Rule re: Corp a corp

[Fencergrl]

I'm curious how the a ref might call the following situation in Epee:

Fencer A is taller than Fencer B
Fencer A attacks Fencer B.
Fencer A runs directly into Fencer B.
Fencer A wraps his weapon arm over Fencer B's shoulder and hits the back of Fencer B and the light goes off.

Is is it a valid hit?
Was this Corps a Corps or a cheap feel?

How would the refs on the board call this?

[bigdawg2121]

Basically this could be a valid touch if there were no contact. Or if A hit and then B stepped into the action to cause the corps a corps as A was stopping/stopped. As you describe it, the key is that A ran into B. A caused corps a corps and doesn't get the touch in any ROW weapon. You're exception is in epee; in this case the touch is good as long as it occurred before the contact and there's no jostling.

[bigdawg2121]

Note: my first response covered a general answer and an epee answer.

Specifically for epee though it sounds like you annul the touch b/c the running into occurs first. You can't really award someone a touch after the corps a corps because they can use that corps a corps to create space to hit or gain some other advantage.

[KD5MDK]

bigdawg has it right. A caused the body contact. Therefor A cannot score after the body contact, which causes an immediate halt. (B could score, if he'd already begun the action which landed before the body contact.)

Was there body contact? Then there is corps a corps. I cannot speak to the presence of a cheap feel unless I saw the action with my own eyes. I have not yet seen any description that jostling occurred in the scenario given.

[Fencergrl]

There was body contact in that A was on B's toes and they were chest to chest touching...

As for the jostling... hmmm... I suppose. B couldn't really do anything and was trapped. A was struggling to get the point into B, so they were both moving about.

The call was a valid touch. To me, it looked like a halt should have been called when A ran into B as he tried to fleche.

I was wondering what others thought of the call.

I also though B should have protested the call. Would have this been a waste of energy? I don't think the ref saw that A was actually standing on B's toes. Preventing B from doing anything.

[KD5MDK]

As in appealed? Yes. As in objected to the referee? Probably worthwhile, unless you thought it would piss them off.

[larkmaj]

First you must ask questions to establish grounds for the appeal. He should have asked if the touch occurred after they came into contact. If the ref is dumb enough to say yes then that can be appealed. The matter of fact needs to be established first, then you can question the application of rules.

[peet]

I have a hard time imagining how a touch scored in such a manner could be anything other than after halt (for the CaC).

But of course, I wasn't there, so I guess it's possible....

-p

[Fencergrl]

No halt was called for what I thought was clearly a corp a corp. The point was simply awarded and the fencers sent back to the enguarde line.

I asked the director about the call after the bout had finished. I was told that corp a corp do not occur in epee. I thought he was wrong about this, so I wanted to check.

Anybody able to comment on the Canadian rules? I know they are slightly different. Another possibility... this ref was older and European. Is it possible he was applying a rule that no longer exists???

[rcmatthews]

corps à corps does occur in epee, you just dont get a card for it. of course, that also brings up the issue of pretty lax corps à corps calls in all of the weapons.

[RPI Epeeist]

lol no CaC in epee??? Man... I'd like to fence some epee with that ref.

[Allen Evans]

I saw very close to an identical situation at the Edinburgh Sat. World Cup last month. Same result, as well. No halt for the Corps-a-corps and the touch (a flick to the back) was allowed.

It was, of course, incorrect, and further proof that anyone can direct epee....badly.

AE

[grotto]

The no CaC in epee stems from the lack of a card thrown, and the reluctance of directors to call a halt when they feel "the fencers can no longer effectively wield their weapons" I've been admonished NOT to call a halt UNLESS there is CaC even though what is happening is clearly digressed from infighting to random stabbing....

[downunder]

The no CaC in epee stems from the lack of a card thrown, and the reluctance of directors to call a halt when they feel "the fencers can no longer effectively wield their weapons" I've been admonished NOT to call a halt UNLESS there is CaC even though what is happening is clearly digressed from infighting to random stabbing....

I'd say the main problem with inexperienced epee referees is that they call halt too early.

I'm always looking for a reason to call halt, and won't do so until i see one. "Random Stabbing" is not one of those reasons.

[tchwojko]

The phrase is "the fencers can no longer effectively wield their weapons," not "the fencers can no longer aesthetically wield their weapons."

[Fencergrl]

In this case, Fencer B could not, but fencer A could. I am assuming the ruling means that if either fencer or both cannot effectively weild their weapons.

[Gav]

I'm curious how the a ref might call the following situation in Epee:

Fencer A is taller than Fencer B
Fencer A attacks Fencer B.
Fencer A runs directly into Fencer B.
Fencer A wraps his weapon arm over Fencer B's shoulder and hits the back of Fencer B and the light goes off.

Is is it a valid hit?
Was this Corps a Corps or a cheap feel?

How would the refs on the board call this?

What's height got to do with anything?

And the answer to your question is no.

[Fencergrl]

I mentioned it only because it would help someone visualize what I was describing.

Also, height explains how fencer A could easily reach around and hit fencer B on the back (and the other fencer could not effectively wield a weapon at his/her opponent at all).

[Durando]

I mentioned it only because it would help someone visualize what I was describing.

Also, height explains how fencer A could easily reach around and hit fencer B on the back (and the other fencer could not effectively wield a weapon at his/her opponent at all).

You are totally talking about "the reacharound" (cf. old thread). Sweet!

[epeemike81]

I'd say the main problem with inexperienced epee referees is that they call halt too early.

I agree. As an epeeist, I find an early halt FAR worse than a late one (especially since if you SAY halt late, you can still apply the halt at the correct juncture. if you say halt early, there's nothing that can be done to remedy it.

-m