When is a turned back an offence?

[erik_blank]

OK, I've been fencing for over 10 years now, and I thought that I had this one down pat, but after talking with a (to me) well respected fencer (Ex-A rated and last week re-won her "C" after a 10 year hiatus from the sport), I am now quite confused.

At what point does the turning of the back actualy become an offence? At one point I had believed that simply exposing the weapon shoulder and back could constitute this offence (an un-natural position, but usefull in in-fighting). But I was assured taht this position is quite legal by our renewed C.
Sooo..... when does this become an offence? Obviously not after "Hold/Halt" is called. (Although I personally feel that turning the back at ANY time while on the strip is impolite. I always try to face my oponnent even when re-gaining my enguard position after a sucessful attack.)

[KD5MDK]

Be very cautious about taking advice from fencers, even formerly highly ranked ones, who have been away from the sport, as interpretations can change significantly.

To me, turning the back is when the front shoulder completely covers the frontal target area from the opponent, and is past a 45 degree angle from straight ahead at his opponent. Please remember that the relevant orientation is "towards the opponent", not what the referee sees. If they're infighting especially, the referee may see nothing but back, but the fencer remains completely legal.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Please remember that the relevant orientation is "towards the opponent", not what the referee sees.

KD5MDK is correct here. You may be confused by the rules now(again) allowing the reversal of shoulders, bring the non-weapon shoulder forward. You still can't expose your back to your opponent. I have seen fencers do an extreme inquartata where they actually spin, but they turned their back after the touche, thus after the halt-no penality.

[oiuyt]

General guideline that seems to work well is when a moderate length last name on the back can be easily read by one's opponent, one's back has been turned. Short names (eg "MAY", "NG", etc.) and long names (eg "GODDARD-APPELBAUM", "BLAKELOCK-WILLOUGHBY", etc. or even "STREATFIELD", etc.) aren't what is envisioned here, but more something like "POWELL" or "STENSON".

In reality it's going to be a subjective call that will vary somewhat from referee to referee, and, even for a single referee, from occurance to occurance. Note that turning one's head (eg to look at the lights (which is a bad idea for other reasons)) does not constitute turning the back.

-B

[OROD]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

I have seen fencers do an extreme inquartata where they actually spin, but they turned their back after the touche, thus after the halt-no penality.

The "halt" is when the director says "halt", not when there's a touch.


.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by OROD

The "halt" is when the director says "halt", not when there's a touch.


.

yes, but the referee calls halt for the hit.

[druidfoil11]

[quote=OROD]The "halt" is when the director says "halt", not when there's a touch.

this is not my understanding of the rule, nor is it the understanding that top level referee's seem to take. Charles Washburn made it very clear to me that you could not be carded for turning your back during an inquartata attack, provided that you manage to at least register off target. i.e. "if you hit anything at all, it stops the action, reguardless of when the director calls halt". Common sense sort of dictates that your counterattack will land before you turn your back.

Can anyone provide more insight as to whether the action ends when the referee actually says halt, or when something happens which would prompt the director to say "halt", i. e. touch scored, bodycord comming unplugged, stepping off the end of the strip?

[DBGlazer]

A couple of questions:

1. Why would anyone want to turn his or her back on an opponent? It seems like you'd be offering up juicy target that can't be defended.

2. Bringing the non-weapon shoulder forward to do one of those cool-looking behind-the-head ripostes is legal (again)? (I've been away from the sport since 1991.)

[oso97]

Its the latter. If something happens that would cause the referee to say "halt" then actions after that don't count.

There are however, a number of instances for which of course an action that happened after the halt might result in something. For example, a halt called for one foot off strip, but the attack started before the foot went off strip but landed after would still be allowed. Or scoring a touch and then knocking a fencer flat with a shoulder to the chest on a fleche would incur a card.

[penguin_2000]

... back to the question originally asked...
It's very subjective. Just because a fencer can see some of the other fencer's back does not make it an offense. Theoretically, depending on the relative position of the two fencers on the strip (whether the fencers are in the middle, left, or right sides), the height of the two fencers, and the posture, the same position could hide or expose parts of the back. You really need to be "obviously" showing your back, in the eyes of the director.

[KD5MDK]

I wouldn't consider "showing the back" by, say, a low flat lunge position, illegal. It's the "turning the back", which to me requires a rotation of the shoulders.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by OROD

The "halt" is when the director says "halt", not when there's a touch.


.

The halt is when the action or event which causes a halt occurs, and has nothing to do with when the referee says it.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by DBGlazer

1. Why would anyone want to turn his or her back on an opponent? It seems like you'd be offering up juicy target that can't be defended.

First, you remove a whole ton of chest target that your opponent was probably aiming for. Second, you get a free halt (though it does come with a card.)

The first reason is much better than the second.

[Purple Fencer]

I had this happen at the last high school league event the other day...fencer on my left clearly showed his back to me...in fact, he was sideways to the strip...however, so was his opponent (opponent fleched and stopped so they could duke it out).

They were facing each other normally, just almost astride the strip, but because the first guy's head wasn;t actually exposed to his opponent, I gave no card.

[OROD]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

The halt is when the action or event which causes a halt occurs, and has nothing to do with when the referee says it.

Lets see what the rulebook says about it...

t.18: "The bout stops on the word 'Halt', except in the case of special events occuring which modify the regular and normal conditions of the bout".

You were saying what now?


.

[KD5MDK]

The fencers should stop fencing when the referee says halt. However, if he said it for an offense which occured five seconds and a parry riposte ago, those last 5 seconds certainly don't count.

The way the rules are applied does not always as they literally are in the book.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by OROD

Lets see what the rulebook says about it...

t.18: "The bout stops on the word 'Halt', except in the case of special events occuring which modify the regular and normal conditions of the bout".

You were saying what now?


.

christ. How many times do people have to say it. It doesn't matter what is in the rules. Its how they are applied and interpretated that is key.

Anyways, it doesn't matter when halt is called - what is crucial is what halt is/was called for.

[Grasshopper]

it is offensive to turn your back on someone

[bigdawg2121]

Originally Posted by OROD

Lets see what the rulebook says about it...

t.18: "The bout stops on the word 'Halt', except in the case of special events occuring which modify the regular and normal conditions of the bout".

You were saying what now?


.

Yes the bout physically stops when the director says halt. That is to say that if fencer A steps off the side of the strip and the ref doesn't see it and fencer B stops fencing, fencer B cannot complain that fencer A's touch scored while he was gawking was invalid b/c the foot was the halt. Basically it's incumbent upon the fencers to keep fencing until told oterwise. However, as the referee it is your job to call the action from where the halt should have been, even if you goofed and called it late. If fencer A steps off, fencer B stops, and A then scores as per the above and you DID see it, then it IS without a doubt your job to call the action as you saw it. "Halt, no touch, A you were off the strip with one foot. B gain one meter from where you were at the time of the stepping off."

[downunder]

just say,

halt, after halt, advance a metre, en garde.

The fencer will know why you make this decision based on the advancement.