Fencing Draft notes:Rules For Fencers: Difference between revisions

From SCA Lochac
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 21: Line 21:
:Reason for changing this rule
:Reason for changing this rule
;For notes section
;For notes section
:How you are going to describe this for future reference without quoting the whole change long entry
:How you are going to describe this for future reference without quoting the whole change log entry


==Changes for v 6.0==
==Changes for v 6.0==

Revision as of 03:44, 28 March 2023

Notes from Earl Marshal for next update

Somewhere in 2.1?
Authorisation and participation for minors - link to minor participation/authorisation forms - include information about getting approval from parent/guardians
Rejig into multiple pages
  • When you are allowed to fence, Fighting by the rules, and Issues on the field
  • Types of fencing, Single combat and melee
  • Using your weapons and defensive objects, taking blows
  • Wearing protective equipment
Neck armour
is this supposed to be a should? As in there are reasons you might not do it, or is it supposed to be a "must"?

Changed rule number

Was
Text of the previous version of the rule
Now
Text of the new version of the rule
Functional change
What does this change actually mean?
Reason
Reason for changing this rule
For notes section
How you are going to describe this for future reference without quoting the whole change log entry

Changes for v 6.0

2.1.2

Was
To be authorised, you have to pass a verbal and practical test to show that you...
Now
To be authorised, you have to pass a verbal and practical combat test to show that you...
Functional change
Addition of the word "combat" to highlight that the practical component must include combat
Reason
The handbook currently has two phrases meaning the same component of the authorising process. This combines them.
For notes section
April 2023 - The practical component of authorisations must include combat.

2.4.1.2

Was
Not in rules previously
Now
Different types of fencing combat cannot face each other in the same bout. For example, Cut and Thrust may not face Standard fencing.
Subsequent rules renumbered
Functional change
Prevents opponents from using different rules in the same bout.
Reason
Bouts must operate under a single ruleset; this change prevents a clash. Was not clear previously.
For notes section
April 2023 - Clarified that the different fencing types may not be used in the same bout - eg one opponent may not use Cut and Thrust rules while the other uses Standard Fencing rules.

2.6.2

  • What was 2.6.2.1 Killing from behind has been renumbered to 2.6.3 to avoid a numbering clash with 2.6.2 Striking your opponent's sub rules.
  • What was 2.6.2.2 Killing a gunner has been renumbered to 2.6.4 to avoid a numbering clash with 2.6.2 Striking your opponent's sub rules.
  • Subsequent rules have been renumbered.

2.6.2.4

Was
You and your opponent need to agree to allow the use of tip cuts before the bout
Now
Removed
Subsequent rules renumbered
Functional change
Opponents no longer need to agree to the use of tip cuts beforre they can be used.
Reason
Tip cuts are an accepted part of fencing combat in Lochac.
For notes section
April 2023 - Tip cuts are an accepted part of fencing combat in Lochac, so the previous requirement to agree to use them has been removed.

Was 2.6.2.1, now 2.6.3

Was
Not in rules
Now
2.6.3.3 - You must use "killing from behind" when you are behind the line of your opponent's shoulders. Marshals may further restrict this angle at their discretion.
2.6.3.4 - If “killing from behind” is not allowed in the scenario, you may not strike your opponent while behind the line of your opponent’s shoulders.
Functional change
Clarification added for when killing from behind may be used, and allows marshals to add additional restrictions
Reason
Adds clarity around when killing from behind can be used. Marshals will be able to add additional restrictions (such as "outside of 120 degrees of the front arc"), but this is very difficult to clearly legislate.
For notes section
April 2023 - Clarification added for when killing from behind may be used, and allows marshals to add additional restrictions

Was 2.6.5.8, now 2.6.7.8

Was
You can briefly hold your opponent's blade to control it, but both of you must agree to use grasping during the bout. Grasping should be for no more than a couple of seconds, so that you do not start wrestling for the blade.
Now
If both you and your opponent agree to use blade grasping during a bout, you can briefly hold your opponent’s blade to control it. Grasping should be for no more than a couple of seconds, so that you do not start wrestling for the blade. Blade grasping includes, but is not limited to, taking hold of an opponent's blade with your hand, or circling a blade with fingers, such as index and thumb in an "OK" sign as shown in figure 1.
Figure 1. Circling a blade with finger and thumb is an example of blade grasping.
.
Functional change
Examples of blade grasping included.
Reason
Some fencers have been known to circle a blade with an index and thumb, claiming this is not grasping the blade. This is unacceptable and unchivalric "rules lawyering" to take advantage of an unclear rule.
For notes section
April 2023 - Examples of blade grasping have been included, as this was previously unclear.

2.6.7.9

Was
Not in rules
Now
When grasping, parrying, or otherwise controlling your opponent's weapon or body (such as by parrying the wrist), fighters must ensure they do so in a safe manner. It is the obligation of the fighter grasping, parrying, or taking control of an opponent's weapon to ensure they avoid wrenching, twisting or pressing a joint beyond natural limits.
Functional change
Reminds fighters that these actions hold risk of hurting their opponent, so must be carried out carefully.
Reason
Accidental overextension of opponent's joints has been observed repeatedly, especially when taking control of a spear where the fighter is unable to drop the object. This emphasises the importance of control and that, should there be an incident, the burden is on the fighter who performed the action to justify their action.
For notes section
April 2023 - Following a number of incidents of accidental overextension of an opponent's joints, rule 2.6.7.9 has been added as a reminder to take care.

2.7.3

Was
The only time this changes is if organisers hold a tournament where they define areas of the body that are protected as if you were wearing real armour.
Now
The only time these rules change is if organisers hold a tournament or other event with different victory conditions (for example, saying "only blows to the head count").
Functional change
Allows for alternate scenario rules for combat.
Reason
Aligns closer to Society standard while also providing more flexibility for alternate rulesets for Marshals.
For notes section
April 2023 - Marshals may use scenarios that allow for different victory conditions, eg. restricting target areas or counted blows.

2.7.7.e-g

Was
Not in rules
Now
(e) It is courteous to turn a kneeling or seated combatant so that they are not facing into the sun.
(f) When one combatant is kneeling or seated and the other is standing, it is forbidden for the standing combatant to circle, turn or "corkscrew" the kneeling combatant more than 90 degrees in either direction from the starting position.
(g) It is forbidden for a standing combatant to over bear or press (with body, weapon or other object) a kneeling or seated combatant to the point that the kneeling or seated combatant cannot straighten their upper body perpendicular to the ground. This rule is meant to allow the kneeling or seated combatant to straighten if they desire and is not intended to keep the standing combatant from leaning forward to stay in range if the kneeling or seated combatant leans back.
Functional change
Addition of rules to maintain the comfort of a legged fighter.
Reason
This language is taken verbatim from the Lochac Armoured Combat Handbook, and then adding "or seated". It works to ensure a more controlled bout without unnecessarily discomforting the legged fighter.
For notes section
April 2023 - Addition of rules to maintain the comfort of a legged fighter. These rules are similar to those found in armoured combat.

2.8.1.1

Was
Fencing practice sessions can also include drills and other classes that do not involve fighting. During sword or dagger drills with an opponent, you must wear eye protection, such as spectacles, sunglasses, safety glasses or a fencing mask or helm.
Now
Fencing practice sessions can also include drills and other classes that do not involve fighting. It is strongly recommended that fencers wear eye protection during sword or dagger drills with an opponent. Safety glasses, a fencing mask or a helm are appropriate. Spectacles and sunglasses are not considered eye protection.
Functional change
Eye protection for drills moves to being strongly recommended, rather than compulsory.
Reason
The current rules do not improve safety, as spectacles and sunglasses are not personal protective equipment and cause an unacceptable level of risk-acceptance, as fencers can believe they are protected.
The current rules are also not enforceable because there is no useful and consistent way to define 'drill'. Some marshals consider that demonstrating an action with a sword is a 'drill' and thus requires eye protection (even if the person the sword is pointed at does not move and is in full gear) and others consider a 'drill' anything up to full speed sparring. Defining 'drill' as anything other than full sparring, the broadest possible capture definition, is not useful because "sparring" is also not simple to define and you end up in a situation where anyone picking up a sword needs eye wear which doesn't actually protect them.
From a risk perspective, the existing requirement does not meaningfully improve safety and is impractical. Fencers are able to take a risk-based approach to training depending on their own training and opponent, given there is no international case base to suggest lack of eye protection causes heightened risk, nor are these rules mirrored at Society level.
For spears, given the chance that an accident could cause a catastrophic injury, additional protection is warranted.
For notes section

2.8.1.2

Was
You must wear full face protection for weapons drills using a spear.
Now
You must wear full face protection for weapons drills against an opponent using a spear.
Functional change
You must wear full face protection if you are drilling against an opponent who has a spear, rather than if you are using one yourself
Reason
Facing the spear is the risky part, not using it.
For notes section
April 2023 - You must wear full face protection when your opponent has a spear during drills.

2.8.3.1-2

Was
You must wear a gorget (collar) made from rigid material to protect your entire neck and throat. This should be backed by resilient padding or penetration-resistant material.
Now
You must wear a gorget (collar) made from rigid material to protect your entire neck and throat. This should be backed by resilient padding or penetration-resistant material. Figure 2 shows the area which must be protected.
2.8.2 has been removed and replaced by:
Neck protection with a gap of less than 9mm (for example, where the ends of two plates meet) meets this standard, so long as the gap is not within the front or rear 90 degree arc.
Functional change
Clarifies areas that must be covered by rigid material, and what sized gaps may be allowed.
Reason
Updates rules to remain practical and more in line with Society requirements, without reducing safety from existing practice.
The deleted section of this rule has not been enforced since a variation was introduced at least prior to 2008, as the understanding of "cervical verterbrae" differs from what is strictly written. As currently written, gorgets must protect the entire cervical column to the base of the skull, which no known gorgets do so (though gorget combined with rigid back of head protection often does so). This revised rule is equivalent to what fencers in Lochac are currently doing already, and what is accepted international practice. This issue has been raised with SRM on two occasions with no response; I expect because it would require a rapid change, such as what we are proposing here. There is no loss in safety by having a small gap, and Lochac rules are already stricter than Society level rules. Fencing blunts will not be able to penetrate this gap; this clarifies expectations around incidental gaps.
For notes section
April 2023 - Image added to clarify what parts of the neck must be protected by rigid material, and what sized gaps may be allowed.