Turning the back, the halt, and an off machine

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by downunder

It works both ways. As far as I'm concerned, if I don't card the fencer then I'm cheating the fencer that didn't break the rules.

You're cheating both fencers already as you failed to perform the duty you were given in t.35 (d).

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by HDG

Can someone cheat "through no fault of their own"? I'm not sure that parses.

FencerX's post is a much better way to express what I meant.

Sorry for the confusion.

[fencerX]

btw there are several rules a creative ref could cite for not handing out a card to fencer A in this situation. Or the ref could take the easy way out and hand out the card.

[fencerbill]

Maybe you should award a card just on the basis of teaching fencers not to grandstand by turning around and running back when they think they have scored a touch.

Why can't we have fair, courteous fencing with no SCREECHING and showing off? The young fencers learn this by emulating the showoffs. Let's show them some good examples to follow.

[bigdawg2121]

Originally Posted by noodle

the difference is that going off the end of the strip is not a card.

is this situation different?

obvious answer: yes.
why? card is for illegal action. box being off doesn't excuse turning the back, or punching in the face.

I'm surprised people actually let this ride; I mean really? Are you serious? Could you have made a more spurious analogy (yes, but probably not without coming dangerously close to losing almost all credibility immediately). Let's start with this: some things are always cards regardless of the situation. If the ref had seen the box turn off before the fencer turned their back, properly, there would have been no card for the turn. If, however, that turning continued into a 360 spinning bell punch it would obviously be a card...just for the punching, not the turning. There's not even a kind of suitable parity of reasoning here. I expect better from you so next time just do better.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Some things are the responsibility of the fencers.
Some things are the responsibility of the referee/organizers.

Like in epee, where the connection at the guard is the fencer's responsibility, and the fastener at the rear plug is the organizer's responsibility?

If the connection at the rear plug fails and the fencer's body cord becomes unplugged, he cannot score a touch. Now, if that happens and no one notices right away, he may be fencing for some time without the ability to score. Let's say that he makes a wrist pick, and his opponent stops for a moment. The referee does not call halt (no light on the box), but the unplugged fencer thought that he scored and turns around. You wouldn't expect him to get a card? I would.

A disconnected box seems more analogous to this situation to me.

Sure, if there was also a hit against, the referee will annul any touch for his opponent when the fencer asks to test. That's when we definitely discover the unplugged body cord. Ideally, the referee noticed the unplugged body cord as soon as it happened, called halt, and fixed the problem. That doesn't always happen. (Same thing if the floor cord or reel dies or the reel somehow becomes unplugged from the floor cord.)

The fencer may have wasted a minute setting up a touch because the organizers failed in providing a retaining clip on the real plug. Does the fencer get the minute back because of the organizer's failure? Nope. We can only deal with the problem from the moment that we recognize and confirm the problem.

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

It's pretty safe to assume that the result of that massive failure at least partially resulted in the fencer's reaction (assuming a hit, then turning-the-back)

Sure. But it's also foil. Solid hits often don't register a touch. The foil fencers should definitely be used to the problem by now.

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Is the solution to give the referee/organizers a free pass, and toss the book at the fencers? I certainly hope not.

If the referee doesn't call halt, you're still fencing. I don't think that the fencers get a free pass just because they couldn't score. If I make a solid hit, and the box doesn't register a touch, I may break distance, signal to the referee for a halt, and ask to test my weapon. That seems like the reasonable thing to do. Turning my back and running to my end of the strip before I hear a halt does not.

[Mr Epee]

TBryan,

You're making some good points, buddy. There several good theoretical approaches to this situation. The fencer clearly put him/herself into a bad situation.

The reality is that this is a situation that requires the referee to use his/her judgment to create a solution. Ultimately, the solution selected by the referee will reflect their understanding of the job.

----------note---------
At the start of each bout referee is tasked with the job of making sure there is a retaining clip on the reel. If the referee/organizers ignore their responsibility to provide a reel clip (and make sure it is secure), you find me stealing tape to tape myself into the reel...
-----------------------

[noodle]

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

I'm surprised people actually let this ride; I mean really? Are you serious? Could you have made a more spurious analogy (yes, but probably not without coming dangerously close to losing almost all credibility immediately). Let's start with this: some things are always cards regardless of the situation. If the ref had seen the box turn off before the fencer turned their back, properly, there would have been no card for the turn. If, however, that turning continued into a 360 spinning bell punch it would obviously be a card...just for the punching, not the turning. There's not even a kind of suitable parity of reasoning here. I expect better from you so next time just do better.

true enough, i made an overly exaggerated comparison. it was late and i misspoke

to get back on message, here are my main points:
1) if a halt was called for the action in question that was celebrated, then the card isn't valid since it happened after the halt.
2) a ref should be paying some attention to the box. if it gets turned off or tampered with, thats a halt. if the ref doesn't see that happening, how can anyone say that the box wasn't working when the action happened? perhaps it was a debounce issue that caused the person to not get a light. maybe the attacking fencer just plain missed.
3) turning the back is not a card for safety, it is a card because its an illegal action. in this situation, would it be the same if you replaced "turning the back" with "leaving the strip to avoid a touch" or "using the off hand to grab the blade", etc.? all of those are illegal actions, and the phrase "i thought i hit" shouldn't excuse them from happening. also, noone can ever guarantee that their attack hits until they hear a halt. tons of people get debounced and carded for turning the back.

so, ref doesn't notice any issue with the box during fencing, ref doesn't call halt for an attack that could/should have landed because there was no response on the box, and the illegal action happened and a halt was called for that illegal action. thats a card, imo.


thats all i'm sayin.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by noodle

2) a ref should be paying some attention to the box. if it gets turned off or tampered with, thats a halt. if the ref doesn't see that happening, how can anyone say that the box wasn't working when the action happened? perhaps it was a debounce issue that caused the person to not get a light. maybe the attacking fencer just plain missed.

Almost immediately after the run back (and subsequently loud "****" fencer A uttered) some guy came over cursing about a whole row of extension cords going out. He saw our box and continued swearing and explained what happened. Given the timing, the box had certainly been off during the fencing, and it explained why there most likely hadn't been a light on some previous actions either.

The ref certainly didn't notice the box was off during the fencing, but given the corroboration of another official it was clear the box was off while the action took place. I don't know if that makes a difference.

Would it make a difference in the situation if fencer B's reel was malfunctioning and unable to register a touch for A instead of the box being off? What if it was Fencer A's tip instead?

[Hobbes]

I really think noodle has this one right, regardless what you think has happened, until the director calls halt, you are fencing. If you think you made a hit and did not hear halt, you should be going for the hit again, or recovering. You are still fencing! And while you are fencing (regardless what you think happened, what should have happened if the world of fencing equipment was a perfect world, or whatever) you can not turn your back.

And as for dog piling on fencer A, he should know better than to turn his back when he does not hear a halt. If the machine was not working and here did not even hear his light go off, I can not imagine why he would think it is a good idea to stop fencing. At best he should be getting the ref to call a halt to check the equipment.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

No card was awarded. The fencing resumed at the spot of the hit that wasn't.

The referee maintained control of an extremely awkward situation. The referee made a judgment call. The fencers/coaches/observers accepted the decision. Fencing resumed. The bout was completed. The referee survived.

This is a very very good outcome.

[Fechter1]

Originally Posted by tbryan

Like in epee, where the connection at the guard is the fencer's responsibility, and the fastener at the rear plug is the organizer's responsibility?

If the connection at the rear plug fails and the fencer's body cord becomes unplugged, he cannot score a touch. Now, if that happens and no one notices right away, he may be fencing for some time without the ability to score. Let's say that he makes a wrist pick, and his opponent stops for a moment. The referee does not call halt (no light on the box), but the unplugged fencer thought that he scored and turns around. You wouldn't expect him to get a card? I would.

I was taught that the rear connection was also the fencer's responsibility unless the retaining clip was absent/nonfunctional... (forget the rule, but it's in the epee section, on annulling hits, IIRC)

On topic, I agree with Noodle. If halt was called for the perceived touch (refs sometimes call halt in anticipation of a hit; bad form, but it happens, and then you really need to stick to your guns on the timing of that halt...), then no card. Otherwise, a card was more than warranted.

[Rockstar44]

I think that the bottom line here is that the DIRECTOR did not call halt. Let's say that the box had been on and working. Fencer A thinks he made a touch and turns his back. The fencing should continue until the Director calls halt. In your example, we don't know if the touch landed or not. If the touch in fact didn't land and the fencer turned because he thought it did, would a card have been awarded?

How many times have you seen someone get a "free" touch because his opponent thought he got a touch and turned to look at the box? The Director runs the bout, not the box.

[Mr Epee]

Welcome to Breakin' it Down....

3. Beginning, stopping and restarting the bout
t.18 1. Beginning the bout
The start of the bout is signalled by the word ‘Fence’. No
movement made or initiated before the word ‘Fence’ is
counted.
2. Stopping the bout
The bout stops on the word ‘Halt’, except in the case of special
events occurring which modify the regular and normal
conditions of the bout (cf. also t.32).
As soon as the order ‘Halt’ has been given, a competitor may
not start a new action; only the movement which has been
begun before the order was given remains valid. Everything
which takes place afterwards is entirely non-valid (But cf.
t.32).
If a competitor stops before the word ‘Halt’, and is touched,
the touch is valid.
The order ‘Halt’ is also given if the fencing of the competitors
is dangerous, confused, or contrary to the Rules, if one of the
competitors is disarmed or leaves the strip, or if, while retreating, he
approaches too near the spectators or the Referee (cf. t.28, t.55/6 and
t.73/j).

moving along...

t.35 The Referee has many duties.
The Referee:

snip

(d) superintends the proper functioning of the electrical
apparatus. Either on his own initiative or when asked to do
so by a team captain or competitor, he implements tests
necessary to verify the apparatus and locate any faults
which may be found. He will prevent the competitors from
hindering the tests by unplugging or changing their
equipment at the wrong moment.

Moving along....

4. Method of judging touches
(a) Materiality of the touch
t.40 The materiality of the touch is established according to the
indications of the apparatus, and when necessary by consulting
the judges (cf. t.36).
Only the indications of the electrical apparatus as indicated by
its own lamps or by the extension lamps can be taken into
consideration for judging touches. Under no circumstances can
the Referee declare a competitor to be touched unless the
touch has been properly registered by the apparatus (except as
provided for in Articles t.49, o.17, o.24 or when a penalty
touch has been awarded).

The normal and regular conditions of the bout assume that the box is turned on during the fencing action. If the box is turned off, the fencers cannot score through normal fencing actions.

As you can see.... there is clearly a strong case to be made for claiming that the 'Halt' occurred at the moment the box failed.

The box being turned off certainly meets the case of special events occurring which modify the regular and normal conditions of the bout (cf. also t.32). This halt is at the moment of failure, not when the referee NOT when the referee instructs the fencer to 'Halt'.

The referee in this case allowed fencing to take place after the halt occurred. The offense took place long after the halt occurred. It is an offense that can only be penalized when it occurred during fencing.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

As you can see.... there is clearly a strong case to be made for claiming that the 'Halt' occurred at the moment the box failed.

yes, and i agree - once it is known that the box is failing, halt.

but if the ref didn't notice it failing, how can you call retroactive halts? does that mean that the real halt actually happened 3 halts ago and that all the things that happened between then are invalid, thus repealing points and cards? and are we basing that entirely on the word of armorer mcgee who might've unplugged the box himself because he didn't like the attacking fencer?

[kuroutesshin]

Should not the fencers, neither of which can make a valid touch (no light, not touch etc. etc.) simply retreat, signal the director and wait? The responsibility is with both parties to pay attention- yes, you should not stop fencing until you hear a halt. But, it is entirely acceptable in my estimation, to retreat, raise your hand and stamp your foot to call for the director's attention.

"Sir, the box isn't working." or "sir, could you test please? Something's wrong."

The question is when the box failed.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by kuroutesshin

Should not the fencers, neither of which can make a valid touch (no light, not touch etc. etc.) simply retreat, signal the director and wait? The responsibility is with both parties to pay attention- yes, you should not stop fencing until you hear a halt. But, it is entirely acceptable in my estimation, to retreat, raise your hand and stamp your foot to call for the director's attention.

"Sir, the box isn't working." or "sir, could you test please? Something's wrong."

The question is when the box failed.

thats assuming that the fencers notice there's an issue, as well. its too late to do any of that stuff if you immediately turn around after making what you assumed to be a valid hit.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by noodle