Rule Question: Covering Target Stops Action?

[SenorEquis]

Fencer A attacks, is parried by Fencer B. A then covers target; B misses. A then passes B, B turns and remises their riposte on target. Question: did A's violation of covering target stop the action, therefore making the valid riposte by B invalid? That is, is the correct call:

1. Yellow Card to A, Point to B; or
2. Yellow Card to A

Thanks.

[downunder]

Yellow Card to Fencer A, no touch.

If the riposte had hit then it would be valid. Halt was called for the covering target, thus the remise of the riposte was after the halt.

[dekko]

Not going to speak for how it is 'down under' but refs here are told, or should be, that 'Halts' are occurances not utterances. Had the initial action hit, the benefit of the hit would be given. Important because if the hit is on the hand covering target the card is given AND the touch is given. In this case since the initial hit missed the action is halted after the miss and card given, no touch awarded.

[D'Art]

Down Under didn't tell you how's done in Oz. He told you how the FIE does it. Officially.

[dekko]

Down Under didn't tell you how's done in Oz. He told you how the FIE does it. Officially.

So if I'm fencing foil at a world cup and cover target and you hit me in the hand covering you don't get a touch? I just get a yeloow card?

Not sure that is the case. Not ever fencing a world cup foil event can't speak from experience but I suspect if a fencer covers taregt and gets hit in that hand while covering the fencer doing the hitting will get a touch.

[epeemike81]

So if I'm fencing foil at a world cup and cover target and you hit me in the hand covering you don't get a touch? I just get a yeloow card?

no, nor did Downunder say that... he said that the REMISE of the riposte in the initial example was after the halt for covering target. had the OP said the initial riposte hit (instead of explicitly saying it missed), I'm sure downunder would have said the touch stood. In fact, he did:

If the riposte had hit then it would be valid. Halt was called for the covering target, thus the remise of the riposte was after the halt.

Why are you arguing a point that he didn't make?

-m

[Goldgar]

So if I'm fencing foil at a world cup and cover target and you hit me in the hand covering you don't get a touch? I just get a yeloow card?

Not sure that is the case. Not ever fencing a world cup foil event can't speak from experience but I suspect if a fencer covers taregt and gets hit in that hand while covering the fencer doing the hitting will get a touch.

Just as a note, downunder didn't address that issue at all. As I read it, he just said exactly what you said: the *remise* of the riposte would have been after the halt for covering.

[downunder]

So if I'm fencing foil at a world cup and cover target and you hit me in the hand covering you don't get a touch? I just get a yeloow card?

Not sure that is the case. Not ever fencing a world cup foil event can't speak from experience but I suspect if a fencer covers taregt and gets hit in that hand while covering the fencer doing the hitting will get a touch.

I've refereed foil at a world cup event.

You've missed the point almost completely - and i'm right.

[downunder]

and it didn't just end here:

I get a PM yesterday (from someone who will remain anon because i respect that it was sent as a Private Message).

Originally Posted by someone that really doesn't get it
You're half right, the point was missed, by you. I guess you didn't read what I typed, as I did read what you typed. You said the halt is called as soon as target is covered which is not always true. And, if I am fencing foil and my opponent covers right before I would have hit and I stab their hand and the ref doesn't give me the point, there will be outside involvement as the ref blew the call. And, by rule I will get the point. You error was not allowing my action to happen. You typed that the halt would be called as soon as the target was covered, that IS incorrect.

Not a huge deal for the example but an important point to remember.

Enjoy!

"You don't understand.

t.18. 3

Directly after the order ‘Halt!’ has been given, a competitor may not start a new action; only a movement which has been begun before the
order was given remains valid. Everything which takes place afterwards is entirely non-valid (But cf. t.32.1/2).



If your action had started before Halt was called then it is allowed to finish. Halt will be called as soon as an infraction occurs. Also please note that it doesn't matter when I call halt, it's what I call halt for.

This is all irrelevent as the first action missed in the example.

Dave"



As you can tell i don't really appreciate this, but the discussion is better than naught.

[dekko]

and it didn't just end here:

I get a PM yesterday (from someone who will remain anon because i respect that it was sent as a Private Message).




"You don't understand.

t.18. 3

Directly after the order ‘Halt!’ has been given, a competitor may not start a new action; only a movement which has been begun before the
order was given remains valid. Everything which takes place afterwards is entirely non-valid (But cf. t.32.1/2).



If your action had started before Halt was called then it is allowed to finish. Halt will be called as soon as an infraction occurs. Also please note that it doesn't matter when I call halt, it's what I call halt for.

This is all irrelevent as the first action missed in the example.

Dave"



As you can tell i don't really appreciate this, but the discussion is better than naught.

Nice, I will be sure to have you as a ref when I fence foil and let my opponent pin my hand against my chest when it's 14-14 and you NOT give them the touch and me a card and watch their coach blow up and you black card everyone but me and I win the bout by default.

[oiuyt]

Nice, I will be sure to have you as a ref when I fence foil and let my opponent pin my hand against my chest when it's 14-14 and you NOT give them the touch and me a card and watch their coach blow up and you black card everyone but me and I win the bout by default.

David-
I think you're still misreading Downunder's post.

DU is correct. "Halt!" is called as soon as the infraction occurs.

Something which started before that point and concludes after it can still result in an awarded touch. As DU has explicitly stated.

-B

[downunder]

fantastic.

[Smyles]

Nice, I will be sure to have you as a ref when I fence foil and let my opponent pin my hand against my chest when it's 14-14 and you NOT give them the touch and me a card and watch their coach blow up and you black card everyone but me and I win the bout by default.

On that note. Surely there's a difference between intentional covering and unintentional covering and how it is called, no?

I asking because I genuinely do not know and am curious, not trying to fan any flames.

[mrbiggs]

Surely there's a difference between intentional covering and unintentional covering and how it is called, no?

No. Covering target is covering target.

[noodle]

On that note. Surely there's a difference between intentional covering and unintentional covering and how it is called, no?

no. covering is covering.

edit: curses, foiled by biggs.

to make this more worthwhile reading --
crossing over in saber is illegal. its a card whether the person did it unintentionally or intentionally. the intent isn't whats being carded, the action is.

[Goldgar]

On that note. Surely there's a difference between intentional covering and unintentional covering and how it is called, no?

I asking because I genuinely do not know and am curious, not trying to fan any flames.

No, and there's really no need for any distinction. Keep covering target, for whatever reason, and you keep getting carded until the bout is over on penalty points. Most minor penalties don't require the referee to divine "intent", thank goodness.

The more severe offenses do, to some extent. For example, the distinction between "dangerous, violent or vindictive action" (Group 2 red card) and "deliberate brutality" (Group 4 black card).

[Chafunkta]

Most minor penalties don't require the referee to divine "intent", thank goodness.

What card do you give for that? Show a cross? Bow to the almighty fencer?

[HDG]

What card do you give for that? Show a cross? Bow to the almighty fencer?

divine: verb [ trans. ] discover (something) by guesswork or intuition.

[LeftHanded]

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

[downunder]

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

B does not get a card if he turns following A running past him.

Covering target would be an issue if the arm/head/leg comes between the point and the target. Obviously it is much easier to show then to describe on an internet forum so i will leave it there.

The referee calls halt for the covering target. I think discussing if the referee is inept by not calling halt is counter productive.