Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

HDG · 10-31-2005, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by annacattiva

I don't think he gets a yellow card- I'm imagining this flip to be him diving over his opponent, and hitting him on the back before landing on the ground, still facing his opponent but now upside down, and doing a somersault before returning victoriously to his feet. In this case, the touch occurs before the back is turned, although After the halt which would happen as soon as he passed over his opponent's head. So no yellow card, but no touch.

Are you suggesting that this fictional feat was neither A) Disorderly, nor B) Dangerous - regardless of the orientation of his fictional back to his fictional opponent?

annacattiva · 10-31-2005, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HDG

Are you suggesting that this fictional feat was neither A) Disorderly, nor B) Dangerous - regardless of the orientation of his fictional back to his fictional opponent?

I'm suggesting that depending on the skill of execution, it need not have been disorderly, and that some variants of this move would not expose the fencer's back and neck until after the touch (and therefore the halt).

And I take offense at your emphasis on the potentially fictive aspect of this entire exchange. This is a serious right of way question. Possibly the most useful one I've seen posted on this forum.

downunder · 10-31-2005, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by annacattiva

This is a serious right of way question. Possibly the most useful one I've seen posted on this forum.

you have got to be joking. It could never happen. It will never happen.

DanInMI · 10-31-2005, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReverseLunge

Huh? Abnormal fencing action. Show me where in the rule book.

Not all the rules are in the rule book....DUH!

jBirch · 10-31-2005, 01:38 PM

As down under posted: t.87. Irregular fencing action is the term and the penalty is a group 1 offense. It's not necessarily dangerous (though if you hit the guy in the head with your reel wire as you went over, it could be), nor is it necessarily disorderly (think fleche). Just like a fleche, the back is turned after the action.

So, the proper penalty should be:

hit by attacker annulled, yellow card.

James.

penguin_2000 · 10-31-2005, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by annacattiva

I'm suggesting that depending on the skill of execution, it need not have been disorderly, and that some variants of this move would not expose the fencer's back and neck until after the touch (and therefore the halt).

And I take offense at your emphasis on the potentially fictive aspect of this entire exchange. This is a serious right of way question. Possibly the most useful one I've seen posted on this forum.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're pulling our proverbial legs...

esskreemr · 10-31-2005, 01:55 PM

I too, have felt the backlash of an activist referee:

My first competition in epee, the fencing weapon closest to duelling.

Yeah right! Imagine my chagrin when I recieved a verbal warning after feinting to his right shoulder and then smashing my bell guard into his mask before kneeing him in the nads. I know FOR A FACT that my point hit him before he fell grimacing to the ground clutching his groin.

I think it was a gimmee point because he was 9 years old or something.

These activist referees must be stopped!!

KD5MDK · 10-31-2005, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jBirch

As down under posted: t.87. Irregular fencing action is the term and the penalty is a group 1 offense. It's not necessarily dangerous (though if you hit the guy in the head with your reel wire as you went over, it could be), nor is it necessarily disorderly (think fleche). Just like a fleche, the back is turned after the action.

So, the proper penalty should be:

hit by attacker annulled, yellow card.

James.

I disagree. If I saw it done, I would call it a dangerous fencing action and move immediately to a red card. Suppose the fencer being jumped over took a retreat and you landed on his neck?

jBirch · 10-31-2005, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I disagree. If I saw it done, I would call it a dangerous fencing action and move immediately to a red card. Suppose the fencer being jumped over took a retreat and you landed on his neck?

Fair enough. I guess I was interpretting this as an accidental thing (fleche against a ducking opponent) rather then a deliberate ninja-style flip on a standing opponent. If the latter, definitely a red card for dangerous fencing: too many ways for that action to go drastically wrong in a tactical situation.

James.

annacattiva · 10-31-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by penguin_2000

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're pulling our proverbial legs...

Not in the least! As far as I'm concerned, most of the ROW questions that show up on the board should be addressed more usefully to a coach or clubmate. We can't see it. What we wind up with is a bunch of people who all describe a given action differently, or think that they're describing different actions when in fact, they're all thinking about the same thing. It's not useful.

This post about ROW at least gives free rein to our imaginations and adds humor to the forum.