Turning the back, the halt, and an off machine

[Mr Epee]

Ah, but the machine turning off after time expires does not influence the normal conditions of the bout, as no touches can be scored after time expires. Some machines, in fact simulate turning off for that very reason. (They cease registering hits)

I think you just made my point for me. No touches can be scored with the box turned off (regardless of why it's off). Clearly, the normal conditions of the bout have been altered.

In any case, as we're fencing epee (Mr. EPEE), no penalty given for the Corps-a-corps. Bout ends at 9-8

Watch it, bub. I will jostle you. :-)

But seriously, for every example you can conjure to support your interpretation, another example can be created to support the opposite.

That would be extremely important if I was arguing that there is only one way properly to handle this situation. I'm justifying a path to not award the card.

Counterexample: As you seem to be stating that equipment failures should cause retroactive halts and void any infractions thereafter, let's say A's weapon fails at some random point (changes the conditions of the bout, remember?). A then runs into B, definite jostling. Should A not get carded?

Retroactive halt = incidental Corp-a-Corps.... it doesn't exist.

Again, which equipment failures warrant, in your mind, the retroactive halt, and which infractions should be ignored?

The rule book does not assume that all equipment failures are created equal, and neither should we. The score box turning off > loosing a tip screw.

[Fechter1]

The question is about foil, so it's reasonable to assume that we're fencing foil.

Ah, but this was not the original supposition, as we were talking about a non-weapon-specific example, to which I made a simple assumption based on the weapon preference of the author.

All the counterexamples to Mr. Epee's scenarios involve cards that don't depend on the halt.

Ok, let's say same situation, something fails, say A's reel. B trips, and while falling, happens to register a hit against A's valid target area. Should the penalty for 'hit while falling' be assessed?
(premise is that if I trip on the strip after the halt while returning to guard and happen to hit my opponent, how would that be a penalty?)

I'll split that hair even further (again, to make a point). A launches fleche. During the fleche, B tears off his/her mask (bad fleche, quick reaction, it's possible). A then registers valid. Should be clear-cut penalty, right? Now, after all this, B's floor cord is found to have failed somehow. This should annul the hit by A, but should it invalidate the penalty?

As the title of the thread implies, the timing of the halt is key to whether or not the original question results in a card. Any example that goes "the box was off and then I..." "...punch them in the face really hard" "...get naked and sexually assault the other fencer" or "...flip off the referee and throw my mask at him" is inherently flawed as an example. Those are all cards independent of when the halt is called.

Turning your back is not a penalty, just like taking off your mask or grabbing your weapon with your off hand is not a penalty. It has to be during the action.

What about (foil, sabre) non-jostling corps-a-corps? Penalty during the action, no way it's a penalty otherwise (if you think so, just try assessing that penalty when a fencer brushes up against his opponent on the way back to guard...).

Like I said, example-counterexample = splitting hairs.

I think you just made my point for me. No touches can be scored with the box turned off (regardless of why it's off). Clearly, the normal conditions of the bout have been altered.

But the normal conditions of time running out include the machine not registering a hit after time...

Watch it, bub. I will jostle you. :-)

Who., me? <looks around innocently>

Retroactive halt = incidental Corp-a-Corps.... it doesn't exist.
The rule book does not assume that all equipment failures are created equal, and neither should we. The score box turning off > loosing a tip screw.

Ok, fair enough. Where, then do we draw the line? Which equipment causes this retroactive halt?
Nad while we're on the subject of time, how do you assess the time of the failure with respect to time remaining in the bout?

That would be extremely important if I was arguing that there is only one way properly to handle this situation. I'm justifying a path to not award the card.

And we're just justifying why we would give the card.

Cease fire?

(That said, I wouldn't mind a FOC interpretation of this... )

[Mr Epee]

Can we play with this idea?

Equipment failure in two categories.

1. Public Failure - broken blade, reel wire breaks and zips back into housing, machine is turned off, etc... these situations create an immediate halt under t.18 (2). The referee is responsible for continual inspection of the strip, the fencers, and the electrical equipment. The referee MUST immediately notify the fencers of the halt, so that the situation can be corrected.

2. Revealed Failure - shifty contact-spring, wire breakage, body-cord failure, etc.... Sadly, these situations must be dealt with when they are discovered. The rules are very clear in how these situations should be handled by the referee.

[Mr Epee]

Cease fire?

Sure... right up until one of you "other side of the fence" chuckle-heads is refereeing me, fails to see the box turn off, I cause a massive collision, and you try to hand me a card.... then I'm going to town on someone....

Actually, now that I think about it... next time I see the box lose power, I'm going to do something truly outrageous... then I will finally get a chance to test my theories. :-) I really had no idea I was so passionate about this incredibly obscure situation.

My main problem with this situation how quickly people tossed Fencer A under the bus, while ignoring the extraordinary situation, and the failure of the referee to properly manage his strip.

I think the referee did a good job surviving a bad situation.

I'm having a good time.

[KD5MDK]

You're really wishing this question had been asked last week so you could stick me with it, aren't you?

[Mr Epee]

You're really wishing this question had been asked last week so you could stick me with it, aren't you?

I take this to mean you were in Boulder, CO last weekend.

Whoa... have we met?

[KD5MDK]

Yes. I also ran into you at the Oz Parsons the last time you came down, but that was a while ago. I reffed your pool, among other bouts.

[Mr Epee]

Yes. I also ran into you at the Oz Parsons the last time you came down, but that was a while ago. I reffed your pool, among other bouts.

Seriously? This goes to show how much epeeists pay attention to referees.

Are you the guy that tried to blow the floor touch in my bout with the Polish dude?

Somehow I always assumed you were a bitter old dude with a crew cut.

I find this hilarious.

---------edit----------
Last pool ref I had at the OZ was a total tool.
He was sporting a pair of Oakley prescription glasses.

I know that wasn't you.
-----------------------

[KD5MDK]

Yeah, I was your ref in Boulder. I don't bother to remember individual touches, except the first touch where he went of strip and past you before the light.

[Mr Epee]

Yeah, I was your ref in Boulder. I don't bother to remember individual touches, except the first touch where he went of strip and past you before the light.

Never underestimate a fencer's abillity to forget a very good call... and remember with great detal/passion a call you may have juggled even if you get the call correct in the end...

You did fine.