Touches while Falling

[Bokken]

Here's an interesting situation I encountered this past weekend. I'd like to get everyone's opinions on this as well as (hopefully) a citation in the rulebook.

At the command "Fence!" Fencer A advances towards Fencer B with bent, non-extending arm. Fencer B advances with non-extending arm.
Fencer A, upon seeing B's advance, lunges but does not begin extending the arm until the very last moment...and then Fencer A falls down when A's front heel hits the strip and slips out. At the same time as A begins the lunge B extends the weapon arm.
Both fencers hit each other as A is falling down.

As I recall, the penalty chart states that a touch scored while falling is annulled and a yellow card awarded (group 1 offense). There is no rule citation for this, as there is (for example) for a fencer leaving the side of the strip to avoid a touch (t.28). However, t.26 states that a touch scored by the non-offending fencer is valid provided that it was scored with a simple, immediate action.

My question is this: Should the touch scored by Fencer B stand or is that also annulled, and can someone provide a citation for this? I gave A the yellow card and annulled both points as I did not know what the rulebook stated. It seems a little harsh in my opinion to disallow A's point, award the penalty card and give the touch to fencer B. I feel this contrasts with t.26 as there is a significant difference between an accident and a deliberate action.

Thanks!

[Mauler]

Do I understand correctly from your description of the actions (particularly the footwork involved) that both fencers were able to score only because A slipped at the conclusion of his lunge and thereby closing the distance? In other words, had A not slipped, you would've have been looking at two fencers with their arm extended, B on guard and A in lunge with no lights?

If that's the case, it sounds like the actions were attack-counterattack-remise. A attacks and does not land. B's counterattack starts before falling and lands. A's remise starts with (and because of) falling and lands. B has priority and gets the touch nonetherless. A gets no card, btw, since falling is no longer a cardable offense.

On the other hand, as a referee if you were very sure about catching the beginning of extensions from both fencers, you might have perceived the actions differently. B attacks with an advance into A's preparation. Big question mark on when the B's extension ends as well as his advance, however. A counterattacks (although his intention was probably to attack, but errored in execution) and does not land. A's lunge ends. His counterattack is now over. And now he begins his falling process and remise together.

You're going to have to ask yourself as the referee what the B's physical action was and consider the relevant timing with relation to A's actions. Did B make a quick extension and miss the first shot when he finished his advance? Was he still in the process of extending and advancing when A slipped and continued his remise?

Depending on this consideration, you might even have to deal with remise-of-the-attack-VS-remise-of-the-counterattack, or even point-in-line possibilities depending on who screwed up and by how much.

Either ways, you as a referee needs to decide on the priority of right of way at the very last part of the phrase. And you should ask yourself this. If B had the priority, did his action start before A's falling process began? Based on your description, I'm inclined to believe that's what happened. A's attack does not land. B's counterattack lands while (and because of) A's falling. In that case, B gets the touch. No card for A.

With the current rule, there is no carding for falling. Call halt and place them on guard at a proper distance. And touch cannont be scored with an action started by a falling fencer. His opponent, on the other hand, has the right to finish an action that started before the falling started.

[Bokken]

Do I understand correctly from your description of the actions (particularly the footwork involved) that both fencers were able to score only because A slipped at the conclusion of his lunge and thereby closing the distance? In other words, had A not slipped, you would've have been looking at two fencers with their arm extended, B on guard and A in lunge with no lights?

If A had not slipped both fencers would have been in relative extension range and I would have called it A's attack-no, B's attack into preparation-yes, touch for B. Rationale being the foot-rule in saber stipulates that the attack with lunge must arrive before the front foot touches the ground in the lunge.

A gets no card, btw, since falling is no longer a cardable offense.

According to the penalty chart in the Nov. 2004 edition of the rules it remains a cardable offense of group 1 with the asterisk adding that any touch scored must be annulled. However, there is no accompanying citation (eg. t.XX or m.XX, etc) pointing to a rule.

You're going to have to ask yourself as the referee what the B's physical action was and consider the relevant timing with relation to A's actions. Did B make a quick extension and miss the first shot when he finished his advance? Was he still in the process of extending and advancing when A slipped and continued his remise?

B was extending when A fell forward and contacted the blade. IMO, A was extending late (after the front foot landed).
Also, the rules for saber make no stipulation (that I can find) about the blade needing to arrive before the foot lands in an advance, just the lunge. However, it appears that many people incorporate any forward body motion into the blade's arrival requirement.

With the current rule, there is no carding for falling. >snip< And touch cannont be scored with an action started by a falling fencer. His opponent, on the other hand, has the right to finish an action that started before the falling started.

This may sound combative, but please cite your source for stating cards are no longer given for falling. If there is a rulebook errata somewhere, I need to update my copy.

Thanks!

[oiuyt]

First step, make the ROW call. Either A or B would score the touch if there hadn't been a fall.

A's attack no, B's AiP isn't a valid call. If B had an AiP, then A didn't have an attack.

If B had ROW and hit then B should receive the touch, you can't penalize B for a mistake A made.

If A had ROW then A would have received a touch, but, due to the card, his/her touch will be annulled.

In either case A receives a card for uncontrolled fencing. The current interpretation is that if a fencer scores (hits the opponent) while attempting an offensive action (such as an attack or counterattack or remise, one of which the situation you describe must have been) then s/he is carded. If you hit your opponent then it is presupposed that you were committing an offensive action (moral of the story, if you accidently slip, make sure you don't score a touch in the process).

-B :)

[Bokken]

In either case A receives a card for uncontrolled fencing. The current interpretation is that if a fencer scores (hits the opponent) while attempting an offensive action (such as an attack or counterattack or remise, one of which the situation you describe must have been) then s/he is carded. If you hit your opponent then it is presupposed that you were committing an offensive action (moral of the story, if you accidently slip, make sure you don't score a touch in the process).

Understood; I'll make a note for future reference.

Thanks!

[downunder]

In either case A receives a card for uncontrolled fencing.

A receives a card for hit made whilst falling. If he does not have right of way, then he has not made a valid hit, thus is not carded. B's hit stands if his action starts before A falls (and has ROW). Halt should be called immediately as A falls, but B is allowed to finish any action started.

[Mauler]

Bokken,

http://www.usfencing.org/Documents/Rules/New2002.asp

3. Falling is no longer an offense and consequently is no longer penalized. (It is understood that an offensive action that is launched in such a way that the fencer is not in control, and thereby falls, is disorderly fencing and does require a warning and the annulling of any touch scored.)

http://www.usfencing.org/Forms/Penalty.pdf

There is no longer a provision for issuing a Yellow Card for Falling. So you will have to ask yourself as the referee if what took place was a Disorderly Fencing.

This runs along the same line as there's no longer a penalty for Reversing Shoulders in Foil, yet if it's not done right (in such a way the unarmed hand/arm covers the target in the process) then the offender is penalized for a different reason. Same action, different interpretation and different (including no) penalty.

The reason why I worded my reply in the way I did is that depending on the relative circumstances between the two fencers, it may not lead to a case of A making an action that needs to be annulled. Rather, A's "final action" never took place because it happened after fencing stopped (Halt "would have been called" when falling started, although referee obviously didn't sound out the words at that time). If that's the case, there's no touch to be annulled.

[downunder]

(It is understood that an offensive action that is launched in such a way that the fencer is not in control, and thereby falls, is disorderly fencing and does require a warning and the annulling of any touch scored.)

disorderly fencing and hits made with falling are completely different things

[rsy]

There is no longer a provision for issuing a Yellow Card for Falling.

True, but if there is a touch made while falling, disorderly fencing is not the issue because there still is a card issued for "touches made while falling". The 2nd paragraph of Rule t.87 begins:

All bouts must preserve the character of a courteous and frank encounter. All irregular actions (flèche attack which finishes with a collision jostling the opponent, disorderly fencing, irregular movements on the strip, touches achieved with violence, touches made while falling) are strictly forbidden (cf. t.114–t.120). Should such an offence occur, any touch scored by the fencer at fault is annulled.

Note that it is not just valid touches that are carded, any touch that is made while falling is a cardable offense. So Fencer A receives a card regardless of ROW.

What I think Bokken was asking, and what I have a question about as well is: assuming Fencer A had the ROW and but for the fall would have been awarded the touch, as a result of the fall his touch is "annulled", does the use of the word "anulled" mean it is as if the touch never happened and therefore the result of the exchange is that Fencer A receives a card and no touch, but Fencer B receives a touch as his was the only valid touch scored?

-r

[downunder]

What I think Bokken was asking, and what I have a question about as well is: assuming Fencer A had the ROW and but for the fall would have been awarded the touch, as a result of the fall his touch is "annulled", does the use of the word "anulled" mean it is as if the touch never happened and therefore the result of the exchange is that Fencer A receives a card and no touch, but Fencer B receives a touch as his was the only valid touch scored?

-r

ah

no.

The only time when this happens is if the card is for forward crossing of the feet in sabre (don't ever think about disputing it, there is a question in the FIE exam about it )

[fluidfencer]

I am reading conflicting information. Is this right?

Assuming A has priority and makes a valid touch, while falling.

1. As referee, I yell halt as he falls, yellow card for disorderly fencing, and subsequent hit is after the halt and invalid. Correct?

2. There is no longer a yellow card and annulment for making the hit while in the process of falling, which was the correct call in the past. Correct?

I know oiuyt and believe his explanation is correct, but is my simpler explanation also correct?

I need to study my test materials again. Is everything on the USFA web site up to date?

[rsy]

The only time when this happens is if the card is for forward crossing of the feet in sabre (don't ever think about disputing it, there is a question in the FIE exam about it )

Got it.

So other than fleching/forward crossing of the feet in sabre, even if the offense occurs after the touch, the annulment does not allow the otherwise non-priority touch to score. In foil say, no cards have been given, Fencer A attacks, Fencer B counter-attacks, there is an absence of blade and both touches land on valid targets, but A's attack carries him into a corps a corps with B. A's touch is annulled and A receives a yellow card, but B's touch is still without priority and is not awarded. Yes?

-r

[rsy]

I am reading conflicting information. Is this right?
Assuming A has priority and makes a valid touch, while falling.

1. As referee, I yell halt as he falls, yellow card for disorderly fencing, and subsequent hit is after the halt and invalid. Correct?

2. There is no longer a yellow card and annulment for making the hit while in the process of falling, which was the correct call in the past. Correct?

I know oiuyt and believe his explanation is correct, but is my simpler explanation also correct?

I need to study my test materials again. Is everything on the USFA web site up to date?

It is close, but not correct. t.87 makes all "irregular actions...strictly forbidden". Irregular actions specifically include:

flèche attack which finish with a collision jostling the opponent
disorderly fencing
irregular movements on the strip
touches achieved with violence
touches made while falling

So, disorderly fencing is a cardable offense and so is a touch made while falling because they are both defined as irregular actions. Simply falling without making a touch is no longer carded unless the fall is so irregular as to be deemed disorderly fencing. The touch is annulled not necessarily because the touch occurred after the halt (although it may have), but because the rule specifically says that, "Should such an offence occur, any touch scored by the fencer at fault is annulled."

-r

[peet]

It's been said already (first by the starter of this thread), but to say it short and clear:

You may fall.

You may not hit and fall.

If you hit while falling, your touch (if any) is annulled, and you receive a group 1 warning/card.



Now, can an action by your opponent which does not have ROW score during the action in which you fall? I don't know, but my first guess would be yes. Maybe i'll get a chance to ask an FOC person this weekend.

HTH,
-p

[downunder]

rsy: spot on

Now, can an action by your opponent which does not have ROW score during the action in which you fall? I don't know, but my first guess would be yes. Maybe i'll get a chance to ask an FOC person this weekend.

HTH,
-p

If there is one light to the opponent, and the opponent action starts before the fall (and thus halt), it is valid.