A question for those who have taken referee ratings...

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by BOliver

Howdy!

I'm always available to help with questions from the referee study guide!

I usually won't give you the answers, but I'll help you find them.

If anyone has questions, send me email, and I'll get back to you.


Bill Oliver
FOC

boliver@fencingofficials.org

Bill I'll gladly take you up on that offer, though I'd prefer to ask in a public forum, such as this thread, so as to help others that may be studying as well. I understand the importance of not giving away too much (answering right out), but I believe conversation on the subject helps all to understand better. Let's start with the question I posed in the thread above. Would T.45 be justification for a Yellow in the case of a torn jacket, even if unknown to the competitor?

Secondly, I'll ask a question about a situation that I'm sure gets many questions. The question has to do with an instance where a valid touch and a cardable offense occur simultaneously. Specifically, a fencer (A) with a yellow from a previous offense, falls while attempting to avoid an attack from his opponent (B). His opponent (B) scores a valid touch. Does his opponent score one or two touches?

My interpretation of the situation is uncertain but I would say that only one touch is scored because the cardable offense which is being alluded to is "Hits with brutality or while falling" since Fencer A was not on the attack he can not be carded. Though I could also see how falling while evading an attack could be seen as disorderly fencing or covered under the all inclusive abnormal fencing action or even, depending on how the fencer falls, (purposely or accidentally), that it possibly could be substitution of target. (I know I'm reaching here, but my real question has to do with is there any instance in which two points would be awarded during the course of one action?)

[BOliver]

Originally Posted by Drifter

Bill I'll gladly take you up on that offer, though I'd prefer to ask in a public forum, such as this thread, so as to help others that may be studying as well. I understand the importance of not giving away too much (answering right out), but I believe conversation on the subject helps all to understand better. Let's start with the question I posed in the thread above. Would T.45 be justification for a Yellow in the case of a torn jacket, even if unknown to the competitor?

I think it's important to understand that the purpose of the card isn't to punish the fencer for having shoddy equipment. It's to punish the fencer for causing a delay in the competition. A fencer who shows up to the strip with non-conforming equipment wastes everyone's time. His/her opponent has to wait, the other fencers in the pool have to wait, the ref has to wait, the Bout Committee has to wait (eventually.)

It's the fencer's responsibility to bring proper equipment to the strip each and every time. If they don't, they are penalized.

Secondly, I'll ask a question about a situation that I'm sure gets many questions. The question has to do with an instance where a valid touch and a cardable offense occur simultaneously. Specifically, a fencer (A) with a yellow from a previous offense, falls while attempting to avoid an attack from his opponent (B). His opponent (B) scores a valid touch. Does his opponent score one or two touches?

NO series of actions occur simultaneously. If, in the above example, the fall occurs before the start of the final movement of the attack, then the halt would stop the action prior to the attack, and there would be no touch (also no card, as falling is no longer a cardable offense, unless a touch is scored in the process of falling - by the faller!) If the fall occurs after the initiation of the final movement of the attack, then the halt would occur with the touch, not the fall. Again, no card.

My interpretation of the situation is uncertain but I would say that only one touch is scored because the cardable offense which is being alluded to is "Hits with brutality or while falling" since Fencer A was not on the attack he can not be carded. Though I could also see how falling while evading an attack could be seen as disorderly fencing or covered under the all inclusive abnormal fencing action or even, depending on how the fencer falls, (purposely or accidentally), that it possibly could be substitution of target. (I know I'm reaching here, but my real question has to do with is there any instance in which two points would be awarded during the course of one action?)

The only action that currently can result in a "double touch" is in saber, where a fencer who has previously received a card in the same bout, crosses over, while the opponent makes a counterattack in the same tempo as the attack. The call would be "Halt. Attack right, Counter attack. Touch right is annulled due to crossover, Red card. Counter attack left is awarded, touch left."

[Drifter]

BOliver Excellent! Thank you very much!

I recall in the Ref's class at Nat'ls in July that many such questions were asked and unfortunately I was not paying as close attention as I should have been. Admittedly, I took the class on a whim and hadn't throughly studied the material before the class.

Of course I have more of these questions, though I'll try not to overload you.

Thanks again.

[IanSerotkin]

Originally Posted by BOliver

NO series of actions occur simultaneously.

Right, but by a certain interpretations of the rulebook, they don't have to be simultaneous. Assume the following situation occurs:

1. Fencer X begins a lunge.
2. Fencer Y retreats off the back of the strip with both feet.
3. Fencer X completes his lunge and lands valid.

The rulebook states in t.26 and t.27:

t.26 When a competitor crosses one of the boundaries of the strip with both feet, the Referee must immediately call ‘Halt’ and annul everything which has occurred after the boundary has been crossed, except a touch received by the competitor who has crossed the boundary even after he has crossed it provided that this touch is made immediately as part of the movement in the course of which he crossed the boundary.

t.27 Should a competitor cross the rear limit of the strip completely — i.e. with both feet — a touch will be scored against him.

Now, via rule t.27, Fencer Y should have a touch scored against him for crossing the rear limit of the strip completely. Furthermore, according to rule t.26, Fencer X's attack should be counted since it was made immediately as the part of the movement in the course of which Fencer Y crossed the boundary--even though the touch landed after Fencer Y left the strip.

So, why shouldn't 2 points be awarded to Fencer X?

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by IanSerotkin

Right, but by a certain interpretations of the rulebook, they don't have to be simultaneous. Assume the following situation occurs:

1. Fencer X begins a lunge.
2. Fencer Y retreats off the back of the strip with both feet.
3. Fencer X completes his lunge and lands valid.

The rulebook states in t.26 and t.27:

t.26 When a competitor crosses one of the boundaries of the strip with both feet, the Referee must immediately call ‘Halt’ and annul everything which has occurred after the boundary has been crossed, except a touch received by the competitor who has crossed the boundary even after he has crossed it provided that this touch is made immediately as part of the movement in the course of which he crossed the boundary.

t.27 Should a competitor cross the rear limit of the strip completely — i.e. with both feet — a touch will be scored against him.

Now, via rule t.27, Fencer Y should have a touch scored against him for crossing the rear limit of the strip completely. Furthermore, according to rule t.26, Fencer X's attack should be counted since it was made immediately as the part of the movement in the course of which Fencer Y crossed the boundary--even though the touch landed after Fencer Y left the strip.

So, why shouldn't 2 points be awarded to Fencer X?

The first sentence of T.26 reads, "When a competitor crosses one of the lateral boundaries...", I interpret this to mean the sides of the strip not necessarily the rear of the strip. Additionally, T.26 appears to be the ruleset for halting the bout. There are additional entries in the form of t.27 and t.28 to handle the specifics of leaving the rear of the strip and lateral boundaries. This in turn suggests that they would take presidence over T.26, and since crossing the rear of the strip and crossing the side of the strip have separate sections it stands to reason that differing rulesets apply.

This of course is all spectulation on my part, BOliver?

[IanSerotkin]

Originally Posted by Drifter

The first sentence of T.26 reads, "When a competitor crosses one of the lateral boundaries..."

It does? I cut and paste directly from T.26 in the rulebook (2002 Rev C)--the word lateral doesn't appear. Maybe you're referring to T.28, which does include the word lateral?

Regardless, even if T.26 did only apply to the lateral boundary, how about if that pesky Fencer X does the same sort of attack while Fencer Y (who already has a yellow card) intentionally leaves the lateral boundaries of the strip to avoid the touch? I would think that Fencer X would get a red card for intentionally leaving the strip, plus Fencer Y's touch would be valid via T.26.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by IanSerotkin

It does? I cut and paste directly from T.26 in the rulebook (2002 Rev C)--the word lateral doesn't appear. Maybe you're referring to T.28, which does include the word lateral?

Regardless, even if T.26 did only apply to the lateral boundary, how about if that pesky Fencer X does the same sort of attack while Fencer Y (who already has a yellow card) intentionally leaves the lateral boundaries of the strip to avoid the touch? I would think that Fencer X would get a red card for intentionally leaving the strip, plus Fencer Y's touch would be valid via T.26.

I've taken t.26 from the pdf file named 2003 USFARules10-14.pdf available on the http://www.fencingofficials.org/ website.

As for the second part, if Fencer Y sucessfully evades Fencer X's attack then t.28 would apply and a Red card would be awarded resulting in a touch against Y. However, if Y does not evade Fencer X's attack then Y could not be guilty of t.28. It's the "...to avoid being touched" part that my argument rests on. If he didn't successfully avoid being touched then he didn't violate the rule. Hence again only one touch against.

But again, I'm only an expert in training and not yet a voice of certainty. DOliver?

[IanSerotkin]

Originally Posted by Drifter

However, if Y does not evade Fencer X's attack then Y could not be guilty of t.28.

Oh, sure he could--just because he didn't succeed doesn't mean he didn't do the crime.

To use another example, if Fencer X covers target with his unarmed hand, it's a penalty regardless of whether or not Fencer Y hits his hand.

It's like attempted murder--you still get 20 to life. Or a yellow card, as the case may be.

[IanSerotkin]

Originally Posted by Drifter

I've taken t.26 from the pdf file named 2003 USFARules10-14.pdf available on the http://www.fencingofficials.org/ website.

It does indeed look like the version on the fencingofficials.org site (revised October 2003) is newer than the one on usfencing.org (revised March 2003). The "lateral" addition to t.26 is in the 8/03 document but not the 3/03 version.

Which leads to the question, why does the older version of the rulebook on the usfencing.org site purport to be the most recent version?!

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by IanSerotkin

Oh, sure he could--just because he didn't succeed doesn't mean he didn't do the crime.

I beg to differ.

Again I rely on the statement, "...to avoid being touched." Specificly, the definition of "to", which our friendly neighborhood dictionary.com tells us is a preposition. Additionally, dictionary.com gives us a quick low down on the many definitions of the word "to" only a couple of which seem to apply to this particular issue.

With the resultant condition of: e.g. nursed her back to health
Toward a given state: helping minority women to economic equality

These two definitions along with the typical understanding that a preposition usually indicates the temporal, spatial or logical relationship of its object to the rest of the sentence suggests rather clearly in my mind that in order for t.28 to apply the fencer must have successfully avoided his opponent's attack. Therefore, once again only one touch.

Nonetheless, I submit that I could be completely and totally wrong and hope BOliver will be on shortly to settle the issue.

[TooLoftheDeviL]

Try to keep this in mind while taking the test: You'll call "halt" for 1 reason in the bout. Piece together why that was, and the answers should seem more intuitive than tricky.

Take for example:

1. Fencer X begins a lunge.
2. Fencer Y retreats off the back of the strip with both feet.
3. Fencer X completes his lunge and lands valid.

What caused the halt? Obviously, Fencer Y's retreating off the strip. So what do you do? You award the touch for X. Landing valid after the halt in the action is irrelevant.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by TooLoftheDeviL

Try to keep this in mind while taking the test: You'll call "halt" for 1 reason in the bout. Piece together why that was, and the answers should seem more intuitive than tricky.

Take for example:



What caused the halt? Obviously, Fencer Y's retreating off the strip. So what do you do? You award the touch for X. Landing valid after the halt in the action is irrelevant.

The issue at hand, however, is that in at least one scenario the answer is not so cut and dry. In the event of a fencer X leaving the side of the strip, (lateral boundary), the attacking action of his opponent (Fencer Y) should be counted against fencer X if Fencer Y's attack is, "a simple and immediate action" (T.26), even after Fencer X has crossed the boundary. Calling a 'halt' in order to stop action in the event of a fencer crossing the lateral boundaries of the strip does not, in this case, cause a touch received from a simple and immediate action to be annulled.

Ian's contention is that this rule should be applied in such a manner that there may be a situation where two touches are to be awarded within one action. His belief is that a touch should be awarded for the hit received, and if the fencer leaving the boundary of the strip is doing so on purpose in an attempt to avoid being touched AND has a previous yellow card for another infraction, then is deserving of a red card touch against as well. The call being something like:

Attack from Right, Lands; Touch Right.
Red card Left; Crossing the side of the strip to avoid being touched. Touch Right.

My contention is that a strict grammatical reading of the ruleset makes the phrase, "...to avoid being touched..." a prepositional (or perhaps Gerund) phrase which makes its validity a pre-requisite in order for the rule to be violated and the fencer meritorious of a card. I.E. In order to receive a card for crossing the strip to avoid being touched one must first cross the lateral boudary of the strip AND second, avoid being touched.

I must say also that I am in total Rule Dweeb Heaven. Thank you so very much all of you who are being part of this conversation. This is the kind of interaction that I find VERY helpful in understanding more about both our sport and the ruleset in general.

[oiuyt]

Rather than enter into the quagmire of the exact meaning of "to avoid being touched" and whether or not it requires success to be invoked, take another rule which can easily be stipulated to be possible to violate during the final action of a valid attack.

Fencer X starts a direct attack with lunge. While the lunge is in progress, but before it has arrived, Fencer Y (who has been penalized previously in the bout with a yellow card) turns his/her back to Fencer X. The attack arrives.

a) Fencer X is awarded two touches (1 for the attack, 1 for Y's new red card)
b) Fencer X is awarded one touch, for the attack
c) Fencer X is awarded one touch, as a result of Y's new red card
d) Something else

Much simpler situation to talk about than either presented above with crossing lateral or end boundaries.

-B :)

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Rather than enter into the quagmire of the exact meaning of "to avoid being touched" and whether or not it requires success to be invoked, take another rule which can easily be stipulated to be possible to violate during the final action of a valid attack.

Fencer X starts a direct attack with lunge. While the lunge is in progress, but before it has arrived, Fencer Y (who has been penalized previously in the bout with a yellow card) turns his/her back to Fencer X. The attack arrives.

a) Fencer X is awarded two touches (1 for the attack, 1 for Y's new red card)
b) Fencer X is awarded one touch, for the attack
c) Fencer X is awarded one touch, as a result of Y's new red card
d) Something else

Much simpler situation to talk about than either presented above with crossing lateral or end boundaries.

-B

As a result of the explicit point made in rule t.26 about an attack being allowed to finish even after a fencer has left the strip, the situation you bring up is in fact a different situation and I believe requires a different answer. In your case, the offense being committed prior to the arrival of the attack takes presidence and a red card for a touch is awarded, the valid touch as a result of the attack is not allowed as it arrived after the infraction.

As I see it this still doesn't shed any light on the previous subject as t.21 (the rule for turning you back) is not explicit in the allowance of finishing attacks whereas t.26 is:

"...The referee must annul everything that has occurred after the boundary has been crossed, except a hit received by the competitor who has crossed the boundary even after he has crossed it, provided that hit results from a simple and immediate action.

Of course, again, I may be completely and totally wrong as I am no expert, if I am mistaken please set me right.

[oiuyt]

from t.18:

"As soon as the order 'Halt' has been given a competitor may not start a new action; only the movement which has begun before the order was given remains valid. Everything which takes place afterwards is entirely non-valid (But cf. t.32)"

(Note: t.32 specifies that no touch may be registered/scored after the expiration of time)

In the example as written by me the attack begins before the 'Halt'. t.18 specifies that movements begun before the 'Halt' remain valid. The fact that t.26 includes a redundant mention of the fact that actions started before the halt occurs does not change the fact that it is true in the other situations as well. Since it is easier to stipulate that turning the back is a card-deserving fault, whereas failing while attempting to cross the lateral boundary to avoid being touched is less clearly cardable, I thought my example clarified the disucssion significantly.

t.21 doesn't NEED to specify that the touch should be allowed, we use ALL of the rules (and therefore t.18 still applies), rather than looking at just single rules in isolation. t.26's redundancy is merely an example of the fact that the rulebook is poorly written.

-B :)

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

from t.18:



(Note: t.32 specifies that no touch may be registered/scored after the expiration of time)

In the example as written by me the attack begins before the 'Halt'. t.18 specifies that movements begun before the 'Halt' remain valid. The fact that t.26 includes a redundant mention of the fact that actions started before the halt occurs does not change the fact that it is true in the other situations as well. Since it is easier to stipulate that turning the back is a card-deserving fault, whereas failing while attempting to cross the lateral boundary to avoid being touched is less clearly cardable, I thought my example clarified the disucssion significantly.

t.21 doesn't NEED to specify that the touch should be allowed, we use ALL of the rules (and therefore t.18 still applies), rather than looking at just single rules in isolation. t.26's redundancy is merely an example of the fact that the rulebook is poorly written.

-B

I admit am making the presumption that since the infraction of the ruleset is the reason for the halt, then the penalty for that infraction takes precedence over the final continuing action. Much in the same way that a false start in football negates any action thereafter.

I can not see how a bout could be called any other way as doing otherwise would greatly increase the possibility of injury on the part of the fencers. Calling a bout in a fashion where a violation doesn't immediately stop action would create a situation where it would be in the best interest for the fencers to begin an attack upon witnessing any viotation of the ruleset in hopes that the referee is slow in calling a halt. That would mean a significantly greater number of situations where one fencer is out of position, potentially even lying prone on the ground or with his mask off, while the other is making an accelerated attack to any target area he can reach before the "buzzer" of the ref calling 'halt' goes off, a very dangerous situation to be sure. Not a scenario which I would be willing to let transpire.

[oiuyt]

Ah, but in both the case of the false start in football and the fencer observing a violation and starting an action, the action starts AFTER the halt (regardless of when the word is spoken by the referee, the halt occurs at the time of the violation). In the case I described the action starts before the violation (and therefore before the halt) and merely concludes after the halt. Most football violations do NOT stop the action. In fact I know of none which will cause the action in football to be stopped if it was in progress (false starts, delay of game, and offsides (making contact with the offense or unabated to the QB) all occur before the action starts).

-B :)

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Ah, but in both the case of the false start in football and the fencer observing a violation and starting an action, the action starts AFTER the halt (regardless of when the word is spoken by the referee, the halt occurs at the time of the violation). In the case I described the action starts before the violation (and therefore before the halt) and merely concludes after the halt. Most football violations do NOT stop the action. In fact I know of none which will cause the action in football to be stopped if it was in progress (false starts, delay of game, and offsides (making contact with the offense or unabated to the QB) all occur before the action starts).

-B

It seems to me the health and safety of the fencers should take presedence over such a continuing action. Particularly since timing being what it is the attacker's lunge would have to be pretty slow to actually have the situation you describe occur. Nonetheless, I still defend the position I've chosen as being the appropriate one.

Remember this conversation began with a question I asked. I do not know with certainty which actions merit an award of two touches to a particular fencer. I can see with clarity how the situation that BOliver posed is resolved, and is likely to occur. These other situation's seem to have far less substance to them in the way of justifiction and in any event seem far less likely to occur. As a result I fall on the side of the fence (pun intended) that chooses to manage a bout in such a way as to minimize dangerous fencing by not rewarding fencers by being overly zealous and discurtious to thier opponents.

In an attempt to get back on some semblance of track, (even though I willingly confess that I seem to have hi-jacked this thread for my own purposes sorry Inquartata), I will pose another question from the ref test that I've been having trouble with.

I'm having trouble finding where specifically one is supposed to place fencers on guard after a corp a corp when both fencers are 1M in front of the aggressors end line. (I have particular issue in how this question is written in that both fencers can not be 1M in front of X's end line except in a case where they are both following the laws of quantum mechanics and not traditional physics but that is another subject all together.) Presuming the action stopped 1M away from X's end line where should the fencers be reset? And where does it say that?

My answer as of right now would be X places rear foot on end line and Y assumes normal distance; plus yellow for foil and sabre, but that's just based on belief not a discovery of the actual rule.