One Shot rule - not from The Deer Hunter

Does anyone know where to find the page/article that explains the One
Shot rule? For example...

Fencer A fleches at fencer B, who successfully parries.
Fencer A continues running, well past crossing shoulders with fencer
B.
Fencer B turns to follow fencer A, and delivers a touche to fencer A's
back.

I'm finding the enforcement and understanding of this rule to be all
over the place. Some tell me that there can be no touche scored after
the shoulders cross. Others tell me that the defender has the right
to right to score in one tempo, but not the attacker.

My rule book is waiting.

Don Q

t.21 Displacing the target and ducking are allowed even if during the action
the unarmed hand comes into contact with the strip.

It is forbidden to turn one's back on one's opponent during the bout.
Should such an offence occur, the Referee will penalize the fencer at fault
as specified in Articles t.114, t.116, t.120 and any touch scored by the
fencer at fault is annulled.
When a fencer goes past his opponent during a bout, the Referee must
immediately call 'Halt' and replace the competitors in the positions which
they occupied before the passing took place.

When touches are made as a fencer passes his opponent, the touch made
immediately is valid; a touch made after passing his opponent by the
competitor who has made the passing movement is annulled, but the touch made
immediately, even when turning round, by the competitor who has been
subjected to the offensive action, is valid.

If during a bout a fencer who has made a flèche attack has a touch
registered against him and he continues to run beyond the extreme limit of
the strip sufficiently far to cause the spool or the connecting line to the
spool to be torn out, the touch which he has received will not be annulled
(cf. t.103).


"Don Badowski" <Donq@totheescrime.org> wrote in message
news:ef4fb76.0402100545.500898ee@posting.google.co m...
> Does anyone know where to find the page/article that explains the One
> Shot rule? For example...
>
> Fencer A fleches at fencer B, who successfully parries.
> Fencer A continues running, well past crossing shoulders with fencer
> B.
> Fencer B turns to follow fencer A, and delivers a touche to fencer A's
> back.
>
> I'm finding the enforcement and understanding of this rule to be all
> over the place. Some tell me that there can be no touche scored after
> the shoulders cross. Others tell me that the defender has the right
> to right to score in one tempo, but not the attacker.
>
> My rule book is waiting.
>
> Don Q

Don Badowski wrote:
> Does anyone know where to find the page/article that explains the One
> Shot rule? For example...
>
> Fencer A fleches at fencer B, who successfully parries.
> Fencer A continues running, well past crossing shoulders with fencer
> B.
> Fencer B turns to follow fencer A, and delivers a touche to fencer A's
> back.
>
> I'm finding the enforcement and understanding of this rule to be all
> over the place. Some tell me that there can be no touche scored after
> the shoulders cross. Others tell me that the defender has the right
> to right to score in one tempo, but not the attacker.

The applicable rule is t.21, paraphrased here.

"When a fencer goes past his opponent during a bout, the Referee must
immediately call ‘Halt’ and replace the competitors in the positions
which they occupied before the passing took place.

When touches are made as a fencer passes his opponent, the touch made
immediately is valid; a touch made after passing his opponent by the
competitor who has made the passing movement is annulled, but the touch
made immediately, even when turning round, by the competitor who has
been subjected to the offensive action, is valid."

So, you have to consider when fencer B begins his/her action. If fencer
B parries and begins the riposte BEFORE A passes (before the halt), B
has the right to riposte, even with turning around.

If fencer B makes the parry, pauses and lets A pass (Halt), then begins
the riposte, no touch, since the action began after the halt.

Aaron Caba

In article <c0gmsk$2tn$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu>,
Aaron Caba <acaba2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> So, you have to consider when fencer B begins his/her action. If fencer
> B parries and begins the riposte BEFORE A passes (before the halt), B
> has the right to riposte, even with turning around.
>
> If fencer B makes the parry, pauses and lets A pass (Halt), then begins
> the riposte, no touch, since the action began after the halt.
>


This is all correct. It's also important to note that the "halt" comes
with the action that casued it, not when the referee utters the word.
Thus, even if the referee has a coughing fit and can't say "Halt!" right
away when the shoulders pass, the halt occurs when the shoulders pass
and the riposte is only valid if started before.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Harold Buck wrote:
>
> In article <c0gmsk$2tn$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu>,
> Aaron Caba <acaba2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > So, you have to consider when fencer B begins his/her action. If fencer
> > B parries and begins the riposte BEFORE A passes (before the halt), B
> > has the right to riposte, even with turning around.
> >
> > If fencer B makes the parry, pauses and lets A pass (Halt), then begins
> > the riposte, no touch, since the action began after the halt.
> >
>
> This is all correct. It's also important to note that the "halt" comes
> with the action that casued it, not when the referee utters the word.
> Thus, even if the referee has a coughing fit and can't say "Halt!" right
> away when the shoulders pass, the halt occurs when the shoulders pass
> and the riposte is only valid if started before.

Not quite right. A person who takes a parry *always* has the right
to a riposte (as long as it is immediate) no matter what their
opponent does. It is possible to take a parry and do an immediate
riposte which starts after the opponent has passed, and should still be
allowed as long as the referee hasn't verbally called "Halt". This is
why the rules for epee (fleche attacks) explicitly say "the Referee
should not call halt too soon in order not to annul a possible riposte"
(t.63 if you want to check your rule book).

But yes, if there is a pause between parry and riposte during which time
the opponent passes, the riposte is not allowed irrespective of whether
the verbal call of halt had been made.
Simon.

In article <402C4A21.B417BB63@unimelb.edu.au>,
Simon Summerfield <simonrs@unimelb.edu.au> wrote:

> Not quite right. A person who takes a parry *always* has the right
> to a riposte (as long as it is immediate) no matter what their
> opponent does.

Always? Even if the riposter both feet are off the strip?

>It is possible to take a parry and do an immediate
> riposte which starts after the opponent has passed, and should still be
> allowed as long as the referee hasn't verbally called "Halt".

Can you describe some realistic situations in which the parry comes
before the shoulders pass, the riposte is immediate, but the riposte
begins after the shoulders pass? The only one I can think of is where
you're doing something funky with the weapon arm behind the back when
making the parry.


--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Harold Buck wrote:
>
> In article <402C4A21.B417BB63@unimelb.edu.au>,
> Simon Summerfield <simonrs@unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > Not quite right. A person who takes a parry *always* has the right
> > to a riposte (as long as it is immediate) no matter what their
> > opponent does.
>
> Always? Even if the riposter both feet are off the strip?

Nitpick much? Read what I said. No matter what their *opponent* does.
Of course, if the riposter does something that warrants the hit to
be annulled, they don't get the point.


> > It is possible to take a parry and do an immediate
> > riposte which starts after the opponent has passed, and should still be
> > allowed as long as the referee hasn't verbally called "Halt".
>
> Can you describe some realistic situations in which the parry comes
> before the shoulders pass, the riposte is immediate, but the riposte
> begins after the shoulders pass?

1. What do shoulders have to do with this? Please tell me
where "passing" is defined based on the shoulders. #

2. It can happen and the rules explicitly allow for it.

Turning (to follow the flecher) to execute a riposte should
be considered a single immediate action as long as it is a
continuous movement. You can't turn-pause-riposte and expect
it to count, but you can turn-riposte in a single flowing
movement and expect it to be considered one "fencing time"
and therefore an immediate riposte - even if your arm didn't
start extending until you were halfway through the turn.
Simon.


# Just on a side note, if you were presented with a situation where
a fencer lunged at his opponent from close distance and the opponent
reacted by stepping sideways and forward so that they ended up with
the front foot of the lunger behind his opponent's shoulders, but yet
the lungers front shoulder was not past his opponent's shoulder (maybe
only his upper arm was level with his opponent's shoudler)...you
wouldn't consider that the fencers had passed and would happily allow
the bout to continue...?
No...what constitutes passing isn't actually defined (although it
should be), but generally if any part of one fencer has passed any
part of the other fencer, the referee should consider them "passed".