coup lancé

[pinkelephant]

Oh lord, not again.

There's no difference to the interpretation whether it's passing or leaving the piste. You get one shot, as long as it is IMMEDIATE and the prat of a referee hasn't spoken the word "Halt" too soon. And it does NOT have to be a riposte - where in the rules does it say there has to be blade contact? My opponent misses me, goes past, I turn round and hit him/her in the back. No parry. No riposte. Hit stands.

By the way, I'm a she. I'm also an FIE referee.

[griffindm]

I'd always heard it referred to as an immediate riposte.

T.21 (USFA Rules)
.....When touches are made as a fencer passes his opponent, the touch made immediately is valid; a touch made after passing his opponent by the competitor who has made the passing movement is annulled, but the touch made immediately, even when turning round, by the competitor who has been subjected to the offensive action, is valid. ....

and in T.63
....... On the other hand the ‗flèche which is made by running, even going past the opponent, and without a corps à corps is not forbidden: the Referee should not call 'Halt‘ too soon, in order not to annul a possible riposte ....

I was never aware of a rule that allows a completely new action after an action that should stop the bout.

Of course, blade contact is only one way to prevent the attack from scoring.

[dli]

Oh lord, not again..

May be this was discussed before many many times and if that's the case I understand your frustration. As someone who just started and is trying to get better at refereeing, I just want to understand how to apply this rule correctly.

There's no difference to the interpretation whether it's passing or leaving the piste.

Is it based on t.26 alone or there is some other rule that allows for one simple immediate action after any halt? I am asking because it seems that t.26 is specifically about leaving the piste (especially part 2)

You get one shot, as long as it is IMMEDIATE and the prat of a referee hasn't spoken the word "Halt" too soon.

I don't understand this part. Could you clarify? What is too soon? If someone is passing and just as they passed I called Halt, is it too soon? What difference would it make in a scenario that we are discussing? According to what you are saying the other fencer will still be allowed one simple immediate action after that. Am I missing something? It shouldn't really matter unless I called Halt BEFORE the situation that causes Halt actually occurred. Right?

And it does NOT have to be a riposte - where in the rules does it say there has to be blade contact? My opponent misses me, goes past, I turn round and hit him/her in the back. No parry. No riposte. Hit stands.

What if my opponent jumps off the piste to avoid the touch? Am I still allowed one simple action after he/she left the piste?

By the way, I'm a she.

My sincere apologies. I am new to the board and didn't know that. I cannot really explain why I assumed that you were a man. Perhaps because in my native language elephant is a masculine noun and I just subconsciously assumed you were a "he". I am sorry.

[kuroutesshin]

I understand Pink's explanation.

The question is not one of when the referee halts play, but rather when the fencer leaves the strip. A fencer is allowed the action, provided it is immediate, once the opponent leaves the strip. The referee halting play doesn't factor in.

The situation would be thus, in order: Fencer A steps off. Fencer B sees this and launches an immediate attack which lands valid. Referee calls the halt for Fencer A stepping off, and rewards Fencer B the touch, as the action was immediate.

Alternatively: Fencer A steps off. Referee calls halt, and a tempo later Fencer B launches an immediate attack which lands valid. Referee annuls the touch, as it began after play was halted, and Fencer B advances one meter.

Or even: Fencer A steps off. Fencer B sees this and begins to lunch, while the referee calls a halt to the action. B arrives valid. The Referee awards the touch, as the action was clearly immediate and simultaneous to the halt of play.

Pink, I think this is what you are saying- right?

[Gav]

Doesn't matter anyway - X is allowed one immediate action AFTER Y leaves the piste. Even Y is allowed a hit made AS he left the piste with ONE foot.

I am very bitter about this at the moment because, in the poule round at the Welsh, some tw@t refused to give me a hit because of this. Oh, and the same guy refused to give me a hit because I was "corps-corps" with my opponent. This despite me not touching the guy; in fact I was about 6" in front of him so there was definitely no ambiguity about me invading someone's personal space.

I refuse to let this person (who will remain nameless) referee one of my bouts ever again... I had the good fortune to see one of my friends take said tw@t to pieces in a 128 DE bout. I have to say that karma was served.

[Gav]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Don't you ref lots of things? X is allowed to finish the action he began before Y left the piste.

Hard Halts (Action began before halt not allowed)
- 2 feet off the side
- Broken Blade
- Time Expires
- Fencers pass (only hard halt for passing fencer)

Soft Halts (Action began before halt is allowed)
- Everything else

I have never heard this distinction. It's just a halt. You call halt. There are caveats about what's going on but there's isn't any difference.... I see no point in creating confusion by applying such terminology.

[telkanuru]

I have never heard this distinction. It's just a halt. You call halt. There are caveats about what's going on but there's isn't any difference.... I see no point in creating confusion by applying such terminology.

Must be a US thing

[dli]

I understand Pink's explanation.

The question is not one of when the referee halts play, but rather when the fencer leaves the strip. A fencer is allowed the action, provided it is immediate, once the opponent leaves the strip. The referee halting play doesn't factor in.

The situation would be thus, in order: Fencer A steps off. Fencer B sees this and launches an immediate attack which lands valid. Referee calls the halt for Fencer A stepping off, and rewards Fencer B the touch, as the action was immediate.

OK, how about this. Fencer B attacks. Fencer A steps off to avoid the touch (with both feet). Attack is no. Fencer B launches an immediate remise/reprise/redoublement which lands valid. What should happen in this scenario? Yellow/red card for A and touch for B?

What if A steps off to avoid the touch with just one foot. B's attack is no. A counterattacks as he/she is stepping off and hits valid (with one foot off the strip)? According to pinkelephant A should be allowed a hit made AS he/she left the strip with one foot. So, is it a card for leaving the strip to avoid the touch AND a touch for A?

[telkanuru]

OK, how about this. Fencer B attacks. Fencer A steps off to avoid the touch (with both feet). Attack is no. Fencer B launches an immediate remise/reprise/redoublement which lands valid. What should happen in this scenario? Yellow/red card for A and touch for B?

If A steps off the strip before B's initial attack fails, no touch. If A steps off the strip to avoid the attack, card. If A steps off the strip after B's initial attack fails, point for B.

[IanSerotkin]

Here's the nifty rule for dealing with most of these issues: The referee should call Halt when all actions that could possibly be valid have ended.

So, if X passes Y and Y starts a riposte just before the pass, the referee should NOT call Halt at the moment when X passes, but only after Y's riposte has ended.

All action should immediately stop when the referee calls halt. As previously mentioned, there's no such thing as a soft halt or hard halt. The real difference between "soft" and "hard" is which actions can be valid after a certain condition occurs, and that determines which actions the referee should allow to occur/finish before calling Halt.

Remember, there's no harm in calling halt too late, but there is in calling it too early. The referee should just call halt after all potential valid actions have ended, and then parse out the valid actions from the invalid actions. Thus, I will never say, "The action started/ended/occurred after my halt," but I will instead say, "That action didn't start until after the pass/stepping off the strip/etc."

[dli]

If A steps off the strip before B's initial attack fails, no touch. If A steps off the strip to avoid the attack, card.=

Thank you. Is the first option even possible? If A steps off the strip while B is finishing his/her attack wouldn't it be automatically leaving the strip to avoid a touch?

Also for the second scenario from my previous post (stepping off the piste with one foot to avoid a touch and making counterattack that hits valid while doing so), will the touch for counter attacker stand (assuming attack was no)?

[kuroutesshin]

Leaving the strip and leaving the strip to avoid a touch are two different things, but I think it doesn't matter much why the strip-leaver left strip.

OK, how about this. Fencer B attacks. Fencer A steps off to avoid the touch (with both feet). Attack is no. Fencer B launches an immediate remise/reprise/redoublement which lands valid. What should happen in this scenario? Yellow/red card for A and touch for B?

What if A steps off to avoid the touch with just one foot. B's attack is no. A counterattacks as he/she is stepping off and hits valid (with one foot off the strip)? According to pinkelephant A should be allowed a hit made AS he/she left the strip with one foot. So, is it a card for leaving the strip to avoid the touch AND a touch for A?

Scenario A: If Fencer B steps off to avoid A's attack, and A immediately remises, arriving valid, the call should be touch valid for A, yellow/red card for B.

As for scenario B, it's almost the same situation- leaving the lateral boundaries of the strip with one foot is still leaving the strip, even if it's just for a moment. The call should be the same- touch for A, possible card for B.

Thank you. Is the first option even possible? If A steps off the strip while B is finishing his/her attack wouldn't it be automatically leaving the strip to avoid a touch?

Also for the second scenario from my previous post (stepping off the piste with one foot to avoid a touch and making counterattack that hits valid while doing so), will the touch for counter attacker stand (assuming attack was no)?

I think a referee would be hard-pressed to infer intent to leave the strip if only one foot is over the lateral boundary. Granted, it depends on what the action is, how Fencer B is moving, body position, etc. etc., but I could see the case being made.