Revoking Yellow Cards

[the ancient one]

Yesterday on an advance-lunge action I wound up doing a slapstick-extended-stumble that landed me on my knee and earned me a yellow card. It was odd, as I don't normally have that sort of problem. After another action I noticed that the seam in the black rubber mat had lifted up to protrude up about 1/4 inch just at my en-garde line where it would catch my initial advance-a root cause as it were.

I am not aware of a rule that allows a yellow card to be revoked, but if on a subsequent action I received a red card it would have mattered and now I wonder what the practice is regarding removing a yellow card. I suppose that it would have to be a bout committee matter.

Another example might be discovering that a series of weapon failure yellow cards were ultimately due to a faulty reel.

Experiences?

[Beloit Fencer of Old]

Uh...I was under the impression (given to me by a 4-rated foil referee) that simply falling was no longer a yellow-card offense. I was told that NOW you had to actually fall IN ORDER TO score a touch for it to be a yellow card. Now, I'm not a rated ref., so it's possible that I misunderstood the ref, but he's a really good ref for whom I have a lot of respect.

I know that this does not answer your question, but it seems that you may have been carded inappropriately.

[Guymelef]

The ref is responsible for the surface, safety, and order of the strip. Sorry that you were let down in this case. Certanly sounds like a case to rescind to me.

There are cases of cards being revoked. George K. likes to tell the story of the series of weapon failures. A fencer reported to the strip and had a whole slew of weapons and body cords fail. Ultimately it was found that there was a problem with the strip, i.e. the fencer himself was not the problem. All cards were erased, the strip was fixed and fencing continued. He tells this to refs to illustrate the point of keeping the confiscated weapons and body cords in order, but you can see it is also about revoking cards too.

[the ancient one]

I think that fall-then-hit or fall-and-hit is a yellow card, but hit and then fall may not be since the fall is after the halt. I think a simple fall is still cardable as "irregular fencing".

[Guymelef]

I think that fall-then-hit or fall-and-hit is a yellow card, but hit and then fall may not be since the fall is after the halt. I think a simple fall is still cardable as "irregular fencing".

The wording is nebulous: "touches made while falling" and "touches made with brutality or while falling" are in Group I with the ensuing touch being annulled. The first two examples are certainly cardable, while the third is up to the tempo and action. If I clearly hit and then a whole 'beat' of time passes and I collapse, I would consider that as being after the halt and not occurring during the touch. Falls that occur when backing up or in preparation or doing something goofy are not necessarily carded; provided of course that you are not making a touch. When I retreated, hit a gap in the strip plating, fell, and incurred a high-ankle sprain I was not carded for the fall.

[Inquartata]

But then, maybe a fall not involving a touch shouldn't occasion a halt, either, so long as the halt was the fault of the fencer who fell. Maybe it should be one of those things which is the responsibility of the fencer not to do, like keeping your cord from coming unplugged...

[the ancient one]

"...Maybe it should be one of those things which is the responsibility of the fencer not to do, like keeping your cord from coming unplugged...

I am OK with that, I can think of falling and exposing yourself as equivalent to stopping for the expected halt that doesn't come or staring at the box to see the hit you didn't actually make. It is the T11 aspect where the field of play causes the fall that motivated my original comment.

[downunder]

falling on its own is not a yellow card.

[Shi no Tenshi]

I think that fall-then-hit or fall-and-hit is a yellow card, but hit and then fall may not be since the fall is after the halt. I think a simple fall is still cardable as "irregular fencing".

It's if the fall is part of the action. So a hit and fall can be cardable, but it depends on if the fall was part of the action that caused the hit, or if it was separate(you fleched, hit, landed, tripped after=not a card; vs you dive at the person, hit, then ate the ground=card).

[foillion]

Falling = not a card.

Falling (while fencing like a spider monkey on crack) = Disorderly fencing = card.

Falling while scoring a touch = card and annulment of touch.

Falling after scoring a touch....= tricky. Depending on when and why you fall. Could be card and annulment (see: spider monkey backflick fleche while running bent over at 20mph -> tumble) or no call (see: tripping over reel, weapons or random earthquakes)

Depends on what your ref thinks a spider monkey on crack looks like.

-P

(and I don't mean a McBean spider monkey. That guy was amazing.)

[KD5MDK]

Foillion not only covered the situation pretty well, he amused me. Rep owed.

[Peach]

Foillion not only covered the situation pretty well, he amused me. Rep owed.

Given.

[Joe biebel]

Okay, so the fencer on the left attacks with flesche (foil) and the fencer on the right counterattacks right at the attacker. The attacker hits valid and then falls trying to avoid the imminent head on collision. Both fencers hit valid. Halt!!! No corps-a-corps. Make the call.

[erooMynohtnA]

As described, hit stands, no card, but I would have to see it.

[KD5MDK]

Did the counterattack alter in any way where the attacker could have expected to go?

[foillion]

Okay, so the fencer on the left attacks with flesche (foil) and the fencer on the right counterattacks right at the attacker. The attacker hits valid and then falls trying to avoid the imminent head on collision. Both fencers hit valid. Halt!!! No corps-a-corps. Make the call.

"The attacker hits valid ... and then falls trying to avoid the imminent head on collision."

Attack arrives. Touch left. The fall occurred after the halt and wasn't disorderly fencing.

-P

[foillion]

as a quick supplement, nor was the fall required to make the touch.

-P

[Joe biebel]

Looking at the last four posts, I would have to say "good job". All to often, referees get hung up on the wording of a rule with no regard to intent of the rule or mitigating circumstances. The only card I might consider would be for dangerous fencing by the counterattacker.

[HDG]

The only card I might consider would be for dangerous fencing by the counterattacker.

I would think [note the tentativeness of my wording (as I noted yours)] that would be a bit of a stretch.

[Joe biebel]

I would think [note the tentativeness of my wording (as I noted yours)] that would be a bit of a stretch.

It is if it is, it aint if it aint.