Rules question: Anullment of touch?

[DJ Apostrophe]

Yesterday I was refereeing a collegiate dual meet.

In the first action of a bout, there is an infighting situation and KOTL (Kid On The Left) ends up scoring a touch.... KOTR (Kid On The Right) then tells me he needs to change his weapon.

I ask why.

His response "My weapon just fell apart."

Upon closer inspection I find that the tang on the weapon snapped clean through inside the French grip, from which he was posting... leaving the weapon in multiple pieces. Before he unhooked the broken weapon, I tested it and it did set off a valid light...

However, with the tang being snapped (I don't know when during the action this occurred as he did not lose the weapon), I would say that that would leave him 'unable to wield his weapon correctly', and thus, be cause for a halt.

I annulled the touch on the grounds that he did not have the ability to properly defend himself if he couldn't manipulate the weapon correctly (which he obviously couldn't).

Neither fencer or coach complained, but I'm now curious as to the 'correct' decision based on what the rules say...

Thoughts? Opinions? Rule Citations?

-w

[noodle]

in this specific case, i don't think i would've annulled the touch because the weapon still worked and didn't appear to break in the bout. how are you to know he didn't present it broken and just shake it loose to get a touch anulled.

if it tested working at the start of the bout and it stopped working, however, i would've anulled that touch, since its harder to make that claim.

[DJ Apostrophe]

in this specific case, i don't think i would've annulled the touch because the weapon still worked and didn't appear to break in the bout. how are you to know he didn't present it broken and just shake it loose to get a touch anulled.

Because once I got closer to the strip, it was very obviously in two pieces... grip loose, bell guard now moving, etc. It wasn't like this when I tested it initially... and if you weren't holding it by the pommel and the grip together, the pommel with the partial tang slid very easily out of the grip...

-w

[DHCJr]

There is also the problem of which weapon. This could affect the decisiion. For example, if this were Foil or Sabre, who had priority?

[DJ Apostrophe]

There is also the problem of which weapon. This could affect the decisiion. For example, if this were Foil or Sabre, who had priority?

good point, should have been more clear (though the French grip should have given away that it wasn't sabre )

It was epee.

-w

[noodle]

Because once I got closer to the strip, it was very obviously in two pieces... grip loose, bell guard now moving, etc. It wasn't like this when I tested it initially... and if you weren't holding it by the pommel and the grip together, the pommel with the partial tang slid very easily out of the grip...

-w

well, i mean, was it loose/broken on the last touch? did he score a touch with it loose/broken?

[DJ Apostrophe]

well, i mean, was it loose/broken on the last touch? did he score a touch with it loose/broken?

It was the first exchange of (IIRC) the first bout in the meet... there was no 'last touch'.

-w

[Inquartata]

I once saw an epeeist showing his friend a weapon which had just had the blade bend to a 90 degree angle during a bout. He hooked it up to a buzzer box and the weapon still worked, eg it would score a touch. Should he have been made to keep using it? Allowed to do so?

So, that a weapon can still score clearly isn't the pertinent criterion.

t.68.3 (h)

"When a competitor against whom a touch has been registered
has broken his blade, the touch must be annulled unless the
breaking of the blade has occurred clearly after the touch has
been registered."

Since you couldn't tell that it broke "clearly after the touch", annull and change the weapon.

[DHCJr]

Not sure this matters - after all the decision is that the weapon was broken just in a way that did not result in it falling apart so the referee could decide when in the phrase it failed.

I'd go with annulling the touch (regardless of weapon) since there is no way of telling when in the action the weapon broke. There is a clear enough difference between this and a case where someone lets the handle become so loose that the equivalent inability to manipulate results.

It did matter as pointed out by Inquartata. T.68.3(h) is an Epee only rule. There are other similar rules for the other weapons and there are ones that are applied differently. If this had been Foil and the referee had quoted this rule to annul the touch there would be a problem.

This should be done by all both those asking for advise and by those making a statement be clear in what weapon you are talking about as it does make a difference.

[noodle]

It did matter as pointed out by Inquartata. T.68.3(h) is an Epee only rule. There are other similar rules for the other weapons and there are ones that are applied differently. If this had been Foil and the referee had quoted this rule to annul the touch there would be a problem.

This should be done by all both those asking for advise and by those making a statement be clear in what weapon you are talking about as it does make a difference.

i just checked the rulebook, all three weapons's versions of this rule are identical in wording.

[Chafunkta]

It did matter as pointed out by Inquartata. T.68.3(h) is an Epee only rule. There are other similar rules for the other weapons and there are ones that are applied differently. If this had been Foil and the referee had quoted this rule to annul the touch there would be a problem.

This should be done by all both those asking for advise and by those making a statement be clear in what weapon you are talking about as it does make a difference.

So if my blade breaks during a parry in foil, which takes away my chance at a riposte, and allows my opponent to land the remise, I can't get the remise annulled?

Yet in epee if the same situation occurs the touch is annulled?

EDIT: Just read Noodle's post. That makes sense.

[bigdawg2121]

I once saw an epeeist showing his friend a weapon which had just had the blade bend to a 90 degree angle during a bout. He hooked it up to a buzzer box and the weapon still worked, eg it would score a touch. Should he have been made to keep using it? Allowed to do so?

So, that a weapon can still score clearly isn't the pertinent criterion.

t.68.3 (h)

"When a competitor against whom a touch has been registered
has broken his blade, the touch must be annulled unless the
breaking of the blade has occurred clearly after the touch has
been registered."

Since you couldn't tell that it broke "clearly after the touch", annull and change the weapon.

Gonna have to agree with Inq and say you made the right choice.

[DHCJr]

i just checked the rulebook, all three weapons's versions of this rule are identical in wording.

Yes, T.56.3(f), T.68.3(h) & T.73(f) are worded the same, but that doesn't change what I wrote. There are many out there who give advice on the rules and just say yes or no without any proof. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. If DJ Apostrophe had not clarified which weapon and someone have answered that yes he should annul it because of rule T.73(f) would they have given a correct answer?

Most of the time I try and give an answer with proof. I can't give an anwer unless the question is complete. If people give answers before they have all the question, they can perpetrate false answers. I am just asking that when posting to be clear in which weapon.

[DJ Apostrophe]

My trepidation was twofold...

A: the point still worked

and

B: is the 'tang' part of the 'blade' as far as t.68.3 (h) is concerned?

was just an awkward situation I found myself in at the end of a long day (6 rounds of dual meets...) and hadn't seen it ever happen before... (I've seen someone break the tang on a french weapon, but never in the midst of getting hit.

Thanks for the input folks... rep all around.

-w

[oiuyt]

Just an additional note. What has been described is not a broken blade. The length of the blade is defined as including the point and everything which
is added in front of the convex surface of the guard. Sounds like this occured somewhat further back (towards the fencer) than that.

The weapon has broken, the blade has not.

If I were the referee on strip I don't think I would have annulled the touch.

The best explanation given here so far (given that I don't feel the broken blade rule applies) is the one DJA used in the OP:

However, with the tang being snapped (I don't know when during the action this occurred as he did not lose the weapon), I would say that that would leave him 'unable to wield his weapon correctly', and thus, be cause for a halt.

If I were aware of a fencer being unable to correctly wield a weapon I would certainly call a halt. And disallow all touches started after that point. I'm not willing to retroactively go back and assume that that point must have occured prior to the initiation of a scoring action when I have no knowledge, or even a reasonable guess, of when the breakage occurred.

If I had to guess (which I don't, and even were I the referee on strip I would not have to do), I would guess that the break occured during the final exchange, and quite likely during whatever action KOTL did that scored. If that guess is accurate then the touch should stand even if I were aware of the inability to wield immediately. Barring some form of "hard" halt (such as a broken blade).

-B

[oiuyt]

Ah, DJA pointed out my quibble as I was posting (and pulling up exact language, and getting distracted by unrelated questions from or Grad Assistant).

-B

[DHCJr]

Let me give an example where the weapon does matter. Suppose the question asked had been, "Should I stop the bout, if I no longer can tell what is happening, even if no light goes on?".

Foil - Yes T.56.6
Sabre - Yes T.73(j)
Epee - No, there is no rule (that I know of that would cover that.

I am not critisizing anyone, I am asking that posters be a little more clear.

[edew]

This problem as described is nothing more than a variation in degree to the loose grip problem, for which the referee seldom annulls a touch (unless it occurred while the fencer is waving the referee to halt the bout and the referee was in the process of halting the bout, but the opponent happened to continue with the action that scored a touch).

If you have a loose grip, you may ask to change or fix it, but if you're using it and you're scored upon, that's part of the game.

[Inquartata]

Gonna have to agree with Inq

I know that must have pained you.

Just an additional note. What has been described is not a broken blade. The length of the blade is defined as including the point and everything which
is added in front of the convex surface of the guard. Sounds like this occured somewhat further back (towards the fencer) than that.

The weapon has broken, the blade has not.

If I were the referee on strip I don't think I would have annulled the touch.

Under that interpretation a sabre fencer whose...weapon...snaps at the tang-blade join, as so many of them do, must be required to keep using that weapon to defend himself at least for the duration of that phrase. Even though the blade is now on the floor! After all, only the tang has broken...

Another reason NOT to cant your tangs, people!

[jBirch]

If I were aware of a fencer being unable to correctly wield a weapon I would certainly call a halt. And disallow all touches started after that point. I'm not willing to retroactively go back and assume that that point must have occured prior to the initiation of a scoring action when I have no knowledge, or even a reasonable guess, of when the breakage occurred.

If I had to guess (which I don't, and even were I the referee on strip I would not have to do), I would guess that the break occured during the final exchange, and quite likely during whatever action KOTL did that scored. If that guess is accurate then the touch should stand even if I were aware of the inability to wield immediately. Barring some form of "hard" halt (such as a broken blade).

-B

I agree here. If after the halt the fencer asks for the blade to be inspected and at that time it is clearly broken, I wouldn't annul the touch simply because I have no idea of knowing when the break occurred. In general, if the touche happens within or before the same tempo as the break, then the touche stands.

Ie// In Sabre (for example) a cut to the chest encounters the parry, then shears off the blade and continues to hit the target. The break happens in tempo 1, the hit in tempo 2. Hit is annulled.

In Sabre, a direct attack with a cut to the mask causes the attacking blade to break on contact with the mask, the touche stands.

James.