Refing Question

[victord66]

When sanctioning for an offence such as blatant covering of target in foil (ie. holding onto the lame), is it proper to call halt and sanction when I notice the offence or wait until the fencing action has stopped? Thanks.

[oiuyt]

Call "Halt!" immediately. Continue to watch the action as anything in progress is still allowed to conclude.

Make the call(s) and award the card(s).

-B

[keropie]

Though any touch immediately scored by the target coverer would be annuled.

[KD5MDK]

The same holds true for any offense of course: It in and of itself is a halt. Also, if you were to wait for something else to happen, you might forget, and in any event the fencers will be quite peeved if after their double-counter-riposte you tell them "no touch, he covered target down at the other end of the strip."

[akaiyuki]

The same holds true for any offense of course: It in and of itself is a halt. Also, if you were to wait for something else to happen, you might forget, and in any event the fencers will be quite peeved if after their double-counter-riposte you tell them "no touch, he covered target down at the other end of the strip."

This reminded me of this one incident quite awhile ago... (not trying to thread drift :P)

I was in a pool bout, already had a yellow card, and the score was 4-4. The last touch was one light (my light, and I was on the right side). The ref called halt, and said, "Attack from the left is no, parry ripost from the right is good. *pause* However, right was covering target area, so no touch, and red card for the right. The score is 5-4. Bout."

I still remember a bunch of us were confused if the ref made the right call... Anyway, I suppose the call was correct? Or should the ref not have called out the action and just give me a red car? Or perhaps something else should have been done? (Note: I have no idea when I started covering target area...)

[purpzeyFCLI]

When sanctioning for an offence such as blatant covering of target in foil (ie. holding onto the lame), is it proper to call halt and sanction when I notice the offence or wait until the fencing action has stopped? Thanks.

This is a good question. I suspect you are asking about a general and not this specific instance, but I would like to address both.

Ok, so, as per covering target w/ the back hand if it is simply the backhand coming forward more than it should, if there is no action occuring and the fencers are out of distance there should be no halt. AS SOON as any action begins or fencers move into distance and you see something occuring call HALT immediately...Let us look at from the Fencer X/Fencer Y perspective for a moment.

Fencer X is covering target. Both are out of distance, X approaches and begins an attack. Y paries and ripostes. The riposte arrives off-target on the backhand. If you see this you call halt and award a touch for Y and also a yellow for X.

This would not be the ideal. The ideal would be as soon as the fencer's approach a halt is called and X is given a yellow card.

The main idea in the general is, no matter what offense it is, you should call halt immediately. In some cases the non-offending fencer may have the right to riposte. For example, if Fencer X passes Fencer Y, Fencer Y has the right to a singular and continuos pary-riposte. That riposte however should come in one single tempo. Therefore, before calling halt you would allow a single riposte. As soon as that riposte arrives or fails to arrive, HALT! And in addition, that riposte must come within the same tempo, if there is the slightest pause, a halt should be called.

The same would apply if Fencer X leaves the strip (not intentionally to avoid the touch). Fencer Y has the right to riposte, however, if it were epee and there were a double-touch Fencer X's should be annuled, since s/he left the strip.

In short, you want to let the action elapse, but you also do not want any offense to continue without a HALT! to award a yellow card.

Complicated answer to a good question. When directing I've learned that you have to follow the rules, but also judge each situation as you see it. Simple and final example, you do not need to call a halt (as it has to been explained to me) if there are two foil fencers more than double-advance lunge distance apart, and one has his back hand slightly covering target. On the other hand, if he grabs the electrical equipment behind him, immediate yellow card.

I've probably confused you more than answered your question. But frankly, I feel that this is just the nature of the beast.

[KD5MDK]

The same would apply if Fencer X leaves the strip (not intentionally to avoid the touch). Fencer Y has the right to riposte, however, if it were epee and there were a double-touch Fencer X's should be annuled, since s/he left the strip.

With one foot or two?

[downunder]

The main idea in the general is, no matter what offense it is, you should call halt immediately. In some cases the non-offending fencer may have the right to riposte. For example, if Fencer X passes Fencer Y, Fencer Y has the right to a singular and continuos pary-riposte. That riposte however should come in one single tempo. Therefore, before calling halt you would allow a single riposte. As soon as that riposte arrives or fails to arrive, HALT! And in addition, that riposte must come within the same tempo, if there is the slightest pause, a halt should be called.
.

Arrrgh

Call halt as the fencers pass, as that is what you are calling halt for. "Fencer Y's" right to riposte should have absolutely no effect on when you call halt.

[downunder]

With one foot or two?

I presume he means a second action by X, as he is discussing a riposte/counterattack by Y.

[purpzeyFCLI]

Arrrgh

Call halt as the fencers pass, as that is what you are calling halt for. "Fencer Y's" right to riposte should have absolutely no effect on when you call halt.

That was my intended implication. Perhaps I was unclear. My point was, don't stop the action prematurely, or late.

Your second analysis is correct.

[downunder]

That was my intended implication. Perhaps I was unclear. My point was, don't stop the action prematurely, or late.

Your second analysis is correct.

Ah ok cool.

It is very very easy to misinterpret things here, heh

[tbryan]

I was in a pool bout, already had a yellow card, and the score was 4-4. The last touch was one light (my light, and I was on the right side). The ref called halt, and said, "Attack from the left is no, parry ripost from the right is good. *pause* However, right was covering target area, so no touch, and red card for the right. The score is 5-4. Bout."

I still remember a bunch of us were confused if the ref made the right call... Anyway, I suppose the call was correct? Or should the ref not have called out the action and just give me a red car? Or perhaps something else should have been done? (Note: I have no idea when I started covering target area...)

It's actually a good question. I don't think that anyone has explicitly told me whether referees should reconstruct the phrase in this case.

Most penalties occur in the midst of some fencing phrase. As a referee, I almost always reconstruct the last few actions of the fencing phrase that lead up to the halt. In particular, even when there is a penalty, I want to first reconstruct the phrase and then award penalty cards. For example, if you two had been at 3-3 instead of 4-4, and if there had been two on target lights on the box, hare are a few of the many ways to call the action:

• attack no,
• riposte yes (but made while covering target)
• remise of attack yes (but it's a remise after a valid riposte, so no touch)

In this case, I call, "Attack, parry, riposte, touch. However, no point because *pause while I present a red card* fencer on my right was covering target." You get a red card and your touch is annulled. The score is now 3-4 for your opponent.

• attack yes,
• parry is late (after the hit)
• riposte yes (but made while covering target)

In this case, I call "Attack, touch, point for left." Your opponent gets a touch. I called halt for the hit, and the covering target happened after the halt. No card for you. The score is now 3-4 for your opponent.

• attack no,
• riposte no (but made while covering target)
• remise of attack, yes
• remise of riposte, yes (but after your opponent's valid remise, so no touch)

In this case, "Attack, parry, riposte, no. Remise, touch. Point for left. And *pause while I present a red card* red card to the fencer on my right for covering target." I should have been calling halt for your covering target, but if your opponent's remise was immediate, I may judge that he had already started the action before you covered target. That is, when I called halt, the remise had started and would be allowed to finish. So, his remise still gets the point, and you get a red card. The score is now 3-5 for your opponent, and the bout is over.

So, you see, I first establish who would have had the touch, ignoring the penalty. Then I award the penalty. Always calling the action helps the referee to establish what happened first. Then he can place the penalties in that phrase and annul touches that would have otherwise been awarded. If he jumps straight to the card, he may forget to permit valid actions from the fencer not committing the offense.

Calling the phrase also establishes that the referee knows what happened. It also should give the referee a good start point for answering questions. (No, he did not cover target until after your attack arrived. Or, the remise started before you covered target, so it is allowed to finish, and his touch is allowed.)

Note also that in the first case, your riposte stops the action because you hit something (even if you had hit off target). It does not matter that your opponent's light is on. In the last example, the riposte missed, and the referee has to decide whether the remise was before or after his halt. Depending on what the referee decides, it matters very much that left's light is on.

[IHateMrPotatohead]

Another interesting target question for you....

I reffereed a sabre bout a few months ago, in which on fencer continually covered target by holding on tightly to the side of his lame. I called Halt!, carded the fencer for covering target, and moved on with the bout. However, I got mixed reviews from the other referees at the tournament. Some said you don't card for covering target in sabre.....

Did I make a valid call?

[Inquartata]

Yes, assuming it was possible for him to be hit, ie the fencers were in distance, etc.

Most sabre fencers lose the habit pretty early on their own, because it HURTS to get struck on bare fingers with a sabre cut. More so than getting poked with a foil tip.

[oso97]

Contrary to downunder's assertion, this is indeed the correct way to handle this situation.

In some cases the non-offending fencer may have the right to riposte. For example, if Fencer X passes Fencer Y, Fencer Y has the right to a singular and continuos pary-riposte. That riposte however should come in one single tempo. Therefore, before calling halt you would allow a single riposte. As soon as that riposte arrives or fails to arrive, HALT! And in addition, that riposte must come within the same tempo, if there is the slightest pause, a halt should be called.

One of the worst sins an epee referee can make is to call halt too soon.

[jBirch]

Contrary to downunder's assertion, this is indeed the correct way to handle this situation.

Maybe it's a commonwealth thing, 'cause downunder's way is the same as upnorth's way which, coincidently, is the same as my way. The halt is called as the hips pass the non-offending fencer (and not before, so that the fencers can infight w/o corps a corps). During that moment of "Halt!" the opponent has the right to an action in tempo. Same as with falling down, losing your weapon, corps-a-corps, etc... The Halt occurs at the offending action. The fencer not at fault doesn't get a "tempo bonus" to perform a lazy reply.

With regards to "covering target in sabre" it's a significantly less seen call for the simple reason that there is not much to cover target with (the exposed portion of the back hand being the only thing offending). In the case of "grabbing onto the lame" as some fencers like to do, this is certainly cardable. Allowing the back arm to drift in front of target, like is often carded in foil, generally isn't. As with all calls though, it depends on the specifics of the situation as to whether the card is justified or not.

The most interesting point brought up, that I hadn't thought about before, is the concept of distance as it relates to covering target. If I obviously cover target in foil/sabre, but I'm way out of distance, is the ref justified in carding me? I'm not so sure. I do know that I personally, wouldn't much care until the action got close enough for the covering to be an issue. I also know that I've never seen a covering card given for an action out of distance.

I'm just not sure how it SHOULD be called.

James.

[kalivor]

The most interesting point brought up, that I hadn't thought about before, is the concept of distance as it relates to covering target. If I obviously cover target in foil/sabre, but I'm way out of distance, is the ref justified in carding me? I'm not so sure. I do know that I personally, wouldn't much care until the action got close enough for the covering to be an issue. I also know that I've never seen a covering card given for an action out of distance.

I'm just not sure how it SHOULD be called.

James.

According to refereeing clinics (as I've attended them), covering target is only carded if its within distance.

[downunder]

One of the worst sins an epee referee can make is to call halt too soon.

Thats fine and true, but if you see something that you call halt for, then you call halt. Keeps you in 100% control of the situation, and certainly doesn't disadvantage any fencer, because you've called halt at the right time.

[purpzeyFCLI]

Some epeeists coaches and refs would disagree^^ for some of the aforementioned cases as they pertain to epee specifically.

[oiuyt]

Some epeeists coaches and refs would disagree^^ for some of the aforementioned cases as they pertain to epee specifically.

Could you make this a bit more general and non-specific? It's not really clear that you're covering all of the possibilities.

-B