Epee Ref Question

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

Ok, if you are fleching against me and I don't have a prayer of avoiding a touch against, I can get out of it by grabbing my blade in both hands and breaking it?

Correct. As long as the blade break occurs before your opponent's light is on. It's a silly thing to do, but the rules still apply when the fencers do silly things. The referee's best position is simply to follow the rules.

Of course, I believe that you'd get at least a G2 red, and you'd run a pretty good chance of getting a black card. I've never seen someone do anything like that, but I think that I'd call it dishonest fencing (G3 red).

Originally Posted by fencerbill

I just hate to hear absolutes.

Sorry, but there isn't really any leeway in t.68 3(h). After the referee observes a weapon break, any touch that registers after that moment against the fencer with the broken blade is annulled.

Someone fleches at you, you somehow snap your blade, and then your opponent hits you. There's one light (for your opponent) on the box. t.68 3(h) says that your opponent's touch is annulled. There's no reference in that rule to how you broke your weapon.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with your example. Would you expect the touch to stand even though it clearly happened after a blade break?

I suppose you could argue that the halt is asymmetric. That is, the fencer with the broken blade could still score a touch after the break. Since the referee will call halt when the blade breaks, that would mean that the blade break and the touch must be part of the same action. I've never seen that happen except in the case where the break is after the hit anyway.

[Nolano]

Hate to hijack a thread, but while we're on the topic of epee reffing....

It's been a few weeks, but at the last tournament I was at, I got several touches hitting fencers who fleched at me, missed, and then went off the strip. I think that when I hit them, they were off the strip, but I still got the touches. Would that be due to a rule of some sort or faulty reffing?

[dberke]

Originally Posted by Nolano

Hate to hijack a thread, but while we're on the topic of epee reffing....

It's been a few weeks, but at the last tournament I was at, I got several touches hitting fencers who fleched at me, missed, and then went off the strip. I think that when I hit them, they were off the strip, but I still got the touches. Would that be due to a rule of some sort or faulty reffing?

As long as your action started immediately, it is allowed to complete regardless of where they are:

Originally Posted by USFA Rulebook

t.26 When a competitor crosses one of the lateral boundaries of the strip with one or both feet, the referee must immediately call ‘Halt’.

If the fencer goes off the strip with both feet, the referee must annul everything that has occurred after the boundary has been crossed, except a touch received by the competitor who has crossed the boundary even after he has crossed it, provided that this touch results from a simple and immediate action. However, a touch scored by the fencer who leaves the strip with one foot only is valid provided that the action was started before the ‘Halt’.

If one of the competitors leaves the strip with both feet, only a touch made by the fencer who remains on the strip with at least one foot can be counted valid, even in the case of a double touch.

So, unless your action was late, it is likely that the referee was calling this correctly.

Dan

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by Nolano

Hate to hijack a thread, but while we're on the topic of epee reffing....

It's been a few weeks, but at the last tournament I was at, I got several touches hitting fencers who fleched at me, missed, and then went off the strip. I think that when I hit them, they were off the strip, but I still got the touches. Would that be due to a rule of some sort or faulty reffing?

Nope, Probably correct calls depending. When a person fleches and you parry - one assumes you did parry in order that they missed - you are allowed one (1) riposte provided that it is a single action beginning immediately after/with the parry. And if you touch it does not matter if your opponent is behind you or off the strip. So they fleche, you parry and riposte. If you got the light you get the touch. But as usual the devil and the argument is in the details. If you hesitate or make multiple thrusts then it - depends on what the director sees - may result in your not getting awarded the touch.

Now back to our original thread. Just had coffee with my coach and asked him about the action that started this thread. He informed me that my opponent's blade broke during the double touch, i.e. my touch was good but my opponent's touch was subject to question. At which point apparently it becomes a question of do I wish to count both or annul both? He apparently spoke for me and had the touches annulled or maybe it's just automatic that they both get annulled. Anyway the breaking of the blade put my opponent's touch into question. He assures me as did someone earlier that it was to my benefit that the touches be annulled, I was down 5 to 7, and it gave me more time to even up the score and win. Which I did. Part of my review process was a criticism of not being aware of how the rules apply in this case. As I said I would have assumed that the touches both stood, but I'm here to learn.

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by Nolano

It's been a few weeks, but at the last tournament I was at, I got several touches hitting fencers who fleched at me, missed, and then went off the strip. I think that when I hit them, they were off the strip, but I still got the touches. Would that be due to a rule of some sort or faulty reffing?

It's not where they were when you hit them that matters, it's where they were when you began the action. If you began your action before they went off the strip, and the action was simple, it is counted even if it arrives after they have left the strip or passed you. (see rules t.21 and t.26).

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

you may hate to hear them, but they are frequently the correct statement when talking about rules. ABSOLUTELY no touches can EVER be scored after a blade breaks, as there is a hard halt for the blade breaking.

Absolute enough for you?

-m

Actually, I might have an out for Fencerbill's dislike of absolutes. RULES should be clear and absolute, but rules (as it appears in this case) are enforced by imperfect humans, so you could have a director make a wrong decision and allow a touch after a break...it just wouldn't be the right call.

[Nolano]

Ah, I thought it might be something like that. I can't honestly remember if I parried, or when exactly I started the action. I just remember my light going off, thinking "Oh, that was after they went off the strip, I probably won't get it" and then getting it anyways.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Now back to our original thread. Just had coffee with my coach and asked him about the action that started this thread. He informed me that my opponent's blade broke during the double touch, i.e. my touch was good but my opponent's touch was subject to question. At which point apparently it becomes a question of do I wish to count both or annul both? He apparently spoke for me and had the touches annulled or maybe it's just automatic that they both get annulled. Anyway the breaking of the blade put my opponent's touch into question. He assures me as did someone earlier that it was to my benefit that the touches be annulled, I was down 5 to 7, and it gave me more time to even up the score and win. Which I did. Part of my review process was a criticism of not being aware of how the rules apply in this case. As I said I would have assumed that the touches both stood, but I'm here to learn.

I don't see how the blade break puts your opponent's touch in question...

unless I thought there was a chance that your opponent had hit something other than you (which WOULD put his touch in question), I would award a double and have your opponent get a new weapon.

-m

[downunder]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

I don't see how the blade break puts your opponent's touch in question...

It doesn't. The rules say the touch has to be made clearly before the breaking of the blade. An epee cannot make a light come on after it breaks, so the fact a light did come on means the touch happened before the break.

As for guards locking and falling over afterwards, so long as it's accidental (and it sounds like it was) then it isn't an issue.

So the correct course of action is to award both touches.

I'm confused as to how the coach 'spoke for you'. He shouldn't be anywhere near the referee.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Nope, Probably correct calls depending. When a person fleches and you parry - one assumes you did parry in order that they missed - you are allowed one (1) riposte provided that it is a single action beginning immediately after/with the parry.

t.26 is clear enough, so we don't need to make up a rule. (edit - both t.21 and t.26 probably come into play here.)

It is not true that the defender is allowed one riposte. A counter attack could be awarded, too, if the attacker happened to miss, and the counter attack began before the pass. The defender doesn't get one riposte. If his parry is very big or late, his riposte might not start until after the pass, in which case the touch should be annulled. Likewise, he can hit on the third remise of his riposte and still get the point as long as that action started before the fleching fencer passed.

Forget about "you get one riposte." That leads fencers to think incorrectly about this situation and argue unnecessarily with referees. If you are passed (and you aren't simultaneously passing your opponent), your touch counts as long as it results from a simple action (simple riposte, remise, counter, etc.) that began before you were passed.

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Now back to our original thread. Just had coffee with my coach and asked him about the action that started this thread. He informed me that my opponent's blade broke during the double touch, i.e. my touch was good but my opponent's touch was subject to question.

Interesting. I've never heard that a broken blade should be the cause of a doubtful touch. A doubtful touch is really a doubt about the materiality of the touch. For example, you're not fencing on a grounded strip, and I didn't see whether the touch was on the foot or the floor. In that case, we would consider the touch doubtful. With a single touch, we throw it out. With a double touch where the other touch is certain, you'd get to choose.

In your case, I guess that means that the referee suspects that your opponent's touch might have resulted from the wires grounding together as the blade broke?

Really, if his tip was clearly near target (and not near the floor, scoring table, etc.) when the touch was scored, I don't think that I'd consider its materiality to be doubtful. It seems like the most likely and default case here is that he scored a valid touch, and you both continued closing distance, breaking his blade.

Originally Posted by jjefferies

At which point apparently it becomes a question of do I wish to count both or annul both? He apparently spoke for me and had the touches annulled or maybe it's just automatic that they both get annulled.

The actual rule:

t.67 2(e) If a double touch is registered by an established touch and a doubtful touch (failure of the electrical apparatus) the fencer who has made the established touch may choose to accept the double touch or ask to
have it annulled.

But the referee should have explained the situation to you, and you should have been given the choice to keep the double or to have it annulled. It's not automatic, and the coach doesn't get a vote here.

[Nolano]

That makes more sense to me. I counter a LOT more than I parry.

[mfp]

Originally Posted by downunder

The rules say the touch has to be made clearly before the breaking of the blade. An epee cannot make a light come on after it breaks, so the fact a light did come on means the touch happened before the break. [...]

So the correct course of action is to award both touches.

The fact that a light came on before the break means ... a light came on before the break. It doesn't necessarily mean the touch was properly made.

Originally Posted by epeemike81

I don't see how the blade break puts your opponent's touch in question...

unless I thought there was a chance that your opponent had hit something other than you (which WOULD put his touch in question), I would award a double and have your opponent get a new weapon.

Likewise, the absence of hitting something other than the opponent does not necessarily mean a valid touch was scored on the opposing fencer.

So wouldn't a more correct course of action be for the ref to first evaluate whether the light could have been "a result of any cause other than a properly made touch" ?

[downunder]

Originally Posted by mfp

The fact that a light came on before the break means ... a light came on before the break. It doesn't necessarily mean the touch was properly made.

Assuming all other things equal it does. Obviously the fencer could have two feet off the piste, or the two exposed wires could short out, or aliens could land on the piste and make the light glow, but all things being equal the light being on is a pretty good sign the tip was depressed before the hit.

Originally Posted by mfp

So wouldn't a more correct course of action be for the ref to first evaluate whether the light could have been "a result of any cause other than a properly made touch" ?

All we're told is that he makes a hit then the blade breaks. Reading too much more into it can be a waste of time because of the infinite possible outcomes. Obviously if someone who was there can shed any more light on it then we'll be more helpful.

[KD5MDK]

I actually had an epee blade break in a bout I was refereeing that led to an entertaining exchange. The wires had remained intact so the top 9" or so of the blade were dangling by them.

Fencer: "Sir, may I change my weapon?"
Me: "Of course not!"
Fencer: (holds tip, tests it on the side of the strip) "Ok, still works. Now I can flick more."
Then we changed weapons.

[mfp]

Originally Posted by downunder

All we're told is that he makes a hit then the blade breaks. Reading too much more into it can be a waste of time because of the infinite possible outcomes. Obviously if someone who was there can shed any more light on it then we'll be more helpful.

Well then ....

Right attacked "vigorously", Left not so much counterattacked as simply had his arm out as the distance was crushed. Right's touch landed valid, Left's blade bent severely but questionable whether its tip actually hit Right. Both lights on. Old men tumble afterwards and Right becomes even more confused than he normally is. :)

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by mfp

Well then ....

Right attacked "vigorously", Left not so much counterattacked as simply had his arm out as the distance was crushed. Right's touch landed valid, Left's blade bent severely but questionable whether its tip actually hit Right. Both lights on. Old men tumble afterwards and Right becomes even more confused than he normally is.

"had his arm out"... so, doesn't sound like it possibly hit the floor or anything... What is your reasonable theory as to how left got a light other than a valid touch? I don't consider the possibility of the wires shorting after the break reasonable, as I've seen MANY blades break and NEVER seen that happen.

When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

two lights on? double touch.

-m

[rdg]

t.67 2(e) If a double touch is registered by an established touch and a doubtful touch (failure of the electrical apparatus) the fencer who has made the established touch may choose to accept the double touch or ask to
have it annulled.

Another small detour, but this happens to me a lot, or should I say against me a lot.

We are fencing on an ungrounded strip. Fencer A hits the floor simultaneous with Fencer B hitting the opponent in the chest. It is obvious to all what a happend, i.e., there is no dispute this is the action. Also I would add, the grounding is not intentional, just over zealous parries.

My feeling is that B should get the touch, but that doesn't seem to happen. Does t.67 apply here? Is there a better rule?

Like everyone else, I hate losing a hard earned touch. So what is a fencer to do in this situation, esp, if it happens 2 or 3 times?
Sam

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by rdg

Another small detour, but this happens to me a lot, or should I say against me a lot.

We are fencing on an ungrounded strip. Fencer A hits the floor simultaneous with Fencer B hitting the opponent in the chest. It is obvious to all what a happend, i.e., there is no dispute this is the action. Also I would add, the grounding is not intentional, just over zealous parries.

My feeling is that B should get the touch, but that doesn't seem to happen. Does t.67 apply here? Is there a better rule?

Like everyone else, I hate losing a hard earned touch. So what is a fencer to do in this situation, esp, if it happens 2 or 3 times?
Sam

If everyone (specifically the referee) knows that A hit the floor, then absolutely B gets the touch.

the quoted portion of t.67 does not apply as neither touch was "doubtful". One was definitely good and one was definitely not.

-m