stupid question on foil + ungrounded strips

[fencerchica]

This is one of those things I feel stupid asking about, but I've heard enough contradictory opinions from knowledgeable people (rated refs and coaches) that I've become uncertain. Foil, ungrounded strip:

X attacks, hits the ungrounded strip. Y counterattacks, hits valid.

Throw out the white light for X, as touches to the strip are theoretically grounded out, and call it "attack from X no, counter from Y arrives"? (This what I'm strongly inclined towards, as long as the actions and timing are clear.)

Or say that X's white light must be considered to stop the action, as it would've locked out any subsequent touch which X could've made (I guess if X had done something to regain ROW after the initial failed attack and Y's counterattack)?

[KD5MDK]

The action which hit non-valid had priority? Then you stop there. It doesn't matter where you hit, it's a matter of valid non-valid.

On the other hand, if they lost priority (attack no, remise), then their opponent's light would be considered valid and may be in time.

[peet]

I believe it is acceptable to disregard the touch on the floor and award touch for counterattack, if you are absolutely totally really very and in all other ways super-duper positively sure that the attacker hit ONLY the floor and not the opponent.

Otherwise, call it "attack off target". That's almost always the best choice in these situations.

-p

[fencerchica]

I would agree if we were talking about a hit to floor outside of strip, table, wall, etc. However the strip is a special case. If it were grounded, nothing would've registered. The only light would have been for the counterattack, and the attacker would not be "protected" by the white light.

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

The action which hit non-valid had priority? Then you stop there. It doesn't matter where you hit, it's a matter of valid non-valid.

On the other hand, if they lost priority (attack no, remise), then their opponent's light would be considered valid and may be in time.

[peet]

Originally Posted by fencerchica

I've heard enough contradictory opinions from knowledgeable people (rated refs and coaches) that I've become uncertain.

And KD5 and I have proven in only two posts that f.net can rival any offline discussion for contradictory opinions!

-p

[catwood1]

I agree with Peet. If its at all unsure, Id throw it out, and call it attack off target. However, if its VERY obvious, I think its reasonable to give it to the counter attack.

Like when you attack, I parry 4 to the floor and register off target, and you remise valid. My point never came remotely close to you. I might award that touch...

[KD5MDK]

I wouldn't award that one.

If the attacker had no chance at all of hitting their opponent, but went straight for the floor? Then it wasn't threatening valid target, was it? It is just usually not that clear cut.

I also oppose the idea you can substitute theoretical equipment and treat events as if it was there. Otherwise, if I saw a hit land exactly between the eyes in sabre, should I annul it because the poor fencer can't afford a lexan mask?

[peet]

Originally Posted by fencerchica

I would agree if we were talking about a hit to floor outside of strip, table, wall, etc. However the strip is a special case. If it were grounded, nothing would've registered. The only light would have been for the counterattack, and the attacker would not be "protected" by the white light.

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I also oppose the idea you can substitute theoretical equipment and treat events as if it was there. Otherwise, if I saw a hit land exactly between the eyes in sabre, should I annul it because the poor fencer can't afford a lexan mask?

It's not because there "should" have been a grounded strip there, it's just that when the ref is "absolutely totally ....... sure" that there was no touch on the opponent, then they may ignore that touch.

But again, the "safer" call is "attack off target". No one's going to argue with that, which can't be said for the opposite call.

-p

[fencerchica]

Originally Posted by peet

But again, the "safer" call is "attack off target". No one's going to argue with that, which can't be said for the opposite call.

LOL... one of the first times I was pressed into service at a self-reffed event, I had a fencer (the counter-attacker) pitch the MOTHER of all fits at me because I made that very call in a situation exactly as I described in my first post (and all actions and timing extremely clear). She talked to the BC later (high rated ref) and he scolded me soundly for making that call for the attacker's off-target.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by peet

It's not because there "should" have been a grounded strip there, it's just that when the ref is "absolutely totally ....... sure" that there was no touch on the opponent, then they may ignore that touch.

I don't think you can ignore a light. You could say "attack no, counterattack" and say it was not actually an attack that they landed, but I don't think you can just disregard it.

[foillion]

On an ungrounded strip where the attacker hits off-target it is always possible that he hit his opponent's hand, foot, etc. etc. but most importantly it's ALWAYS possible that there was an intermittent off-target. (I love foil) Because of this latter possibility you can not award that touch. If the Attacker on an ungrounded strip goes off-target even if you're 99.9% sure it was the floor you can't award the touch to the counter-attacker.

Now if it's going the other way and the attacker comes in the defender takes a wide parry, but wiffs, to the floor and gets hit, the floor doesn't stop that action and the attacker gets the touch.

ROW is important give the guy actually doing something some credit people

-P

[mrbiggs]

The correct call is attack off target.

However, I find this frustrating especially since some fencers just attack with a low blade and can respond to any counterattack or attack in preparation by hitting the floor. It's not a consistently effective tactic, and I don't think it's ever an intentional tactic, but it still could have been a touch for the defender.

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by fencerchica

This is one of those things I feel stupid asking about, but I've heard enough contradictory opinions from knowledgeable people (rated refs and coaches) that I've become uncertain. Foil, ungrounded strip:

X attacks, hits the ungrounded strip. Y counterattacks, hits valid.

Throw out the white light for X, as touches to the strip are theoretically grounded out, and call it "attack from X no, counter from Y arrives"? (This what I'm strongly inclined towards, as long as the actions and timing are clear.)

Or say that X's white light must be considered to stop the action, as it would've locked out any subsequent touch which X could've made (I guess if X had done something to regain ROW after the initial failed attack and Y's counterattack)?

Provided that (a) there is no doubt that X's off-target light came from hitting the floor, and (b) Y's counterattack began before the floor hit, then Y's touch should be awarded. See t.53:

Originally Posted by Rule Book

t.53 1. The Referee will disregard touches which are registered as a
result of actions:
— started before the word ‘Fence’ or after the word ‘Halt’
(cf. t.18);
— which are made on any object other than the opponent
or his equipment (cf. t.41).

X's touch did not hit the opponent, and Y's action did not begin after the halt. Therefore, this is a case of "Attack, no; counterattack, yes."

[peet]

Originally Posted by fencerchica

LOL... one of the first times I was pressed into service at a self-reffed event, I had a fencer (the counter-attacker) pitch the MOTHER of all fits at me because I made that very call in a situation exactly as I described in my first post (and all actions and timing extremely clear). She talked to the BC later (high rated ref) and he scolded me soundly for making that call for the attacker's off-target.

Ok, I guess some fencers can always find something to get p**sed about.

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I don't think you can ignore a light. You could say "attack no, counterattack" and say it was not actually an attack that they landed, but I don't think you can just disregard it.

Maybe I should have said "annul" not "ignore". I believe there is actually a rule about this, but since I just gave a whole other thread full of posters some s**t about quoting rules, I think I'll avoid that here...

Originally Posted by foillion

On an ungrounded strip where the attacker hits off-target it is always possible that he hit his opponent's hand, foot, etc. etc. but most importantly it's ALWAYS possible that there was an intermittent off-target. (I love foil) Because of this latter possibility you can not award that touch. If the Attacker on an ungrounded strip goes off-target even if you're 99.9% sure it was the floor you can't award the touch to the counter-attacker.

Now if it's going the other way and the attacker comes in the defender takes a wide parry, but wiffs, to the floor and gets hit, the floor doesn't stop that action and the attacker gets the touch.

ROW is important give the guy actually doing something some credit people

-P

I guess if you're trying to say that the ref can never be 100%sure that the tip didn't hit the fencer, then ok, the ref can never award the touch for the counterattack. I just thought I'd mention that I believe the rules do allow for it if the ref is actually 100% sure. Not 99.9%, but 100%.

-p

[foillion]

[quote=Goldgar;700261]Provided that (a) there is no doubt that X's off-target light came from hitting the floor, and (b) Y's counterattack began before the floor hit, then Y's touch should be awarded. QUOTE]

The point being is in foil you can never be sure the light went off because of the floor. At the risk of repeating myself, in foil there is ALWAYS the possibility of an intermittent off-target light going off during the attack. You can not award that touch. Under any circumstance. Period. The correct call is attack off-target. If the fencer deliberately hits the floor you card them. But as the situation in the OP is stated the call is off-target.

-P

[edew]

Here's a more frequent scenario: fencer M23J attacks. Fencer 78BH parries, but parries very big and hits the floor with the tip. M23J remises while 78BH makes a riposte that flies over the head of M23J. (Imagine a bunch of beginners who weren't taught that it's the 8th deadly sin to hit the floor.)

Call is attack is parried. Riposte is off-target. Remise is not in time. In other words, treat the floor (or any other off-target) as like a normal off-target (on the body). If the person had right of way, then the hit is off-target. If the person didn't have right of way, then well, the person didn't have right of way.

[Cerian]

[quote=foillion;700274]

Originally Posted by Goldgar

Provided that (a) there is no doubt that X's off-target light came from hitting the floor, and (b) Y's counterattack began before the floor hit, then Y's touch should be awarded. QUOTE]

The point being is in foil you can never be sure the light went off because of the floor. At the risk of repeating myself, in foil there is ALWAYS the possibility of an intermittent off-target light going off during the attack. You can not award that touch. Under any circumstance. Period. The correct call is attack off-target. If the fencer deliberately hits the floor you card them. But as the situation in the OP is stated the call is off-target.

-P

And there's ALWAYS the possibility that someone's epee is grounding out, yet somehow epee exists as a weapon in which people compete... I don't buy this 'a foil can always go off target so you can't disregard an off target' argument.

Similarly, with non-grounded strips in epee, directors have no problem annulling floor touches, and yet ROW and a different weapon wiring is supposed to somehow make this trivial ability an impossibility? (Not to say it's an easy matter to know if something hits floor or not). Sure, one might want to be more cautious in foil for all the listed reasons, but if epee directors are allowed to distinguish between hitting floor and hitting leg/foot/wall/etc, why not foil directors?

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by Goldgar

X's touch did not hit the opponent, and Y's action did not begin after the halt. Therefore, this is a case of "Attack, no; counterattack, yes."

Agreed. I was taught the rule when discussing the situation when an epeeist hits a bellguard (and you know 100% that's when the light went off), that you anull the light (if you can recreate it).

I've never heard of this, "well it's foil, and **** happens" idea.

Then again, this is why I ref sabre.

[remise]

Originally Posted by edew

Here's a more frequent scenario: fencer M23J attacks. Fencer 78BH parries, but parries very big and hits the floor with the tip. M23J remises.

Now THIS is what I get at our club, and not with beginners, either.