remise with the Halt for time

[catwood1]

I was refereeing a foil bout recently when during the first period there was a very clear remise with the halt. The fencers were infighting and as they passed I called halt (for the pass). There was a remise that started before I called halt, and hit clearly slightly after the halt. I allowed the touch as being "with the halt."

Later in the bout, a similar thing happened. It was toward the end of the first period and the fencers again were infighting. I felt the clock beep and vibrate signaling the end of the first period (I have one of those awesome polder timers that I now swear by). I felt it vibrate and called halt. There was a remise that started before I called halt that hit slightly after the halt. I did not allow the touch under the thinking that if it were a machine that locked out the lights after time had ended, the light never would have gone on, and I wouldn't be able to allow the touch.

Did I make a mistake in either of these 2 instances? It seems very odd to make the opposite call in such similar situations, but I saw no better way to do it. I'd be happy to hear what everyone else thinks.

[SFfencer]

the way I understand it is:
It's not when you say "Halt",
It's at the offense (time expires, passing, etc.)

Originally Posted by catwood1

I was refereeing a foil bout recently when during the first period there was a very clear remise with the halt. The fencers were infighting and as they passed I called halt (for the pass). There was a remise that started before I called halt, and hit clearly slightly after the halt. I allowed the touch as being "with the halt."

If there is an offense (passing), halt is for that.
however, the person being passed is allowed a reposte.

Originally Posted by catwood1

Later in the bout, a similar thing happened. It was toward the end of the first period and the fencers again were infighting. I felt the clock beep and vibrate signaling the end of the first period (I have one of those awesome polder timers that I now swear by). I felt it vibrate and called halt. There was a remise that started before I called halt that hit slightly after the halt. I did not allow the touch under the thinking that if it were a machine that locked out the lights after time had ended, the light never would have gone on, and I wouldn't be able to allow the touch.

Again, it's at the offense (time expires) halt is then.

I believe passing is a "hard halt" for the passer, but a soft one for being passed.
Time is a hard halt.

[kalivor]

Call 1: Halt is called as the fencers pass each other. Did the fencer who did the passing get the hit? If so, it was a mistake. If not, then it's OK. Only the fencer who did not commit the "offense" of passing is allowed to score a hit in this scenario.

Call 2: Absolutely correct.

As a side note, don't use "with the halt". The action began *before* the halt. The hit arrived *after* the halt. Nothing happened "with" the halt. Just make the call, say that the action began before the halt if asked.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by SFfencer

If there is an offense (passing), halt is for that.
however, the person being passed is allowed a reposte.


Again, it's at the offense (time expires) halt is then.

The person being passed is not just allowed a riposte. It's a common misconception. They are allowed to finish any action they began before the pass. So a remise, counterattack, etc., all would also be counted. This extends to any soft halt.

Both calls in the OP were right, although there's no such thing as "with the halt." During the first call, the fencer started his action before the other passed. (Or, let's assume that that happened. If it was the passing fencer, he's not allowed to score.) Therefore, he's allowed to complete his action for a valid touch.

Time running out, however, is a "hard halt," which means that the action doesn't have to be started before the halt, the touch must be registered before it. The hard halts that affect both fencers are time running out, a fencer going off the strip with both feet, and a broken blade. (Broken in half, not registering off target.) Usually, the fencer committing a penalty is also subject to a hard halt.

[BraveHardt]

Calling "Halt" is also a hard halt. As soon as those words escape your lips, no other touches should be allowed. Your interpretation of the action in case 1 may well have been correct, but it was still an error to award the touch after you said "Halt".

The second call was correct because no touch can be scored after time has expired, regardless of when the action began.

[Redblade]

I wish we could get the phrase "with the halt" out of general usage.

[Jay Young]

Originally Posted by Redblade

I wish we could get the phrase "with the halt" out of general usage.

I second this.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Jay Young

I second this.

thirded

[KD5MDK]

Going off the strip with both feet is only a hard halt for the person going off.

[annacattiva]

[quote=BraveHardt;571483]Calling "Halt" is also a hard halt. As soon as those words escape your lips, no other touches should be allowed. Your interpretation of the action in case 1 may well have been correct, but it was still an error to award the touch after you said "Halt".
QUOTE]

You are incorrect. There are some events for which a hard halt is called (time, broken blade), and some events for which the person not causing the halt is allowed to finish an action begun before the halt. In addition, the halt does not occur when you utter the word 'halt'. The halt occurs with the event which provoked it, even if you say the word slightly later.

Anna

[downunder]

Originally Posted by BraveHardt

Calling "Halt" is also a hard halt. As soon as those words escape your lips, no other touches should be allowed. Your interpretation of the action in case 1 may well have been correct, but it was still an error to award the touch after you said "Halt".

You've got no clue.

t.18.3. Directly 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).

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by Redblade

I wish we could get the phrase "with the halt" out of general usage.

Using this term is like digging a hole, filling it with poo and jumping in.

[H Man]

First call is absolutly correct.

However, anything after the expiration of time does not count, even a coup lance. Book 1, Chapter 5, article t.32.

Funny because the time keeper "must" shout halt in accordance to this rule. The old USFA National Referee Examnination Study Guide had a question which indicated that only the Referee may call "Halt". (Old question #77). I pointed out article t.32 to the powers that be and the question vanished from the most recent Guide.

Better know this if you take the Exam as question #72 askes the very question. Also see Old Question #68.

[catwood1]

Thanks everyone. I appreciate the responses. And yes, it was the fencer being passed that had the remise that started before the halt and hit after it. I will definitly make an effort to stop using the phrase "with the halt"

Using this term is like digging a hole, filling it with poo and jumping in

hahahaha, well said...

[BraveHardt]

Originally Posted by annacattiva

The halt occurs with the event which provoked it, even if you say the word slightly later.
Anna

I never said that wasn't the case. Instead I was making the case that referees should delay calling halt.

I think you will agree that if a referee calls halt in the middle of an attack (clearly before the touch lands), at least one fencer is going to be pissed off no matter what. In that case, by awarding the touch you compound your initial error of calling halt too soon.

My comment in no way stated that saying halt after the fact was a problem.

Also, I would like to add my name to the list of people wanting to abolish the phrase "with the halt."

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

Using this term is like digging a hole, filling it with poo and jumping in.

Hmm....I think a better analogy would be covering yourself in honey and then jumping into a cage with a couple of hungry bears in a bad mood. The bears just happen to be holding epees.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by BraveHardt

I never said that wasn't the case. Instead I was making the case that referees should delay calling halt.

Wait, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you-- A ref shouldn't say halt before the halt happens--- but are you suggesting that a ref should (in certain circumstances) specifically delay saying halt until after the halt has happened? Shouldn't we all attempt to say the halt exactly when the halt happens, since saying it at any other time only increases the arguments?

[TooLoftheDeviL]

I was once witness to a conversation involving Jon Moss who said something along the lines of, especially in epee, wait to call halt "until next tuesday."

It would be amazingly swell if a referee's halt was 100% with the action that caused it, but actually attempting to do this will cause one to call halt without a touch or offense having actually happened; jumping the gun, if you will, is inevitable if you always try to call halt immediately.

Nobody should have issues that the halt is when the offense/touch occurs, not when the referee says the words. My issue with the "with the halt" calls, is that if the word "halt" was spoken, this should imply that the actual halt causing event happened before this, and cannot occur after the referee said it.

Specifically, if some actions are occurring, the referee calls halt with no offense committed or touch scored just by mistake, and then lights come on the box - awarding the touch either direction seems inappropriate.

[peet]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

Wait, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you-- A ref shouldn't say halt before the halt happens--- but are you suggesting that a ref should (in certain circumstances) specifically delay saying halt until after the halt has happened? Shouldn't we all attempt to say the halt exactly when the halt happens, since saying it at any other time only increases the arguments?

I've heard it recommended that refs be in the habit of saying halt just slightly after, to keep themselves from occasionally saying it too early.

I don't do that, mainly because my habit of saying it immediately is already too ingrained, but I sometimes do make the mistake of saying it early, so perhaps delaying a fraction of a second wouldn't be so bad an idea.

-p

[keropie]

Originally Posted by BraveHardt

I never said that wasn't the case. Instead I was making the case that referees should delay calling halt.

I think you will agree that if a referee calls halt in the middle of an attack (clearly before the touch lands), at least one fencer is going to be pissed off no matter what. In that case, by awarding the touch you compound your initial error of calling halt too soon.

My comment in no way stated that saying halt after the fact was a problem.

I'll disagree here. As soon as the official KNOWS that a halt has occurred, he/she should call it. Even if there is a valid action currently being made. To do otherwise will cause confusion in the other direction, and create more for the official to watch for (is there a riposte being made? oh damn, I can't call halt then... I'll have to wait until it misses or stops... and there it is, now I can call halt since they're like 3 feet apart from one another after passing...).

Additionally, any fencer who stops an action in progress because he/she has heard a halt is dumb, poorly trained, or at least making a significant mistake. We're supposed to know the rules and finish our valid actions.

This is not to say that some officials don't call halt to early. It definitely happens, and I've done it myself. However, any time that the official loses the action, he's supposed to call halt. This is to prevent the official from waiting until a light comes on when he has no idea what the exchange is, and then making something up.

So yeah, once the official loses the action and/or knows that an infraction has occurred, he/she should call halt. Not wait a second and a half or whatever. And if you think that a half has occurred, sure, wait a second or two to be sure.

My four cents.