What stops the action?

[OROD]

Ok, I've always been under the impression that when a touch occurs and a light goes off, that stops the action. So, for example, someone attacks me, I do a quick counter + turn/sidestep/expose back/whatever, only counter arrives. Since I hit before I turn back/go off strip, it's not an offense.

Question: I attack, point touches opponent lame, light goes off, then my bellguard hits my opponents mask, then director says "halt".

As it happens, something similar to this happened this weekend, and I got corps-a-corps called on me. I argued that it happened after the touch, hence no corps-a-corps, but the director said the action stops when he says halt, not when the touch lands.

Who can give me the official word?


.

[KD5MDK]

The action stops when the referee decides it does. Usually this means that it actually stopped before he said halt. (ie, you step off the end line, then your counterattack lands, then he says halt. The halt was "for" the going off the end line, nothing after that counts.)
However, there are reasonable cases when turning the light on is not the last thing to happen during the action. For example, if I fleche directly into someone with my weapon extended, the fact that I turned on a light before I knocked them over doesn't mean I didn't jostle them.

I would say it depends on how the contact looks. If it was an integral part of your bladework, then it probably was corps a corps. If it came after, incidentally, then it probably isn't important.

[Mihail]

Ok, I've always been under the impression that when a touch occurs and a light goes off, that stops the action. So, for example, someone attacks me, I do a quick counter + turn/sidestep/expose back/whatever, only counter arrives. Since I hit before I turn back/go off strip, it's not an offense.

It could be an offense. If you turn before the opponents attack finishes (hit or miss), the touch is not over, and technically you should get a card.

Question: I attack, point touches opponent lame, light goes off, then my bellguard hits my opponents mask, then director says "halt".

As it happens, something similar to this happened this weekend, and I got corps-a-corps called on me. I argued that it happened after the touch, hence no corps-a-corps, but the director said the action stops when he says halt, not when the touch lands.

It didn't happen after the touch if the opponents attack hasn't finished yet. In other words, if the action ended when one person hits, there would be no right of way.

[OROD]

In other words, if the action ended when one person hits, there would be no right of way.

I meant in cases where there's one light on.


.

[Mihail]

I understand, but if you're counter-attacking and you hit first, of course there's going to be only one light on for a certain amount of time. There has to be time allowed for the attacker's action to finish (assuming he started it in the same tempo). Once his action finishes, whether he hits or misses, the action is over.

Poorly drawn example:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...ani42/spin.jpg

Fencer A starts the attack.

Fencer B is quick enough to counter-attack and spin around before fencer A's attack finishes (didn't want to deal with drawing two frames of the turning, but you get the picture).

Technically, fencer B turns around before the action is over and should receive a card. The same goes for corps-a-corps. The only difference is that the corps-a-corps is more in the director's face, and he's a lot more likely to call it than the turning around.

[edew]

George K always uses this example:

You make an attack and hit your opponent. Then you pull a gun and shoot him dead. So you killing your opponent is after the halt, so no penalty? No, if you do something wrong, even after the halt, you can be penalized. So if you commit a corps-a-corps even after a touch or even after the halt call, you may be penalized.

[notalent]

Greetings OROD,
Actions that start completely after the halt would not be carded for. In your first example the ref calls halt for your counter attack arriving, then you spin; no card as you started it after the halt. In the second example your attack arives and carries your guard into his mask; Red card for striking with pomel or guard touch annuled and if your opp counterattacked he gets that touch aswell. So you should be happy all you got was a yellow out of it. Ofcourse if your opp counterattack carried his mask into your guard HE gets the yellow for corps a corps
HTH
Terry Dix

Ok, I've always been under the impression that when a touch occurs and a light goes off, that stops the action. So, for example, someone attacks me, I do a quick counter + turn/sidestep/expose back/whatever, only counter arrives. Since I hit before I turn back/go off strip, it's not an offense.

Question: I attack, point touches opponent lame, light goes off, then my bellguard hits my opponents mask, then director says "halt".

As it happens, something similar to this happened this weekend, and I got corps-a-corps called on me. I argued that it happened after the touch, hence no corps-a-corps, but the director said the action stops when he says halt, not when the touch lands.

Who can give me the official word?


.

[Joe biebel]

As with a lot of "calls" in fencing it is situational. Certain actions or things you can be carded for are only infractions before the halt. Others are not. The most obvious things you can't do even after a halt have to do with the possibility of injury. Corps-acorps is a good example, touching while falling would be another. The halt can not save you from penalty on these types of infractions. If you leave the end of the strip on an action, after a halt, then you would not be penalized.

I had a rather clumsy opponent run into me this weekend after scoring on an attack. The referee counted the touch. I asked him if there was a corps-a-corps and he responded "after the touch". I told him the touch should be annuled and my opponent carded and he repeated that it was after the touch. After a little discussion and polite disagreement, I used the analogy that if I were to call him an incompetent oaf, right now, after the halt, that he could still penalize me. On this we both agreed. I told him the same was true for corps-a-corp. He checked with the BC, came back annulled the touch, and gave a yellow card for corps-a-corps. It's situational.

[Joe biebel]

Greetings OROD,
Actions that start completely after the halt would not be carded for. In your first example the ref calls halt for your counter attack arriving, then you spin; no card as you started it after the halt. In the second example your attack arives and carries your guard into his mask; Red card for striking with pomel or guard touch annuled and if your opp counterattacked he gets that touch aswell. So you should be happy all you got was a yellow out of it. Ofcourse if your opp counterattack carried his mask into your guard HE gets the yellow for corps a corps
HTH
Terry Dix

I had a call like this happen to me at the Dec. NAC. I made an attack with a flesche. My much taller opponent couterattacked while ducking low. I still hit valid and then my guard hit his mask. The referee annulled my touch, and gave me a red card. I was a little upset and could not understand the call. He explained that it was a "blow with the guard" and subject to an immediate red card. I told him I felt that this was a misapplication of the rule, and that my touch should stand and my opponent should receive a yellow card for ramming his mask into my guard. He could have hurt my wrist. The referee insisted that because it was guard to mask that it was my fault and that they had just been instructed to call it that way. Now I still felt bad that my opponent, a good friend, was hurting and that I was the one fencing him when it happened, but a bigger mistake could not have been made.

I'm pretty sure that this is not what was meant in the referees instructions and if it was, that it was an error. A blow with the guard should not be called whenever a guard comes in contact with a mask. It might be either persons fault. The red card for "blow with the guard" should be for "hitting" the person when it is totally your fault. Most guard contact is not hard and should fall under simple corps-a-corps rules.

[notalent]

Greetings Joe,
The wording was "striking", I don't have my current RB handy. At Albq. I had a kid that told me he didn't mean to hit his opp. I told him that had I thought he ment to I would have black carded him.

I had a call like this happen to me at the Dec. NAC. I made an attack with a flesche. My much taller opponent couterattacked while ducking low. I still hit valid and then my guard hit his mask. The referee annulled my touch, and gave me a red card. I was a little upset and could not understand the call. He explained that it was a "blow with the guard" and subject to an immediate red card. I told him I felt that this was a misapplication of the rule, and that my touch should stand and my opponent should receive a yellow card for ramming his mask into my guard. He could have hurt my wrist. The referee insisted that because it was guard to mask that it was my fault and that they had just been instructed to call it that way. Now I still felt bad that my opponent, a good friend, was hurting and that I was the one fencing him when it happened, but a bigger mistake could not have been made.

I'm pretty sure that this is not what was meant in the referees instructions and if it was, that it was an error. A blow with the guard should not be called whenever a guard comes in contact with a mask. It might be either persons fault. The red card for "blow with the guard" should be for "hitting" the person when it is totally your fault. Most guard contact is not hard and should fall under simple corps-a-corps rules.

[KD5MDK]

The penalty chart call is "Dangerous, violent or vindictive
action, blow with guard or pommel *"

I can't find a specific reference to it in t.87

[Inquartata]

George K always uses this example:

You make an attack and hit your opponent. Then you pull a gun and shoot him dead. So you killing your opponent is after the halt, so no penalty? No, if you do something wrong, even after the halt, you can be penalized. So if you commit a corps-a-corps even after a touch or even after the halt call, you may be penalized.

Then why do NO top referees penalize a crossover in sabre if it's done after the light goes on?

George K. has fallen victim to the fallacy of composition, implying that all possible situations are alike and must to be treated in the same way. Clearly this is not true, because there are some penalties, like unsportsmanlike conduct, which can be given at ANY time, including off the strip and between rounds; and there are other penalties, like covering target, which can ONLY be applied while fencing is ongoing, not after. Then there are others which fall into a gray area in between. I would argue that falling is much more like crossing in sabre than like unsportsmanlike conduct, and hence ought not be penalized after the completion of an action which causes a halt...

[Inquartata]

I had a rather clumsy opponent run into me this weekend after scoring on an attack. The referee counted the touch. I asked him if there was a corps-a-corps and he responded "after the touch". I told him the touch should be annuled and my opponent carded and he repeated that it was after the touch.

So, if at the end of the bout you shake hands with your opponent, you should both be carded for corps a corps? Last touch annulled, on guard, gentlemen! Voila, the rule requiring a handshake guarantees that every bout can only end with a red card?

[KD5MDK]

Inq - the distinction is whether or not the offense was a part of their scoring action or not. If I fleche, score on them, and then knock them over, the corp a corps (or dangerous action) is part of my fleche, and thus part of the scoring action. In many cases corps a corps is like that. In others it is not, and merely incidental after the action. It's a judgement call.

[keropie]

Then why do NO top referees penalize a crossover in sabre if it's done after the light goes on?

George K. has fallen victim to the fallacy of composition, implying that all possible situations are alike and must to be treated in the same way. Clearly this is not true, because there are some penalties, like unsportsmanlike conduct, which can be given at ANY time, including off the strip and between rounds; and there are other penalties, like covering target, which can ONLY be applied while fencing is ongoing, not after. Then there are others which fall into a gray area in between. I would argue that falling is much more like crossing in sabre than like unsportsmanlike conduct, and hence ought not be penalized after the completion of an action which causes a halt...

I think part of the reason no top refs call it that way is cause really, it's a dumb rule, and if they can find a way to ignore it, especially when it doesn't matter, they will. Now, if they're forced to call it (some one runs down the strip, or crosses their feet without hitting the opponent, and the opponent/coach/someone points it out), they will. But I do agree that many calls cannot be made after fencing is over. Exposing the back, for instance. Would you really card someone for not walking backward to their on guard line? No. As for falling, I feel like the real question is always whether or not the action was made in balance/control. If you're out of control during the action and then fall, you were out of control, yellow card, annul touch. If the fencer made the action, then tripped over his/her feet, point and laugh, make sure they're ok, move on. Most ridiculous possible idea I can think of: attacker attacks, counterattacker manage to pull the target out of the way by becoming horizontal (feet behind them) hits the attacker. In freeze frame, the hit has been made, nothing illegal has happened. Of course, without super powers, the counterattacker is going to fall. I give the card, and I can't see how you wouldn't, you know?

The trickier ones are things like turning. As pointed out above, the fact that the counterattacker has landed really doesn't mean the action is over. The attacker has the right to finish, and if the counterattacker's (illegal) spin prevents it from hitting, a yellow card might be appropriate. Mind you, this becomes a very grey area since it's only illegal to expose the back, not to displace the target via inquartata, etc.

[downunder]

Then why do NO top referees penalize a crossover in sabre if it's done after the light goes on?

because thats how it is interpreted. You'll just have to cope...

[Boo Boo]

George K always uses this example:

You make an attack and hit your opponent. Then you pull a gun and shoot him dead. So you killing your opponent is after the halt, so no penalty? No, if you do something wrong, even after the halt, you can be penalized. So if you commit a corps-a-corps even after a touch or even after the halt call, you may be penalized.

That is SOOOO well put

Another example... I know of someone who lost a fight in the later stages of an A-grade. He considered that the referee may have been unfair. The fight had finished, but as he unplugged from his spool he mumbled a couple of choice swear words. The referee overheard these expletives and black carded him. Fencer was struck from the results list and received no World Cup points for the result.

Basically some penalties are related to the fencing action (like covering, displacement, turning etc), others are related to conduct (corp-a-corp, deliberate brutality, manifest cheating, "offense against sportsmanship" etc).

Boo

[Inquartata]

Most ridiculous possible idea I can think of: attacker attacks, counterattacker manage to pull the target out of the way by becoming horizontal (feet behind them) hits the attacker. In freeze frame, the hit has been made, nothing illegal has happened. Of course, without super powers, the counterattacker is going to fall.

The card should be thrown for uncontrolled fencing, ie for the offense committed before/with the touch, not for the fall that comes after, IMO.



I give the card, and I can't see how you wouldn't, you know?

The trickier ones are things like turning. As pointed out above, the fact that the counterattacker has landed really doesn't mean the action is over. The attacker has the right to finish, and if the counterattacker's (illegal) spin prevents it from hitting, a yellow card might be appropriate.

Yes. I do not argue that NO cardable offense can exist after a halt, only that falling oughtn't really be one of them---and the wording of the rules doesn't make it claer that it either is or isn't...

[Inquartata]

because thats how it is interpreted. You'll just have to cope...

Sorry, that is nowhere near a sufficient rationale. There must be a valid, rule-based reason for a practice, or it's just personal preference, even if dignified by many or most people adopting it. And as I've argued elsewhere, if a ref decides to "interpret" the rules to prohibit, say, the flick, that is just not good enough. And the foilist who catches this ref does not have to "cope". He should appeal.

As to the crossover, I do not need to "cope", either, because in fact I am arguing that the current practice is correct and acceptable: a crossover after the halt should not be penalized because it is not an offense, any more than "crossing forward" while walking back to your guard line is. Fencing, and thus the liability to commit most offenses, has ceased. My argument is that falling after the halt is the same in that regard.

[Inquartata]

That is SOOOO well put

Yes. Fallacious arguments are often attractively phrased and deceptively clever. They are still wrong, though.