencing (as distinguished from those which control the organization of competitions) is the adoption by the A.F.L.A. of the ground rules and markings which have been used successfully by the Intercollegiate Fencing Association for the past two years. The change is the first major departure in our amateur rules from the international practice which has generally prevailed since 1933. It is also the first major contribution of college fencing to A.F.L.A. rules. In fact, it may also be the first major contribution of American fencing to the international rules.
The international rules on the marking of the strip and on the giving of verbal warnings to the fencer who retreated near the end of the strip were the American rules until 1934. The warning lines were usually one meter away from the end of the strip, and every time that the retreating fencer crossed this line—that is, when he was within one meter of the penalty for going off the end of the strip—the director was required to stop the bout and warn the retreating contestant.
The chief objection to this rule was and still is, that there is a great deal of unnecessarily wasted time, if fencers constantly shift ground near the end of the strip. Both the A.F.L.A. and the I.C.F.A., in the season of 1933-34, considered ways and means of speeding up the actual time of the bouts by eliminating unnecessary delays caused by this system of warnings.
The A.F.L.A. adopted a modification of the rule, which retained the verbal warnings and the strip markings, but eliminated the requirement that the Director stop the bout. When the retreating contestant reached the warning line, the Director called "one meter or one yard," but the phrase d'armes continued without interruption. This rule remained in effect until this year.
After a year’s experiment with the A.F.L.A. rule, the I.C.F.A. discarded it. The colleges were of the opinion that a new objection could now be raised: Many a fencer, particularly in an important contest like the annual championships, would be distracted by the words of the Director, which he might not readily understand under the stress of competition. New hazards were introduced into the bout. In many instances, the fencers stopped fencing anyhow at the Director's warnings.
Some of the college coaches, notably Army's John W. Dimond, also reasoned that there was no reason why the Director should assume the responsibility of warning the retreating contestant. The vital objection to the F.I.E. and A.F.L.A. rule was that it compelled the Director to divide his attention between the play of the blades and the relative location of the fencers on the strip. Rather, it seemed to them, the responsibility for a fencer's retreat—like the responsibility for any other tactical matters in the bout—should rest with the contestant, not with the officials. The contestant should himself realize when he is retreating into dangerous territory, without the stoppage of the bout, and without the interference of verbal warnings by the Director.
Consequently, upon Army's motion, the I.C.F.A. eliminated the verbal warnings by the Director altogether. Yet, in order to permit the contestant to realize his danger when he came near the end of the strip, the warning lines were made very thick—4 inches—and they were located half-way down between the center line and the end of the strip. With a little practice, a fencer could estimate the amount of ground he might safely retreat by watching the position of his opponent in relation to the thick warning line. There would be no further warning than the visual one.
The experimental year of the I.C.F.A.'s new ground rules was eminently successful so that during the 1935-36 season, the A.F.L.A. considered the rule for adoption. There was no question that the principles behind the new rule were sound, but the old rule was retained to avoid a change in American rules during the year immediately preceding the Olympic games, so that the American fencers would not be subjected to different conditions than they would encounter in international competition. At the same time, the A.F.L.A. recommended to the F.I.E. the adoption of this rule as the international rule. The F.I.E. promised to experiment with the rule, but did not act during 1936-37. Now, the A.F.L.A., feeling that if the new rule were adopted by it for American competitions, as an official matter, the F.I.E. might be encouraged to act, proceeded to incorporate it in the new rulebook.
By this action, and the joint adoption of the revised rules by the I.C.F.A., N.C.A.A., and A.F.L.A., the rules of American fencing were made uniform throughout the country—with one single exception, which still lies in the ground rules. That is, the I.C.F.A. has retained the principle that the length of the strip should be uniform in all weapons (40 feet), so that the fencer who goes off the end of the strip in retreating is immediately declared touched. On the other hand, the A.F.L.A. has retained its own view (which is fundamentally the view of the F.I.E.) that the strip should be longer in épée and sabre, so that the fencer is not penalized until he has retreated off the strip for the second time.
An interesting addition to the ground rules, which clarifies a vexing question in this country, is Rule II-D-2-a, on page 29, which applies to all weapons. It refers to the situation which arises when the attacking fencer goes off the side or the end of the strip. The rules previously said simply that he would not be penalized for the bare fact of going off the strip. There was always difficulty in deciding just what this meant. The new rule is eminently fair and logical. When the attacker leaves the strip, his right of play ceases. But an immediate and successful riposte of the opponent is valid. The principle behind this rule is sound: There is no reason to penalize the defender, simply because his opponent fails to stay within the limits of the ground.
Finally, on the subject of ground rules, we come to the least important of the changes, but one which I dare say will surprise many fencers who have become accustomed to a different practice. I refer to the rule concerning the change of sides in a multiple-touch bout. Our general practice heretofore has been to change sides when one fencer has 3 touches in foil and sabre; after every touch in épée—regardless of whether the contest was held indoors or outdoors. The new rule provides for a change of sides, indoors, when one contestant has a majority of the required touches (3 in foil and sabre; 2 in épée). But, in outdoor contests, regardless of the weapon, a change of sides is required after each touch.
The reasoning behind the new rule is quite logical. Aside from the relative abilities of the judges on either side, the main reason for changing sides during a bout is to equalize competitive conditions for both contestants. There is little to choose, on the average, in indoor contests, between one side and the other—although many fencers are inclined to have pet superstitions on the subject. But, if there is some advantage in the ground surface, its inclination, or the light—which is the general rule in outdoor contests because the ground cannot always be perfectly even and the position of the sun cannot be altered—then it is only fair to minimize the advantage or disadvantage to either contestant. The reasoning applies no matter what the weapon. It seems to me therefore, that the new rule is a clear improvement. Now that I’ve thought about it, I cannot see any reason for the change of side indoors in épée after each touch, if the same rule is not applied to foil and sabre.
More about the rules in the next.
