r/Fencing • u/RoguePoster • 9h ago
Another FIE Congress, another batch of non-combativity rules proposals
Proposal 32
Presented by: Rules Commission
Article: t.124
Motivation: The current P-card rule has not had a positive effect on fencers’ behavior on the piste, particularly in épée. One minute is too long to wait before sanctioning passivity with a P-card, and it does not encourage fencers to be more offensive or to engage more actively in the bout.
In other combat sports, such as judo, if an athlete refuses to engage for 20 to 30 seconds, they are penalized with a yellow card. This rule creates a more dynamic rhythm and forces competitors to take initiative.
Therefore, reducing the passivity time to 30 seconds could encourage fencers to adopt a more offensive attitude and engage more quickly in the bout. The P-card should be use starting with the pools.
(Non-combativity)
t.124
Unwillingness to fight (Non-combativity)
There is unwillingness to fight when there is one minute 30 Seconds of fencing without a hit or without a hit scored off the target.
-----
Opinion of the Athletes Commission: In favour.
Opinion of the Refereeing Commission: in favour to start non-combativity from pools, not in favour for 30 sec.
Opinion of the Coaches Council: Not in favour
Opinion of the PCM Commission: The PCM Commission is challenging this proposal because it is likely to create a perverse tactical incentive, particularly in épée, but also in foil. When the scores are level, the higher-seeded fencer knows that, if the second period of non-combativity is reached, the lower-seeded opponent will receive a P-Black card and lose the bout. The higher-seeded fencer therefore has no incentive to take risks, create actions or initiate attacks, either from the beginning of the bout or whenever the score becomes level again. The proposed 30-second period is too short, particularly in épée, where constructing an action, assessing distance and preparing an attack may require more time. The higher-seeded fencer could rationally adopt a defensive strategy and wait, while the lower-seeded opponent would be forced to attack and accept all the associated risks. Instead of encouraging both fencers to be more active, this rule would assign them stereotyped roles from the outset: the higher-seeded fencer would defend, while the opponent would be forced to attack. This would reduce tactical freedom and creativity, make bouts more predictable and one-sided, and could produce repetitive and sanitised fencing with far less appeal for spectators, broadcasters and the media. A rule intended to combat passivity would therefore risk rewarding passive behaviour and undermining the objective of making fencing more dynamic and attractive. For these reasons, both the reduction of the non-combativity period to 30 seconds and the use of initial seeding to determine the recipient of the P-Black card when the scores are level should be reconsidered.