Reprieve From Stepping Off Strip

[contre-Sixte]

In a recent world cup epee match , the German fencer drove the Hungarian fencer off the back off the strip while in overtime. There was absolutely no blade contact. The referee called halt and signaled that the match was over. The Hungarian fencer presented his epee to the referee, the referee tested the epee and there was no light. Upon further investigation, it turned out there was a strip problem (i.e. reel or machine) ... not a weapon problem. The fencers were placed back on guard at the center line. Does this ruling follow common sense? Does this ruling follow the FIE rules?

[seven6ty]

I guess, to me at least, it seems like it would be dependent upon what exactly the problem was. If it was something that had only just happened, probably not. But if it was something that had been likely to have been a problem for a while, yes, or also if it was too difficult to tell the time at which it occurred. Did they leave the time on the clock as it was?

[introspective]

Yes it does. Moreover, the fencer who presented his weapon was smart. Only the fencer knows what's happening with their bout, but to have the guts to show the director their weapon to check it out is exactly what he should have done. It's the only way to tell what's happening.

[catwood1]

It makes sence from a logical standpoint. If the fencer got pushed off the end of the strip felt like he either hit or was hit, then going off the strip wouldn't matter. Granted, anyone is still better off staying on the strip just in case, but it could happen. If he did hit, then went off the strip he shouldn't be penalized, so if the machine was such that there is no way to know if he hit or not, the referee can't blame him for being pushed off the strip.

[contre-Sixte]

If he did hit, then went off the strip he shouldn't be penalized, so if the machine was such that there is no way to know if he hit or not, the referee can't blame him for being pushed off the strip.

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. So the Hungarian fencer got the only favorable outcome - his weapon light didn't come on AND it wasn't his weapon's fault.

[contre-Sixte]

Did they leave the time on the clock as it was?

The clock was reset to 1 minute. It was as if the overtime had never occurred.

[downunder]

The clock was reset to 1 minute. It was as if the overtime had never occurred.

well at least that is wrong.


I think you'll find that the referee can only annul hits that are registered (on the apparatus), so I would have awarded the match to the German.

[Purple Fencer]

well at least that is wrong.


I think you'll find that the referee can only annul hits that are registered (on the apparatus), so I would have awarded the match to the German.

Nice for the ref to ignore teh rules about materiality of the touch

[downunder]

Method of judging hits
Materiality of the hit
t.40. 1. The materiality of the hit is established according to the indications
of the apparatus, and when necessary by consulting the judges (cf.
t.36).
2. Only the indications of the electrical apparatus as indicated by its
own lamps or by the extension lamps can be taken into consideration
for judging hits. Under no circumstances can the Referee declare a
competitor to be hit unless the hit has been properly registered by the
apparatus (except as provided for in Article t.49.1 or when a penalty
hit has been awarded).
t.41. On the other hand, the Referee should, in the cases enumerated for each
weapon, annul a hit registered by the apparatus (cf. t.53ss, t.66ss, t.73).

[RITFencing]

well at least that is wrong.


I think you'll find that the referee can only annul hits that are registered (on the apparatus), so I would have awarded the match to the German.

I was talking about this with a clubmate who watched the bout, and I agree with downunder.

At first I was a little nonplussed as to what to do, but I think he's right about only being able to annul a touch that appear on the machine.

And yeah, the time should not have been reset even if the touch was annulled. That's just plain wrong.

[downunder]

Yes it does. Moreover, the fencer who presented his weapon was smart. Only the fencer knows what's happening with their bout, but to have the guts to show the director their weapon to check it out is exactly what he should have done. It's the only way to tell what's happening.

It makes sence from a logical standpoint. If the fencer got pushed off the end of the strip felt like he either hit or was hit, then going off the strip wouldn't matter. Granted, anyone is still better off staying on the strip just in case, but it could happen. If he did hit, then went off the strip he shouldn't be penalized, so if the machine was such that there is no way to know if he hit or not, the referee can't blame him for being pushed off the strip.

Come baaack. Argue with me..... so bored. Any other questions you want me to answer while I'm here?

[Zilverzmurfen]

...to have the guts to show the director their weapon to check it out...

Have the guts..? [Emphasis mine.]
I don't quite understand, is this seen as 'bold' in the US?

From my experience this is quite a common procedure when someone is uncertain of whether their touch was not being registered/possible weapon failure.

Different rules or norms? I don't know, the wording just puzzled me.

[darius]

If the fencer has no opportunity to score due to equipment (caveats for touching, unplugging, blah blah blah), a touch that DOES register on the apparatus should be annulled. This makes sense, and appeals to everybody's sense of fairness, right?

This is one of those places where the rules don't pass a common-sense test. If the fencer doesn't have an opportunity to score, they should not be penalized for going off-piste, as there is no way of knowing if they would have scored before that happened.

With the rules as they are, however, I see no way that you can do anything but award the touch.

The only possible explanation I can see for the ref's actions (and this is a horrible stretch) is that the halt occurred when the reel broke. So, thus, the beginning of the overtime period.

darius

[erooMynohtnA]

Come baaack. Argue with me..... so bored. Any other questions you want me to answer while I'm here?

You're probably asleep by now, but this thread reminded me of a situation.

Two foilists close and start infighting. They're not setting off any lights, and they're twisting and jabbing. Eventually, one covers target, and a halt is called. It's obvious that the machine wasn't working, and testing comfirms this, the machine wasn't registering any touches on either side.

Do you card for covering?

[downunder]

You're probably asleep by now, but this thread reminded me of a situation.

Two foilists close and start infighting. They're not setting off any lights, and they're twisting and jabbing. Eventually, one covers target, and a halt is called. It's obvious that the machine wasn't working, and testing comfirms this, the machine wasn't registering any touches on either side.

Do you card for covering?

Covering target is about protecting or substituting the target area with another part of the body. Whether it is possible to make a hit or not based on the failure of the apparatus is irrelevent.

p.s. London is only 5 hours ahead of Eastern time.

[downunder]

The only possible explanation I can see for the ref's actions (and this is a horrible stretch) is that the halt occurred when the reel broke. So, thus, the beginning of the overtime period.

darius

When did a reel break?

[darius]

Upon further investigation, it turned out there was a strip problem (i.e. reel or machine) ... not a weapon problem.

As I said, it was a stretch. But I was just curious on how the referee was able to justify that set of actions.

darius

[keith]

Method of judging hits
Materiality of the hit
t.40. 1. The materiality of the hit is established according to the indications
of the apparatus, and when necessary by consulting the judges (cf.
t.36).
2. Only the indications of the electrical apparatus as indicated by its
own lamps or by the extension lamps can be taken into consideration
for judging hits. Under no circumstances can the Referee declare a
competitor to be hit unless the hit has been properly registered by the
apparatus (except as provided for in Article t.49.1 or when a penalty
hit has been awarded).
t.41. On the other hand, the Referee should, in the cases enumerated for each
weapon, annul a hit registered by the apparatus (cf. t.53ss, t.66ss, t.73).

Of course this means that in any situation where I think I may have hit my opponent my only option is to let them hit me and then ask for a weapon test - any other action such as deliberately leaving the side boundaries of the strip could result in an un-unulable card.

[downunder]

put your hand up to get the referees attention, stepping out of fencing distance, and ask to test. If the situation is as you describe then this request is not unreasonable.

[keith]

put your hand up to get the referees attention, stepping out of fencing distance, and ask to test. If the situation is as you describe then this request is not unreasonable.

Of course if my opponent does not give me space and the referee sees no reason for my request (weirdly bent blade, untied shoelace, camel on the piste) then the ref has no obligation to allow my request to delay the bout.

But more to the point does anyone know if the official in question is still getting finals to ref?