Rule Question: Covering Target Stops Action?

[TooLoftheDeviL]

Let me get this straight. A attacks, B parries and Reposts, the repost misses as A covers target. Then A goes past B (as in behind him) and B turns around and hits him? Did I get that right?

From the sound of it B should get a Yellow or a Red Card for turning around. In the case of A how much of the area did they cover? Was it the entire arm resting across the navel or just hanging down behind the back? I will assume it as teh first of the two. The ref. should call halt when target is covered. If not then when A passes B the action should stop all together and the center should be called. If I read this wrong and A didn't run past B and The ref didn't call halt I would have to say touch to B. Sorry for wasting space if I don't have this right.

LeftHanded

You are incorrect on most points. The first one being riposte :P

Secondly, "Turning around" is not an offense. Turning you back to your opponent is. If you opponent has run past you, you still have the right to make 1 direct riposte. If this means turning around to do so, so be it.

Thirdly, you're never "only covering a little bit of target." Offenses are either committed, or they are not. Committed offenses warrant cards, as a matter of fact.

But yes, the halt occurs at the offense, regardless of the when the words escape the ref's mouth. However, as stated over... and over again, actions started before the halting offense may still score valid touches.

[KD5MDK]

If you opponent has run past you, you still have the right to make 1 direct riposte.

More accurately: You have the right to complete one continous action that began before the passing occurred.

[eac]

I'm really curious now. Lefthanded, what club do you go to, what coach does it have, and why hasn't s/he told you the rules?

[LeftHanded]

I havn't fenced foil in years. I am rusty on some of the rules. Plus I once turned around to follow an opponent and got red carded. Is this an epee thing only? Does thios rule not apply to foil? I am talking from a basin of knowledge that has not been used for quite a while and from personal experiences. Also, notice the prehemptive apology at the end. I never claimed to be an expert, that is just how the events seemed to play out to me. Also TooLoftheDevil, I think that you have a valid agrument that you either have an offence or not. I have seen directors give away red cards because she didn't like the way a guy had his socks. So I was speaking from a "Stranger-Things-Have-Happened" prespective. Some director call things for nothing and others call everything!

[Goldgar]

I once turned around to follow an opponent and got red carded. Is this an epee thing only? Does thios rule not apply to foil?

This "rule" is not a rule. If you didn't turn your back *to the opponent*, there is no grounds for a penalty.

I have seen directors give away red cards because she didn't like the way a guy had his socks. So I was speaking from a "Stranger-Things-Have-Happened" prespective. Some director call things for nothing and others call everything!

True. Inconsistency is the bane of refereeing.

[achilles_heal]

if i could give a black card for not liking someone's socks, i would. and there were a lot of unlikeable socks in atlanta.

in general, i find the loud colors on masks/lames/socks/pants/etc very jarring. sometimes it is tastefully employed, but this is certainly not the norm. soon fencers will resemble NASCAR stock car drivers. with advertisements for "home depot" and "skoal"

[CvilleFencer]

in general, i find the loud colors on masks/lames/socks/pants/etc very jarring. sometimes it is tastefully employed, but this is certainly not the norm. soon fencers will resemble NASCAR stock car drivers. with advertisements for "home depot" and "skoal"

Gods how I pray for that day. I will be able to subsidize my fencing addiction by selling ad space on my kit, fencing overall will have the marketing money it needs to grow, my club and division will prosper from the new students/funds and people who whine about our sport being seen as anything other than something practiced by blue blooded, amorphous, soulless automatons doing a slow, quite and antiquated quasi-sport akin to croquet or some other nonsense will go fence with a dry fencing leage using pineapple tips on 32 foot strips and argue about who has the prettier extension. Sign me up for a neon or royal blue kit with Guinness and Philip Morris labels and an LP racing stripe.

Dammit, did I just feed a troll? No more drinking and posting for me...

[achilles_heal]

*urp*

delicious.

[KD5MDK]

Were you planning on doing it as one group 3 red card for the garish left sock (disturbing order on strip) and one for the right?

Or will you be sensible and award a paisley card instead for offense against fashion?

[CvilleFencer]

Or will you be sensible and award a paisley card instead for offense against fashion?

Now wait a minute, the last errata from the FIE conference clearly states that the Chartreuse card would be appropriate in this situation...

[achilles_heal]

Were you planning on doing it as one group 3 red card for the garish left sock (disturbing order on strip) and one for the right?

Or will you be sensible and award a paisley card instead for offense against fashion?

ok that's pretty good.

but the paisley card is for Deliberately brutal taste.

[peet]

Were you planning on doing it as one group 3 red card for the garish left sock (disturbing order on strip) and one for the right?

Or will you be sensible and award a paisley card instead for offense against fashion?

You've never been awarded Stasinos's famous plaid card have you?

-P

[KD5MDK]

No, but I've seen it. I maintain a disagreement with my multi-card toting local referee; he maintains the green card is for retreating out of one's shoe, I say it is for fencing with "-ski" attached to your name to get more points.

The pink card is for changing your name from Josh to Latoya so you can fence WS. He came in 3rd out of 2 fencers competing.

[rory]

Moving back in the general direction of the topic, LeftHanded stated that the card was for the "way he had his socks".

I take this to mean that the socks were not pulled up, not that the refereee disliked the colour scheme.

[Joe biebel]

Then A goes past B (as in behind him) and B turns around and hits him?
From the sound of it B should get a Yellow or a Red Card for turning around.
LeftHanded

Once "A" is past "B", "B" can only turn towards "A" as "B" is already to his back. I don't think it would matter which direction "B" turns either, as he is now turning "toward" as opposed to "Away" form his opponenet. Also, once "A" is past "B" there is a "soft halt" (so turning the back, even if it could be done, would no longer be penalised) so that only the action already started by "B" could count.