Referee stories. It lives again!!!

[remistress]

So I used the search function to revive Mauler's old thread only to find it closed; so I'm starting a new one .


From this weekend's RYC:

I'm reffing about the cutest final ever of Y10 boy's foil. Each fencer probably comes up to maybe my navel.

I call halt because fencer on the right has left the side of the strip. I tell fencer on the left to advance a meter. He takes an advance...which probably covered more like half a foot. So I say, "Actually a meter is more like right about here." (and point with my foot). He walks up and comes on garde looking at me expectantly. I then tell him, "Okay, now extend your arm." So, he then extends his non-weapon hand out from his side. I smile and say, "Nope! The other one." This time (I'm guessing because of what I had him doing earlier, to help him get the slack out of his bodycord) he extends his weapon straight up at the ceiling. After I finished laughing I say, "Nope! At the other guy." Pretty stinking cute.

[Purple Fencer]

Awwwww.....at least he TRIED to follow directions!

[prototoast]

That reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxAk3B_zS5k

[seven6ty]

Hmmm...

I gotta try that sometime.

Might not be half as cute, but at least I'll get a giggle!

[swordwench]

I was reffing a ME pool in a local E/Under last weekend. Bout came up with an excitable teenager against a laid-back vet who hadn't competed in awhile. The kid had a whole slew of friends on the sidelines rooting for him. He boasted to his posse that every time he got a touch, he was going to yell "ka-POW!". Which he did, for the first few touches.

The vet got a touch. Looked straight at the kid and said in an unforgettable monotone, "Ka. Pow." And nonchalantly walked back to his en garde line. I lost it*. Everybody lost it. No more KA-POWs were heard.



(*Yes, Mike, I know I shouldn't have lost my composure and allowed myself to laugh, but it was a very long day.)

[epeemike81]

(*Yes, Mike, I know I shouldn't have lost my composure and allowed myself to laugh, but it was a very long day.)

Why not? Sounds like it was slightly amusing... Laughing doesn't necessarily indicate a loss of composure...

-m

[Mac A. Bee]

...I tell fencer on the left to advance a meter. He takes an advance...which probably covered more like half a foot. So I say, "Actually a meter is more like right about here." (and point with my foot).

And Catwood says...?

[catwood1]

And Catwood says...?

...

I say what she said seems totally reasonable. Quite the contrary of miming out whats going on in your head...

[swordwench]

I'm still just too amused to not post this.

Reffing men's epee last weekend, gold medal bout. Both fencers go at each other with gusto, obviously hitting squarely. X's light is on. Y's epee is in pieces. I annul the touch.

Incredulous fencer X: "Why don't I get the touch? It's not MY fault he broke his blade! (long pause) You sure that's a rule?"

That moment comes pretty close to last week's bell-guard-to-the-mask card in a sabre bout: "But... I didn't do it on purpose!"

Experiencing moments like these is a large part of why I like to ref.

[Purple Fencer]

I'm still just too amused to not post this.

Reffing men's epee last weekend, gold medal bout. Both fencers go at each other with gusto, obviously hitting squarely. X's light is on. Y's epee is in pieces. I annul the touch.

Incredulous fencer X: "Why don't I get the touch? It's not MY fault he broke his blade! (long pause) You sure that's a rule?"

Point out that rule, please....the only way I could think of annuling it would be if it denied Y the chance to parry or riposte....unless you were to explain that action in detail...

[peet]

Point out that rule, please....the only way I could think of annuling it would be if it denied Y the chance to parry or riposte....unless you were to explain that action in detail...

When a competitor against whom a touch has been
registered has broken his blade, the touch must be
annulled unless the breaking of the blade has occurred
clearly after the touch has been registered.

(chars)

[Goldgar]

Point out that rule, please....the only way I could think of annuling it would be if it denied Y the chance to parry or riposte....unless you were to explain that action in detail...

t.68(h) When a competitor against whom a touch has been registered has broken his blade, the touch must be annulled unless the breaking of the blade has occurred clearly after the touch has been registered.

Darn! Peet beat me to it.

[swordwench]

Point out that rule, please....the only way I could think of annuling it would be if it denied Y the chance to parry or riposte....unless you were to explain that action in detail...

Gladly! For epee...
t.68(h)
When a competitor against whom a touch has been registered has broken his blade, the touch must be annulled unless the breaking of the blade has occurred clearly after the touch has been registered.

Same wording for foil and sabre, different rule numbers.

If I'd seen the break occur AFTER the touch, sure, I'd have called the touch valid. But it clearly occurred on impact. Touch annulled.

[K O'N]

Gladly! For epee...
t.68(h)
When a competitor against whom a touch has been registered has broken his blade, the touch must be annulled unless the breaking of the blade has occurred clearly after the touch has been registered.

Same wording for foil and sabre, different rule numbers.

If I'd seen the break occur AFTER the touch, sure, I'd have called the touch valid. But it clearly occurred on impact. Touch annulled.

Years ago in the bad old days of self-directing (which is what we called it back then), one of my teammates was directing (which is what we called it back then) an epee final, and the same thing happened; touch against Y, but Y broke a blade on the same action. Halt, Y holds his blade up, the broken tip is hanging by the wires. Silently the director (which is what we called them back then) takes the broken tip, still attached to the weapon by the wires, and presses the tip. Light. Touch stands.

Which is wrong, I know, and probably was back then too. But no one argued, and it's hard to criticize the director's (which is what we called them back then) logic. If the thing still worked hanging from the wires it must have worked when it hit, thus he must have hit after the lockout, thus the touch should stand.

Which is not what a referee would call now if he knew the rules, but at the time, for the most part, we didn't argue about rulings as much as a fencer today might, since you always knew that in a minute it was going to be your turn to be the director (which is what we called them back then).

Ah, the good old days.

K O'N

[Purple Fencer]

Gladly! For epee...
t.68(h)
When a competitor against whom a touch has been registered has broken his blade, the touch must be annulled unless the breaking of the blade has occurred clearly after the touch has been registered.

Same wording for foil and sabre, different rule numbers.

If I'd seen the break occur AFTER the touch, sure, I'd have called the touch valid. But it clearly occurred on impact. Touch annulled.

Thanks...all THREE of you!

So what wasn't clear in your OP was that Y's blade broke before X landed, correct?

[peet]

Thanks...all THREE of you!

So what wasn't clear in your OP was that Y's blade broke before X landed, correct?

The rule doesn't say "allow the touch unless the blade clearly broke before the hit" it says "annul the touch unless it clearly broke after the hit."

As for myself, I've always interpreted "clearly after the hit" to mean well after the hit; like in the next tempo. I take this to be both a fairness thing as well as a safety thing. Of course we'd like a fencer to stop fencing immediately when their blade breaks, because to do otherwise risks serious injury. So, we have a rule that says she can do so without fear of getting scored on.

-p

[swordwench]

The rule doesn't say "allow the touch unless the blade clearly broke before the hit" it says "annul the touch unless it clearly broke after the hit."

As for myself, I've always interpreted "clearly after the hit" to mean well after the hit; like in the next tempo. I take this to be both a fairness thing as well as a safety thing. Of course we'd like a fencer to stop fencing immediately when their blade breaks, because to do otherwise risks serious injury. So, we have a rule that says she can do so without fear of getting scored on.

-p

Exactly. When I think of it occurring clearly after the hit, I think "oh crap, I just got hit, I'm a-gonna smack my weapon point-down so hard it snaps and maybe they won't count it against me".

Purple, I prolly should've said they were "simultaneously lunging at each other with wild abandon and it's a wonder only ONE weapon snapped". There were other touches in that bout where the weapons were mangled so badly, I didn't think they'd ever straighten them properly. Feisty boys, both. I winced a lot during that bout.

[6-flick]

I wasn't actually reffing this bout, but I watched it at an SYC. Y-10 mens saber. Both fencers wander from their on guard lines to somewhere around their advance lunge distance. After about 5 seconds of rocking back and forth without taking any steps, fencer A sticks out a line. Then fencer B sticks out a line. A few seconds later, both fencers take one slow retreat. I don't remember what happened after that. I was doubled over at that point.

[Inquartata]

As for myself, I've always interpreted "clearly after the hit" to mean well after the hit; like in the next tempo. I take this to be both a fairness thing as well as a safety thing.

That might be a workable standard for foil and epee---sabre, not so much. "Next tempo" will mean "one light".

And I have lost that argument even when the break occurred during the scoring action but just slightly after the opponent's hit...

[peet]

That might be a workable standard for foil and epee---sabre, not so much. "Next tempo" will mean "one light".

I don't know how the number of lights figures into it.

And I have lost that argument even when the break occurred during the scoring action but just slightly after the opponent's hit...

I heard about that bout. For what it's worth, I agreed with you. But as the rule is written, it could go either way. Depends on the ref's ideas about the reason for the rule.

-p