Question on t.28 (crossing side of strip)

[fencerchica]

The scenario:

Fencer A lunges slowly but continuously; Fencer B performs an inquartata counterattack, and in the process puts one foot entirely off the side of the strip; Fencer A and Fencer B both arrive valid.

Halt was called for the foot off the strip, but both the attack and the counterattack had begun prior to the halt.

The call is obvious here -- Fencer A's continuous attack, which began prior to the halt and had ROW, arrives valid: touch for Fencer A.

However, regarding the foot off the strip: Does going off the side of the strip in an inquartata count as "cross[ing] one of the lateral boundaries of the strip with one or both feet... to avoid being touched," as in t.28, and does Fencer B incur a Group 1 card for it? Or was it a non-cardable crossing of the boundary by Fencer B, such that Fencer A would've merely have gained a meter if there hadn't been a valid touch scored?

Thanks!

Edited to add: this was a foil bout

[tbryan]

However, regarding the foot off the strip: Does going off the side of the strip in an inquartata count as "cross[ing] one of the lateral boundaries of the strip with one or both feet... to avoid being touched," as in t.28, and does Fencer B incur a Group 1 card for it?

No.

Or was it a non-cardable crossing of the boundary by Fencer B, such that Fencer A would've merely have gained a meter if there hadn't been a valid touch scored?

Yes.

I believe that the card is normally reserved for situations where a fencer isn't really making an attempt to make a touch and is simply leaping off of the strip to avoid a touch or to provoke a halt when he realizes that he's in a bad position. At least, it was explained that way in the last referee seminar I took. The card normally only comes out when that's basically the only "action" the fencer is taking: dodging the touch by moving laterally off the strip. The instructor basically said that the only time you need to card for this penalty, you won't have to ask. It'll be that obvious. An inquartata that ends off the strip or a parry with an angled retreat that takes the rear foot off the strip shouldn't draw a card.

I suppose that, depending on the situation, something like this could be carded. For example, if a fencer always hugged one side of the strip and repeatedly did an inquartata that ended off of the strip, I could see a referee carding for it.

[parrythis]

The purpose of an inquartata is to avoid the touche, but its purpose is not to leave the strip. As such I would call say that the leaving of the strip with the one foot in this case was unintentional. So I would have called it a non-cardable crossing of the boundary and let fencer A gain a meter. But I'm not a ref, I just play one at fencing tournaments, and I could be wrong, so I will be very interested in what the experts here have to say.

[KD5MDK]

Leaving the strip to avoid a touch is one of those areas that I think could be clarified a lot. It also would respond well to video replays of "this is what it looks like, this is what it doesn't. Let's identify common elements.".

[tbryan]

Leaving the strip to avoid a touch is one of those areas that I think could be clarified a lot. It also would respond well to video replays of "this is what it looks like, this is what it doesn't. Let's identify common elements.".

Agreed. I'd also like to see a similar clarification and video library for corps a corps to avoid a touch.

[Insipiens]

I received a card for leaving the piste to avoid a hit once in the following circumstances:

Fencing at close quarters I realised that I had already stepped of the piste entirely with my front foot;
I was also in a position where I was struggling to hit my opponent.
I realised that technically I was already off the piste and half stopped fencing
I glanced at the ref and down at my front foot then stepped off with my back foot.
Ref gave me a card.

Which as he had presumably not seen my foot off the piste already was fair enough.

My intention when stepping off the piste with my second foot was not so much to avoid the hit as to make it obvious I was off the piste.

It raises the question that the rules imply an understanding of the intention of the action which has to be inferred from the action rather than just decided on what the fact is.

[remise]

Is this foil we're talking about? I saw a foilist once who would regularly fold himself in half to avoid being touched. Sometimes as he did this he would step off the strip.

[rory]

Is this foil we're talking about? I saw a foilist once who would regularly fold himself in half to avoid being touched. Sometimes as he did this he would step off the strip.

This person is, technically, a "cheating b*st*rd" and should be carded as such.

Or just thwack 'em really hard on the back, that sorts them out.

[pinkelephant]

Sounds like an irregular action to me - which is getting carded a lot these days if it isn't actually covering with the head/arm/leg.

[seak]

A card for leaving strip to avoid a touch is given when the fencer is bailing on the action because if they don't stop the action by jumping off strip there's a high probablity they'll get hit. Basically the key is they are no longer making a fencing move, or attempting to fence, they're just bailing.

An inquartata is a legitimate fencing move, which is attempting to score a touch on a counterattack. Totally different scenarios, bad ref who calls it different.