03-27-2008, 07:42 PM
|
#1 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 192
| Quick call help
Hopefully this will be an easy answer; apologies for such a basic question, but I didn't find anything addressing this specific situation in the '07 rule book.
Fencer WTF has a yellow card.
Fencer WTF makes an attack. Fencer IDK parries and begins an immediate riposte. WTF makes an immediate remise whilst completely turning around. Only IDK's riposte lands valid.
The way this was called (and I believe it to be correct) was that WTF was given a red card for turning the back, and IDK's riposte was also awarded, having started before the turn and arrived valid--resulting in two touches on one action.
Is this correct, or is turning a hard halt and IDK's riposte theoretically arrived too late? | 
|  | | And now for this message... |
| |
03-27-2008, 07:51 PM
|
#2 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Edinburgh RCP
Posts: 162
| Finish the action. Since the action (the riposte) began before halt was called it should be awarded.
Too many refs say, "The hit arrived after I called halt." Or "Dur light come afdur dur hult. Murr"
So, as the original problem was presented; attack, parry-riposte, touche. Red card. | |
| | |
03-27-2008, 08:23 PM
|
#3 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 8,888
| Correct call as described. | |
| | |
03-28-2008, 02:46 AM
|
#4 | | Bitter young coach
Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,444
| Yep, that's correct.
Honestly, if you could stop a valid touch by getting a halt for breaking the rules, it would just start to become a farce.
However, expect a whole storm of crap from fencers, coaches and parents whenever you make that call.
__________________
"If I were ever to challenge you to a duel, your best bet would be battle axes in a very dark basement." Misquoted from The Prisoner
"Technical excellence is the antecedant of tactical creativity." - Nat Goodhartz
But those things which belong neither to God nor to Caeser, feeleth free to writeth them off, for yea, they are deductable.
| |
| | |
03-28-2008, 03:11 AM
|
#5 | | Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006 Location: E13
Posts: 441
| I made the exact same call in the same situation a couple of months ago.
Yep, I was at the receiving end of a **** storm. | |
| | |
03-28-2008, 11:32 AM
|
#6 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 162
| Did Fencer WTF extend completely during his remise while turning the back? If so, it's obviously a point in line. Since the PIL was established before turning the back, the turning of the back was not threatening as the PIL had not been removed.
So the correct call* would be, "Point in line no, turning of the back is no, counterattack arrives."
*I'm totally kidding. Please don't take this seriously. You know who you are. | 
| | |
03-28-2008, 12:27 PM
|
#7 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 192
| Okay, okay, I admit, I was totally hedging. I was the referee in question and that was the way I called it, but I was unsure of myself. There. I said it.
Thanks, guys.
(Also, surprisingly, there was no storm of... whatever, afterwards.) | |
| | |
03-29-2008, 12:38 PM
|
#8 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Live in Maine...Fence in New Hampshire
Posts: 1,001
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Dev  Okay, okay, I admit, I was the referee in question and that was the way I called it. There. I said it.
| In that case, let's re-evaluate the question 
__________________
VERMONT OUT OF U.S..
Why do I have a mask-shaped dent in my chest? | |
| | |
03-29-2008, 01:39 PM
|
#9 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 119
| I hate this call, its a simple call, its easy to make, its easy to understand. Yet I always get nothing but complaints for it.
What is so hard to understand that you can't turn your back on an attack and get a card to avoid being touched?
__________________
Non sub homine sed sub deo et lege
-Bracton
England expects that every man will do his duty
-Lord Nelson
| |
| | |
03-29-2008, 04:27 PM
|
#10 | | Just Joined
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 24
| So did Fencer IDK get awarded two touches for this action or just one? | |
| | |
03-29-2008, 06:44 PM
|
#11 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 119
| Not being the OP I can't say what happened in this case for sure but yes thats the end result of turning your back on an attack when you already have a G1 card. Assesed one touch against you for the valid attack and one for the red card.
__________________
Non sub homine sed sub deo et lege
-Bracton
England expects that every man will do his duty
-Lord Nelson
| |
| | |
03-29-2008, 07:36 PM
|
#12 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: New Jersey
Posts: 4,830
| Yup, correct application of the rules, and one that frequently makes WTF and his/her coach and advocates go completely ape. Good test for ref's ability to make the right call, but more for guts to make the right call!
__________________
"In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different."
| |
| | |
03-29-2008, 10:51 PM
|
#13 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 101
| Guts AND "honor, right and justice" * . I've seen the guy in action. Go, Dev.
*Handbook for Referees
__________________
"At the very heart of the power relationship, and constantly provoking it, are the recalcitrance of the will and the intransigence of freedom."
Michel Foucault, "The Subject and Power"
| |
| | |
03-29-2008, 11:12 PM
|
#14 | | Member
Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 42
| Call's correct in my opinion.
__________________
The reason hitting below the belt is not counted in sabre is that it could cause brain damage.
| |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:15 PM. |
