Points on the halt... Valid or no?

[Catal]

I had a fencer entered in an event, doing foil. The ref presiding over the bout called a halt, the moment a point was scored and counted it as a valid point on the halt. I'm wondering if that should have been counted as a point. There were still 30+ seconds left in the bout.

[Bebop and Rocksteady]

Depends. If the fencer had already started his attack before the director said halt, then it was valid.

[achilleus]

It depends on the action and why the ref called halt.

Can you give more information?

[damianip]

[quote]Originally posted by Bebop and Rocksteady:
<strong>Depends. If the fencer had already started his attack before the director said halt, then it was valid.</strong><hr></blockquote>


This is incorrect. The tempo had to begin before the director "thought halt".

In other words, it is related to the the action which causes the director to call a halt, not when the halt is uttered.

Paolo

[Catal]

Achilleus, the two fencers were about to go corps-a-corps after quick advances from each. Fencer A attacks Fencer B and goes passe, Fencer B attacks, valid touch is made on the halt.

[achilleus]

[quote]Originally posted by Catal:
<strong>Achilleus, the two fencers were about to go corps-a-corps after quick advances from each. Fencer A attacks Fencer B and goes passe, Fencer B attacks, valid touch is made on the halt.</strong><hr></blockquote>

OK, what was the ref's reason for calling the halt? Did he give one?

And at what point did he call the halt?
Was it before the attack started?

Because from your description of the action, there seems to be no reason to call halt, except for scoring a touch.

[ 04-08-2002: Message edited by: achilleus ]

[ 04-08-2002: Message edited by: achilleus ]</p>

[Crash55]

Looks like the halt would be for Fencer A going passe. In this case, if Fencer B started his attack before Fencer A went passe then it would be valid. If it started after Fencer A went passe then it doesn't count.


- My mistake. I misunderstood I read it as the fencer going past not the attack going passe. Guess that is what happens when you post when half asleep

[ 04-09-2002: Message edited by: Crash55 ]</p>

[achilleus]

[quote]Originally posted by Crash55:
<strong>Looks like the halt would be for Fencer A going passe. In this case, if Fencer B started his attack before Fencer A went passe then it would be valid. If it started after Fencer A went passe then it doesn't count.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Um, why would you call halt because someone attacked and missed?


Going past someone is different then an attack that is 'passe'.

[Catal]

No, no reason was given for the halt- though, it looked liked the ref was anticipating the corps-a-corps, that did not happen. The touch landed the moment the halt was called, after Fencer B made his attack.

Right, it does look like there was no reason to call the halt- which is why I feel that my fencer was slighted in some way. But, I wanted to make sure.

[RF]

It doesn't matter if the halt was called or not. The director might have been anticipating corps a corps, but even if he hadn't called the halt your fencer still would have been scored on. Touches scored with the halt are considered valid. The situation you describe suggests the director probably erred in calling halt, but the only person it would have been detrimental to was your student's opponent if he had not been awarded the touch.

On a side note, shouldn't you know this if you're coaching others???????

[Masterfulks]

[quote]Originally posted by RF:
<strong>
On a side note, shouldn't you know this if you're coaching others???????</strong><hr></blockquote>


With hospitality like this no wonder fencing is loved all around the world

[achilleus]

[quote]Originally posted by RF:
<strong>It doesn't matter if the halt was called or not. The director might have been anticipating corps a corps, but even if he hadn't called the halt your fencer still would have been scored on. Touches scored with the halt are considered valid. The situation you describe suggests the director probably erred in calling halt, but the only person it would have been detrimental to was your student's opponent if he had not been awarded the touch.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If the ref called halt for a perceived corps-a-corps, that stops the action. Regardless whether there was corps-a-corps or not, whether it was a mistake or not. How often refs actually carry out this practice is unknown. It's not a common occurence at the higher levels of fencing. At the world cups the refs tend to call the corps-a-corps a little late, rather than early.

And as pointed out above, the action is considered dead not when the ref says halt, but when he means to call it, whether it was a correct halt or not.


[quote]Originally posted by RF:
<strong>
On a side note, shouldn't you know this if you're coaching others??????? </strong><hr></blockquote>

Unfortunately, here in the US anyone can coach, and worse yet, anyone can give advice online, whether they know the rules or not.

[achilleus]

[quote]Originally posted by Catal:
<strong>No, no reason was given for the halt- though, it looked liked the ref was anticipating the corps-a-corps, that did not happen. The touch landed the moment the halt was called, after Fencer B made his attack.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sounds like the touch was good. Halt made after the attack began, one light with the halt. If the had other intentions for calling halt, you might be able to argue the validity of the touch. But we don't know why the ref called halt, so, good touch.


[quote]Originally posted by Catal:
<strong>Right, it does look like there was no reason to call the halt- which is why I feel that my fencer was slighted in some way. But, I wanted to make sure. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Don't feel like your fencer was slighted. Close calls not going your way is part of the game. In fact they are part of every game.

[Catal]

[quote]Originally posted by Masterfulks:
<strong>


With hospitality like this no wonder fencing is loved all around the world </strong><hr></blockquote>

I was about to say something similar. However, I reckon some people need to feed their ego by insulting others, and an electronic BB is the place to do it; so no use my complaining about it. Anyway, I never said I was coaching the fencer, I simply said the fencer was one of mine; as in on my team. <img src="graemlins/dunce.gif" border="0" alt="[Dunce]" />

As acerbic as some of the replies were, the advice is appreciated.

[Catal]

Achilleus, thanks. Just needed the confirmation.

Don't feel like your fencer was slighted. Close calls not going your way is part of the game. In fact they are part of every game.

Time for me to introduce that fencer to epee.

[oiuyt]

The action in question could have happened at LEAST as easily in epee as in the other weapons. Switching to epee won't get rid of calls like this.

-B

[Sciurus Rex]

I just reviewed the videotape a few minutes ago, and the conclusion should be obvious: Both fencers black-carded, as well as their coaches and the director himself.

[Crash55]

(I corrected my goof up above)

A couple points from the referee class I took in Jan.

A touch can not be on the halt or with the halt. It is always before or after the halt. So long as the action started before the halt the touch can still be valid no matter when it lands.

The halt occurs when the action causing it happens not when the ref says halt. For this reason we were told to hold off saying halt. For epee they stressed waiting more than anything else. This director definitely should have waited.

The halt shouldn't have waited until the two had actually gone corps-a-corps or could no longer weild their weapons or the director couldn't see what was going on. Then he should have waited another beat and then called Halt.

I hate it when directors call halt too soon.