Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

KD5MDK · 10-18-2007, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

If so, what is the referree supposed to do if (for example) a couple of kids stand there, both determined that they're going to wait for the other one to attack and then parry-riposte?

Make sure they clearly heard the "Fence" command.*

Wait until time has expired. If the score is tied, determine priority. Potentially wait another minute, then announce "Right (or left) has won, 0-0".

* Then card them for disobeying the referee. You told them to fence and they didn't.

Taomagicdragon · 10-18-2007, 04:07 PM

Personally, when I ref I take all 3 points into account as well as use common sense (ie points 2 and 3 have been met for a period of 20 seconds roughly, I'll call it). The trigger for the penalty is inherently flawed unless we have a point for director's discretion, or a smaller time frame for points 2 and 3 (15 - 20 seconds is more than adequate)

seak · 10-18-2007, 04:11 PM

gee the epee fencers must loooooove you, when you call it after 20 seconds

Taomagicdragon · 10-19-2007, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seak

gee the epee fencers must loooooove you, when you call it after 20 seconds

Better than the current rule triggers... It's a balancing act when you direct. If I am directing epee, and they are doing nothing for 20 seconds, I call it. Now, if they are actively seeking an opening, which means they are usually either in step-forward-lunge distance or just outside it, I generally will not call it as they are mentally trying to get the edge and it's visible.

As a ref, I could care less how the fencers view me so long as my rulings are correct; it's what makes a ref better.

epeemike81 · 10-19-2007, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seak

gee the epee fencers must loooooove you, when you call it after 20 seconds

he specified "for points 2 and 3". when both 2 and 3 are satisfied, I've called it in less than 15 seconds. there's a certain element of "you know it when you see it" with non-combativity. my favorite example: both fencers step back and drop their arms. Why should I wait a minute to call that? They have both made a clear decision not to fence. it's a waste of everybody's time to count out a minute. In fact, time is rarely a consideration when I call it.

I don't understand why everybody seems to think that non-combativity called without the counted minute is controversial... Those are usually the clearest cases.

It's non-combativity called after a minute of active distance games that I object to. Just ask Noahz about that. I once saw non-combativity (may have been passivity at the time...) called after a minute with no scoring in one of his bouts... he was in the middle of a fleche when the halt was called for passivity. "Halt. no touch. passivity." An extreme example, clearly, but my point is that it's using time as a factor that's dangerous.

-m

Durando · 10-19-2007, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epeemike81

It's non-combativity called after a minute of active distance games that I object to. Just ask Noahz about that. I once saw non-combativity (may have been passivity at the time...) called after a minute with no scoring in one of his bouts... he was in the middle of a fleche when the halt was called for passivity. "Halt. no touch. passivity." An extreme example, clearly, but my point is that it's using time as a factor that's dangerous.

Was there indeed a touch scored?!

"Dangerous" isn't the adjective I would use in this case. And how I would have relished watching the ensuing kerfuffle.

DJ Apostrophe · 10-19-2007, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Durando

Was there indeed a touch scored?!

"Dangerous" isn't the adjective I would use in this case. And how I would have relished watching the ensuing kerfuffle.

Yes there was... I was watching the bout as well (it happened in my pool)... the referee was looking at the clock, and in the middle of noahz's fleche, said 'halt'. Before the whole word was out of his mouth, NoahZ's light was on on the box.

The only time I've ever heard the phrase "No touch, passivity." uttered in my entire life.

-w

Taomagicdragon · 10-19-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Apostrophe

Yes there was... I was watching the bout as well (it happened in my pool)... the referee was looking at the clock, and in the middle of noahz's fleche, said 'halt'. Before the whole word was out of his mouth, NoahZ's light was on on the box.

The only time I've ever heard the phrase "No touch, passivity." uttered in my entire life.

-w

O_O

Generally, when the director calls halt, if the final action of an attack is in process, then the result of the final action is valid. So, I must ask, when was the halt being called? During the fleche? At the start? In the final phrase where contact was made?

If it was at the start of the fleche, then no touch. If it was made during the fleche, as in outside of the forward-lunge distance, then no touch. But, if the halt began during the final phrase of the fleche, the touch would have been valid or at least you could have argued it to the director.

A phrase of action usually ends (if there is no blade contact) when the step of the movement comes to its conclusion (IE, if a fleche takes 5 steps then it's 5 different phrases of action).

Please note that I did say generally, there are many circumstances where this isn't the case.

oiuyt · 10-19-2007, 02:18 PM

How many "phrases" does your fleche consist of?

How can a fleche take 5 steps?

"If it was made during the fleche, as in outside of the forward-lunge distance"

Gack.

I'm not sure you're clear on the concept of the action.

-B

HDG · 10-19-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oiuyt

How many "phrases" does your fleche consist of?

How can a fleche take 5 steps?

"If it was made during the fleche, as in outside of the forward-lunge distance"

Gack.

I'm not sure you're clear on the concept of the action.

-B

F9, E9, S9

KD5MDK · 10-19-2007, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Generally, when the director calls halt, if the final action of an attack is in process, then the result of the final action is valid.

When a halt occurs, the result of the action in progress is onten permitted to finish. However, there is a difference between when the halt occurs and when the referee says "Halt!". I believe that's a critical portion of this scenario.

chefencer · 10-19-2007, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

When a halt occurs, the result of the action in progress is onten permitted to finish. However, there is a difference between when the halt occurs and when the referee says "Halt!". I believe that's a critical portion of this scenario.

New Mandatory Referee Uniform Item: "gold" Hip Hop necklace with "platinum" pendant emblazoned in cubic zirconium: "Because I said so"...

seak · 10-19-2007, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epeemike81

he specified "for points 2 and 3". when both 2 and 3 are satisfied, I've called it in less than 15 seconds. there's a certain element of "you know it when you see it" with non-combativity. my favorite example: both fencers step back and drop their arms. Why should I wait a minute to call that? They have both made a clear decision not to fence. it's a waste of everybody's time to count out a minute. In fact, time is rarely a consideration when I call it.

I don't understand why everybody seems to think that non-combativity called without the counted minute is controversial... Those are usually the clearest cases.

It's non-combativity called after a minute of active distance games that I object to. Just ask Noahz about that. I once saw non-combativity (may have been passivity at the time...) called after a minute with no scoring in one of his bouts... he was in the middle of a fleche when the halt was called for passivity. "Halt. no touch. passivity." An extreme example, clearly, but my point is that it's using time as a factor that's dangerous.

-m

Yes if both fencers drop their weapons and step back it's clear non-combativity etc etc. But if they're moving around and both fencer are just staying out of distance, I would generally give them at least 30 seconds, and probably closer to 45 before I called non-combativity b/c of just 2&3.

Taomagicdragon · 10-19-2007, 04:36 PM

I've seen fleches take 5 steps, it is uncommon, but i was giving what's called an example. Now KD5 is correct, and that pretians to the scenario that I was asking for clarification on.

Allen Evans · 10-19-2007, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taomagicdragon

As a ref, I could care less how the fencers view me so long as my rulings are correct; it's what makes a ref better.

Rule for rule's sake?

AE

KD5MDK · 10-19-2007, 05:48 PM

How do you know when your calls are accurate?

Redblade · 10-19-2007, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Apostrophe

The referee was looking at the clock, and in the middle of noahz's fleche, said 'halt'. Before the whole word was out of his mouth, NoahZ's light was on on the box.

The only time I've ever heard the phrase "No touch, passivity." uttered in my entire life.

Rules are created in part to avoid conflicting interpretations of "common sense." But this just goes to show the absolutely ridiculous ability of the human brain to screw things up regardless.

oiuyt · 10-19-2007, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taomagicdragon

I've seen fleches take 5 steps

No you haven't.

If it takes 5 steps it's not (just) a fleche (and might not even include a fleche).

-B

Redblade · 10-19-2007, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oiuyt

No you haven't.

If it takes 5 steps it's not (just) a fleche (and might not even include a fleche).

-B

How about very fast, teeny tiny steps?

Storm · 10-19-2007, 11:29 PM

Have a look at the Women's Epee Final in St Petersburg. In the first 2 periods 2 non-combativity calls were given.

To be honest it looked pretty combative to me. Do you think the rule was applied correctly?

Pt 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9AMLLnnOaw
Pt 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdUU68Rsbjc

As a random aside, B. Heidermann has some of the tightest and presise pointwork I've ever seen.