Once action, two touches?

[Frank Pratt]

A few years ago, I remember discussing with someone the instances where a fencer could be awarded more than one touch in a single phrase via. a penalty touch (or touches). I can't remember if this is even possible, since a touch or yellow/red card stops the action, thus negating anything that happened thereafter.

However, this post by oiuyt reminded me of one possibility: If fencer X has a yellow card, is within one meter of his end line, and leaves the strip in order to avoid a touch, I would think that Fencer Y would be awarded a touch for Fencer X's red card and a 2nd touch since Fencer X would be placed behind his center line, due to the 1-meter penalty. In oiuyt's example, Fencer X did not have a yellow card, so he awarded a yellow card to Fencer X and a penalty touch to Fencer Y, since X was forced off the back of the strip. Hypothetically, if Fencer X already had a yellow card from earlier in the bout, I would think Fencer Y would be have been given two penalty touches. Come to think of it, if (again, hypothetically) Fencer Y had scored with an immediate riposte during this action, perhaps he could get three touches out of the deal. Of course, if Y manged to score a touch, the ref may question whether or not Fencer Y was really trying to avoid a touch in the first place.

Then again, I may be over-extending this in a rather far-fetched manner.

Can anyone else think of other examples where a fencer can get two touches on one phrase?

[KD5MDK]

Most penalties are soft halts, so the other fencer is allowed to finish their action. So if they were already making their attack, and the opponent who has a yellow card covered target, and they were also hit valid, it's touch awarded and the red card.

There's also "I hit you, you counterattack with a violent or vindictive action", which is an immediate red card, plus my touch.

[BySword]

well, if you are talking about epee, you only get one point when you push a fencer off the strip(end line) and score a touch on him at the same time.
Stepping off the side of the strip is not always a cardable offense, it depends on if it's intentional and systematic, also different directors may call it differently. But if you really want to one action two point situation, here is one,
a fencer turning his back and go off the back of the strip at the same time.
there are many other situations that you can get carded and scored on at the same time, of course if will be two points only if the person has yellow card to start with.

[notalent]

Oiuyt may recall this.
Fencing at the DitD his opp., already having a YC for crossingover, pulls distance, takes an extra step back. As he starts forward he crossesover while Oiuyt starts a new attack, simultanous actions. I redcard the opp. and anul his touch, leaving only Oiuyt's touch for touch number 2. This or a minor variation of it happened 4 times in the bout.

[Purple Fencer]

Wasn't the action that cost our WF team in Sidney one of those? We were down 43-44 and Ann Marsh not only got hit, but was called for covering, and already had a yellow against her??

That's what I remember.

[epeelion]

Soft halt? I have never seen two touches awarded. Either red card or touch, but not both. If there is covering target, then there is a halt. Though I guess if they cover at the same time you hit...hmm. Any more experienced refs wish to weigh in on this? I personally don't think you can award two touches, but...

[noodle]

the textbook example is in saber, crossing over to attack but putting on two lights.

card + touch.

[FoilyDeath]

If you give a card, the last action of the other fencer (who wasn't carded) is not annuled. Hence, fencer A attacks, fencer B covers, Fencer A hits, as long as ref calls for covering, but the light still comes on, it would be a double touch. This doesn't work the other way round: if you call for the hit, you can't say, oh, and you also covered, because, by definition, if you called the hit first, then the covering happened after the end of the touch.
I'm a foil ref, but I'm pretty sure this applies in other weapons too.

[oiuyt]

Notalent- I think I only got two 2-pointers (including the one at 7-6 to get the 8-touch break at 9-6). Mostly the situation that triggered the cross step occured at a distance where it wasn't reasonable for me to be trying to also hit, so I was perfectly happy creating the situation just to get a single freebie.

I'll be repeating some of what the earlier posters have already said, but that's easier than trying to pick through and just quote the correct statements.

The OP is incorrect in creating a theoretical 2-(or 3-)pointer. A red card would result in there not being a meter penalty. The reason the touch was awarded in my anecdote was that the meter penalty was taking place from very close to one end of the strip. With a red card the fencers would return to their guard lines, and that wouldn't be the case, even if we DID enforce distance penalties in such a situation (which we don't).

It is certainly possible for two touches to be awarded as part of the same action if one comes as a result of a red card. The sabre example is by far the most common. As others have mentioned, other infractions are soft halts and actions in progress by the opponent may still be valid. An action by the offending fencer may arrive, but the resulting touch will be annulled as part of the enforcement of the penalty.

Infractions cause halts. Most halts don't immediately stop actions. What they do, is prevent the initiation of any NEW actions. Very different thing.

-B

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by epeelion

Soft halt? I have never seen two touches awarded. Either red card or touch, but not both. If there is covering target, then there is a halt. Though I guess if they cover at the same time you hit...hmm. Any more experienced refs wish to weigh in on this? I personally don't think you can award two touches, but...

I'm not experienced, but any action in progress that begins before a "soft" halt counts. So, for example, if you get a red card for turning the back and your opponent hits anyway with his action that began before you turned, it's two touches.

All halts are soft halts except for going off the back of the strip, time, and a broken blade.

Originally Posted by BySword

But if you really want to one action two point situation, here is one,
a fencer turning his back and go off the back of the strip at the same time.

I believe that this would just be a yellow card. There's a halt for the fencer turning his back, after which he may go off the back of the strip if he wants.

Since going off the back of the strip is a hard halt, I'd go as far as to say that it's impossible to get two touches off of it, though there might be an obscure action that will.

FoilyDeath, it does apply to the other weapons, but it's a lot harder to cover in epee and sabre.

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by noodle

the textbook example is in saber, crossing over to attack but putting on two lights.

card + touch.

Not always. If it is crossover then attack-counterattack there is only the penalty unless the counterattack starts before the crossover. Two lights but only the penalty.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I
Since going off the back of the strip is a hard halt, I'd go as far as to say that it's impossible to get two touches off of it, though there might be an obscure action that will.

Well, fencer goes off the back of the strip then makes a violent bell-punch to his opponent. That would be touch for back of strip, red card for blow with guard. Or it might be "Black card". But you should probably record the touch for the going off the end of the strip just in case your black card is overturned.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by epeelion

Soft halt?

As opposed to "hard halt." With a soft halt, actions already in progress are allowed to finish. With a hard halt (like a blade break or the time on the box expiring), no action is allowed to score after the halt even if it was in progress before the halt. It's not in the rules, but some referees use these terms to help in training other referees. Greg Dillworth, for example, used the terms at the referee seminar he gave last week in NC.

Originally Posted by epeelion

I have never seen two touches awarded. Either red card or touch, but not both. If there is covering target, then there is a halt. Though I guess if they cover at the same time you hit...hmm. Any more experienced refs wish to weigh in on this? I personally don't think you can award two touches, but...

It happens less often in epee. It isn't uncommon in foil, but perhaps you don't see it much at the level you normally fence. You can certainly award a touch for a fencer and give his opponent a red card on the same action. Again, Greg Dillworth discussed several of these situations at the referee seminar he gave last week.

You mentioned one of the common ones in foil. You have a yellow. I attack and hit on target. After I start my attack, you cover target before my touch arrives. Halt is for the covering target, but the attack is allowed to finish. Another common example in foil is the fencer who gets hit in the process of causing a corps-a-corps (especially since the referee can still penalize you for causing corps-a-corps after the touch arrives if the corps-a-corps is in the same tempo as the touch). For example, you fleche, I parry-riposte and hit, and your fleche causes a corps-a-corps in the fleche footwork and in the same tempo of the riposte.

For other penalties, it's less common to see a touch arrive in time for both the touch and the penalty. For example, we don't card for turning the back after the halt, so if a fencer hits and then turns back, he's fine. Or if he is hit, and then he turns back, he's fine. Then again, I have seen a fencer misjudge the distance, turn his back, and get hit in the middle of the back by an attack that was already in progress before he turned. Touch and a card. (Two touches if he already had a yellow card.)

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

All halts are soft halts except for going off the back of the strip, time, and a broken blade.

Other "hard" halts:
* Leaving the strip with both feet -- for the person(s) off the strip only. One's opponent leaving the strip is a "soft" halt.
* Passing the opponent -- for the person(s) causing the pass only. Being passed is a "soft" halt.

-B

[Agent_V]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Other "hard" halts:
* Leaving the strip with both feet -- for the person(s) off the strip only. One's opponent leaving the strip is a "soft" halt.
* Passing the opponent -- for the person(s) causing the pass only. Being passed is a "soft" halt.

-B

For the last one... how about the following scenario:
Fencer A fleches at Fencer B, B parry-repostes and A does a counter-reposte in prime, with his action only landing after the pass?

By the rulebook such actions should not get the touch unless you really torture the wording - but I've seen at least a couple instances with high-level referees where such an action would gain a touch. A kind of "right to reposte" mentality. Do you think this is commonly accepted at the higher levels?

Alexander

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by Agent_V

For the last one... how about the following scenario:
Fencer A fleches at Fencer B, B parry-repostes and A does a counter-reposte in prime, with his action only landing after the pass?

By the rulebook such actions should not get the touch unless you really torture the wording - but I've seen at least a couple instances with high-level referees where such an action would gain a touch. A kind of "right to reposte" mentality. Do you think this is commonly accepted at the higher levels?

That's plainly not justified by the rules, and I haven't seen it called that way in my personal -- non-international -- experience, though there's no saying any referee couldn't make a mistake. You probably need a top-level referee or fencer to tell from their experience whether this is a popular attitude.

[peet]

Originally Posted by Agent_V

For the last one... how about the following scenario:
Fencer A fleches at Fencer B, B parry-repostes and A does a counter-reposte in prime, with his action only landing after the pass?

By the rulebook such actions should not get the touch unless you really torture the wording - but I've seen at least a couple instances with high-level referees where such an action would gain a touch. A kind of "right to reposte" mentality. Do you think this is commonly accepted at the higher levels?

Alexander

I can't imagine an experienced referee intentionally awarding a touch that arrives after the pass to the fencer who passed his/her opponent. I'll bet in the examples you have experienced, the referee was of the opinion (correct or incorrect) that the hit was before the pass.

As always, mistakes happen...

-p

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Agent_V

For the last one... how about the following scenario:
Fencer A fleches at Fencer B, B parry-repostes and A does a counter-reposte in prime, with his action only landing after the pass?

I agree with Goldgar and Peet. The scenario, as written, should result in no touch being awarded.

Great example of why I REALLY dislike the commonly-repeated "allowed one riposte" (granted, usually mentioned in reference to the passed fencer), as the rules DON'T give ripostes (or counter-ripostes) any special priviledge, as is implied by the phrase (and, moreso, by the common interpretation of the phrase by those inexperienced fencers/referees who are given it as a rule of thumb).

-B

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by peet

I can't imagine an experienced referee intentionally awarding a touch that arrives after the pass to the fencer who passed his/her opponent. I'll bet in the examples you have experienced, the referee was of the opinion (correct or incorrect) that the hit was before the pass.

Agreed, and I'll add one note. Agent_V said that the touch arrived "after the pass." I don't know what exactly that means.

For example, different referees have a different standard for judging when a fencer has passed his opponent. I know some good referees who basically look for the front shoulders to cross. As soon as my front shoulder crosses the plane of my opponent's front shoulder, I have passed my opponent. Others are looking for when my rear shoulder passes my opponent's rear shoulder. Most referees that I know seem to be somewhere in between.

So, it's possible that when one person says "after the pass", the "pass" has not happened yet according to the referee's standard.