Ref's an epee question! ohhh tough I know.....

[grotto]

Ok as I have had this happen now several times, with very variable rulings....

Fencer A hits B on the body cord plug and manages to unplug the weapon and score a touch. Fencer B now shows the weapon to the ref showing that he would definitely have hit if his weapon had not mysteriously become unpluged (damn that old style preuir retaining clip).

I get this called inconsistantly, and is the closest thing I could think of to a ROW question for you to argue over!

[epeemike81]

tough.

touch stands.

the retaining clip is inside your guard and is your responsibility.

-m

[tbryan]

Fencer A hits B on the body cord plug and manages to unplug the weapon and score a touch. Fencer B now shows the weapon to the ref showing that he would definitely have hit if his weapon had not mysteriously become unpluged (damn that old style preuir retaining clip).

You keep the point. The touch should not be annulled. The US Fencing rules have it under t.68 3(f)

If the incidents mentioned in Article t.67 occur as a result of the competitor's bodycord being unplugged (either near the hand or at the back of the fencer), they cannot justify the annulment of the touch registered. However, if the safety device prescribed by Article m.55/4 is missing or not functioning, the touch should be annulled if the plug at the fencers' back has become unplugged.

Article t.67 describes the permutations of failures and whose touch to annul (e.g., annul the touch scored against someone whose weapon does not register touches). So, t.68 3(f) basically says that the body cable connections are the fencer's responsibility. Otherwise, epeeists would become really good at disconnecting their own cable when they wanted a touch to be annulled.

Suppose there's one light. The hit fencer wants me to test his weapon and annul the touch. I check his body cord at the back and at the guard. If the body cable has become unplugged (for any reason other than a malfunction in the retaining clip on the reel's plug), then I first plug it in. If the weapon registers touches when plugged in, then any failure to score a touch falls under rule t.68 3(f). His opponent keeps the touch.

The one thing I've never seen is an unplugged cable which, when it is reconnected, still fails to register a touch. Then, I guess it's doubtful whether the failure to score a touch is really the result of the unplugged bodycord. Could the fencer then argue that there's a possibility that the body cable became disconnected after a hit that did not register because of some other problem with the weapon?

[KD5MDK]

tough.

touch stands.

the retaining clip is inside your guard and is your responsibility.

-m

Exactly.


Unless he meant they got hit on the reel plug, in which case I think it wouldn't stand, but would be deucedly hard to prove. The reel, with its retaining clip, is the responsibility of the organizers...

[El Chucko]

Touch stands.

Fencer B has a responsibility to securely retain the plug in the socket. As well, it is advised that you bend the socket so that it does not stick out beyond the lateral boundary of the bellguard, and therefore much less likely to get hit.

Get rid of the Prieur-style socket and clip. Even a rubber band or duct tape is more secure, but I would go with a German style socket and retaining clip.

[Frank Pratt]

You keep the point. The touch should not be annulled. The US Fencing rules have it under t.68 3(f)

If the incidents mentioned in Article t.67 occur as a result of the competitor's bodycord being unplugged (either near the hand or at the back of the fencer), they cannot justify the annulment of the touch registered. However, if the safety device prescribed by Article m.55/4 is missing or not functioning, the touch should be annulled if the plug at the fencers' back has become unplugged.

This is why referees are trained to test a weapon on the strip by checking the reel connection clip, then the connection at the bell before depressing the tip. This lets the referee know whether or not the touch can be legally annulled before the tip is tested.