Turning the back, the halt, and an off machine

[erooMynohtnA]

This is another should it be a card thread.

This is foil. Fencer A attacks Fencer B. Fencer A hits (thinks he hits). Fencer A turns around and runs back yelling. However, no halt was called because there was no light. Upon testing, no lights would come on. The power to the machine had been interrupted at some point during the fencing and it was off.

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

Should there have been a card for turning the back?

As fencer A, I would have argued against the card by saying that the halt occurred when the box shut off (before turning). As fencer B, I would have argued that we were fencing, there was no halt, and A turned his back. What's correct?

[downunder]

Award the card.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by downunder

Award the card.

this.

halt has nothing to do with what is or isn't on the machine. machine is a guide by which the referee sorts out the halts.

[Allen Evans]

Machines don't cause cards, people do*.

Award the card.

AE


*I seem to be saying variations of this a LOT these days.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

no halt was called

and

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

Fencer A turns around

If you overthink a question on the referee exam, you'll often get the wrong answer.

It turns out that's often true when actually refereeing.

I'd give a card.

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

fencer A...would have argued against the card by saying that the halt occurred when the box shut off

Yes, of course, because rule number...uh....um...oh, right. No rule actually supports that position. If he appealed, he now has an additional card.

[Hobbes]

definitely a card, you never stop fencing until you hear the halt. That has been beat into since my first season for fencing.

[KD5MDK]

Could you give a card for leaving the strip to avoid a touch if the other fencer was technologically unable to score?

[freerider258]

OK, situation.
What if... you had a ref that called halt when the machine went off. What would your appeal be? And... what if the machine turned off, Fencer A turned his back, the ref then called halt "The machine went off before the halt, no card" What would be my appeal?

[catwood1]

I had a similar question a few weeks ago. Fencer A is near his end of the strip. He makes a stop hit, then goes off his end of the strip. However, his light never goes off, so he loses a touch for going off the end of the strip. Upon testing, the machine does not register a hit. Should the touch against stand. I asked a couple FOCs, and they all said to annul the touch for going off the end.

I don't see how this is really much different.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by noodle

this.

halt has nothing to do with what is or isn't on the machine. machine is a guide by which the referee sorts out the halts.

I agree that this one seemed clear to me, but no call was made, so I thought would ask.

I was also hoping to bring up this sort of thinking:

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Could you give a card for leaving the strip to avoid a touch if the other fencer was technologically unable to score?

Originally Posted by freerider258

OK, situation.
What if... you had a ref that called halt when the machine went off. What would your appeal be? And... what if the machine turned off, Fencer A turned his back, the ref then called halt "The machine went off before the halt, no card" What would be my appeal?

If the ref called halt when the machine turned off, not only could you not appeal, why would you appeal? Clearly the machine needed to be turned on, would you prefer the ref continue to let you fence while he crossed the strip and turned it on?

On the second one, if the ref said he saw the machine turn off just before the turn and he called the halt due to the machine and not the turn, I don't see a problem.

If the ref said he didn't see the machine, but since it was off, no card, I would appeal along the lines of what the other posters have said.

[freerider258]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

I agree that this one seemed clear to me, but no call was made, so I thought would ask.

I was also hoping to bring up this sort of thinking:



If the ref called halt when the machine turned off, not only could you not appeal, why would you appeal? Clearly the machine needed to be turned on, would you prefer the ref continue to let you fence while he crossed the strip and turned it on?

On the second one, if the ref said he saw the machine turn off just before the turn and he called the halt due to the machine and not the turn, I don't see a problem.

If the ref said he didn't see the machine, but since it was off, no card, I would appeal along the lines of what the other posters have said.

No, sorry.
I was making up two hypothetical situations, none of which have to do with your story. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by catwood1

I had a similar question a few weeks ago. Fencer A is near his end of the strip. He makes a stop hit, then goes off his end of the strip. However, his light never goes off, so he loses a touch for going off the end of the strip. Upon testing, the machine does not register a hit. Should the touch against stand. I asked a couple FOCs, and they all said to annul the touch for going off the end.

I don't see how this is really much different.

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

is this situation different?

Originally Posted by catwood1

Fencer A is near his end of the strip. He makes a stop hit, then punches the other fencer in the face. However, his light never goes off, so he gets a card and no touch is scored. Upon testing, the machine does not register a hit. Should the card stand?

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

[freerider258]

What would you do about time in this situation. Like the box goes out and they're still fencing. How would you know what the accurate time would be when turning the machine on again?

[Mr Epee]

Let's not dog-pile the fencer, here. You've got a guy/gal who has made a significant commitment to the sport in terms of money, time, blood, sweat, and tears, shouldn't the referee/organizers have the primary responsibility to keep the machines working.

In this situation, the referee/organizers have failed the fencers (both of them).... so let's try to avoid ringing up Fencer A in the process...

A good referee calms everyone down, identifies the problem, explains the problem, apologizes to the fencers for the problem, and resumes the bout with everyone on the same page.

This should not be a card.

That is how I would call it. If Fencer B gets ticky-tacky about the situation, he/she is entitled to protest.... I, as referee, wouldn't expect to be overturned.

The rulebook is silent on protocol for fencing that occurs with the box turned off... but it is very clear that there are halts that occur without the referee saying the word "HALT"....

I think there is plenty of room within the rules for the referee to gain a good solution.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by freerider258

What would you do about time in this situation. Like the box goes out and they're still fencing. How would you know what the accurate time would be when turning the machine on again?

The rules instruct the referee to estimate time remaining.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

A good referee calms everyone down, identifies the problem, explains the problem, apologizes to the fencers for the problem, and resumes the bout with everyone on the same page.

Perhaps a good fencer understands the consequences of turning around before halt is called?

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.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by downunder

Perhaps a good fencer understands the consequences of turning around before halt is called?

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.

Aren't both fencers already cheated by being allowed to compete without any hope of scoring a valid touch, through no fault of their own?

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Let's not dog-pile the fencer, here. You've got a guy/gal who has made a significant commitment to the sport in terms of money, time, blood, sweat, and tears, shouldn't the referee/organizers have the primary responsibility to keep the machines working.

In this situation, the referee/organizers have failed the fencers (both of them).... so let's try to avoid ringing up Fencer A in the process...

A good referee calms everyone down, identifies the problem, explains the problem, apologizes to the fencers for the problem, and resumes the bout with everyone on the same page.

This should not be a card.

That is how I would call it. If Fencer B gets ticky-tacky about the situation, he/she is entitled to protest.... I, as referee, wouldn't expect to be overturned.

The rulebook is silent on protocol for fencing that occurs with the box turned off... but it is very clear that there are halts that occur without the referee saying the word "HALT"....

I think there is plenty of room within the rules for the referee to gain a good solution.

while i don't disagree with the sentiment, but i'm also a heavy proponent of uniform application of the rules.

its a slippery slope from not carding for the turn because the machine was not working, to not carding because of a debounce didn't register the touch, to not carding because the fencer missed completely, etc etc

[HDG]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Aren't both fencers already cheated by being allowed to compete without any hope of scoring a valid touch, through no fault of their own?

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