Nit Picking the Rules... Foil again...

[erik_blank]

OK, I've been doing my annual re-reading of the rules, and came across this gem:

From Foil Rules t.54

(b) On the other hand, when the Referee has decided that a touch
made by a competitor has priority, this touch shall not be
annulled if subsequently it is found that a valid touch made
by the opponent is registered as non-valid or that the weapon
of the fencer against whom the touch was awarded is
permanently registering a non-valid touch.

Is it just me or are they making this rule intentionally "thick?" Massive run-on sentence... Has anyone there ever heard of using punctuation?

[Mr Epee]

A. Thank you for bringing it to our attention that you are re-reading the rule book. This is truly the mark of a quality individual Your mother must be very proud.

B. If you find that the language is excessively difficult, may I suggest enrolling in a remedial reading course (privately) before announcing it on this forum (publicly).

[telkanuru]

"if you don't have ROW it dosn't matter that your weapon broke"

Howzat?

[Craig]

The rule is just explicit in that the fencer with right of way is not penalized for their opponent having a non-working weapon.

I wish more of the rules were this explicit. Would put down a lot of the rule debate threads.

Craig

[oiuyt]

"if you don't have ROW it dosn't matter that your weapon broke"

Howzat?

Less correct.

Specifically this rule covers cases where the scored-upon fencer's weapon is not correctly functioning, but in such a manner that it is not possible for that fencer to have lost a correctly scored touch. If a valid light doesn't stay registered on the machine or if a valid touch cannot be registered, for example, the touch against the fencer with the non-functioning equipment IS annulled.

-B

[KD5MDK]

Actually, it sort of breaks down the opponent's weapon failures into several categories:
1) Can't turn a light on at all - Annul touch
2) Lights turned on do not stay on - Annul touch
3) Valid hit produces non-valid light - Touch stands
4) Opponent's light is constantly white-lighting. - Touch stands.

I'm not sure if you mean this to be #1 or #3:

or if a valid touch cannot be registered, for example, the touch against the fencer with the non-functioning equipment IS annulled.

[erik_blank]

A. Thank you for bringing it to our attention that you are re-reading the rule book. This is truly the mark of a quality individual

Allways one that aims to please! Actually, I've been studying to try to get current for a Directors rating... Of course that also means that I need to find the time and $$$ to actually attend a directors seminar somewhere! *sigh* The tirals of a new*ish* parent!Your mother must be very proud.

B. If you find that the language is excessively difficult, may I suggest enrolling in a remedial reading course (privately) before announcing it on this forum (publicly).

After about two hours of reading the rules, I hit this paragraph and spent about 2 minutes re-reading it trying to figure out what it was saying.... I guess that I should have taken a break earlier!

[TooLoftheDeviL]

I need to find the time and $$$ to actually attend a directors seminar somewhere! *sigh*

You should try Hollywood.

Your mother must be very proud.

Why thank you she is

[downunder]

Actually, it sort of breaks down the opponent's weapon failures into several categories:
1) Can't turn a light on at all - Annul touch
2) Lights turned on do not stay on - Annul touch
3) Valid hit produces non-valid light - Touch stands
4) Opponent's light is constantly white-lighting. - Touch stands.

I'm not sure if you mean this to be #1 or #3:

heh, this is even more confusing imho.

t.54b is a reminder that even if your opponents weapon (or your lame or bodywire) is non conforming by too high resistance, and you make an correct attack registered on the apparatus, it won't be annulled.

[keropie]

this is even more confusing imho.

I was utterly unaware that this existed. . .



Not that I disagree with the assessment of the rule in any way. . .

[downunder]

I was utterly unaware that this existed. . .



Not that I disagree with the assessment of the rule in any way. . .

brilliant.

[jeff]

Is Erik critiquing the rule or the grammar? Seems like an entirely different family of nitpickers is needed. What, you want good English in the rules? Dreamer!

[keropie]

I think the grammar, in this case, or perhaps more specifically the wording. Though the current thought is that, more than anything else, he was simply tired.

[erik_blank]

heh, this is even more confusing imho.

t.54b is a reminder that even if your opponents weapon (or your lame or bodywire) is non conforming by too high resistance, and you make an correct attack registered on the apparatus, it won't be annulled.

Ouch! Must have really glazed over that one..... gotta get more sleep.

[erik_blank]

I think the grammar, in this case, or perhaps more specifically the wording. Though the current thought is that, more than anything else, he was simply tired.

Grammar... yes... grammar... in rules... What a concept.