coup lancé

[LordShout]

coup lancé

What is this and why does it exist?

The rules, 2008 version, mention it but do not explain or specify except to say that the time stops it from counting. fencingsucks.com's nonfunny glossary calls it:

a launched hit; an attack that starts before a stop in play but lands after. Valid for normal halts, but not valid at end of time.

This just leaves me more confused. The situation it brings to mind is one that I have had happen several times. I'm fencing, ref says halt I relax and immediately after get hit. Opp gets touch. Is this that situation?

[keith]

This just leaves me more confused. The situation it brings to mind is one that I have had happen several times. I'm fencing, ref says halt I relax and immediately after get hit. Opp gets touch. Is this that situation?

Only valid for a simple attack, so the longest action would be an advance lunge.

So say your opponent begins an advance lunge, you put your rear foot off the strip as you begin a retreat and the ref calls halt before the opponent completes the lunge.

So it exists as an option for refs who call halt very quickly.

[Goldgar]

coup lancé
[...]
The rules, 2008 version, mention it but do not explain or specify except to say that the time stops it from counting. fencingsucks.com's nonfunny glossary calls it:

a launched hit; an attack that starts before a stop in play but lands after. Valid for normal halts, but not valid at end of time.

This just leaves me more confused. The situation it brings to mind is one that I have had happen several times. I'm fencing, ref says halt I relax and immediately after get hit. Opp gets touch. Is this that situation?

Yes. You can think of "coup lancé" as a "hit on the way". Most halts are "soft halts", such that no new action may begin after the halt, but an action that began before the halt may finish. The halt for time is a hard halt -- nothing may score after time runs out, not even a hit that was on the way before the halt.

[LordShout]

Well I understand what the term is. It's synonymous with idiotic. The word halt leaving the ref's mouth should be a hard halt, I thought it was. The ref sees that my blade has broken on my opp's bell guard and calls halt but I finish my lunge so as to avoid a 1light coup lancé against me.

Then I get to watch my opp bleed out because he was wearing "sufficiently robust" material.

[keith]

I think that example would be a hard halt (?).

It's also true that in the phrasing of an action, exactly when the halt occurred and when the ref said halt is something of a movable feast.

[LordShout]

Fencer X makes an advance lunge with a beat. On the beat his tip breaks off*. The ref sees this, the X doesn't. Ref calls halt but fencer X completes his action.

Fencer X makes an advance lunge with a beat. On the beat nothing happens. The Ref calls halt for some extraneous reason, say random noise that makes him think the light went off, but fencer X completes his action.

To X, provided he doesn't see the blade break in the first example, these two situations are indistinguishable up until he either impales his opp or scores a touch. This is a problem.






*For those that doubt this can happen I've seen it happen twice in the last year.

[keith]

Fencer X makes an advance lunge with a beat. On the beat his tip breaks off*. The ref sees this, the X doesn't. Ref calls halt but fencer X completes his action.

okay, the was meant to denote not to take it to seriously as a reason for the rule.

A better example would be X attacks Y steps off the piste (accidentally) X lands. Y, or Y's coach, argues that Y was off the piste before the completion of X's action. This rule negates that claim.

As to blade breaks they happen. Also in your example X is already committed to the action - the rule doesn't make things more dangerous.

[noodle]

coup lancé

What is this and why does it exist?

The rules, 2008 version, mention it but do not explain or specify except to say that the time stops it from counting. fencingsucks.com's nonfunny glossary calls it:

a launched hit; an attack that starts before a stop in play but lands after. Valid for normal halts, but not valid at end of time.

This just leaves me more confused. The situation it brings to mind is one that I have had happen several times. I'm fencing, ref says halt I relax and immediately after get hit. Opp gets touch. Is this that situation?

i would refer to it as an action in progress. a hard halt, a la the clock winding down or a blade breaking, prevents it from counting, but a soft halt, someone having passed but getting hit with the single continuous riposte, doesn't.

[LordShout]

New situation, slight modification of one that happened this weekend.

Fencer X has a hazard that fell on the strip 2/3's of a meter behind them. Fencer Y is making an advance lunge. The ref doesn't see the danger but a coach on the sidelines asks for a half, the ref calls halt in his I'm annoyed but quiet voice and than realizes why the halt was asked for.

Two outcomes:

Fencer X retreats and falls possibly injuring themselves because Y is finishing the advance lunge, after all they both know to finish their actions once a halt is called.

Fencer X stops, Y stops mid advance lunge, although perhaps ungracefully and the obstruction is removed.

I've just found my personal axe to grind, some people it's covering target or PiL, a few claim socks have a safety reason, still others harp endlessly on about the dangers of lexan masks. This issue is mine now, I've claimed it.

Of course the mask people were right in the end.


Summary of my issue: Because the fencer on the strip doesn't always know the reason for the calling of halt, and one can't say bellowed halts are hard/normal voiced halts are soft, it is a safety issue to have the spoken word halt be a soft halt in some situation.

[pinkelephant]

A better example would be X attacks Y steps off the piste (accidentally) X lands. Y, or Y's coach, argues that Y was off the piste before the completion of X's action. This rule negates that claim.

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.

[catwood1]

The word halt leaving the ref's mouth should be a hard halt, I thought it was. The ref sees that my blade has broken on my opp's bell guard and calls halt but I finish my lunge so as to avoid a 1light coup lancé against me.

While I agree saying halt should be a hard halt, that decision is not mine to make. The FOC / FIE has been very clear that it is a soft halt, and depending on the circumstances, actions that arrive after the word is said can be counted as valid. Pending, of course, what caused the halt.*


*Insert stupid f.net argument about hits after the halt...

[keith]

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.

That was the best I could do

I couldn't think of a coup lancé example that wasn't otherwise covered and didn't fall in the "ref calling halt early" category.

Although perhaps it's in there to justify all the soft halts?

[catwood1]

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.

Wait, what?

You're saying X can start a new action after Y has left the piste? I assume I'm misreading you, but what?!?!

My understanding is that any action that starts after the halt is not valid. Period. Including ripostes, etc... Correct me if you disagree.

[fdad]

*Insert stupid f.net argument about hits after the halt...

I'd be happy to
My favorite example of a "bad" soft halt...
Fencer A and Fencer B are tangled up infighting remising away without hitting anything.
Referee calls halt.
Fencer A, hearing the halt, stops remising and starts to back away.
Fencer B, lands a valid touch, aided by the space created by Fencer A backing away.
Referee gives the point.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

I'd be happy to
My favorite example of a "bad" soft halt...
Fencer A and Fencer B are tangled up infighting remising away without hitting anything.
Referee calls halt.
Fencer A, hearing the halt, stops remising and starts to back away.
Fencer B, lands a valid touch, aided by the space created by Fencer A backing away.
Referee gives the point.

That's the fault of a bad ref, not of our definition of "halt". If Fencer A can react to the halt, stop remising, and back away, it seems unlikely that Fencer B is merely continuing something that happened before the halt.


Fencers continue moving after the halt is called all the time. ALL THE TIME. And the primary reason isn't that they hate refs, or hate their opponents, are opposed to safety, or even can't hear the ref, it's because often, when "halt" is either said or meant, they are moving pretty quickly forwards or backwards, and can't immediately stop themselves.

Whether something is a "hard" or "soft" halt does not change how a ref should behave (ie, how loud they say the word). Whether something is a "hard" or "soft" halt also doesn't really change how fencers fence all that much. They would have to decide if it was a hard or soft halt in the SPLIT SECOND in between when the halt actually occurs (whether or not they hear it, whether or not it's said) and decide whether to continue their simple attack they've already started.

The only thing a hard or soft halt should really change, in the vast majority of cases, is whether a touch or a penalty is awarded once the fencers have actually stopped moving. And in the vast majority of cases, it's all that does change.

[catwood1]

Whether something is a "hard" or "soft" halt also doesn't really change how fencers fence all that much. They would have to decide if it was a hard or soft halt in the SPLIT SECOND in between when the halt actually occurs (whether or not they hear it, whether or not it's said) and decide whether to continue their simple attack they've already started.

I'd say broken blades are a caveat to this. They are a hard halt, and I know I can usually see/hear/feel when a blade breaks, and I tend to stop fencing on the spot. Everything I'll finish the tempo. I think many fencers are the same.

[erooMynohtnA]

Wait, what?

You're saying X can start a new action after Y has left the piste? I assume I'm misreading you, but what?!?!

My understanding is that any action that starts after the halt is not valid. Period. Including ripostes, etc... Correct me if you disagree.

There's a video example that was argued about in this thread if you want to check it out. I would recommend it, since it's the same person you're questioning.

Olympic Cool Touches

[MyrddinsPrecint]

I'd say broken blades are a caveat to this. They are a hard halt, and I know I can usually see/hear/feel when a blade breaks, and I tend to stop fencing on the spot. Everything I'll finish the tempo. I think many fencers are the same.

I will agree that if a fencer can, themself, determine that a blade has broken, they themself will do anything they can to abort or lessen any impact between the broken weapon and their opponent. And I think it's a good thing.

I do not think that many people have that kind of reaction to a "halt".

I do not think that that kind of reaction is reasonable to have to the ordinary kind of halt.

But let's look at this for a moment-- if we were to say that a fencer's reaction to a verbal "halt" ought to now be "OMG DON'T GET NEAR OTHER FENCER". If nothing changed, there might be increased injury. After all, if you're going hard in one direction, and have to very suddenly and not always predictably go some other direction... that's not always easy on the body. So I'm guessing that refs will delay a verbal halt on non-dangerous touches until saying the halt won't damage the fencers when possible, which will only further confuse fencers on verbal halt vs. actual halt.

[telkanuru]

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.

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

[ysbadadden]

Everybody knows this: the halt happens, from the POV of the rules, when the situation requiring the halt occurs, not when the word emerges from the ref's mouth (always at least a fraction of a second later). An action begun before the situation can score, except if it arrives after time runs out. So time! is the only "hard" halt. All others are "soft." Thus "hard" and "soft" is a bad distinction.