Why is this called this way?

[sir alasdair]

I have a question that involves right-of-way, counter-attacking, and stepping off the strip to avoid touches. How should this action be called?

FOIL by the way...

Fencer A lunges at fencer B. Fencer B counter-attacks and turns his/her body off the side of the strip avoiding fencer A's touch. Fencer B does register a touch with the counter-attack.

In my understanding of the rules, I feel that Attacker A had right of way and Attacker B's primary defensive action was not to parry, but to leave the strip. The counter-attack should be ignored and a yellow card given to fencer B for leaving the strip to avoid a touch.

Consensus?

[noodle]

I have a question that involves right-of-way, counter-attacking, and stepping off the strip to avoid touches. How should this action be called?

FOIL by the way...

Fencer A lunges at fencer B. Fencer B counter-attacks and turns his/her body off the side of the strip avoiding fencer A's touch. Fencer B does register a touch with the counter-attack.

In my understanding of the rules, I feel that Attacker A had right of way and Attacker B's primary defensive action was not to parry, but to leave the strip. The counter-attack should be ignored and a yellow card given to fencer B for leaving the strip to avoid a touch.

Consensus?

depends on the action.

if the leaving the strip was incidental, no card.
if the leaving the strip was on purpose, they just hopped off the side when doing their action and it was definitely performed on purpose as a preplanned part of the action, card.

[edew]

I, too, have a question on this action. The rule on leaving the strip to avoid the touch was present for a long time, prior to the change on stepping off the strip with one foot. Previously, both feet had to step off the strip to get the halt and loss of ground. In those cases, most counter attacks would result in having just one foot off the strip (the back foot, generally, as the front foot is planted and pivoted upon). So the intent to evade by going off the side of the strip in such cases are pretty clear: front foot still on indicates that the person was not evading by going off the side of the strip; both feet going off would sort of demonstrate an intent to jump off the strip.

Now, it's not so clear.

On the other hand, most referees call the counterattack to count as long as the hit occurs before or during the stepping off with the back foot. If the back foot is firmly planted off the strip and then the counterattack action commences, then halt for going off the side of the strip, meter gained by opponent, blah blah.

As for intent to go off the strip, the referee is not supposed to determine intent. Basically if fencer X is attacking fencer Y and fencer Y steps off, then yellow card for Y. If fencer Y was retreating and happens to step off, then just meter gained for X.

At last summer's Miami Nationals, I made an attack. My opponent stepped in on the parry. We got our blades tangled up and I jumped to the side to free my point to hit. Stepped off and was carded for going off the strip. I had no intent to do so, as I was almost in position to score.

I think this penalty should go the way of the dinosaurs. It's hard to determine whether it should be gain-a-meter for the opponent or yellow card for evasion. Basically, we have two penalties (meter gained, yellow card) for virtually the same thing and the referee has to determine "intent" or whatever. Furthermore, fencers have no problems hitting people going off to the side, so it's not as though sideways evasion is a very useful tactic.

Either make all stepping off the side of the strip a Group I yellow card or make all stepping off the side of the strip a gain-a-meter for the opponent. Easier for the referee, easier for the fencers, easier for the audience(s).

[noodle]

I, too, have a question on this action. The rule on leaving the strip to avoid the touch was present for a long time, prior to the change on stepping off the strip with one foot. Previously, both feet had to step off the strip to get the halt and loss of ground. In those cases, most counter attacks would result in having just one foot off the strip (the back foot, generally, as the front foot is planted and pivoted upon). So the intent to evade by going off the side of the strip in such cases are pretty clear: front foot still on indicates that the person was not evading by going off the side of the strip; both feet going off would sort of demonstrate an intent to jump off the strip.

Now, it's not so clear.

On the other hand, most referees call the counterattack to count as long as the hit occurs before or during the stepping off with the back foot. If the back foot is firmly planted off the strip and then the counterattack action commences, then halt for going off the side of the strip, meter gained by opponent, blah blah.

As for intent to go off the strip, the referee is not supposed to determine intent. Basically if fencer X is attacking fencer Y and fencer Y steps off, then yellow card for Y. If fencer Y was retreating and happens to step off, then just meter gained for X.

At last summer's Miami Nationals, I made an attack. My opponent stepped in on the parry. We got our blades tangled up and I jumped to the side to free my point to hit. Stepped off and was carded for going off the strip. I had no intent to do so, as I was almost in position to score.

I think this penalty should go the way of the dinosaurs. It's hard to determine whether it should be gain-a-meter for the opponent or yellow card for evasion. Basically, we have two penalties (meter gained, yellow card) for virtually the same thing and the referee has to determine "intent" or whatever. Furthermore, fencers have no problems hitting people going off to the side, so it's not as though sideways evasion is a very useful tactic.

Either make all stepping off the side of the strip a Group I yellow card or make all stepping off the side of the strip a gain-a-meter for the opponent. Easier for the referee, easier for the fencers, easier for the audience(s).

its a judgment call, and some refs have bad judgment.

[edew]

There's no judgement on whether a person stepped off the side of the strip or not. OK, one could mis-witness it and call it when it didn't happen or ignore it when it did. (At another vet event, I stepped off the side of the strip, stopped, pointed out that fact to the referee, got hit by my opponent and the referee gave the opponent the touch. "Sorry, didn't see you off the side of the strip." At least he didn't give me a card for stepping off to avoid the touch -- although failing at that.)

Both referees in my anecdotes are internationally rated and highly rated in the US referees.

[noodle]

There's no judgement on whether a person stepped off the side of the strip or not. OK, one could mis-witness it and call it when it didn't happen or ignore it when it did. (At another vet event, I stepped off the side of the strip, stopped, pointed out that fact to the referee, got hit by my opponent and the referee gave the opponent the touch. "Sorry, didn't see you off the side of the strip." At least he didn't give me a card for stepping off to avoid the touch -- although failing at that.)

Both referees in my anecdotes are internationally rated and highly rated in the US referees.

its a judgment of if the stepping off was with the intent of purposefully leaving the strip to avoid the touch, or if it was just incidental with the action.

[garyhayenga]

As for intent to go off the strip, the referee is not supposed to determine intent. Basically if fencer X is attacking fencer Y and fencer Y steps off, then yellow card for Y. If fencer Y was retreating and happens to step off, then just meter gained for X.

Sadly, the determination of intent by the referee is required by the rule, as it is in many of the rules. It is after all "Leaving the strip *to avoid a touch.*"

My interpretation of this rule has always been that simply crossing the side of the strip during a phrase cannot be leaving the strip to avoid a touch, because (as in the original case stated) if the person leaving the strip is trying to score, wether trying to dodge an attack or not, then he must be close enough that his opponent *could* hit him, though this may help him fail to do so.

To me Leaving the strip to avoid a touch is about trying to cause a halt from the referee by leaving the strip when in an awkward or difficult to defend situation so that the opponent can't continue to attack you due to the halt for leaving the side of the strip.

This is similar to the Deliberate touch not on opponent (t.53). Meaning to hit something off the strip to cause a halt.

Basically my position is that if you are capable of hitting your opponent then your opponent is capable of hitting you, wether you are on the strip or not, therefore you can't be Leaving the strip to avoid a touch.

The only way I would call Leaving the strip to avoid a touch is if you deliberately stepped off the side of the strip when your opponent was too far away to hit you (beyond lunge distance), thus trying to take the tempo away from them by causing a halt.

If I attack someone and they do an enquartata and they end up off the strip (wether they hit me with a counter-attack or not) it wasn't their ending up off the strip that caused me to miss them. And if they do hit me before leaving the strip I can't argue that I couldn't hit them because they were off the strip. And if they don't hit me before they go off the strip then if we both hit after that, only mine counts regardless of right-of-way, so they didn't get any advantage there.

It also seems to me that stepping off to one side, wether off the strip or not to prevent someone from running into you is perfectly legitimate.

But if I'm starting an advance-lunge attack at someone who is off balance or otherwise out of sorts and they step off the strip to cause a halt before I can get to lunge distance then they should be penalized.

gary hayenga

[bigdawg2121]

Assuming the counterattack started before the foot was off then it's a valid touch. Really it doesn't even sound close to intentional avoidance by stepping off. It's an esquive. They're legal. Intentionally stepping off isn't a penalty unless it's to avoid a touch specifically (uniquely might be more appropriate).

Once I fenced a saber bout and made a kid fall short; the kid knew I was going to flunge and he couldn't run away so he jumped 4ft directly sideways off the strip. THAT was stepping off to avoid a touch. I think Jon Moss decided he was to busy laughing to give the card. Had the kid simply stepped one foot off at that point with no intent to defend, counter or do anything but cause a halt it also would have been penalizable. Actions made while trying to fence/score/find room to defend should not be penalized under there rules.

[tdwg83]

I would suggest that if the fencer was just inches away from the line, a step off of the strip could be considered intentional because of the position the intentionally put themselves in. (fencers who routinly fence almost on the line)

[KD5MDK]

There's no judgement on whether a person stepped off the side of the strip or not. OK, one could mis-witness it and call it when it didn't happen or ignore it when it did. (At another vet event, I stepped off the side of the strip, stopped, pointed out that fact to the referee, got hit by my opponent and the referee gave the opponent the touch. "Sorry, didn't see you off the side of the strip." At least he didn't give me a card for stepping off to avoid the touch -- although failing at that.)

Both referees in my anecdotes are internationally rated and highly rated in the US referees.

Well, that rules out me, and I think when I blew a going off the strip call in your bout it was your opponent who was off.

[pinkelephant]

Fleching is another instance where this occurs. If you miss your opponent with a fleche attack and run like crazy past him to avoid his hitting you with a single continuous riposte which follows you, it's fine as long as you stay on the piste - but not if you deliberately run OFF the piste. But it never gets called.

[sir alasdair]

Just to clarify a couple of things, the devil is in the details, right? -

There is NO blade contact. No Beat. No Parry.

In my experience, EVERY time fencer B (righty) does this action, he/she is along the right edge of the strip and ALWAYS goes off the strip, so it is intentional. What other reason would there be for a person to spin away? If fencer B were doing this along his/her left side of the strip and pivoting without leaving the strip, I wouldn't have any issue with this move, unless he/she turned all the way around, with his/her back to me. Whether the action is intentional, or not, you can be carded for your actions as you are still responsible for your actions in a bout. As an example - Corps-a-Corps is still Corps-a-corps regardless of intent.

The "counter attack" I described is merely an extension of a "line" combined with fencer B pivoting off the strip while leaving the arm in a fixed position in space. This combined action is a reaction to the attack, which still has priority. If fencer B doesn't counter-attack and just twists/spins/turns off the strip to avoid the touch, it should be carded, correct? Why should it make any difference if they just stick out their arm? Adding a counter-attack doesn't nullify the avoidance move.

Another possibility exists - if fencer B turns far enough around, he/she could be carded for turning.

I wish I had video of this phrase/action instead of trying to explain all the actions.

[Neinteen]

I dont think you get a yellow card for it, just like move back some feet. and if the point is scored before leaving, then its fine anyway. i do that alot.

[tbryan]

Assuming the counterattack started before the foot was off then it's a valid touch. Really it doesn't even sound close to intentional avoidance by stepping off. It's an esquive. They're legal. Intentionally stepping off isn't a penalty unless it's to avoid a touch specifically (uniquely might be more appropriate).

Once I fenced a saber bout and made a kid fall short; the kid knew I was going to flunge and he couldn't run away so he jumped 4ft directly sideways off the strip. THAT was stepping off to avoid a touch. I think Jon Moss decided he was to busy laughing to give the card. Had the kid simply stepped one foot off at that point with no intent to defend, counter or do anything but cause a halt it also would have been penalizable. Actions made while trying to fence/score/find room to defend should not be penalized under there rules.

Bigdawg's explanation here matches the guidance that we were given by an FOC member last year at a referee seminar. He basically said that the card for "leaving the strip to avoid a touch" will be really obvious when you need it. It's really for when a fencer basically leaps sideways off of the strip...no longer fencing, just jumping out of the way. You can almost hear the "Run away! Run away!" when you see an action like this. Bigdawg provides a good example.

If the fencer makes a legal fencing action, and they happen to step off of the strip while doing it, that's not leaving the strip to avoid a touch by this standard. Follow the phrase through. If there was no other halt, then the other fencer gains a meter. That's all.

[KD5MDK]

Fleching is another instance where this occurs. If you miss your opponent with a fleche attack and run like crazy past him to avoid his hitting you with a single continuous riposte which follows you, it's fine as long as you stay on the piste - but not if you deliberately run OFF the piste. But it never gets called.

I'm going to have to query that one. I've never seen it present that way.

[tbryan]

There is NO blade contact. No Beat. No Parry.

Not really relevant.

In my experience, EVERY time fencer B (righty) does this action, he/she is along the right edge of the strip and ALWAYS goes off the strip, so it is intentional. What other reason would there be for a person to spin away?

To avoid your tip as it moves toward his chest? I know that the esquieve is intentional, but stepping off strip here is really incidental.

If fencer B were doing this along his/her left side of the strip and pivoting without leaving the strip,

So, you don't have a problem with the move, you just think that it should be a yellow card if he does it and steps off the strip? What if you attack, and he retreats at an angle, and his rear foot leaves the strip? Do you think that should be a Group I penalty, too?

Your best approach is to fence him the same way that you would if he were at the other edge of the strip and not stepping off. If he spins too early, you gain a meter. If he spins as you attack, finish to flank or something.

As an example - Corps-a-Corps is still Corps-a-corps regardless of intent.

Apples and oranges comparison there.

A better example is the penalty for "corps-a-corps to avoid a touch."

Why should it make any difference if they just stick out their arm? Adding a counter-attack doesn't nullify the avoidance move.

I think that you're getting hung up on the "avoid a touch" phrase and assuming that the penalty is normally awarded whenever a fencer steps off the strip in any fencing action that involves "avoiding" the touch. Like I said, the guidance we were given by an FOC member was that this card was really rare and that it would be really obvious when we needed it. For example, fencer attacks, his blade is parried and held by his opponent, and he suddenly springs laterally 3 feet to land off of the strip and out of his opponent's riposte's range. That's probably leaving the strip to avoid the touch.

If your opponent just steps off in the middle of carrying out any reasonable fencing action, there is a halt. Your opponent should not be penalized for leaving the strip to avoid a touch in this case. If there are no hits, your opponent is "penalized" because you gain a meter. You may also finish any action in progress when he stepped off.

I wish I had video of this phrase/action instead of trying to explain all the actions.

Sure, but I think that we've all seen this one (and several variations on the theme).

I still say not to worry about whether he gets a penalty and just hit him. Then he'll stop doing it, or you'll win the bout.

[sir alasdair]

to answer you tbryan:

Why would you have to be WAY off the strip for it to be leaving the strip to avoid? It doesn't matter HOW FAR. There is a LINE at the edge of the strip. Off is off. Fencer A can't step off the side of the strip, then lunge to hit fencer B, why should Fencer B be able to go there to avoid a touch and be legal?

quoting -
"To avoid your tip as it moves toward his chest? I know that the esquieve is intentional, but stepping off strip here is really incidental."


I don't think its "incidental". If you are going to fence on the edge of the strip, then you shouldn't be using a move that puts you off that edge. If you are closing that line to your opponent, then it must be closed to you as well. If you want to use this move, then adjust your position ON the strip to do it.

quoting -
"What if you attack, and he retreats at an angle, and his rear foot leaves the strip? Do you think that should be a Group I penalty, too?"

No. He is retreating to avoid the touch, and possibly attempting to parry. I would want my meter and I would want his/her counterattack touch annulled if it was after/during the act of stepping off the side of the strip.


I am not trying to rewrite the rulebook, I am trying to understand the interpretation or misinterpretation of a phrase that goes like this:

1. Fencer A attacks with a lunge (or possibly a fleche). (priority)

2. Fencer B reacts by:

2a. Turning/pivoting/spinning off the strip ***
2b. Counter attacking with a point-in-line extension, registering a valid light.

3. Director Calls "halt"

Based on my understanding of the rules, and the spirit thereof, The halt should have been at the moment of the " *** " and called as such:

"Attack misses, halt for leaving the strip. No touch awarded."

A ref could decide it was "inadvertent" and just give the one meter, and not card the first time. If a fencer did it again, then they should yellowcard it. My response to fencer B if asked for explanation would be this:

"He (fencer A) had priority, the impetus is upon you to remove the threat by parrying, retreating or a well-timed stop-touch or some other fencing action. Your only defensive action was to pivot resulting in your immediately leaving the piste. Your counter-attack was of no consequence as it occured after you stepped off. Had you performed this action, closer to the center of the strip, your counter-attack would be valid."


My Position -

Regardless of penalties, the touch for the counter-attack should not be awarded unless all action remains on the piste.

[peet]

Hi sir a-

This question that comes up now and then, because a logical reading of the rules certainly can lead to the conclusion you have reached. And yet, the convention of enforcement of this rule is the way tbryan and others above have described it.

It might help to think about the reason for the rule. The rule is not intended to prevent a fencer from making what is otherwise a perfectly normal action (inquartata) just because they are at the edge of the strip. The rule is meant to penalize a fencer who essentially "runs from the fight", by leaving the field of play.

This rule is one of the ones that involves intent, and most refs will say that the fencer turned to avoid being hit, and the fact that one foot left the strip is accidental. Hence, the fencer didn't "leave the strip to avoid the touch".

Another way to think about it:
The purpose of the rules in general (besides safety and sportsmanship), is to make the game fair. If the move you describe made the game unbalanced in favor of one fencer, then there might be reason to enforce this rule more strictly. As it is, this kind of counterattack can be defeated by any number of different strategies, all of which work just as well with the counterattacker's foot off the side of the strip as on.

Take a different example that proves the point by pointing out its opposite:
Before the timing change, covering target with the mask was rarely enforced, because it didn't unbalance the game (the fencer covering was punished by the flick to the back, so there wasn't much need for the ref to punish them). After the timing change, we started to have to enforce the mask covering rule more strictly, because defensive use of the mask is a such an effective move that it unbalances the game.

Hope that helps!

-p

[peet]

Oh, one more thing:

Don't confuse "touch annulled because of a group 1 penalty" with "touch annulled because it's after halt". They're two different situations, with different rules & standards to apply. My previous post talked about the former, so now let's address the latter:

Almost any touch scored by counterattack with inquartata will be allowed, even when one foot leaves the strip, because:

However, a touch scored by the fencer who leaves the
strip with one foot only is valid provided that the action was
started before the ‘Halt’.

And the counterattack can almost always be said to have started (beginning to extend) before the foot actually left the strip. There are probably times when it starts a tad late, but since there isn't really a compelling reason to get super-picky about it, most refs will generally allow the touch.


Hope that (also) helps!

-P

[tbryan]

to answer you tbryan:

Why would you have to be WAY off the strip for it to be leaving the strip to avoid? It doesn't matter HOW FAR.

Kind of. I didn't mean to imply that a fencer must move at least some distance off the strip. I meant that it must be clear that the fencer is abandoning the fight and simply trying to cause a halt. Otherwise, if he's making a legitimate fencing action and moves off the side of the strip in the process, the referee should not award a penalty for "leaving the strip to avoid a touch." At least, that's how this rule is generally applied.

Read Peet's post. He explains it much better than I did. I'd rep him if I could.

There is a LINE at the edge of the strip. Off is off. Fencer A can't step off the side of the strip, then lunge to hit fencer B, why should Fencer B be able to go there to avoid a touch and be legal?

But fencer A can be on the strip, lunge, and intentionally land with his front foot off of the strip. If he scores a touch with the lunge, the touch stands. Counterattacking and putting one foot off of the strip in the process is more analogous to that action.

I don't think its "incidental". If you are going to fence on the edge of the strip, then you shouldn't be using a move that puts you off that edge. If you are closing that line to your opponent, then it must be closed to you as well. If you want to use this move, then adjust your position ON the strip to do it.

I understand what you're saying, but that's not what this rule is trying to enforce...at least, not as it is currently applied.

I am not trying to rewrite the rulebook, I am trying to understand the interpretation or misinterpretation of a phrase that goes like this
....
Based on my understanding of the rules, and the spirit thereof, The halt should have been at the moment of the " *** " and called as such:

The halt does occur there, but if the fencer has one foot on the strip, his counterattck would normally still count, as Peet explained in his other post.

"Attack misses, halt for leaving the strip. No touch awarded."

That would almost certainly be an incorrect call in this case.

A ref could decide it was "inadvertent" and just give the one meter, and not card the first time. If a fencer did it again, then they should yellowcard it.

Well, now you're not trying to understand, you're trying to explain and convince. When I say "should," I don't mean that that's how I think that it should be called. I don't actually care whether it's called one way or the other, but I want to be consistent with what the FOC is telling me and with how our high-rated referees apply the rule.

Let's say that fencer A hugs one side of the strip, fencer B attacks, and fencer A makes an inquartata, hitting his counter attack (one light on the box). Fencer A steps off the strip with one foot in this action. Even if the action that I'm picturing here happens 5 times in a row, I would not award a card to fencer A. The score is now 5-0 for fencer A.

Regardless of penalties, the touch for the counter-attack should not be awarded unless all action remains on the piste.

Yes, and we're trying to tell you that your position is not correct, where "correct" in this case means, "how it's generally called and applied and taught by good, experienced referees in the U.S."

In particular, you can certainly award touches even when the action does not remain on the strip (see t.26).

As a fellow fencer, I would recommend that you abandon your current position. It generally will not be called that way. In fact, the referees will be encouraged and taught not to call it that way. So, please don't cling to your current interpretation of what that rule means. It will probably just make you more annoyed when the referees don't call it that way. Getting annoyed about referees while you are getting frustrated at being hit by counterattacks is generally not helpful to making the adjustments that you need to win the bout.