04-06-2005, 12:51 PM
|
#1 | | Just Joined
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2
| Epee Rules Question
I've got a question about Rule t.67 section E "If a touch is registered by an established touch and a doubtful touch (failure of electrical apparatus) the fencer who has made the established touch may choose to accept the double touch or have it annulled." My question is this. does this rule only allow for situations where both lights come on but only one of the lights is established as valid while the other is doubtful. ie The director clearly sees fencer A hit fencer B but fencer B's hit looked like it could have hit the floor instead of the foot. Or does it allow for situations where only 1 light comes on but the director sees both fencers hit each other? I ask this because I always thought that the rule only pertained to situations where both lights came on, but at a tournament this weekend someone was trying to convince me that is not how the rule works. Any help on this matter would be appreciated. | 
|  | | And now for this message... |
| |
04-06-2005, 01:00 PM
|
#2 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Jyväskylä
Posts: 3,876
| This is only in the case where a double touch has been registered by the scoring machine, but one of the points is doubtful (i.e. appeared to score on the guard, appeared to score on the grounded piste, etc.)...
It is extremely rare that you would encounter this situation.
__________________
Quit touchin' me, ya freak
F.Net Rule #1: E. L. E. (everybody love everybody)
| |
| | |
04-06-2005, 01:09 PM
|
#3 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 491
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by sthomp2 Or does it allow for situations where only 1 light comes on but the director sees both fencers hit each other? I ask this because I always thought that the rule only pertained to situations where both lights came on, but at a tournament this weekend someone was trying to convince me that is not how the rule works. Any help on this matter would be appreciated. | The rule mentioned (t.67 e) only applies to cases where both lights come on. I.e where the failure of the electrical apparatus was that it incorrectly turned on one of the lights, not cases where one light failed to come on. See rule t.40 for why the person that tried to convince you otherwise was wrong. | |
| | |
04-06-2005, 01:13 PM
|
#4 | | Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,021
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by sthomp2 I've got a question about Rule t.67 section E "If a touch is registered by an established touch and a doubtful touch (failure of electrical apparatus) the fencer who has made the established touch may choose to accept the double touch or have it annulled." ... Does it allow for situations where only one light comes on but the director sees both fencers hit each other? | Don't try to read more into the sentence than it actually says. Emphasis mine on the word 'and': "an established touch and a doubtful touch." That means you gotta have both events for this clause to come into effect. | |
| | |
04-06-2005, 07:34 PM
|
#5 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Posts: 308
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by Mr Epee This is only in the case where a double touch has been registered by the scoring machine, but one of the points is doubtful (i.e. appeared to score on the guard, appeared to score on the grounded piste, etc.)...
It is extremely rare that you would encounter this situation. | Happened to me in the DE's at an NAC.
My opponent went for the toe on a metal strip and missed and I hit him on the arm. I was very unpleasantly surprised to see a double-light on the scoring machine.
We found a bad spot on the copper strip that would always go off, but it wasn't very big, so I was given the choice of a double-touch or no-touch.
Since I was behind 3-2 I had to pick the no-touch.
I wasn't happy.
gary hayenga | |
| | |
04-06-2005, 08:00 PM
|
#6 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Carstairs, AB, Canada
Posts: 3,412
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by Victor Don't try to read more into the sentence than it actually says. Emphasis mine on the word 'and': "an established touch and a doubtful touch." That means you gotta have both events for this clause to come into effect. | Right. But what's a "doubtful touch"? What's the "electrical apparatus"? Does it count in the case where a fencer's tip (arguably, a part of the electrical apparatus) explodes on contact in a double hit and only one light comes on? Or when the reel wire snaps because some dorkus tripped over it?
I can see what sthomp2 is saying and probably the line his friend was arguing. Any backup for the already stated opinions?
James.
__________________
If it's stupid, but it works, it's not stupid.
| |
| | |
04-06-2005, 08:14 PM
|
#7 | | Just Joined
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by jBirch Right. But what's a "doubtful touch"? What's the "electrical apparatus"? Does it count in the case where a fencer's tip (arguably, a part of the electrical apparatus) explodes on contact in a double hit and only one light comes on? Or when the reel wire snaps because some dorkus tripped over it?
I can see what sthomp2 is saying and probably the line his friend was arguing. Any backup for the already stated opinions?
James. |
I would think that those follow under the normal rules for annulling a touch. In those cases no one gets a point. The person who's light came own would have their touch annulled because their opponent's weapon/reel became defective during the course of fencing.
This is the reason I was so confused when I was being told that the referee could let one fencer choose to have a double touch or annul it when only one light went off. Cuz if there really was a problem with their opponent's grear the touch could be annulled anyway. | |
| | |
04-07-2005, 12:47 AM
|
#8 | | Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,021
| A "touch" isn't a touch at all -- in electric fencing -- unless the scoring box signifies it somehow. So a "doubtful touch" is just that: a touch (light goes off!) that is doubtful. Light doesn't go off? No touch, not even a doubtful touch... So the clause doesn't fit.
If the weapon is found to be non-conforming sometime during a bout -- i.e. doesn't set off the scoring box light at all -- well, then, you're dealing with another rule entirely. | |
| | |
04-07-2005, 02:48 AM
|
#9 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 491
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by jBirch Any backup for the already stated opinions? | Yes and it was already posted. Once again see t.40. Then if still confused read Victor's explanation of what a doubtful touch means in the context of t.67 section e. | |
| | |
04-07-2005, 12:54 PM
|
#10 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Carstairs, AB, Canada
Posts: 3,412
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by Victor A "touch" isn't a touch at all -- in electric fencing -- unless the scoring box signifies it somehow. So a "doubtful touch" is just that: a touch (light goes off!) that is doubtful. Light doesn't go off? No touch, not even a doubtful touch... So the clause doesn't fit.
If the weapon is found to be non-conforming sometime during a bout -- i.e. doesn't set off the scoring box light at all -- well, then, you're dealing with another rule entirely. | Okay, so could the one light that was present be considered a doubtful touch because the other opponent clearly should have locked it out? Or are you saying that t.40 says that "no lamp = no touch"? How does t.67b factor in to this?
Or is this what you were saying by requiring a two light situation: a clear touch AND a doubtful touch. The clear touch isn't clear because the light didn't go off, correct?
And all the other conditions are covered by the rest of t.67, correct?
James.
__________________
If it's stupid, but it works, it's not stupid.
| |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:55 PM. |
