-
Title
-
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments
-
Date
-
December 1940
-
volume
-
5
-
issue
-
6
-
page start
-
8
-
page end
-
10
-
content
-
en
THE NEW RULES BOOK—SIDELIGHTS AND COMMENTS
By MIGUEL A. DE CAPRILES
Chairman of A. F. L. A. and I. C. F. A. Rules Committees
IF I MIGHT BE PERMITTED to paraphrase the late Mr. Justice Holmes, it is not sufficient that you admire a father's newborn babe; you must agree that it is the healthiest, handsomest, and most perfect infant you have ever seen; or you must fight; and to a large extent the same is true about authors and their books. The Remise, in the last issue of The Riposte, has been complimentary enough to satisfy the conceit of the Rules Committees who produced the new Rules Book. Perhaps the compliments have led you and all our readers to expect too much, and you will be even more critical than usual when you receive your copy of the new Rules. However, I think you might be interested to know more of the details attending the preparation of the book, the specific problems that had to be met, and the reason why a certain solution was preferred to a host of other possible solutions.
While the members of the Rules Committees have reason to be proud of the final result, they are the first to recognize that their effort is far from perfect. But the road to real improvement lies with the great body of fencers rather than with a small committee. The fencers who are active in competition must make a real effort to understand, not only the individual rules, but the general theory of rule-making; and they must keep in mind the fact that, in a sport as ancient and widespread as ours, there are many diverging and legitimate points of view. Then, on the basis of actual experience, suggestions for improvement can be made which will truly be of value in drafting the fencing rules of the future.
In this first article, on sidelights and comments, I wish to take up the first part of the rules book—the introductory material that has never before been included in the rules—and shall leave the actual rules of competition for later examination. In the meantime, please read the Preface, so that you may be familiar with the fundamental attitudes that guided your Committees in solving points of conflict.
SECTION A is frankly a bit of propaganda, using this word in its pure meaning, without unfavorable overtones. It was our intention briefly to acquaint fencers who are not members of the A. F. L. A. (and many who are), with the function, history, and organization of the League. It is propaganda born of the belief that the strength of our sport is intimately tied up with the strength of its official amateur organization. The factual material, we believe, is strictly accurate.
The history of the A. F. L. A. is extremely condensed. It was not intended to be complete, since the Rules Committee did not have adequate data to write a real history. Greater detail would have run the risk of serious omissions. Then, too, we felt that even a brief mention of our history might stimulate some of our fencers to a more ambitious effort. The golden opportunity is here: The current fencing season will mark the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the A. F. L. A. What better time than this for someone to tell you about the famous 1912 Olympic fencing team, or the epochal victory of the United States over the champion French foil team in the 1932 Olympics, or the Sesquicentennial fencing events in Philadelphia, or the origin and highlights of the British-American matches, the Cuban-American matches, and the Canadian-American matches? Or the details of the 1933 national outdoor championships at the Chicago World's Fair, or of the excursions of American fencers in European competitions and the World’s championships? Or about the achievements of the great names in the history of American fencing, such as Dr. Graeme M. Hammond, our first President and still active as Honorary President; W. Scott O'Connor, A. G. Bothner, the only man ever to win the three individual championships; John Allaire, Henry Breckinridge, Sherman Hall, George C. Calnan, the first American to place in the Olympic individual championship; Joseph L. Levis, now a professional, but runner-up in the 1932 Olympic foil championship; and many others who are still active in the amateur ranks?
There is little to tell about the section on "organization," except that, since the time of writing, the Board of Governors has cancelled the charters of the inactive divisions, and has granted a new charter to the Oregon Division. To this extent, our beautiful new rules book is already obsolete!
SECTION B reproduces the Constitution and By-Laws of the A. F. L. A. without change. Of course, the job of the Rules Committee was simply to see to it that this material was readily available to our fencers. We had no power to make changes, and no desire to do so. In the course of reading proof, however, we did find a few minor inconsistencies in the By-Laws which were called to the attention of the Board of Governors, which made the necessary corrections in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X. Your copy of the By-Laws is up-to-date.
At the same time, we discovered certain weaknesses in the Constitution that led us to suggest the desirability of appointing a Constitutional Committee to study our basic document and report. For instance, a minor defect in draftsmanship is to be found in Article III, as part of the long paragraph on Active Membership really applies to all types of membership; the adequacy of our definition of an Amateur might be questioned; Chapter I of the By-Laws might be clarified on the subject of admission of new members; part of Chapter VI might be improved, as refers to fencing rules; Chapter VII might need rewriting if the Board of Governors should transform the Metropolitan Committee into a full-fledged division in the future.
THE AMATEUR CODE SECTION C was one of the most difficult and yet most interesting parts of the new Rules book, from the point of view of the Rules Committee. It was difficult because it covers a controversial subject, upon which the members of the Committee were far from agreement, either as to fundamental concepts or as to details. It was interesting because of its history and ramifications.
The subject of amateurism, as an abstract concept, has always fascinated me. Clear though it may seem in general terms, it continually presents subtle and baffling paradoxes when specific situations are encountered, and the tenuous line between amateur and professional (or non-amateur) has to be drawn. For example, in our own Constitution, we find that Army and Navy officers are exempt from the prohibitions of ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, when in the discharge of official duty. This, of course, is based on the theory that an Army officer has no choice; he must obey orders for the good of the service. Now, the Federation Internationale d'Escrime has ruled on this same question and arrived at the same general result, but with an important difference of detail. According to the F. I. E., an Army officer, who is assigned to supervise courses in fencing in military establishments, is an amateur; but if he is required to give lessons, he is a professional. This resulted in a peculiar situation some years ago, when Jack Dimond, Army officer assigned to fencing instruction at West Point, was an amateur as far as the A. F. L. A. was concerned, and yet was considered a professional by the F. I. E. (and the F. I. E. rule governed for Olympic competitions.) It would perhaps be a waste of time to consider here the justification for one or the other view; but this case illustrates rather sharply how thin the dividing line can be in specific situations.
The A.F.L.A. has consistently followed the policy of determining each case on its merits. I believe this is fundamentally sound, and in the long run the only satisfactory method of handling the problem. However, there is a strong body of opinion that the members of the A.F.L.A. should be given general rules as to what is permissible and what is objectionable, as revealed in the decisions of the Board of Governors, in the interest of a "government of laws, and not of men" upon the question of amateur standing. It is in this connection that we find some interesting historical data.
About ten years ago, a committee of the Board of Governors (headed, I believe, by Leon M. Schoonmaker) was appointed to study the rules of the Amateur Athletic Union and to make recommendations for the adoption of an amateur code by the A.F.L.A. This was eminently proper, in view of our Articles of Affiliation with the A.A.U., and the provision for A.A.U. enforcement of penalties inflicted by the A.F.L.A. The committee rendered a divided but well-considered report; it was ceremoniously accepted—and then it was filed out of sight. It never appeared in print; it never was made known to the general membership; and even the Board of Governors eventually forgot all about it. Only the painstaking research through the official minute book by John Huffman brought it back to light, although technically it has been a part of our official rules for these ten years. With very minor variations of language, you will find it under the sub-heads "Acts of Disbarment" and "Reinstatement" in SECTION C of your new Rules book.
About five years ago, the F.I.E. published a summary of the decisions of its international Congresses covering a period of fifteen years on the subject of amateurism. This was done in order to acquaint the affiliated fencing organizations with the rules that would prevail in connection with the 1936 Olympic Games. A translation from the original French was done by George Breed for myself, and I as a member it was considered very seriously by the Board of Governors, and duly noted. It was then filed away—and lost—until Dernell Every resurrected the material a few months ago. The Rules Committee then went over the F.I.E. decisions, noting similarities and differences in point of view as compared with the rules based on A.A.U. code, eliminated duplications as well as certain internal inconsistencies, and you may now find the net addition to our body of general principles in the sub-section entitled "F.I.E. Precedents."
Finally, during the last two years, a number of troublesome questions have come up before the Board of Governors. The action of the Board has been summarized in the subsection "Questionable Situations" and in the footnote on "Amateur Coaching." These situations are exceptionally troublesome because proof of professionalism is difficult without, at times, embarrassing investigations; and yet, these are the cases that in the past have given rise to "whispering campaigns" or rumors which have tended to destroy the easy camaraderie and mutual confidence that should prevail in amateur sport. In the interest of maintaining morale, such whispers should be stilled, and the problem is how to clean up the matter before it gets out of control. There was strong opinion on the Board and on the Rules Committee in favor of requiring the fencer in these questionable cases to prove his amateur standing; that is, to prove that he had never been guilty of acts of disbarment. However, as Norman Armitage pointed out, such a requirement leads to an impossible result: How can a man prove that he has never been guilty of an act of disbarment? It is very much like requiring a man to prove that he has never been married. In order to prove it, he might be required to produce evidence that not a single woman ever claimed him as a husband; that is, you would have to question every woman whom he might have married, and if you omitted a single one, your proof might be worthless! Of course, this is an extreme illustration but very apt. The solution which has been incorporated in the Rules book is the one adopted by the Board of Governors, and is intended to give warning to people who might find themselves in such questionable situations, so that they will not, perhaps inadvertently, subject themselves to criticism.
In brief, the Amateur Code is a compendium of actual rules adopted by the A.F.L.A. and of actual decisions of the Board of Governors. It is by no means a perfect code, but I think it serves a useful purpose, in presenting this information to the general body of fencers for the first time in printed form. Any improvements must await familiarity of the fencers with the problems involved, and a crystallization of their opinion.
Many interesting questions could be raised. For example, our Constitution exempts writing, editing, or publishing articles, magazines or books on fencing from the range of objectionable activities. What about lecturing? What about producing motion picture films? Is not the rationale of the former applicable to the latter? Or, to inquire further into the amateur code: Is it desirable for fencers to follow the A.A.U. rule which makes a professional in one sport, or a teacher of physical education, automatically a professional fencer? Or is the rule followed by golfers more suitable? Or, to go to the root of the whole problem: Is our distinction between amateur and professional a valid one? Or is the rule in polo sounder?
These questions have been raised in Rules Committee meetings; they have been argued strenuously; but the members of the Committee have not reached unanimity of opinion. It seems that there are good arguments on both sides. This being the case, the Committee as a whole concluded that no one view commended itself above all others as to wisdom and expediency. Therefore the Committee did not attempt to frame an ideal amateur code, but only to summarize what the Board of Governors had done heretofore.
Finally, a word about SECTION D. The rules on exhibitions were originally drafted by Dernell Every about a year and a half ago. Their purpose, like that of the amateur code, was to give fencers a general idea of the principles which guide the Board of Governors in approving or disapproving exhibitions. These rules were published in the Secretary’s News Letter in the fall of 1939. The present draft in the Rules book rearranges the sequence of the original rules with minor verbal changes. The footnote on Professional Certificates of Merit was added by the Rules Committee, and is intended purely as a description of what the Certificate is.
This article, then, completes the story behind the non-competitive rules of fencing. In the next article, I shall begin with the rules of organization of competitions, and follow through the Rules book in order.
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments : II. Those Pesky Classifications
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments : III. More About Classification
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments : IV. The National Championship Tournament
The New Rules Book - Sidelights and Comments : V. Resolving Ties in Round-Robin
Sidelights on the New Rules Book : The Scoring System
Sidelights on the New Rules Book : A New Competitive Plan for the I.C.F.A.
