Question regarding use of known illegal weapon

[bbower]

Let's say a fencer is found to be using a weapon not conforming to the material rules. (Say for example, a foil where the grip is angled at such a way that the weapon cannot pass through the required cylindrical gauge.)

So the fencer receives a G1 penalty and has to change weapons.

Let's now say that the fencer is found to be using the same weapon later in that competition.

Is this still just a G1 penalty? Or are we now venturing into the realm of "offense against sportsmanship"?

What if the fencer is found using the illegal weapon at another tournament?

[keith]

If the ref is unaware of the rules why should the fencer be penalized?

[bbower]

I don't understand your response

[bunbury]

What if the fencer is found using the illegal weapon at another tournament?

Ahahahaha. Hahahahahah. Zomg hahahaha.

Read the rulebook. Around t.116.

[HDG]

This smells like a tattle-tale thread.

[bigdawg2121]

Originally Posted by bbower

Let's say a fencer is found to be using a weapon not conforming to the material rules. (Say for example, a foil where the grip is angled at such a way that the weapon cannot pass through the required cylindrical gauge.)

So the fencer receives a G1 penalty and has to change weapons.

Let's now say that the fencer is found to be using the same weapon later in that competition.

Is this still just a G1 penalty? Or are we now venturing into the realm of "offense against sportsmanship"?

What if the fencer is found using the illegal weapon at another tournament?

Where the heck was this fencer that the armorers actually had a gabarit with them and were checking for this type of conformity?

[Fechter1]

Originally Posted by bbower

Let's say a fencer is found to be using a weapon not conforming to the material rules. (Say for example, a foil where the grip is angled at such a way that the weapon cannot pass through the required cylindrical gauge.)

So the fencer receives a G1 penalty and has to change weapons.

Let's now say that the fencer is found to be using the same weapon later in that competition.

Is this still just a G1 penalty? Or are we now venturing into the realm of "offense against sportsmanship"?

What if the fencer is found using the illegal weapon at another tournament?

Yes, AFAIK, the fencer collects the weapon at the end of the bout, and can resubmit for testing at the next bout/tournament. At that time, the fault will be noticed again (unless fixed or missed), and a G1 penalty should occur.

[bbower]

Let's try another example.

A sabre fencer has an overglove with a huge dead spot on the wrist during his pool. During a bout, his opponent tests the glove, the dead spot is found, the touch annulled, G1 penalty, new overglove, bout resumes.

Before his next pool bout, the fencer switches back to the same dead overglove. This is discovered when his new opponent tests midway through the bout.

Is this really just another G1 penalty?

Shouldn't deliberate use of non-conforming equipment in the hopes that the referee/opponent won't notice be a G4 penalty?

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by bbower

Let's try another example.

A sabre fencer has an overglove with a huge dead spot on the wrist during his pool. During a bout, his opponent tests the glove, the dead spot is found, the touch annulled, G1 penalty, new overglove, bout resumes.

Before his next pool bout, the fencer switches back to the same dead overglove. This is discovered when his new opponent tests midway through the bout.

Is this really just another G1 penalty?

Shouldn't deliberate use of non-conforming equipment in the hopes that the referee/opponent won't notice be a G4 penalty?

I certainly see the argument for calling it manifest cheating. Black card.

I'd like to hear from some authorities on this (Greg?), but in the absence of such, I think it's a black.

-m

[bbower]

Originally Posted by bunbury

What if the fencer is found using the illegal weapon at another tournament?

Ahahahaha. Hahahahahah. Zomg hahahaha.

Read the rulebook. Around t.116.

I see absolutely no relevance to t.116 in this discussion.

[keith]

Originally Posted by bbower

Before his next pool bout, the fencer switches back to the same dead overglove. This is discovered when his new opponent tests midway through the bout.

Why does he have access to the defective overglove?

I was under the impression that confiscation was for the duration of the pool.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by keith

Why does he have access to the defective overglove?

I was under the impression that confiscation was for the duration of the pool.

nope, just the duration of the bout.

-m

[bbower]

Originally Posted by HDG

This smells like a tattle-tale thread.

Not really. There was a question of whether a particular weapon was legal in a recent tournament ... but this got me hypothetically thinking of what is the appropriate response if a fencer is told that his equipment is non-conforming to the rules, yet that fencer continues to use that equipment as soon as he thinks he can get away with it (ie ... is no longer around the referee or opponent who asked for a ruling on that equipment)

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

Where the heck was this fencer that the armorers actually had a gabarit with them and were checking for this type of conformity?

We have one at the club (though we don't use it to check weapons at tournaments).

-m

[HDG]

Originally Posted by bbower

Not really. There was a question of whether a particular weapon was legal in a recent tournament ... but this got me hypothetically thinking of what is the appropriate response if a fencer is told that his equipment is non-conforming to the rules, yet that fencer continues to use that equipment as soon as he thinks he can get away with it (ie ... is no longer around the referee or opponent who asked for a ruling on that equipment)

My apologies then.

[foillion]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

I certainly see the argument for calling it manifest cheating. Black card.

I'd like to hear from some authorities on this (Greg?), but in the absence of such, I think it's a black.

-m

I would have to agree. Deliberate use of equipment that is known by the fencer not to work is attempting to gain an advantage in an unsportsmanlike fashion. *Black Card*

-P

[bunbury]

Originally Posted by foillion

I would have to agree. Deliberate use of equipment that is known by the fencer not to work is attempting to gain an advantage in an unsportsmanlike fashion. *Black Card*

-P

Ridiculous. I will not correct the bend in my blade unless told to by the ref. Should I be black carded? If I purposely cover target, should I be black carded? Any rule infraction can be called "manifest cheating" if you stretch it far enough.

[KD5MDK]

Yes, for being a prat.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by bunbury

Ridiculous. I will not correct the bend in my blade unless told to by the ref. Should I be black carded?

The situations are not at all analogous.

blade bend is a temporary situation. If it's fixed once, it can become illegal again in the course of normal fencing. It is thus reasonable that the referee ask the fencer to straighten it each time and completely unreasonable to assume that the now illegal bend was an attempt to cheat rather than the overlooked effect of normal fencing.

A dead overglove does not miraculously start conducting again. By removing your now working overglove and putting an overglove known to be dead back on you are manifestly cheating. It demonstrates an intent to cheat that your example does not.

-m

[oso97]

Originally Posted by bunbury

Ridiculous. I will not correct the bend in my blade unless told to by the ref. Should I be black carded? If I purposely cover target, should I be black carded? Any rule infraction can be called "manifest cheating" if you stretch it far enough.

No, but if you deliberately bring known defective equipment to strip, that is a VERY different beast than deliberately covering target. The latter is often indistinguishable from normal fencing contortions, and occurs within the parameters of a fluid, mobile state. The other? That requires deliberate foresight and planning.

Big difference.