Turning the back, the halt, and an off machine

[kuroutesshin]

If the box had been on, and the fencer had made the same action, thought he landed, and turned around, it would still be a card! If you, as a fencer, make an attack and land a touch you should never spin around and swagger back to your spot without waiting for the director to call the action, especially in foil.

At the instant it becomes apparent there is a malfunction with the equipment, the fencers should retreat, signal for a halt or wait for it to be called.

Now, on nice big machines like the Faveros and FIE rated boxes this isn't a problem. But when you use one of those weird Eclipse II boxes- you know, the ones with no sound, a light the size of a dime and a weight timer a minute long- it's easier to miss something like that.

I do not believe that the halt retroactively begins when the power goes out. It seems quite silly.

[Slacker]

OK! So we've established that the head is not the back, and that noodle is related to Linda Blair. I seem to remember something about turning the head (down) but it was a matter of covering target. I believe the rules imply the issue of good sportsmanship, not really safety. It's so rude to turn your back on your opponent; and this is a gentleman's sport, after all!

I agree that Fencer A gets a card for premature celebration in the end zone. However, Mr. Epee's reasoning for leeway on the director's call- either way- upholds the spirit of the game. That is the purpose of the director: to facilitate the bout to the best of his/her ability. If there's a screw up, do it over. The director is not required to provide a reason for the call, only to restate the action of the last phrase as he/she sees it.

[HDG]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

Unless you're Linda Blair, if you turn the back of your head to your opponent, you're GONNA be showing your back as well...sufficiently to warrant the card.

Purple, if you're standing en garde -- a wholly unnatural position in which your torso is facing away from your opponent and you have turned your head 90 degrees to even face them -- it takes very little effort to turn the back of your head to your opponent: 90 degrees back to its normal orientation, and then another 90 degrees to be facing away from them. In either en garde or "turning the head" you are never more than 90 degrees from your head's normal position.

[keith]

Originally Posted by HDG

90 degrees back to its normal orientation, ..........

You should have someone fix that en garde stance.

[Shi no Tenshi]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Hey, If the machine is on, then I'm all for laying down the law in this situation. But it wasn't on.

SO.

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

In this situation, the referee/organizers massively failed the fencers.

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)

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

I haven't seen this argument presented, so I'm going to...

How can you prove when the machine was turned off? Do you know for a fact it was turned off before the 'hit'? Is there any way to prove it was? There is still the possibility that the machine was on during that hit and got turned off after, and there was no valid hit, just an invalid celebration. Hell, I've seen fencers celebrate their 'hits' when the box was fully functioning, and then get hit back in their stupidity with an actually valid touch.

Unless there was some way of actually proving the exact point in the fencing phrase that the machine went off, how could you not award him the card, as it is possible he just missed?

[Mr Epee]

During the final match of the Olympics...

The score is 14-14, both fencers have yellow cards....

Fencer A launches an attack. The elevated piste collapses (shoddy Chinese construction). Fencer B is hit. The machine registers the touch. Both fencers tumble to the ground.

The referee is so startled by the event that he/she forgets to call halt.

Once the dust clears... The referee remembers to call halt. The referee then proceeds to annul Fencer A's touch, and hands out a Red card for scoring a touch while falling... Bout Over... Fencer B wins Gold.

The referee must enforce the rules.

Makes Perfect Sense.


--------edt--------
Shi no, please see post #29
-------------------

[Shi no Tenshi]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

During the final match of the Olympics...

The score is 14-14, both fencers have yellow cards....

Fencer A launches an attack. The elevated piste collapses (shoddy Chinese construction). Fencer B is hit. The machine registers the touch. Both fencers tumble to the ground.

The referee annuls Fencer A's touch, and hands out a Red card for scoring a touch while falling... Bout Over... Fencer B wins Gold.

The referee must enforce the rules.

Makes Perfect Sense.


--------edt--------
Shi no, please see post #29
-------------------

Wouldn't the referee call halt on the collapsing piste, therefore annulling the falling card? The order of actions has them falling after the piste collapse, afterall.....

Oh, and I forgot that post after reading all 4 pages, sorry.

[catwood1]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

During the final match of the Olympics...

The score is 14-14, both fencers have yellow cards....

Fencer A launches an attack. The elevated piste collapses (shoddy Chinese construction). Fencer B is hit. The machine registers the touch. Both fencers tumble to the ground.

The referee annuls Fencer A's touch, and hands out a Red card for scoring a touch while falling... Bout Over... Fencer B wins Gold.

The referee must enforce the rules.
-------------------

I'd say the halt occurs when the piste collapses. Before the hit. So, no making a hit while falling, because it was after the halt.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by catwood1

I'd say the halt occurs when the piste collapses. Before the hit. So, no making a hit while falling, because it was after the halt.

I hope that would be the call....

The condition of the strip must be taken into consideration.

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

Unless you're Linda Blair, if you turn the back of your head to your opponent, you're GONNA be showing your back as well...sufficiently to warrant the card.

Cards should not be given for turning the head.

Turning the Back: In all weapons, it is illegal to turn one’s back toward the opponent. (This is not turning the head. Do not give fencers a card if they turn their heads so that they look behind themselves.) This warning should be given when the fencer turns her or his back toward the opponent; it is not judged by the angle to the strip. The warning is not given when a fencer goes past the opponent, as “Halt” would be called at the passing. Any touch scored with an action with the turning of the back is annulled.

http://www.fencingofficials.org/Info...rReferees.html

The card for "turning" has nothing to do with stopping the bout and penalizing for a safety or "honor" issue.

[Fechter1]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

During the final match of the Olympics...

The score is 14-14, both fencers have yellow cards....

Fencer A launches an attack. The elevated piste collapses (shoddy Chinese construction). Fencer B is hit. The machine registers the touch. Both fencers tumble to the ground.

The referee is so startled by the event that he/she forgets to call halt.

Once the dust clears... The referee remembers to call halt. The referee then proceeds to annul Fencer A's touch, and hands out a Red card for scoring a touch while falling... Bout Over... Fencer B wins Gold.

The referee must enforce the rules.

Makes Perfect Sense.


--------edt--------
Shi no, please see post #29
-------------------

Wow, reaching much?
Catwood's right. Piste collapsing should be the halt, falling as a direct result by definition after the collapse (unless the fall triggered the collapse...). Hence, no penalty.

How is this in any way similar to what we were discussing?

Shi no Tenchi makes a valid point. Unless the ref noticed the machine turning off (or turned off) BEFORE the hit/turnaround, then the action should be judged in process when the back was turned. Thus, the justification for the card.
Slightly altered version to illustrate the point: Fencer A hits, no light, turns, halt. Fault turns out to be in the reel. Should this be a card? According to your argument (unless I misinterpreted) should be that the ref should retroactively call halt for the equipment failure, and not award the turning card... This then begs two questions: Which equipment failures warrant such a retroactive halt (Weapon? Body cord? Reel? Floor cord? Machine?), and which penalties should be forgiven due to this retroactive halt? Removing mask? Jostling? Hits delivered with brutality or the guard?


May sound more flippant than intended... I can see your argument, but I believe that the counterargument is just a bit stronger...

[catwood1]

I think it all boils down to why the referee calls halt. Not why he SHOULD call halt. But why he, the person in blue, said halt. If it was cuz of the turn, then give the card. If it was cuz he thought the apparatus wasn't working, and there was a hit that didn't register, then the halt is when the "hit" occurred, and no card.

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

Which reminds me. Why don't score boxes have a unique sound that beeps when the power gets shut off?

Most score boxes have a unique light indicating they are powered that goes out when power gets shut off. It's there for the ref to plainly not see.

However having a box generate a unique sound when power is interupted is not silly at all. Some (non fencing) devices keep a charge of power handy to flash and beep when their power gets interupted. Some devices also beep and flash in a distinctive way when they are turned off normally via their switch. It alerts everyone around that the device is going out of service.

[Mr Epee]

So the consensus is....

The mistakes of the referee and their effect on the bout are to be ignored.

The mistakes of the fencers are to be punished.

[catwood1]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

So the consensus is....

The mistakes of the referee and their effect on the bout are to be ignored.

The mistakes of the fencers are to be punished.

Hasn't that always been the case through fencing?

Say a fencer, in the middle of an action, gets distracted, and gets hit. He loses a point. Fencer makes mistake, fencer gets punished.

Say a referee, in the middle of an action, gets distracted, and doesn't see if its a beat attack, or a parry reposte. So he throws the touch out. Referee makes mistake, it gets ignored, life goes on.

[Mr Epee]

t.18 (2) 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.

The box being turned off absolutely modifies the regular and normal conditions of the bout....

How about this one....

Fencer A 9: 8 Fencer B
Fencer A has a yellow card
Time Expires
The Machine is turned off.
Referee fails to notice and does not call halt.

... a few seconds later ...

Fencer A causes Corps à corps.

The referee says "HALT" (the halt was for the Corps à corps)

Should the referee award the red card, tie the score, and send the bout into overtime?

[Hobbes]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

During the final match of the Olympics...

The score is 14-14, both fencers have yellow cards....

Fencer A launches an attack. The elevated piste collapses (shoddy Chinese construction). Fencer B is hit. The machine registers the touch. Both fencers tumble to the ground.

The referee is so startled by the event that he/she forgets to call halt.

Once the dust clears... The referee remembers to call halt. The referee then proceeds to annul Fencer A's touch, and hands out a Red card for scoring a touch while falling... Bout Over... Fencer B wins Gold.

The referee must enforce the rules.

Makes Perfect Sense.


--------edt--------
Shi no, please see post #29
-------------------

didn't someone have a problem with noodle comparing turning the back to punching someone, and now we have comparing a broken machine to a structural collapse of the Olympic finals. This thread is getting silly.

There has to be something in the rule book to allow for an act of God (or shoddy construction) to immediately stop action.

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

So the consensus is....

The mistakes of the referee and their effect on the bout are to be ignored.

The mistakes of the fencers are to be punished.

and I believe this is not a fair assumption. The consensus should be that they are separate events, with separate consequences.

The fencer needs the card, he broke the rules.

If he feels the ref acted in a way that is unacceptable he needs to bring it to the attention to the powers that be, and let them handle it.

If you get caught speeding and get a ticket, but explain to the cop that you felt that you were justified because the speed limit should be higher,you still get the ticket. (Let us assume that indeed the speed limit should be higher, it is a 4 lane highway in the country at 35mph.) You can later on go complain and petition to raise the speed limit, but you will still have a ticket. Does this example ring true with our situation?

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Hobbes

There has to be something in the rule book to allow for an act of God (or shoddy construction) to immediately stop action.

You mean something exactly like t.18 (2)?

Also, the referee is free to immediately correct his/her mistakes in the course of a bout.

Also, also... your speeding analogy isn't close.