Reprieve From Stepping Off Strip

[tchwojko]

Fictional situation:
Director with timer in hand starts the overtime with the box turned off. 30 seconds later a fencer goes off the back of the strip (or gets a red card for some reason). Director is made aware that the box was never turned on.

What does the director do?
Is the red card relevant?
Can the director simply state that he never officially started the bout?

What about bouts that are interrupted for a reason external to the strip? (Fire alarm, power outage, etc.)

(I'm interested in what happens in practice as well as what the rules state.)

[larkmaj]

Fictional situation:
Director with timer in hand starts the overtime with the box turned off. 30 seconds later a fencer goes off the back of the strip (or gets a red card for some reason). Director is made aware that the box was never turned on.

What does the director do?
Is the red card relevant?
Can the director simply state that he never officially started the bout?

What about bouts that are interrupted for a reason external to the strip? (Fire alarm, power outage, etc.)

(I'm interested in what happens in practice as well as what the rules state.)

More plausible situation (at least for some) with same results would be using a timed box and the ref forgot to rearm it for the overtime.

[KD5MDK]

Fictional situation:
Director with timer in hand starts the overtime with the box turned off. 30 seconds later a fencer goes off the back of the strip (or gets a red card for some reason). Director is made aware that the box was never turned on.

What does the director do?
Is the red card relevant?
Can the director simply state that he never officially started the bout?

What about bouts that are interrupted for a reason external to the strip? (Fire alarm, power outage, etc.)

(I'm interested in what happens in practice as well as what the rules state.)

What red card? Show me in the penalty chart where going off the back of the strip is a Group 2 offense.

[RITFencing]

More plausible situation (at least for some) with same results would be using a timed box and the ref forgot to rearm it for the overtime.

Seen that happen many a time.

[peet]

What red card? Show me in the penalty chart where going off the back of the strip is a Group 2 offense.

I think you might have mis-read the post. The poster mentioned the fencer going off the end OR getting a red for something.

[peet]

Not exactly. If his weapon were at fault, the match would have been over ... the Hungarian would have lost for leaving the strip. The condition of your weapon is not grounds for contesting that issue. However, the general technical condition of the piste and the neutral machinery is.

I've often heard this argued: that if the failure is in your own weapon, any touch against you will not be annulled. However, I can't find that in the rules. I've heard it said that it's to prevent a fencer from secretly breaking their own wire as a way of getting their opponent's touch annulled, and I can see that logic. However, it doesn't make sense to me to penalize the fencer for their tip coming out of the weapon, or other such legit failures, for which I've seen many touches annulled (correctly, IMHO).

Thoughts everyone?

-p

[oso97]

More plausible situation (at least for some) with same results would be using a timed box and the ref forgot to rearm it for the overtime.

Did that once.

And only once.

We all make mistakes!

[larkmaj]

I've often heard this argued: that if the failure is in your own weapon, any touch against you will not be annulled. However, I can't find that in the rules. I've heard it said that it's to prevent a fencer from secretly breaking their own wire as a way of getting their opponent's touch annulled, and I can see that logic. However, it doesn't make sense to me to penalize the fencer for their tip coming out of the weapon, or other such legit failures, for which I've seen many touches annulled (correctly, IMHO).

Thoughts everyone?

-p

Isn't it just faults behind the bellguard that are not allowed? Unless the fencers slams the tip on the ground (or removes the weapon from view of the ref) the touch can be annulled for a faulty tip.

[H Man]

Bout is over as overtime is suddden death (Article o.17 pools and o.24 DEs).

Time keeper error is not a valid reason to annul a touch.

It doesnt apply here as the bout was over with the red card or crossing of the rear limits of the strip, but FYI

Article t.32 ....Should there be a failure of the clock or an error by the time-keeper, the Referee must estimate how much time is left.

[peet]

Isn't it just faults behind the bellguard that are not allowed? Unless the fencers slams the tip on the ground (or removes the weapon from view of the ref) the touch can be annulled for a faulty tip.

That's my understanding...

-p

[edit]
Note that I can't find anything in the rules that mentions faults behind the bellguard either; it's just that I can sort of understand that call.
[/edit]

[mrbiggs]

Isn't it just faults behind the bellguard that are not allowed?

I am quite surprised to find that although that's what I've been universally taught for epee, I can't find it in the rules.


From t.68, in the epee rules:

(f) If the incidents mentioned in Article t.67 occur as a result of
the competitor’s bodycord being unplugged (either near the
hand or at the back of the fencer), they cannot justify the
annulment of the touch registered.
However, if the safety device prescribed by Article m.55/4 is
missing or not functioning, the touch should be annulled if
the plug at the fencers’ back has become unplugged.

That addresses a body cord being unplugged, but not some sort of fault in the wires, which could also occur behind the bell.

(c) With these tests, one is trying only to establish whether there
is material possibility of a mistake in the judgement as a
result of a fault. The location of this fault in the electrical
equipment, including that of either of the fencers, is
unimportant in reaching a decision.

Seems to argue against the bell rule.

Where am I going wrong?

[Inquartata]

I don't know. "The location of this fault in the electrical equipment...is unimportant in reaching a decision" looks crystal clear to me.

[tbryan]

Did that once.

And only once.

What? Does that mean that you refereed for Danny Vermin?

"You shouldn't start the sudden death minute without rearming the box, Johnny. My referee started the sudden death minute without rearming the box once. Once!"

[fencerbill]

Perhaps I missed it but I didn't see where the following two aspects were discussed:

How much time had passed? It might have been only a few seconds. Remember the referee has the authority and responsibility to "estimate time remaining".

Had there been exchanges when the fencer with the bad weapon might have made a hit? Analogous to where a fencer can ask for a test and get a touch annulled depending on whether fencing had "effectively" commenced. The referee may have been surprised that touches by that fencer had not been scored. When you are being attacked continuously do you really have an opportunity to ask for a halt?

I can think of a combination of circumstances where I would have done exactly what this referee did. But I haven't seen an adequate description of these circumstances to be sure.

I think, again, you had to be there and see the whole thing to be sure.

[H Man]

I am quite surprised to find that although that's what I've been universally taught for epee, I can't find it in the rules.


From t.68, in the epee rules:


That addresses a body cord being unplugged, but not some sort of fault in the wires, which could also occur behind the bell.



Seems to argue against the bell rule.

Where am I going wrong?

A fault in the wires after the the command "Fence" is given will annul the touch received by that weapon holder if that was the last touch scored. (Passed the initial weight and shim test)

Aside from disconnection of the body cord, Article t.68(g) will not allow an annulment if there is oxidation etc on the outside of the bell. If the powers that be desired to also limited annulment to problems inside of the bell, they would have spelled it out here.

Also, remember Article t.45 2. which indicates that there is no penalty for the weapon that fails during a bout.

[contre-Sixte]

Had there been exchanges when the fencer with the bad weapon might have made a hit? The referee may have been surprised that touches by that fencer had not been scored.

I don't think the rules regarding equipment failure vary depending on whether the referee feels that a point was definitely or definitely not scored.

What if the two fencers had been standing passively at advance lunge distance for 5 seconds and the time simply ran out. Should the losing fencer simply be able to present his non-working weapon and get a do-over? It seems strange to me that in situations when the point scored comes as a result of non-combat (e.g. leaving the strip, time running out) that the state of the electrical equipment should come to bear.

[fencerbill]

I don't think the rules regarding equipment failure vary depending on whether the referee feels that a point was definitely or definitely not scored.

What if the two fencers had been standing passively at advance lunge distance for 5 seconds and the time simply ran out. Should the losing fencer simply be able to present his non-working weapon and get a do-over? It seems strange to me that in situations when the point scored comes as a result of non-combat (e.g. leaving the strip, time running out) that the state of the electrical equipment should come to bear.

The rules regarding equipment failure do depend on whether fencing "effectively" commenced. Rules t.66 and following apply.

[KD5MDK]

Note that the foil rule includes

before the bout has
effectively recommenced (the command ‘Fence’)

which specifes the bout has recommenced when the command "Fence" is given.

[downunder]

I don't think the rules regarding equipment failure vary depending on whether the referee feels that a point was definitely or definitely not scored.

What if the two fencers had been standing passively at advance lunge distance for 5 seconds and the time simply ran out. Should the losing fencer simply be able to present his non-working weapon and get a do-over? It seems strange to me that in situations when the point scored comes as a result of non-combat (e.g. leaving the strip, time running out) that the state of the electrical equipment should come to bear.

Read this:

I think you'll find that the referee can only annul hits that are registered (on the apparatus)

[fencerbill]

Note that the foil rule includes

Quote: before the bout has
effectively recommenced (the command ‘Fence’)

which specifes the bout has recommenced when the command "Fence" is given.

So what the referee did in this Epee bout, you maintain he could not have done in a Foil bout.