Do you know the rules?

[Dav3ey]

The rules are available at

http://www.usfencing.org

as a download-able PDF.

Click on "Info for members" at the top left, and then "Forms" from the following choices.

[pkt]

Thank you, Dav3ey

I was there but never thought of looking under 'Forms'

Why do they put the rules under 'Forms'?
I also noticed the FOC is in this section too.

Weird logic.

PK

[pkt]

peet,

Not to discourage you, but the general rules is only one and the first section of the rule book. How did you score in the other quizzes? and don't forget your practicals...


I use home-made lambs wool cushions for my foils and sabres.
If I can find some of those fake mink or ermine or whatever, I'll use them too.

Imagine, mink cushions inside your guard !!!

PK
Oui, Peet, c'est moi.

[pkt]

peet,

u should look at the thread called
fencing in NW USA

PK

[veeco]

Unless I misread the question or there is some subtle timing issue involved, I would agree with you PKT on this one...

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by pkt
That said, even if one applies rule t.28, in most practical situations, since the riposte is immediate, the riposte would be 'with the halt' and therefore allowed. Therefore my answer would still be correct. Point for fencer Y.

NO! one of the FIRST things that is taught in any reffing course is that there is no such thing as "with the halt." Any event occurs either before or after the halt, as the halt is an instantaneous event.

9. Crossing the limits of the strip

(a) Stopping the bout

t.26 When a competitor crosses one of the boundaries of the strip with both feet, the Referee must immediately call ?Halt? and annul everything which has occurred after the boundary has been crossed, except a touch received by the competitor who has crossed the boundary even after he or she has crossed it provided that this touch is made immediately as part of the movement in the course of which he or she crossed the boundary.

If one of the competitors leaves the strip only a touch made by the fencer who remains on the strip can be counted valid, even in the case of a double touch.

Just for clarification, the above interpretation is true only if he leaves with BOTH feet. if a fencer starts an action, leaves with one foot, and then lands the action, that is a valid touch.

10. Fencer X makes an attack, which is parried. X is off the side of the strip in front of Y with both feet when fencer Y?s immediate riposte starts. Y?s riposte lands valid.

Your Answer: award a touch for Y
Your answer was wrong

I agree. The claim that will be made in defense of this action is that the riposte is immediate. however, I would point out that it states explicitly that the riposte STARTS AFTER the halt. You are definitely right on this one.

-m

[Craig]

PKT: A Halt is called due to crossing of the lateral boundry of the strip. The riposte starts after the halt. The riposte does not count. (verified via the FOC). It's also been discussed earlier by edew and others on this thread.

Cheers,
Craig

[BugabooX]

"Haaaaaaaaaaaaa--" (touch) "--aaaaalllllllllllllt."

[JEC]

Pkt,

You might benefit from reading the updated rules.

USFA Rules 2002

[pkt]

JEC,

Is the updated USFA rules in the 'forms' section too in the 'info for members' area in the USFA web page? No, it's not.

This is what the USFA web site says:
'USFA Rule Book, 1999 Edition (the most recent version)'
So, JEC where can I access this 2002 version of the USFA rules?

Did they changed t.26?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Craig,

10. Fencer X makes an attack, which is parried. X is off the side of the strip in front of Y with both feet when fencer Y's immediate riposte starts. Y's riposte lands valid.

Where in the question did it say the riposte starte after the halt???

Like I wrote in my email to you, in all practical case, since the riposte is, as it says in the question, immediate, by the time the ref calls 'Halt!' the riposte has landed. I see a lot of unhappy people by throwing out the immediate riposte and thus penalising Y's valid action.

See, I was not too wrong in my sabre quiz to 'read too much' into the 'continuation'... the FOC is putting a lot of emphasis in the way the questions are worded irrespective of real life situations.

If X's attack is parried while he's still on the piste, and the riposte is immediate... - am I reading too much into the word 'immediate' again? I don't think so - then with all due respects for the FOC, rule t.26's 'except' case should apply.

thanks, veeco for the support.

PKUSFA Rule Book, 1999 Edition (the most recent version)

[pkt]

inquartata,

The definitive word of any definitions should be the French version of the FIE rules, bar none. It is the source of all our grieves and joys.

For example:
m33. re sabre glove. The English version of the rule says that the conductive material has to cover the back of the sword hand up to the fingers. Thus invalidating ALL the manchettes and electric sabre glvoes in use out there.

But if you look at the French version of m.33 it says the conductive material has to cover the styloiede cubital exterior bone (the small bone of the wrist) in both the 'en garde' and 'arm extended' positions'.

[I've written so much about this m.33 that i almost know it verbatim. ]

BIG difference, eh?

PK

[JEC]

USFA 1999 rule

t.26 When a competitor crosses one of the boundaries of the strip with both feet, the Referee must immediately call ‘Halt’ and annul everything which has occurred after the boundary has been crossed, except a touch received by the competitor who has crossed the boundary even after he or she has crossed it provided that this touch is made immediately as part of the movement in the course of which he or she crossed the boundary.
If one of the competitors leaves the strip only a touch made by the fencer who remains on the strip can be counted valid, even in the case of a double touch.

USFA 2002 rule

t.26 When a competitor crosses one of the lateral boundaries of the strip with one or both feet, the referee must immediately call `Halt. If the fencer goes off the strip with both feet, the referee must annul everything that has occurred after the boundary has been crossed, except a touch received by the competitor who has crossed the boundary even after hi or she has crossed it, provided that this touch results from a simple and immediate action. However, a touch scored by the fencer woh leaves the strip with one foot oly is valid provided that the action was started before the `Halt.` If one of the competitors leaves the strip with both feet, only a touch made by the fencer who remains on the strip with at least one foot can be counted valid, even in the case of a double touch.

The USFA website is being maintained by volunteers, and it is quite behind the times. The FOC still does not work. If you noticed in the page with the 1999 rule book, it also contained a link to the recently approved changes that are included in the 2002 rule book. I already provided you in my previous reply with the link to this very website - courtesy of Craig, where the 2002 rule book is available for downloading. It's at the bottom of the www.fencing.net page under Files and Downloads.

Please note that there are several typographic errors in the text of the 2002 Rules including several in t26.
For example:
"... call `Halt. If the ..." should read "... call `Halt.` If the ..."
"... after hi or she has ..." should read "... after he or she has ..."
"... fencer woh leaves ..." should read "... fencer who leaves ..."
"... one foot oly is valid ..." should read "... one foot only is valid ..."

[edew]

Originally posted by pkt
JEC,

[...]
10. Fencer X makes an attack, which is parried. X is off the side of the strip in front of Y with both feet when fencer Y's immediate riposte starts. Y's riposte lands valid.

Where in the question did it say the riposte starte[d?] after the halt???

[...]

The question does not have to say when the riposte started, before or after the halt. The question states that the riposte starts when X is off the side of the strip. Read the question. "X is off the side of the strip when fencer Y's immediate..."

That means, when Y's immediate riposte starts, X is already off the side of the strip. If so, then the referee must call a halt for X leaving the lateral boundary, and thus Y's riposte does not count.

An immediate riposte is not a one-tempo action (one-tempo in conjunction with the parry). The parry is the first tempo, the riposte is the second. The riposte must begin prior to X leaving the strip, and will be counted if valid, if it hits X even after X has arrived off the strip, provided the riposte began while X is on the strip.

Further, as of the 2002 rules, it only requires that X leave the strip with one foot or both.

[pkt]

Thank, JEC for showing me the way.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Craig, et al,

It seems to me that y'all are ignoring the 'except...' bit of rule t.26.

"If the fencer goes off the strip with both feet, the referee must annul everything that has occurred after the boundary has been crossed,

except a touch received by the competitor who has crossed the boundary even after he or she has crossed it, provided that this touch results from a simple and immediate action. "

Why have you guys, the FOC included, all stopped reading after "...has been crossed" and wilfully ignore the following bit after "except..." which suits this case to a 'T'. That's why it's there!!

Boy, what do i have to do to make you guys see the errors of your way????



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

edew,

I used the same logic as your argument re the sabre quiz's head wire question ... and got no where.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is easy for me to concede the point and go with the flow in stead of banging my head against the stone wall.

But as one sage said, "What's the point of have a watch that tells the correct time when all the other clocks in the world tells the wrong time..." Because it's the RIGHT thing to do.

Just like Dubya. Oops my politics is slipping out.


PK

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by pkt
10. Fencer X makes an attack, which is parried. X is off the side of the strip in front of Y with both feet when fencer Y's immediate riposte starts. Y's riposte lands valid.

Where in the question did it say the riposte starte after the halt???

It says that "X is off the side of the strip ... with both feet WHEN fencer Y's immediate riposte STARTS.

since there is a halt as soon as fencer X leaves the strip, and Y's riposte is said to START when X is already off the strip, it started after the halt. Since it started after the halt, it is annulled.

It is a common misconception that any fencer is EVER entitled to "an immediate riposte". what they are actually entitled to is to finish any action which started before the halt. Since the riposte started after the halt, it is invalid, regardless of its immediacy.

-m

[pkt]

Originally posted by BugabooX
"Haaaaaaaaaaaaa--" (touch) "--aaaaalllllllllllllt."

Craig,
What think you of BugabooX's call?
Because that's what's going to happen.
So point to the riposte; IMMEDIATE riposte lands 'with the halt'.
This is a more realistic scenario than your/FOC's contention that the riposte starts after the halt.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Epeemike,
what happened to rule t.26's 2nd part that reads 'except...'
How are you going to explain why that part of the rule is there if not to give the immediate riposte the 'entitlement' it deserves? Please clarify.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Consider this, all:

After the parry, the RoW goes to the fencer making the parry. By ignoring the 2nd part of t.26 and annual an immediat riposte the ref will be penalising proper fencing and encouraging any attacker to make sure his attack lands with him with both feet off the piste.

It's better to lose a metre than to lose a point, n'cest pas?

Then why make pary riposte? Just counter-attack because it might land before the attacker lands off the piste?

Can you now see the logic behind my vehement opposition to that interpretation of rule t.26?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is easy for me to concede the point and go with the flow in stead of banging my head against the stone wall. ...


PK

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by pkt
Craig,
What think you of BugabooX's call?
Because that's what's going to happen.
So point to the riposte; IMMEDIATE riposte lands 'with the halt'.
This is a more realistic scenario than your/FOC's contention that the riposte starts after the halt.

let me clarify. yes, a touch can arrive during the WORD halt. it CANNOT, however, occur during/with the MOMENT of the halt. when the director says that an action happened before or after the halt, he is talking about the moment, not the word. the halt occurs when fencer X leaves the strip. the word might not be said until a half to a full second later (plenty of time for a riposte), but the moment occurs when X leaves the strip.

Epeemike,
what happened to rule t.26's 2nd part that reads 'except...'
How are you going to explain why that part of the rule is there if not to give the immediate riposte the 'entitlement' it deserves? Please clarify.

Let's remind ourselves what the exception was:

except a touch received by the competitor who has crossed the boundary even after he or she has crossed it provided that this touch is made immediately as part of the movement in the course of which he or she crossed the boundary.

note the final clause. the action must not only be immediate, but also must be "part of the movement in the course of which he or she crossed the boundary." That is to say that the action must be in progress when the opponent leaves the strip. That is the interpretation I cited before. Since the question EXPLICITLY STATES that the action was NOT in progress when X left the strip, no touch.

Consider this, all:

After the parry, the RoW goes to the fencer making the parry. By ignoring the 2nd part of t.26 and annual an immediat riposte the ref will be penalising proper fencing and encouraging any attacker to make sure his attack lands with him with both feet off the piste.

It's better to lose a metre than to lose a point, n'cest pas?

Then why make pary riposte? Just counter-attack because it might land before the attacker lands off the piste?

Can you now see the logic behind my vehement opposition to that interpretation of rule t.26?

The MAJOR flaws in this theory include the following:
1) if X does as you suggest, it is still quite possible for Y to land a valid riposte. said riposte just has to START before X leaves, not finish.
2) if X does as you suggest, it is NOT possible for X to score a touch. that kinda defeats the purpose.
3) if X does as you suggest, he is subject to a yellow card for going off strip to avoid a touch.

It is easy for me to concede the point and go with the flow in stead of banging my head against the stone wall. ...

not only would it be easy for you to concede the point, it would make you a better ref and fencer.

-m

[pkt]

epeemik,

d'oh! (In honour of the 300th episode of 'The Simpsons'.)

Your MOMENT of the Halt is not a Halt, it's a mental halt.

A mental 'Halt!' is no 'Halt!' at all.

The 'Halt!' takes effect only after the word 'Halt!' leaves the mouth of the ref. So unless you can show me that most refs are not going to allow 'With the 'Halt!'' I can see the coaches jumping up and the fencers ripping off their masques.

Until the ref says 'Halt!' the stopwatch keeps running, the bout is carrying on.

You cannot tell the fencer that his riposte is disallowed because it happened at the MOMENT of the 'Halt' - in the ref's head - though not pronounced out loud.

The fencer would have the ref's head for examination...

cf coup lance' at the expiration of time.

Let's examine the question again.

10. Fencer X makes an attack, which is parried. X is off the side of the strip in front of Y with both feet when fencer Y's immediate riposte starts. Y's riposte lands valid.

To me, Y's action is: bam-bam. No pause in between.

Epeemike, I guess you and I have a different mental picture of the action. Maybe that's the difference between an epeeist and a sabreur? Sabreurs see things in smaller time increments and a faster tempo...

I agree with me and you you, so, shall we leave it at that?

PK


PK

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by pkt
epeemik,

d'oh! (In honour of the 300th episode of 'The Simpsons'.)

Your MOMENT of the Halt is not a Halt, it's a mental halt.

A mental 'Halt!' is no 'Halt!' at all.

The 'Halt!' takes effect only after the word 'Halt!' leaves the mouth of the ref. So unless you can show me that most refs are not going to allow 'With the 'Halt!'' I can see the coaches jumping up and the fencers ripping off their masques.

Until the ref says 'Halt!' the stopwatch keeps running, the bout is carrying on.

You cannot tell the fencer that his riposte is disallowed because it happened at the MOMENT of the 'Halt' - in the ref's head - though not pronounced out loud.

The fencer would have the ref's head for examination...

go ask that ref of yours. yes, it is clearly important for the ref to say halt quickly, but the important thing for determining validity of actions is when it SHOULD be.

Let's examine the question again.

10. Fencer X makes an attack, which is parried. X is off the side of the strip in front of Y with both feet when fencer Y's immediate riposte starts. Y's riposte lands valid.

To me, Y's action is: bam-bam. No pause in between.

okay, I'll accept that. that is certainly what is implied by the phrase "immediate riposte". however, this is wholly irrelevant. as stated above (several times, if I recall), the action MUST START before X leaves the strip. that is CLEARLY true according to the rule YOU cited. Since X was off the strip when Y's riposte started.... see above argument.

Epeemike, I guess you and I have a different mental picture of the action. Maybe that's the difference between an epeeist and a sabreur? Sabreurs see things in smaller time increments and a faster tempo...

actually it sounds like we have the same mental picture. the difference is that I know that the rules don't provide for an extra action, and you don't.

I agree with me and you you, so, shall we leave it at that?

I suggest that rather than leaving it at that, you should go talk to the ref you know. to avoid issues with interpretation, I suggest you show him the question verbatim rather than recounting it for him.

-m

PK


PK [/b][/quote]

[pkt]

mike,

I'm trying to get some other people's perspective...take time though.

PK