Epee Screws + Annulment

[Mr Epee]

I think that this is weird

Fencer gets hit, and suspects that their weapon is not working.

Presents the weapon for inspection, and the referee examines the weapon.

The referee discovers that a tip screw is missing.

At this point there is no need to continue the test, because even if the weapon is dead, the missing tip screw means that the opponent's touch cannot be annulled. The weapon must be changed, and the opponent's touch stands. The bout resumes.

I'm usually very good with the rules, but when this scenario was presented to me recently by a top member of the FOC I was a little surprised.

However, if the tip has fallen out (meaning the both tip screws are missing) then a touch can be annulled.

I don't see how this makes sense.

1 screw missing (no annulment)
2 screws missing (annulment)

Of course all screws were lost during fencing.

[kalivor]

Sorry ... but where in the rules does it say that if a screw is missing that the point stands?

t.66-69 (Which are the rules regarding the annulment of hits in epee) don't mention screws at all, anywhere. A missing screw tip does not mean that a hit is not annulled.

[KD5MDK]

Presumably this is an interpretation issue, but I would like to hear the rationale behind it.

[Katman]

Well, if the tip has flown out of the barrel and across the room then the fencer can't depress anything to turn on a light. He can still do that with the tip that has one tip screw and is still sitting in the barrel.

Sure, the weapon's illegal and has to be changed then, but there's no annulment.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Katman

Well, if the tip has flown out of the barrel and across the room then the fencer can't depress anything to turn on a light. He can still do that with the tip that has one tip screw and is still sitting in the barrel.

Sure, the weapon's illegal and has to be changed then, but there's no annulment.

Just to clarify...

What I was told is that there could be no annulment with a missing tip screw, even if the weapon is not working.

[Victor]

Oooooh-Kay ...

[Katman]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Just to clarify...

What I was told is that there could be no annulment with a missing tip screw, even if the weapon is not working.

OK, I understand you now. Sorry about that.

Maybe they think it's the fencers responsibility? Loose barrel gets you the same results: no annulment and change of weapon. Unless, of course, I don't know what I'm talking about again.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by Katman

OK, I understand you now. Sorry about that.

Maybe they think it's the fencers responsibility? Loose barrel gets you the same results: no annulment and change of weapon. Unless, of course, I don't know what I'm talking about again.

It isn't the fencer's responsibility ... the tip is supposed to be checked before the bout begins. If there's a loose barrel or missing screws, it's a group one offense and the weapon should be confiscated.

If something happens during the bout to cause the loss of a screw or a loose barrel, and it results in the weapon malfunctioning, the point ought to be annulled.

At least, as far as I know ... can anybody tell me why it would be otherwise?

[Allen Evans]

When I went through the FOC referee course (and subsequent test), looking for a missing tip screw was never part of the examination when a weapon was presented by a fencer who suspected a malfunction. Checking the tightness of the barrel WAS part of the procedure, and, as previously posted, if the barrel was loose, the touch could NOT be annulled.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

When I went through the FOC referee course (and subsequent test), looking for a missing tip screw was never part of the examination when a weapon was presented by a fencer who suspected a malfunction. Checking the tightness of the barrel WAS part of the procedure, and, as previously posted, if the barrel was loose, the touch could NOT be annulled.

I don't doubt that people are being told these things ... what I'm wondering is *why* they've been told these things.

There's nothing in the rules, from my reading of it, that would prevent a loose barrel from being the reason for a hit to be annulled. What's the rationale? What rule are you applying?

I'd really like to know ...

[DHCJr]

I am wondering about this also. As been discussed before a loose barrel would not be annulled. It is specifically mentioned in T.68.g as is the body cord out. If what this person stated is true, why is it not also specified?

Is Bill Oliver out there?

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

I am wondering about this also. As been discussed before a loose barrel would not be annulled. It is specifically mentioned in T.68.g as is the body cord out. If what this person stated is true, why is it not also specified?

Is Bill Oliver out there?

Bill is the one who gave those instructions.

[veeco]

No, I think this is BS. The referee tests the weapon at the beginning of the bout. Loose barrels, missing screws, etc. Are caught at this point and carded for.

But after this initial test, fencers have no control over what happens to their tip, their screws, etc. So anytime the weapon doesn't register, no matter how the tip weapon, etc, is looking, the touch should be annuled.

[acaba]

t.68 3 (g): ... or that the electric tip is badly fixed to the end of the blade so that it can be unscrewed or tightened by hand, cannot justify the annulment of touches registered against that competitor.

George K. explained the reason for the loose barrel as follows. A sneaky fencer gets touched and wants it annulled. The sneaky fencer discretely grabs his barrel, and twists it until the wires break. Now the non-functioning weapon is presented, and voila, the touch is annulled. I believe that this even happened during ?Seoul Olympics, World Champs? and everyone except the ref saw the fencer break his own weapon.

At this point there is no need to continue the test, because even if the weapon is dead, the missing tip screw means that the opponent's touch cannot be annulled. The weapon must be changed, and the opponent's touch stands. The bout resumes.

No, this is incorrect. Only if the weapon is non-functional would the touch be annulled.

I don't see how this makes sense.

1 screw missing (no annulment)
2 screws missing (annulment)

If one tip screw is missing, it does not prevent the weapon from working. Fencer A scores a touch. Fencer B's weapon is missing a tip screw. When Fencer B presents his weapon for testing it WILL register a touch. Result: A's touch stands since B's weapon is still working. B must change weapons since it is now non-conforming.

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Bill is the one who gave those instructions.

Then I especially would like to add to this thread. No offense is intended, but getting something second hand, when we can get it direct 'From the horses mouth', would be preferred. Also, he could tell us why.

[KD5MDK]

No, this is incorrect. Only if the weapon is non-functional would the touch be annulled.

According to the scenario presented here, a non-functional weapon would still not get the touch annulled, if there is one tip screw missing.



Thank you for the explanation on the loose barrel, I had not known that reasoning and find it very informative.

If one tip screw is missing, it does not prevent the weapon from working. Fencer A scores a touch. Fencer B's weapon is missing a tip screw. When Fencer B presents his weapon for testing it WILL register a touc

You presume that if the referee depresses the tip, the weapon will work. That is probably true, but I don't consider it a given unless the test actually takes place. Your third sentence is accurate if the touch registers. According to the scenario, the test isn't made in any event. I don't like the sound of that, absent some explanation such as the one you gave for the barrel.

[keith]

well it sounds like a very strict reading of t57.3.b;

"A competitor who makes any modification in or who changes
equipment without being asked by the Referee to do so, before
the Referee has given his decision, loses all right to the annulment of the touch (cf. t.35/d)."

following from the barrel example - anything that might be a result of tampering renders any failure of the equipment a moot point - no benefit of the doubt for naughty boys and girls.

[KD5MDK]

Yeah, but aren't tip screws a hell of a lot harder to fiddle with unobtrusively on strip than a barrel?

It also sounds like a misreading, given that if the fencer doesn't do anything (say, stands on guard and calls out to the referee) they still don't get the opportunity of annulment, which they ought to, if annulment exists.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by keith

well it sounds like a very strict reading of t57.3.b;

"A competitor who makes any modification in or who changes
equipment without being asked by the Referee to do so, before
the Referee has given his decision, loses all right to the annulment of the touch (cf. t.35/d)."

following from the barrel example - anything that might be a result of tampering renders any failure of the equipment a moot point - no benefit of the doubt for naughty boys and girls.

I'd hope that the referee would notice a fencer pulling out a screwdriver and removing a screw before requesting a test.

[keith]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Yeah, but aren't tip screws a hell of a lot harder to fiddle with unobtrusively on strip than a barrel?

well there was a brief time when they sold epee tips that could allow for the contact spring to be adjusted from the outside (a small screw set back in the tip if I remember right) - funnily enough even though this was a fiddly little thing it was adjusted during bouts by some dishonest fellows.

Quite sensibly some of the rules are interpreted with the assumption of manifest cheating being the norm rather than the exception.