Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: Annulment of Corps a Corps hits in Epee

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Adelaide-Australia
    Posts
    35

    Annulment of Corps a Corps hits in Epee

    I'm sorry if this has been asked before, I did try and find it but couldn't.

    I have heard many and conflicting stories ons this matter and was wondering if you could help clear it up for me.

    The rulebook is appropriately vague on the subject of annulment of hits in epee. My question is specifically directed to hits ending in a simple corps-a-corps. More especially, where a fleche results in a hit but ends-within the fleche-in a simple corps-a-corps.

    There are three arguments on the matter:
    1. The hit is not annulled as simple corps-a-corps is AFTER the hit is scored is not relevant to the bout as the fencing has 'ended'. This means the corps-a-corps does not annul the touch scored. So in essence, the fencer who fleched gets the point.

    2. Simple corps-a-corps never annuls any hits in epee anyway so the argument is for naught.

    3. The hit is annulled as the fleche ended in simple corps-a-corps.

    Two things remain constant, the fencer hits, and the corps-a-corps happened BEFORE the end of the fleche or AT the end end of the fleche, but not afterwards.

    I would hope that you could help me on this.

    Thankyou

  2. #2
    Senior Member RebelFencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Washington über Alles
    Posts
    2,821
    Body contact halts action. If the hit was before the body contact then it's good.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    The periphery
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by RebelFencer
    Body contact halts action. If the hit was before the body contact then it's good.
    Incorrect... but only slightly... one does not need to hit before the body contact, but the action needs to have started before the body contact... you can finish an action and hit after the c-a-c, but as long as it started before the c-a-c, you should get the touch...

    -w

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    1,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Anari
    The rulebook is appropriately vague on the subject of annulment of hits in epee. My question is specifically directed to hits ending in a simple corps-a-corps.
    A simple corps-a-corps in epee does not annul touches, but the referee should halt the bout when the corps-a-corps occurs. Any action started after this halt will not be permitted to score, of course. But that's not really annulling a touch for corps-a-corps. It's just not permitting new actions after a halt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anari
    More especially, where a fleche results in a hit but ends-within the fleche-in a simple corps-a-corps.
    The touch is awarded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anari
    There are three arguments on the matter:
    1. The hit is not annulled as simple corps-a-corps is AFTER the hit is scored is not relevant to the bout as the fencing has 'ended'. This means the corps-a-corps does not annul the touch scored. So in essence, the fencer who fleched gets the point.
    The logic here is faulty in any case. If the fencer making the fleche hits at the beginning of the fleche (his light is on) but finishes the fleche by jostling his opponent, then the touch will be annulled, and the fencer will receive a group I penalty.

  5. #5
    Senior Member IHateMrPotatohead's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    2,120
    However, CAC with jostling or to avoid a touch is an automatic yellow card and annulment of touch scored (if scored by the fencer who committed the CAC).

    Simple CAC is only a halt though.
    Quote Originally Posted by IHateMrPotatohead
    I can't think of anything to put down there!

  6. #6
    Senior Member RoninX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,507
    Blog Entries
    1
    Sorry to jack, but the question has been answered.

    What is the rationale behind allowing simple corps a corps in epee but not in foil?
    "I cannot ensure success, I can only endeavor to deserve it" - Capt. John Paul Jones

  7. #7
    Senior Member Sciurus-Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,329
    Quote Originally Posted by RoninX
    Sorry to jack, but the question has been answered.

    What is the rationale behind allowing simple corps a corps in epee but not in foil?

    (Imagine a light sigh here.) Ya know, trying to discern the "rationale" behind almost any rule is a funky exercise in second-guessing and history recall. At some point I stop caring WHY something is the way it is and instead just learn to work with it.

    And ofttimes investing in a rationale leads to more faulty assumptions and interpretations later. I'm not saying that's the case here, mind you ...

  8. #8
    Posting Hound oiuyt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Pennsauken, NJ
    Posts
    12,587
    Quote Originally Posted by RoninX
    What is the rationale behind allowing simple corps a corps in epee but not in foil?
    My best guess? Because the rules are based on compromises of what different people/groups/countries wanted 80 years ago. The epeeists had no problem with the indelicacy of occasionally brushing sleeves, while the foilists -- delicate blossoms that they are/were -- prefered to avoid all contact. In the rules-generation process it was more acceptable to set different standards for the different weapons than to try to move one of the groups to the other's position.

    -B
    "Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"

  9. #9
    Senior Member downunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,843
    Quote Originally Posted by tbryan
    The logic here is faulty in any case. If the fencer making the fleche hits at the beginning of the fleche (his light is on) but finishes the fleche by jostling his opponent, then the touch will be annulled, and the fencer will receive a group I penalty.

    To clarify:

    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).

    A fencer who intentionally causes corps à corps to avoid being hit or who jostles his opponent is penalised according to Articles t.114, t.116, t.120

    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).

  10. #10
    Senior Member RebelFencer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Washington über Alles
    Posts
    2,821
    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Apostrophe
    Incorrect... but only slightly... one does not need to hit before the body contact, but the action needs to have started before the body contact... you can finish an action and hit after the c-a-c, but as long as it started before the c-a-c, you should get the touch...

    -w
    Ahhh, ok. Thanks for correcting me on that.

  11. #11
    Senior Member shlepzig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Princeton NJ
    Posts
    1,084
    Blog Entries
    7

    Variations on a theme

    This issue has been discussed a number of times and Bill Oliver has helpfully chimed in on the discussions with some guidance. But this is another of the variations on the theme of epee and Corps A Corps which may not appear explicitly in a search.

    My previous post with links to other posts on the subject.

    I will try to sum up the basic points (DownUnder has sufficiently given us the appropriate rules and sections above) I will just try to simplify.

    1. CaC is not a penalty in epee. It does not annul a touch

    2. CaC 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.
    c. Bell to Bell contact is not to be considered CaC

    3. Jostling is not the same as CaC
    a. Jostling is a penalty, any touch scored with jostling should be annulled.
    b. What is considered jostling and who is at fault is up the discretion of the ref. Basic guidelines have been debated at length, the rule-book has left the definition of the jostling assumed to be self-evident.

    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.

    Shlep
    Last edited by shlepzig; 09-29-2006 at 02:00 PM.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by oiuyt
    My best guess? Because the rules are based on compromises of what different people/groups/countries wanted 80 years ago. The epeeists had no problem with the indelicacy of occasionally brushing sleeves, while the foilists -- delicate blossoms that they are/were -- prefered to avoid all contact. In the rules-generation process it was more acceptable to set different standards for the different weapons than to try to move one of the groups to the other's position.

    -B
    But wouldn't that imply that sabre fencers would be allowed to beat their opponents to the ground, rip out their hearts with their bare hands and not get carded? Most of us are hardly "delicate blossoms," and yet, subject to the same corps a corps carding practices as foilists..


  13. #13
    Posting Hound oiuyt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Pennsauken, NJ
    Posts
    12,587
    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanMD
    But wouldn't that imply that sabre fencers would be allowed to beat their opponents to the ground, rip out their hearts with their bare hands and not get carded? Most of us are hardly "delicate blossoms," and yet, subject to the same corps a corps carding practices as foilists..
    Yes, except that sabre fencers were busy beating each other into bloody pulps while the delicate blossoms and rules lawyers were debating HOW fencing ought to be done.

    The epee fencers were egocentric enough not to care what happened to the savages and the foil fencers think that everyone should be as "enlightened" as they are.

    -B
    "Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"

  14. #14
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    13,146
    It's unlikely in this particular given situation, but epee referees should always be alert for CaC to avoid the touch. A fencer who fleches directly into his opponent, even without jostling, is likely trying to avoid the touch.

  15. #15
    Senior Member downunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,843
    Quote Originally Posted by KD5MDK
    A fencer who fleches directly into his opponent, even without jostling, is likely trying to avoid the touch.

    This is a very inaccurate generalisation. The action you described is specifically permitted in the rulebook.

  16. #16
    Posting Hound oiuyt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Pennsauken, NJ
    Posts
    12,587
    I agree with downunder. I have NEVER caused cac to avoid being hit. I have fleched into an opponent.

    -B
    "Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"

  17. #17
    ಠ_ಠ
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    5,975
    Blog Entries
    25
    causing cac to avoid a touch is a pretty bad idea, imho, in epee.
    we all have decent infighting games. at least.

  18. #18
    Senior Member oso97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,904
    Quote Originally Posted by oiuyt
    I agree with downunder. I have NEVER caused cac to avoid being hit. I have fleched into an opponent.

    -B
    Ahh, so you deliberately caused c-a-c? With the intent of hitting your opponent with your body? To gain position or dominance? Coming awful close to c-a-c with jostling there, ol' buddy

    t.63 In 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).

    (emphasis mine)

    I read this as the c-a-c was a result of the action, not the intent thereof. I'll now wait for Downunder to tell me I'm an idiot - or maybe he won't, since I've refereed at USFA Summer Nationals .
    Last edited by oso97; 09-29-2006 at 02:54 PM.
    That's it, I'm done with the discussion forums on F.net. It's had its uses, but the ideologues, ranters, and "experts" have drowned too many of the conversations. I'm changing my password to something random and never logging in again.

  19. #19
    Senior Member downunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,843
    Quote Originally Posted by oso97
    Ahh, so you deliberately caused c-a-c? With the intent of hitting your opponent with your body? To gain position or dominance? Coming awful close to c-a-c with jostling there, ol' buddy

    He said nothing of the sort.

    He said that he has fleched into his opponent.

    oso, i'm sure you're a perfectly competant referee. I'm sure you know what corps a corps with jostling is at epee, and as a referee how you expect me to distinguish between the two actions presented above at the speed of a fleche. Why do you need to start this?

  20. #20
    Senior Member shlepzig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Princeton NJ
    Posts
    1,084
    Blog Entries
    7

    I don't follow

    Quote Originally Posted by KD5MDK
    It's unlikely in this particular given situation, but epee referees should always be alert for CaC to avoid the touch. A fencer who fleches directly into his opponent, even without jostling, is likely trying to avoid the touch.
    I don't get where you are going with this. Could you explain your thinking or the action you have in mind more clearly. (This is not an attack I have made the assumption, you know what you are talking about and I have interpreted your meaning incorrectly).

    The way I see it.
    With the fleche (with or without contact) action would end as the fencers crossed or a fencer left the strip. The reason I don't see what you are getting at is that as long as the counter attack (or Parry-Riposte) is started before the end of the action it makes no difference to the call. I can't see where causing a CaC gives a fencer any advantage.

    Where I see it could be applied.
    If the attack is botched and turns to in-fighting, a fencer whom is uncomfotable in this situation or in a bad position to defned himself could cause a CaC to end the action, take a step back and get out of a situation that is bad for them. He still runs the risk that an action has been started, in the chaos that in-fighting can be, will hit him and be called against. That fencer would probably be wiser to plan a good trajectory off the strip in a proper fleche, which would not be an offence of any kind and would be far less risky.

    Shlep.
    (in NJ and has read too many flame wars this week)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Corps a corps calls
    By Joe biebel in forum Fencing Discussion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 09-03-2007, 09:26 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-05-2004, 07:36 PM
  3. Corps a Corps question...
    By I_luv_saber in forum Fencing Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-26-2003, 06:30 PM
  4. Corps a Corps vs Jostling in Epee
    By Crash55 in forum Fencing Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-20-2002, 02:12 PM
  5. Should corps a corps in epee stop the bout?
    By Sud in forum Discussion Archive
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-23-2002, 09:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26