Studying for the ref test

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Peach

Yeah, but epeeists already think everyone else is an idiot, so it doesn't matter.

You misunderstand the way...

btw -- I saw you fencing EPEE, so I will share this wisdom.

A true EPEEist does not assume that everyone else is an idiot.

The true EPEEist merely waits for the idiots to reveal themselves.

Often this occurs when someone, for absolutely no reason, decides to proclaim themselves "not an idiot".

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

You misunderstand the way...

btw -- I saw you fencing EPEE, so I will share this wisdom.

A true EPEEist does not assume that everyone else is an idiot.

The true EPEEist merely waits for the idiots to reveal themselves.

Often this occurs when someone, for absolutely no reason, decides to proclaim themselves "not an idiot".

Idiots revealing themselves sounds alot like an electronic beep.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

The true EPEEist merely waits for the idiots to reveal themselves.

Often this occurs when someone, for absolutely no reason, decides to proclaim themselves "not an idiot".

Or when they present blades for weight and shim testing. That's a SURE sign.

[needle]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Or when they present blades for weight and shim testing. That's a SURE sign.

Yes, but only if they do it when fencing saber

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

Something happened in practice that I was curious how it would be called in a tournament... I fence epee.

My opponent went for a toe hit just as I lunged, lifting my foot. Her blade went under my foot and as I completed my lunge I stepped on the first 6-10" of her blade.

I made my touch and since we weren't on a grounded piste, both lights went off.

I have no idea if my foot even touched her tip, the light could have went off as her blade hit the floor (if you think about the angle this is possible).

What would be the call on this?

I had a touch in an Epee bout at a Junior Olympics that afterwards I realized that I got wrong. Both fencers lunged, one light. But it seemed as if the light came on before the fencers were close enough to have reached valid target. On the other hand there was no blade to bell contact. The fencer getting the light wound up with her point on the opponent's forearm and bowing her blade. I awarded the touch. I was still concerned about when the light came on.

Afterwards I came up with a possible scenario. I believe the fencer extended and then, in the middle of the lunge, flicked the point onto their own foot and back up again to land on the opponent's forearm. When you see how some of these Epee fencers do flicks around their opponent's guard, the blades move too fast to see.

This one touch did not affect the outcome of the bout, it was rather one-sided. In principle such an action could be performed by a fencer dropping their blade under an opponent's attempt to take the blade. Or it could be coached to do exactly that, flick onto your own foot. Years later, I asked the fencer about the touch but they said they did not remember it. If I had been more sure about my observation of the distance between the two fencers when the light came on, I would have disallowed the touch.

Anyone ever seen anything similar?

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Yet another ( my favorite ): "The distance required at the ends of a fencing strip in order to provide a safe and level surface upon which a fencer may retreat when crossing the rear limit is:

a. none
b. 1.5 to 2 meters
c. 1 meter"

The problem here is "required"...because no rule says a run-back is required. The "field of play" rules, t.11 through t.14, only require two meters from the center to the guard lines and 5 meters from the guard lines to the end and are silent on run-backs. Yet the DIAGRAM for the strip includes a run-back of the dimensions of answer B.

If you were to look at just the T section, you would be correct. The answer is B. You might check M.57.4

. . . an extension of 1.50-2 m is addes at each end of the strip to allow the fencer crossing the rear limits of the strip to retire on an even and unvarying surface.

Now your getting into my expertise. Maybe I should take the test. That is one question I would get right.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

I had a touch in an Epee bout at a Junior Olympics that afterwards I realized that I got wrong. Both fencers lunged, one light. But it seemed as if the light came on before the fencers were close enough to have reached valid target. On the other hand there was no blade to bell contact. The fencer getting the light wound up with her point on the opponent's forearm and bowing her blade. I awarded the touch. I was still concerned about when the light came on.

If you KNOW that the touch could not possibly have scored on valid target you can annul it. If there is any doubt then the touch would stand. Comes down to whether or not it "seemed as if the light came on" early or whether or not it DID come on early (prior to any possibility of scoring on valid target).

-B :)

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

Afterwards I came up with a possible scenario. I believe the fencer extended and then, in the middle of the lunge, flicked the point onto their own foot and back up again to land on the opponent's forearm. When you see how some of these Epee fencers do flicks around their opponent's guard, the blades move too fast to see.

That sounds like a pretty elaborate explaination considering it was a U-20 / U-17 Girls Epee bout. I didn't see the event, but from your description it sounds like a good touch... If I felt uncomfortable with the light, I would have called the armourer immediately. (no self diagnosing please)... Unless the touch CLEARLY was not on the opponent the touch stands.

Remember, the most simple explaination is usually the truth.

This one touch did not affect the outcome of the bout, it was rather one-sided. In principle such an action could be performed by a fencer dropping their blade under an opponent's attempt to take the blade. Or it could be coached to do exactly that, flick onto your own foot. Years later, I asked the fencer about the touch but they said they did not remember it. If I had been more sure about my observation of the distance between the two fencers when the light came on, I would have disallowed the touch.

Anyone ever seen anything similar?

Again, the strength, accuracy, and the desire to win at all costs would be nigh impossible considering the event.

My guess... good touch.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

If you were to look at just the T section, you would be correct. The answer is B. You might check M.57.4

. . . an extension of 1.50-2 m is addes at each end of the strip to allow the fencer crossing the rear limits of the strip to retire on an even and unvarying surface.

Now your getting into my expertise. Maybe I should take the test. That is one question I would get right.

And now, so will I. Thanks.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

I believe the fencer extended and then, in the middle of the lunge, flicked the point onto their own foot and back up again to land on the opponent's forearm. When you see how some of these Epee fencers do flicks around their opponent's guard, the blades move too fast to see.


Anyone ever seen anything similar?

No...but Derek Cotton says that there was a top German epee fencer who could and did perform this trick, hitting the floor just off the edge of the strip, or a chair or table next to it, and then his opponent, and so fast that the refs could not catch it. Only on videotape was it finally discovered. ( I wonder if this contributed to the coming advent of video replay for fencing. )

[Frank Pratt]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

No...but Derek Cotton says that there was a top German epee fencer who could and did perform this trick, hitting the floor just off the edge of the strip, or a chair or table next to it, and then his opponent, and so fast that the refs could not catch it. Only on videotape was it finally discovered. ( I wonder if this contributed to the coming advent of video replay for fencing. )

I am in favor of instant replays, but this is one good justification I had not thought of.

I was at a USFA referee seminar held at one of the NACs several years back. One of the FOC reps (can't remember who) was giving the lecture, and he commented that the rule about turning the back on the opponent was made partly for safety reasons, but also because some of the top fencers in a certain country (he didn’t say which country) became adept at turning their back to hide their blade from the ref while they quickly (and intentionally) hit their own foot while infighting. However, I would think this trick might be possible by turning 90 degrees rather than all the way around.

If we don't go with the idea of an instant replay, perhaps we should extend the sides of the grounded strip out another meter or so. Even better, this is just another reason why we must immediately implement that idea of a full body lame in epee . Before anyone flames me, please note that I'd vote for the replay, if they would let me.

[sanadika]

I have a question about pool sheets. I am not quite sure how they work and how to figure out the math to do the tallys at the end of the bouts.Is there somewhere that explains how to set them up right and do the calculating?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Frank Pratt

I was at a USFA referee seminar held at one of the NACs several years back. One of the FOC reps (can't remember who) was giving the lecture, and he commented that the rule about turning the back on the opponent was made partly for safety reasons, but also because some of the top fencers in a certain country (he didn’t say which country) became adept at turning their back to hide their blade from the ref while they quickly (and intentionally) hit their own foot while infighting. However, I would think this trick might be possible by turning 90 degrees rather than all the way around.

Given that the rule was only in place for foil and that hitting one's foot in foil isn't beneficial, I think that explanation is highly suspect.... :)

-B :)

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Given that the rule was only in place for foil and that hitting one's foot in foil isn't beneficial, I think that explanation is highly suspect....

-B

I thought that turning your back is cardable in every weapon, and it was turning the shoulder that was only foil-specific?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Given that the rule was only in place for foil and that hitting one's foot in foil isn't beneficial, I think that explanation is highly suspect....

-B

It can be beneficial in the sense that if you are about to be hit you can stop the action by white-lighting yourself, thus saving a point...

[HDG]

Originally Posted by sanadika

I have a question about pool sheets. I am not quite sure how they work and how to figure out the math to do the tallys at the end of the bouts.Is there somewhere that explains how to set them up right and do the calculating?

See o.13 - o.20 generally for the workings of pools, but for the specific answer to your question look at o.19.

[Agent_V]

Originally Posted by Frank Pratt

I am in favor of instant replays, but this is one good justification I had not thought of.

I was at a USFA referee seminar held at one of the NACs several years back. One of the FOC reps (can't remember who) was giving the lecture, and he commented that the rule about turning the back on the opponent was made partly for safety reasons, but also because some of the top fencers in a certain country (he didn’t say which country) became adept at turning their back to hide their blade from the ref while they quickly (and intentionally) hit their own foot while infighting.

That would most likely be Jon Moss giving the seminar (whom I heard that exact story from), and the country would be the then Soviet Union (who else during that time?). I am unsure as to whether the turning back rule was instituted for all weapons at the same time, but in the story the weapon was clearly (and obviously) epee.

Alexander

[downunder]

Originally Posted by sanadika

I have a question about pool sheets. I am not quite sure how they work and how to figure out the math to do the tallys at the end of the bouts.Is there somewhere that explains how to set them up right and do the calculating?

download engarde from the fie website. That is the official program used by the FIE.

Poules are ranked based on (in order):

1. Victories in the Poule divided by Matches in the Poule
2. Indicator: Hits Scored minus Hits Received
3. Hits Scored


If after going through all of these the fencers are still equal, then they are consider equal, and lots are drawn to determine their place in the tableaux, but they still keep the equal poule rank for final ranking purposes.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by Frank Pratt

I am in favor of instant replays, but this is one good justification I had not thought of.

I was at a USFA referee seminar held at one of the NACs several years back. One of the FOC reps (can't remember who) was giving the lecture, and he commented that the rule about turning the back on the opponent was made partly for safety reasons, but also because some of the top fencers in a certain country (he didn’t say which country) became adept at turning their back to hide their blade from the ref while they quickly (and intentionally) hit their own foot while infighting. However, I would think this trick might be possible by turning 90 degrees rather than all the way around.

That is correct. I was talking to Bill Oliver this nationals, or, in truth, he was teaching a group of young refs, and I was part of it, and he said the rule has nothing to do with safety. If it were a safety concern, the USFA would just institute that there be a covering required for the back of the head. He said cheating was the reason that the rule was created.