Rules Trivia

[downunder]

[laziness alert] I haven't bothered to look up the current (or previous) incarnations of the rules on passivity/non-combativity[/laziness alert] but I thought if you were called for non-combativity in the extra minute then you went with whoever had priority.

This is not the case.

There is no non-combativity in the final minute of a d.e. or the extra minute (not in the rules, but the FIE described it to us as common sense).

if there is non-combativity in the first two minutes in the 3rd period of a d.e. fight you toss a coin regardless of the score to determine priority. You fence a full minute and if the scores are level at the end of the minute the winner is the one with priority.

In the first two d.e. periods non-combativity is a group 1 yellow/red card and you move directly on to the next period with no break allowed.

There is no non-combativity in poules.

[Superscribe]

That is, in fact, exactly what happened

Did one of the fencers actually get confused about who was assigned priority, or did someone note that it hadn't been recorded, and therefore couldn't be proven, so they had to redo the 1 minute overtime (blatant abuse of the rules to get a second chance)?

Fencer A and Fencer B. Who was awarded priority for the first 1 minute overtime? Who was awarded priority for the second 1 minute overtime? Who was actually recorded as having won the bout?

[Insipiens]

This is not the case.

There is no non-combativity in the final minute of a d.e. or the extra minute (not in the rules, but the FIE described it to us as common sense).

if there is non-combativity in the first two minutes in the 3rd period of a d.e. fight you toss a coin regardless of the score to determine priority. You fence a full minute and if the scores are level at the end of the minute the winner is the one with priority.

In the first two d.e. periods non-combativity is a group 1 yellow/red card and you move directly on to the next period with no break allowed.

There is no non-combativity in poules.

Thanks.
On reflection, I can see that it would be impossible to call non-combativity in the extra minute because you have to be non-combative for a minute to call it. By which time the bout is over.

I guess it is logical that you wouldn't call non-combativity with 30 seconds left in the final 3 minute period because that would just add on extra time. I know this rule changed a couple of times early in its life; has the not calling it in the final minute or in the extra minute always been there?

[TooLoftheDeviL]

Did one of the fencers actually get confused about who was assigned priority, or did someone note that it hadn't been recorded, and therefore couldn't be proven, so they had to redo the 1 minute overtime (blatant abuse of the rules to get a second chance)?

Fencer A and Fencer B. Who was awarded priority for the first 1 minute overtime? Who was awarded priority for the second 1 minute overtime? Who was actually recorded as having won the bout?

Actual confusion. Fencer A was awarded priority the first time. Fencer B appealed at the end of the minute. BC ruling was to not reassign priority, but to refence the minute. Fencer B won the bout.

[Insipiens]

Actual confusion. Fencer A was awarded priority the first time. Fencer B appealed at the end of the minute. BC ruling was to not reassign priority, but to refence the minute. Fencer B won the bout.

so they both thought they had priority and didn't press for the hit? You would think they might start wondering during the last ten seconds or so ...

[KD5MDK]

so they both thought they had priority and didn't press for the hit? You would think they might start wondering during the last ten seconds or so ...

If I think I have priority, do you think I'm going to do anything that begins to suggest to my opponent that time is about to expire?

[Emfuser]

Ok then, lets put this to rest, shall we?

It so happens that the details of the discussion at hand were actually sent
to Bill Oliver, head of the FOC rules commission, the day after the meet.
Below is his reply:

And, as an aside, one wonders what kind of fencer would go into the final
tie-breaking minute not knowing whether they had priority or not? The
reporter's veracity is highly questionable on this matter.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mr. XXXXXXX,

The appropriate rule is article 0.17(b).

If at the end of regulation time the scores are equal, the fencers fence for
a deciding touch, with a maximum time limit of one minute. Before the
fencing recommences, the Referee draws lots to decide who will be the winner
if scores are still equal at the end of the extra minute.

In this case the score registered on the score-sheet is always the actual
score achieved in the bout:

There is no requirement that the designation of priority be noted on the
score sheet, nor is there a requirement that the fencer who is awarded
priority be designated in any particular way. It is usually the practice
for the referee to ensure that both fencers are fully aware of the priority,
often by directly informing them of the fact, but that is not mandated. Just
good policy, so as to avoid just this sort of difficulty.

However, as you correctly point out, all this is academic, as the protest
was not made in a timely manner. The protest should have been made before
the losing fencer unhooked from the scoring apparatus. Once unhooked, there
is no possibility of protesting anything that happened during that bout.

This sort of protest is not unjustified. Just untimely. In any event, no
penalty carries over to subsequent bouts. All penalties are done at the end
of the bout.

I hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Bill Oliver
Chair, FOC Rules Committee

[ysbadadden]

"There is no requirement that the designation of priority be noted on the
score sheet, nor is there a requirement that the fencer who is awarded
priority be designated in any particular way. It is usually the practice
for the referee to ensure that both fencers are fully aware of the priority,
often by directly informing them of the fact, but that is not mandated. Just
good policy, so as to avoid just this sort of difficulty."

This is nuts. The requirement that the referee make the priority known to the fencers is one of those things that doesn't have to be stated explicitly to be a rule.

[Insipiens]

If I think I have priority, do you think I'm going to do anything that begins to suggest to my opponent that time is about to expire?

My (ill-expressed) point is that if you think you have priority for 50 seconds and your opponent acts as if he thinks he has priority for the same 50 seconds wouldn't it make you doubt? You really want to take the risk that he is right and you are wrong? Now if you were absolutely sure, then fine, carry on.

An frankly it would often be clear well before you get to the last ten seconds that your opponent thinks he has prority.

Personally I cannot imagine a Ref deliberately not stating which way priority has been given but I also have had a number of occasions seen a ref assign priority and it not be clear to both fencers. I always ask the ref directly who has priority at the beginning of the minute.

[SJCFU#2]

"There is no requirement that the designation of priority be noted on the
score sheet, nor is there a requirement that the fencer who is awarded
priority be designated in any particular way. It is usually the practice
for the referee to ensure that both fencers are fully aware of the priority,
often by directly informing them of the fact, but that is not mandated. Just
good policy, so as to avoid just this sort of difficulty."

This is nuts. The requirement that the referee make the priority known to the fencers is one of those things that doesn't have to be stated explicitly to be a rule.

Actually I can see at least one advantage in NOT informing either fencer who has priority - it maintains a level playing field.

By it's very nature priority always favors one fencer over the other - their opponent much score a touch in order to win while the fencer with priority only needs to avoid being touched. If both fencers are aware that one of them has priority but neither knows which then each of them will have to decide whether they want to avoiding being touched in the hope that they have priority or to take the initiative by attempting to score that final touch.

In truth, so long as priority is randomly determined and properly recorded in advance there's no need for even the referee to be aware which fencer has priority unless one minute passes without either fencer scoring a touch.

[kalivor]

In truth, so long as priority is randomly determined and properly recorded in advance there's no need for even the referee to be aware which fencer has priority unless one minute passes without either fencer scoring a touch.

Double-blind! I kind of like it ...

[dcrocket]

In truth, so long as priority is randomly determined and properly recorded in advance there's no need for even the referee to be aware which fencer has priority unless one minute passes without either fencer scoring a touch.

Actually, flipping the coin at the end of the one minute would be easier, if you wanted to play this way...

[oiuyt]

Actually, flipping the coin at the end of the one minute would be easier, if you wanted to play this way...

Or just omit the overtime minute all together. Flip the coin at the end of regulation and be done.

-B

Note: I neither support these ideas nor think they are likely ever to be used in the real world.

[dcrocket]

Or just omit the overtime minute all together. Flip the coin at the end of regulation and be done.

-B

Note: I neither support these ideas nor think they are likely ever to be used in the real world.

Yeah, I thought of that after posting...

I would not advocate for changing from the present system either.

[oiuyt]

Mmmm. A sudden-death minute is substantially different than expiration of regulation time. Your suggestion of having the flip at the end of the sudden-death minute does offer something (other than additional fencing) beyond skipping the overtime completely.

-B

[fdad]

Mmmm. A sudden-death minute is substantially different than expiration of regulation time. Your suggestion of having the flip at the end of the sudden-death minute does offer something (other than additional fencing) beyond skipping the overtime completely.

-B

But it also greatly increases the importance of the coin flip, since losing it can no longer be mitigated by outfencing your opponent fencing. I can just see the appeals over which way the pencil was spun and whether or not it really is pointed one way or another ...

[oiuyt]

Well, yes, pencil-spinning is a poor choice of how to determine priority to start with.

There's a reason every referee ought to carry a coin*. It's widely accepted as being a fair way to determine one of two outcomes with 50-50 probability. Pencil-spinning is a bit more questionable, both in decisiveness of outcome and in potential for bias.

Shim-flipping (also unfortunately common) tends to clear outcomes, but is more questionable in regards to potential bias.

-B

* Recognizing that it's unlikely a sabre-only referee will need to use it.

[kalivor]

Well, yes, pencil-spinning is a poor choice of how to determine priority to start with.

There's a reason every referee ought to carry a coin*. It's widely accepted as being a fair way to determine one of two outcomes with 50-50 probability. Pencil-spinning is a bit more questionable, both in decisiveness of outcome and in potential for bias.

Shim-flipping (also unfortunately common) tends to clear outcomes, but is more questionable in regards to potential bias.

-B

* Recognizing that it's unlikely a sabre-only referee will need to use it.

Ah, but coin tosses are not actually fair: http://www.codingthewheel.com/archiv...ir-proposition

[oiuyt]

Ah, but coin tosses are not actually fair: http://www.codingthewheel.com/archiv...ir-proposition

I was fairly careful in my wording.

They are widely accepted as fair.

Fewer arguments that way.

-B

[dcrocket]

Well, yes, pencil-spinning is a poor choice of how to determine priority to start with.

There's a reason every referee ought to carry a coin*. It's widely accepted as being a fair way to determine one of two outcomes with 50-50 probability. Pencil-spinning is a bit more questionable, both in decisiveness of outcome and in potential for bias.

Shim-flipping (also unfortunately common) tends to clear outcomes, but is more questionable in regards to potential bias.

-B

* Recognizing that it's unlikely a sabre-only referee will need to use it.

Don't forget the ever-popular remote flipping....