|
View Poll Results: How would you call it | |
Grant the touch
|     | 9 | 34.62% | |
Annul the touch
|    | 9 | 34.62% | |
Grant the touch ..yellow card to left fencer
|    | 2 | 7.69% | |
Annul the touch ..yellow card to left fencer
|    | 5 | 19.23% | |
This poll is flawed for I am the final say on the piste and my word is LAW!
|    | 1 | 3.85% | 
02-28-2006, 01:50 PM
|
#1 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: NJ/NYC
Posts: 139
| Annuling the touch part Duex
OK here is one for yall to play with...Actual real live bout this past weekend...
Foil:
Bout starts.....3 mins go by with lots of action but no touches....heck not even an off target.......but no passivity...they just happened to be two defensive style fencers....
Priority to fencer on the left via coin toss
No cards at this point
40 seconds into the minute fencer left loses balance falls to both knees going forward..
Director calls halt....looks up at the machine...sees a one light for the fencer on the right...announces touch right..
When questioned why he called halt he explained he watches the fencers not the box...and called halt for the fencer falling....admits there was blade action after the halt including a glancing touch to left fencers mask..
After further discussion he tests the mask of the left fencer to see if right fencer might have scored against the mask...
States the mask didnt set off the light so it must be a touch for right...
Back to the arguement I state he can't award the touch unless he can 100% state that the touch occured BEFORE the halt was issued..once again he states he watches the fencers not the box...
Now if you were the referee how would you call it.....?
__________________
Duellist USA
The Next Evolution in Fencing | 
|  | | And now for this message... |
| |
02-28-2006, 01:57 PM
|
#2 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Wilmington NC
Posts: 431
| if I read this correctly, no touch. the "halt" stops the time. and unless it was clear the sequence was "touch" then the halt for falling. or "within the tempo of the halt" anything after is invalid. | |
| | |
02-28-2006, 01:57 PM
|
#3 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,296
| well I'd agree with that call.
If the ref says the hit happened before/with the halt it happened before/with the halt.
The ref left themselves open by;
admitting there was action after the halt that may have caused the hit, testing the mask which was hit after the halt, apparently taking pride in their poor positioning.
__________________
the will of all things is to continue to be as they are | |
| | |
02-28-2006, 02:16 PM
|
#4 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Posts: 1,207
| Well if the Ref was watching the fencers then he /she should have seen when the touch occurs. I assume they would not have granted it if the touch occurred after the halt. Grant the touch!
__________________
Fail until you succeed!
Ka-riposte back atcha Purple!
Disgruntled Employee of the Month.
| |
| | |
02-28-2006, 02:21 PM
|
#5 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: South Carolina über Alles
Posts: 2,596
| I'd say the halt stops the action. Anything afterwards is after the fact. Annul the touch, warn the falling fencer to try and stay in control. Get them en guard and start them back up.
But then again, I'm an unrated director and an epee' fencer.
__________________
RebelFencer's Awesome Quote of the Week:
"Encouraging the average age of first intercourse to go below 16?"
-Army Fencer
| |
| | |
02-28-2006, 02:26 PM
|
#6 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,511
| I would call it a valid touch for the fencer on the right. Just like in epee how you would not annul a floor touch unless you were sure it was floor, you don't annul the touch unless you are 100% positive it was after the halt.
__________________
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. And from this side only! The flight of a half-man, half-bird. Dinosaurs nuzzling their young in pastures where strip malls should be. Cookies on dowels. All those moment, lost in time. Gone, like eggs off a hooker's stomach. Time to die" -Phil Ken Sebben
| |
| | |
02-28-2006, 02:30 PM
|
#7 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: NJ/NYC
Posts: 139
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken! I would call it a valid touch for the fencer on the right. Just like in epee how you would not annul a floor touch unless you were sure it was floor, you don't annul the touch unless you are 100% positive it was after the halt. |
Ahhh but how do you grant a touch unless you are 100% sure it happened BEFORE the halt....
__________________
Duellist USA
The Next Evolution in Fencing | |
| | |
02-28-2006, 02:39 PM
|
#8 | | Just Joined
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 18
| You guys, it's "annulling" | |
| | |
02-28-2006, 02:54 PM
|
#9 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 1,238
| I would not award the touch as the official if I really didn't know if the action that caused the hit was before or after or during the fall. Mind you, I'd like to think that I would know if the action that caused the hit started before, during or after... but who knows? | |
| | |
02-28-2006, 03:01 PM
|
#10 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 753
| Greetings Duellist USA,
The ref did himself no favors here, Anull touch since he doesn't know when the touch landed and he calls the halt for the falling. Quote: |
Originally Posted by Duellist USA OK here is one for yall to play with...Actual real live bout this past weekend...
Foil:
Bout starts.....3 mins go by with lots of action but no touches....heck not even an off target.......but no passivity...they just happened to be two defensive style fencers....
Priority to fencer on the left via coin toss
No cards at this point
40 seconds into the minute fencer left loses balance falls to both knees going forward..
Director calls halt....looks up at the machine...sees a one light for the fencer on the right...announces touch right..
When questioned why he called halt he explained he watches the fencers not the box...and called halt for the fencer falling....admits there was blade action after the halt including a glancing touch to left fencers mask..
After further discussion he tests the mask of the left fencer to see if right fencer might have scored against the mask...
States the mask didnt set off the light so it must be a touch for right...
Back to the arguement I state he can't award the touch unless he can 100% state that the touch occured BEFORE the halt was issued..once again he states he watches the fencers not the box...
Now if you were the referee how would you call it.....? | | |
| | |
02-28-2006, 06:25 PM
|
#11 | | Have Blazer, Will Travel
Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,037
| Oh, there's been much worse. | |
| | |
02-28-2006, 06:42 PM
|
#12 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: RPI (Troy, NY)
Posts: 924
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by KD5MDK Oh, there's been much worse. | Well, he's new to this board so he probably hasn't had the chance to read all the wonderful stories.
__________________
Sword-Chucks Yo!
The ref ALWAYS has right of way.
| |
| | |
02-28-2006, 07:46 PM
|
#13 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 376
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by Relampago You guys, it's "annulling" | It's also "deux," if he's going for "part two." Spelling... fencers... not so much, I think I have noticed?
__________________
Sabre chicks are cutting edge  | |
| | |
03-01-2006, 04:47 AM
|
#14 | | Fencing Expert
Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Angel, London
Posts: 2,463
| just to make it quite clear that it doesn't matter when the light came on....
If the fencer's action started before the other fencer fell, then he has every right to finish it.
The referee should have just awarded the hit. He doesn't need to justify it, and certainly not test the mask. | |
| | |
03-01-2006, 07:21 AM
|
#15 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Meadville, PA
Posts: 600
| Well, if the referee knows that the light was on, knows how long the light stays on, and knows when the light went off, he should therefore have a pretty good idea when the light went on, even if he didn't see it. Unless the machine has a variable length of staying on?
I'm with downunder. Seems like the touch should score.
Tomas | |
| | |
03-01-2006, 12:10 PM
|
#16 | | Just Joined
Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 13
| There is no such thing as 'with the halt.' Directors say that when they are a little unsure, but close enough to call. Even in terms of time in space, it is soooo rare for anything to happen at the EXACT time as something else. Now, this is an arguable point, because one could say that foil exists with foil time (epee is 1/25 of a second, so womehere around there). Discounting time from consideration, the halt was called for the fencer falling, not for the touch. Touch should be anulled. When I went to a referee clinic with Derek Cotton (no comment), he made it clear that most referees are in accordance with the general rule that if a halt is called for an infraction, fall, etc... then any touch will not count because the referee saw the halt before the touch. It is also clear that the fall made the fencer on the left unable to defend himself. Touch should be anulled! | |
| | |
03-01-2006, 12:42 PM
|
#17 | | Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005 Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 902
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by HoldenCaulfield There is no such thing as 'with the halt.' Directors say that when they are a little unsure, but close enough to call. | My experience is that directors say that out of bad habit.
What they mean is that the action was already started before the halt. So even if the touch arrived after the thing that caused the halt (exept for hard halts, like the expiration of time), it still counts. Some people say "with the halt" when they should really say that "the action which scored began before the halt." Then the fencers can argue about whether the halt was called for something that requires the touch to arrive before the halt. Much of the time, it is sufficient for the action to start before the halt. Quote: |
Originally Posted by HoldenCaulfield Discounting time from consideration, the halt was called for the fencer falling, not for the touch. Touch should be anulled. | Example. Fencer on left lunges. Fencer on right starts to fall just after the lunge begins. Halt is called for the fall. The lunge manages to hit anyway. Touch right. Quote: |
Originally Posted by HoldenCaulfield When I went to a referee clinic with Derek Cotton (no comment), he made it clear that most referees are in accordance with the general rule that if a halt is called for an infraction, fall, etc... then any touch will not count because the referee saw the halt before the touch. | I don't really understand what you're saying here. I see something that causes me to call a halt. If one fencer has already started an action, he is still allowed to finish (in many cases) even if I've already called halt. A common case. Two foilists close but neither hits anything. They now begin to infight. Fencer on left immediately covers target. (Halt, yellow for covering target.) The fencer on the right has already started a remise of some sort. Just because I saw the covering target before the light went on doesn't prevent that action from scoring. If the fencer on the right hits with that action, he gets the touch and the fencer on the left gets the yellow card. Quote: |
Originally Posted by HoldenCaulfield It is also clear that the fall made the fencer on the left unable to defend himself. Touch should be anulled! | I don't think that the rules ever talk about whether a fencer is "unable to defend himself." | |
| | |
03-01-2006, 01:06 PM
|
#18 | | Have Blazer, Will Travel
Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,037
| Only in terms of broken blades, I think. | |
| | |
03-01-2006, 03:21 PM
|
#19 | | Fencing Expert
Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Angel, London
Posts: 2,463
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by KD5MDK Only in terms of broken blades, I think. |
or time being called.
I think they're known as "hard" halts in the US.... | |
| | |
03-01-2006, 04:24 PM
|
#20 | | Have Blazer, Will Travel
Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,037
| Well, the distinction being that time being called doesn't make a fencer "unable to defend himself". | |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | |
