Annulment of Corps a Corps hits in Epee

[keropie]

As I've had it explained to me, a big part of the CaC in foil/saber is that when the bodies are that close, it becomes impossible to see ROW actions. Hence, any fencer causing that situation is seen to be trying to hide ROW actions, and hence slow the bout down/avoid a touch, and so is given a card. In epee, of course, there are no ROW actions, so we don't have to be able to see them.

Edit: Additionally, I don't know how now or then the lames would be affected by lame to lame contact. That could have some relevence, too, perhaps.

[Joe biebel]

2. CaC does halt the action in epee.
[INDENT]a. An action started after the CaC should not be allowed to score.
b. An action started before the CaC should be allowed to score.

Shlep

This would then allow for a riposte where the parry was made before or during the CAC, but the riposte was made after the CAC?

[shlepzig]

This would then allow for a riposte where the parry was made before or during the CAC, but the riposte was made after the CAC?

I would have to call it as I see it. It sounds like a total cop-out answer, how should I try to cover all the possible permutations, and my ability to follow the action and parse the timing of the various actions in the very short amount of time that it will all happen.

In short if it looks like a second action started after the CaC, I would call it as such. If it looks like a single action, I will call it appropriately for what I saw. In reality I may not see the CaC at all. It could be obscured by the fencers. A lot of things could be happening, and I have a limited ability to see all of them.

I am probalby not cut out to be a top level director. Individuals whom I hold in the highest esteem and awe at their ability to parse many simultaneous events.
But if these epee fencers are in-fighting so slowly that I can see three distinct tempos I probably would have dozed off during the initial fleche.

Shlep.

[nahouw]

This would then allow for a riposte where the parry was made before or during the CAC, but the riposte was made after the CAC?

The riposte must have STARTED befor the CAC -- t.18: "As soon as the order ‘Halt’ has been given, a competitor may not start a new action; only the movement which has been begun before the order was given remains valid."

[Joe biebel]

The riposte must have STARTED befor the CAC -- t.18: "As soon as the order ‘Halt’ has been given, a competitor may not start a new action; only the movement which has been begun before the order was given remains valid."

Admitedly, I do not know the answer. I would think that the parry-riposte is a single action. It makes sense for epee, especially since CAC to avoid a riposte is carded.
sort of like a beat-attack being a single movement or tempo.

[Anari]

Wow, thanks for the feedback.

Thankyou very much for clearing that up for me.

[counterattack]

Admitedly, I do not know the answer. I would think that the parry-riposte is a single action. It makes sense for epee, especially since CAC to avoid a riposte is carded.
sort of like a beat-attack being a single movement or tempo.

I think CAC to avoid a touch is actually pretty common in epee, at least at the intermediate level in the Bay. I have never seen it called, though. The way I distinguish is when you see the original deep attack miss, the fencer breaks the wrist and pushes his bell directly into the opponent's arm or bell. The main thing to distinguish this from, IMO, is an attempted parry while infighting that causes CAC. There are many times that the intent is not obvious, but I have seen some pretty obvious "this guy is good at infighting and I am not, so let me put a stop to this right now." I admit, though, it would take a brave ref (or a foil ref) to give a yellow for anything involving CAC in epee.

[KD5MDK]

I agree with downunder. I have NEVER caused cac to avoid being hit. I have fleched into an opponent.

-B

Deliberately?

I may have misunderstood Mary Frye. We were sharing a team bout at Summer Nationals, and one fencer was making a fleche, missing, and then continuing on directly into his opponent (who honestly didn't have much chance to riposte given that). She carded him once for jostling and once for CAC to avoid the touch, after which he stopped doing that action, and when we talked about it later discussed how he was clearly fleching into his opponent in order to prevent him from being able to riposte. In general, it seems to me if a fencer is deliberately fleching into his opponent, even if he avoids jostling he's still trying to force the halt. I distinguish this strongly from the sort of incidental contact that is standard in epee.

[oiuyt]

Deliberately?

I may have misunderstood Mary Frye. We were sharing a team bout at Summer Nationals, and one fencer was making a fleche, missing, and then continuing on directly into his opponent (who honestly didn't have much chance to riposte given that). She carded him once for jostling and once for CAC to avoid the touch, after which he stopped doing that action, and when we talked about it later discussed how he was clearly fleching into his opponent in order to prevent him from being able to riposte. In general, it seems to me if a fencer is deliberately fleching into his opponent, even if he avoids jostling he's still trying to force the halt. I distinguish this strongly from the sort of incidental contact that is standard in epee.

I have never intentionally caused a CaC. Doesn't mean I haven't caused them.

The rules allow systematically finishing a fleche with CaC. Not just by implication, but explicitly. Given that, it's indefensible to punish someone merely because it happens.

Doesn't mean that in a specific instance where you witnessed a high-level referee (which Mary clearly is) wasn't a different situation. But to go from that and say that ALL such occurances are likely faults against the rules is, to quote downunder, "a very inaccurate generalisation."

Given that BOTH sides of this discussion have cited the rule allowing for systematic CaC, I find it hard to believe that there's still disagreement on whether or not the default position should be to penalize the fencer for doing what is explicitly mentioned as NOT being a transgression of the rules.

-B

[Sciurus-Rex]

a. An action started after the CaC should not be allowed to score.
b. An action started before the CaC should be allowed to score.

...

Arguing about a point, because CaC stopped the fencing before the action or arguing whether you have been jostled or not is just not worth it. It is considered a point of fact under the observation of the ref.

One may ask the ref to clarify a call, however, to confirm his observation (point of fact) is, indeed, being acted on in accordance with the rules -- whether the touch was the conclusion of an action before or after the CaC (as you pointed out in points a and b, above).

With that in mind, however, I do have to agree that ultimately the argument "is just not worth it."

[Sciurus-Rex]

Quick note on the use of "intention" and "deliberate" in causing corps a corps: One should be wary of inferring intent. You can rarely (if ever!) judge what is truly in someone's heart; you can only observe the end result.

[Mr Epee]

I have never intentionally caused a CaC. Doesn't mean I haven't caused them.

-B

Get real!

You must enjoy suppressing things...

[Mr Epee]

Fun story time....

A while back, I was fencing in a tournament and I felt that the guy I drew in the final was fleching into me on nearly every touch and then quickly remising (often scoring)... The referee was allowing these touches to stand, and while I'm no pussy, I was getting pretty frustrated...

I took the liberty of leaving the strip to have a little conference with the ref (who I felt wasn't very comfortable with the progress of the bout)... Me to the ref ... "hey how is it goin'? ya know it's real, real hard for me to make a riposte with this guy running into me on every touch". it was a nice private conversation that was meant to clue the mostly non-epee ref into the fact that there are conditions that c-a-c will pull a card in epee. (and that situation was occuring right in front of his eyes)

Well... after the bout I walked over to my teammates who wanted to know what I was conferencing with the ref about... I related the conversation... and their response? "Yeah, but you were hip-checking that dude like a MF."

I was blown away. I had no idea.

[Sciurus-Rex]

Repeating previous references here, to address Mr. Epee's experiences cited above:

At épée a fencer who either by a flèche attack or by advancing vigorously brings about a corps à corps even several times in succession (without brutality or violence) does not transgress the basic conventions of fencing and commits no fault thereby (cf. t.20, t.25).

The ‘flèche ending systematically in a corps à corps’ referred to in this article must not be confused with the ‘flèche resulting in a shock which jostles the opponent’ which is considered as an act of intentional brutality at all three weapons and is punished as such (cf. t.87, t.120).

2. CaC itself does halt the action in epee.
a. An action started after the CaC should not be allowed to score.
b. An action started before the CaC should be allowed to score.

...What is considered jostling and who is at fault is up the discretion of the ref.

Best guess? Your ref considered the touch as the conclusion of the action that started before corps a corps. (The "quickly remising" probably looked like part of a prise de fer.) His perspective was a point of fact and wasn't arguable.

YOUR perspective seems to have been causing problems. ... A guy keeps doing the same thing over and over again and you're too stubborn to change and take advantage of it?

[TrainingDummy]

Hmmm, I have fleched at an opponent intentionally and, I admit, I understand the possibility of CaC is a bit of a safety net and it's always in the back of my mind... HOWEVER, I am a right-handed fencer, and if I'm on the right side of the strip, facing a rightie, I will often fleche AT the other fencer simply to avoid hitting the scoring box (which is usually right there because of the lack of space in most gyms) which is on my right. I can't, of course, fleche behind him or her.

[oiuyt]

You should ALWAYS fleche at your opponent. After the hit you then try to avoid collision. Fleching off at an angle from the beginning is a common error.

-B