Question for the masses

[Rick Shellhouse]

OK..


I'm all for bringing up interesting questions. So here is one I find intriguing.

Fencers while retreating has both feet come out from under him landing face first on the strip ( does score a touch on the way down)

Now we all are aware the touch is annulled and a yellow card (first offense) follows. (least the last time i checked)

NOW here comes the fun part

The fencer argues that the strip in use is :

a. not properly secured to floor surface (roll out strip)

b. overly dusty/slick due to improper storage/cleaning

c. not FIE approved and as such they can not be penalized as the rules are set based on fencing on FIE approved strips

Now the USFA rules states the dimensions of a strip but not a slick coefficient that is allowable or not. The is no ruling on "slack" allowable.

Now would you allow his argument? If so which one? Would you card him for unjustified appeal?

Is it the tournament committee responsibility to make sure strips are properly secured? Cleaned? How about without metal strips? Should the tournament committee provided something to clean feet? Clean the strips in between poules?


Have at it...

Rick

[oso97]

OK..


I'm all for bringing up interesting questions. So here is one I find intriguing.

Fencers while retreating has both feet come out from under him landing face first on the strip ( does score a touch on the way down)

Now we all are aware the touch is annulled and a yellow card (first offense) follows. (least the last time i checked)

NOW here comes the fun part

The fencer argues that the strip in use is :

a. not properly secured to floor surface (roll out strip)

b. overly dusty/slick due to improper storage/cleaning

c. not FIE approved and as such they can not be penalized as the rules are set based on fencing on FIE approved strips

Now the USFA rules states the dimensions of a strip but not a slick coefficient that is allowable or not. The is no ruling on "slack" allowable.

Now would you allow his argument? If so which one? Would you card him for unjustified appeal?

Is it the tournament committee responsibility to make sure strips are properly secured? Cleaned? How about without metal strips? Should the tournament committee provided something to clean feet? Clean the strips in between poules?


Have at it...

Rick

Sounds to me like a similar situation to a fencer who got a GIIIR for saying F*** and then arguing that in his "mother tongue, it means something different."

[Sean Butler]

Sounds like a call allowing for referee discretion to me. If the fencer looked like he was literally out of control and performing an unsafe action, I would disallow the argument. If however it looked like he tripped or slipped on an irregular fencing surface, I might very well let the organizers deal with his complaint.

[telkanuru]

Sounds like an epee fencer!

[Fechter1]

If the strip is that badly maintained that there is such a tripping/slipping hazard, then it should not be fenced on in the first place (due to the obvious injury potential).

In any case, the conditions mentioned regarding the piste are identical for both fencers, so the argument is pretty much void from that perspective.

We've all fenced on slick strips before, and should know by now the tricks to gaining footing (better shoes, cleaning soles between actions, duct tape, sweeping the floor, etc), so there are rather few excuses for slipping at any time.

If, on the other hand, the strip tore loose from its anchors in the middle of the action, then the fencer does have a point, but the hit should still not be allowed (due to the hard halt for a dangerous situation on the strip).

As for the appeals penalty, I tend to ask the fencer if they really wish to appeal the decision, and act based on their reply.

$.02

[Redblade]

The athlete had plenty of opportunity to inspect venue conditions (at least the most obvious), including the strip, before the event began. If he had any serious concerns, he should have registered them with the bout committee BEFORE fencing his first bout. His prior silence implies tacit agreement that everything is OK.

[Allen Evans]

The referee is required to inspect the strip before the bout. I have (at local events) refused to use strips that I thought were unsafe or had a tripping hazard.

In this case, the referee is expected to use good judgement. If the fencer fell because of the unsafe stip, the touch should be annuled, no card should be thrown, and the bout switched to a different strip, or the strip repaired.


AE

[CvilleFencer]

This is one of those that seems like it can really be over thought. If the strip was defective or unsafe in some way, hopefully the ref never would have started the bout on it. If it was not seriously defective (seriously meaning covered in marbles, broken surface or so slick it is obviously difficult to move on) then annul the touch, card the guy, tell him to get on guard and if he refuses move on down the penalty chart. Trust your own judgment. If you would fence on it, it is fine. If not, move to a different strips or have it fixed, no card but still no touch.

[KD5MDK]

not FIE approved and as such they can not be penalized as the rules are set based on fencing on FIE approved strips

The USFA rules are not.

[Tomas N]

It's so important, that's it's in the rulebook twice. The referee should monitor the strip.

Tomas


t. 54 7. The Referee should also supervise the state of the conductive strip; he must not allow the bout to commence or to continue if the conductive strip has holes in it which might affect the proper registering of touches. (The organizers must make the necessary arrangements to ensure
the rapid repair or replacement of the conductive strip.)

t.69 4. The Referee must supervise the condition of the conductive strip;
he must not allow the bout to commence or to continue if the conductive strip has holes in it which might affect the proper registering of touches or cause accidents. (The organizers must make the necessary arrangements to ensure the rapid repair or replacement of the conductive strips.)

[KD5MDK]

However, neither of those provide any particular guidance other than the existing of holes that affect the registering of touches. That isn't a safety rule, it's a foil/epee rule.

[Tomas N]

Maybe I'm misreading, but t. 54 implies to me that monitoring the state of the strip is broader than just holes, and t. 69 explicitly states "or causes accidents." It's a safety rule.

Tomas

[Sean Butler]

I agree, Tomas, it is a safety rule.

Do these rules put the fault on a referee if the fencers discover the defect through an accident first? For example when it says "the referee must not allow the bout to commence or continue", doesn't that indicate that if a fencer discovers the fault through an accident like tripping, that any penalty he might receive would be lower in precedence than the faulty strip? This assumes of course that on inspection there was actually an unsafe condition on the strip which might have caused the accident.

[Mr Epee]

Maybe I'm misreading, but t. 54 implies to me that monitoring the state of the strip is broader than just holes, and t. 69 explicitly states "or causes accidents." It's a safety rule.

Tomas

This is all you need.

t.11 The field of play should have an even surface. It should give neither advantage nor disadvantage to either of the two fencers concerned, especially as regards light.

No need to complicate things.

The keys to winning a referee battle are having a righteous cause, presenting it concisely and maintaining composure. Referees are simple people bound by duty to uphold the rules.