Do you know the rules?

[JEC]

Originally posted by pkt
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.

The Halt occurs in the referee's mind at a given time, say X, and the referee utters "Halt" at time Y. Every action started after time X is annuled.

t.18
2.Stopping the bout
The bout stops on the word ‘Halt’, except in the case of special events occurring which modify the regular and normal conditions of the bout (cf. also t.32).
Once the order ‘Halt’ has been given, a competitor may not start a new action; only the movement which has been begun before the order was given remains valid. Everything which takes place after-wards is entirely non-valid (But cf. t.32).
If a competitor stops before the word ‘Halt’, and is touched, the touch is valid.
The order ‘Halt’ is also given if the fencing of the competitors is dangerous, confused, or contrary to the Rules, if one of the competitors is disarmed or leaves the strip, or if, while retreating, he or she approaches too near the spectators or the Referee (cf. t.28, t.55/6 andt.73/j).

I specifically asked Bill Oliver this question as I phrased it. He confirmed my interpretation of the rule.

[veeco]

I see, there was a subtle timing issue, as I thought...

[pkt]

Ooooh, I don't think I can buy Mr. Oliver's answer. FOC Chair or not. I know he's got FIE Bs in foil and epee.

It is totally alarming if Mr Oliver annuls everything after time X when 'Halt!' takes place at time Y !!

It is totally wrong.

At time X the bout is still on, the stop watch is still running...everything is valid till the watch stops.

You see the the reason why I have trouble with this?

sorry to appear to be so obstinate. But the call is just not right.

PK

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by pkt
Ooooh, I don't think I can buy Mr. Oliver's answer. FOC Chair or not. I know he's got FIE Bs in foil and epee.

It is totally alarming if Mr Oliver annuls everything after time X when 'Halt!' takes place at time Y !!

It is totally wrong.

At time X the bout is still on, the stop watch is still running...everything is valid till the watch stops.

You see the the reason why I have trouble with this?

sorry to appear to be so obstinate. But the call is just not right.

PK

Actually, the call IS right. I believe if you go ask your friend the FIE triple A this, he will agree with Bill Oliver. PLEASE go ask the ref!!!! I implore you! if it takes time, fine. but do me a favor and actually post a mea culpa when he tells you you are mistaken.

-m

[pkt]

OK, let's do it this way.

No hit.

Yellow card for the attacker if this is the 1st offense or
red card if it was the 2nd offense.

PK

[epeemike81]

Question for you:
you are fencing, and you fleche and cause corp a corp (for simplicity, lets say this is epee, so no yellow card) AFTER the corp a corp, your opponent remises and lands a valid touch. the remise arrives before the ref says halt. does the touch count??

after all, your opponent didn't do anything which should annul, it was you who caused the corp a corp.....

This is a parallel situation to the off the side call. it is pretty clear to me that that remise should not count. Why? because the corp a corp causes the halt!

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by pkt
OK, let's do it this way.

No hit.

Yellow card for the attacker if this is the 1st offense or
red card if it was the 2nd offense.

PK

what is this in response to????

If it is suggesting that X deserves a card for leaving the strip, it is only true if that was done to avoid a touch. the bottom line is that if Y can't start his riposte before X leaves the strip, he does not deserve the touch.

Rather than suggesting different ways we could/should call it, why don't you concentrate on how the RULES say to call it. If you think that the rule is somehow unfair, then what you should do is try to play politics and get it changed. What you SHOULDN'T do is deny the existence of the current rule.

-m

[JEC]

Originally posted by epeemike81
Question for you:
you are fencing, and you fleche and cause corp a corp (for simplicity, lets say this is epee, so no yellow card) AFTER the corp a corp, your opponent remises and lands a valid touch. the remise arrives before the ref says halt. does the touch count??

after all, your opponent didn't do anything which should annul, it was you who caused the corp a corp.....

This is a parallel situation to the off the side call. it is pretty clear to me that that remise should not count. Why? because the corp a corp causes the halt!

-m

I agree with Mike. Enough said. If you also disagree with the last example, ask your referee friend this case scenario too.

[pkt]

epeemike, et al,

What do you think I've been doing???

I've already got ONE question into the FIE's International Technical Director already re the sabre manchette and rule m.33...

One thing at a time, bear with me, eh?

PK

[Craig]

I went to Bill as well regarding the riposte after the halt issue.

This is the final word on the issue since this comes from the FOC and is how referees are graded when taking the written test.

Also, refer to the rules regarding when a halt occurs. The halt is predicated on the action, in this case leaving the side of the strip.

Cheers,
Craig

The applicable rules are t.18 and t.28.

"Once the order Halt has been given, a fencer may not
begin a new action." The halt occured when the first
fencer stepped off the strip with both feet. The
action from the opponent would therefore be a new
action, started after the halt.

This action rarely, if ever, occurs in a normal bout.
In a normal bout, the riposte starts before the
attacker leaves the strip with one or both feet. If
the riposte starts before the opponent leaves the
strip, then it should be allowed.

The question is deliberately worded this way to make
sure the examinee knows that no action can begin after
the halt. It's a trick question, and therefore
easy....

PK missed the obvious fact that if the attacker had
left the strip with both feet before the repost
started, then the repost, by definition, wasn't
immediate. The key phrase is "X is off the side of
the strip in front of Y with both feet when fencer Y’s
immediate riposte starts." If he's off when the
riposte starts, then it's after the halt.

Bill

[pkt]

Mr. Bill,

I did not miss the trick nature of the question. I'm well aware of that. I think veeco did too. The phrasing of the question is very odd indeed. It has nothing to do with reality.

You've nevertheless proved me right with this passage:

"This action rarely, if ever, occurs in a normal bout.
In a normal bout, the riposte starts before the
attacker leaves the strip with one or both feet. If
the riposte starts before the opponent leaves the
strip, then it should be allowed."

That's my whole argument about the IMMEDIATE riposte as well as the 'with the halt'.

Thank you. I rest my case, I'll shut up on this topic now. This is the end of this debate from me.

Phew, I thought I have to change my understanding of the call.

Thank you, Bill.

PK

[veeco]

Originally posted by pkt

I did not miss the trick nature of the question. I'm well aware of that. I think veeco did too. The phrasing of the question is very odd indeed. It has nothing to do with reality.

I did get confused by the fact that the question said that the riposte was immediate. But then again, I am not a native English speaker, so I cannot comment on the oddity of the phrasing of the question, other than: "I did not understand it correctly..."

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by pkt
Mr. Bill,

I did not miss the trick nature of the question. I'm well aware of that. I think veeco did too. The phrasing of the question is very odd indeed. It has nothing to do with reality.

You've nevertheless proved me right with this passage:

"This action rarely, if ever, occurs in a normal bout.
In a normal bout, the riposte starts before the
attacker leaves the strip with one or both feet. If
the riposte starts before the opponent leaves the
strip, then it should be allowed."

That's my whole argument about the IMMEDIATE riposte as well as the 'with the halt'.

Thank you. I rest my case, I'll shut up on this topic now. This is the end of this debate from me.

Phew, I thought I have to change my understanding of the call.

Thank you, Bill.

PK

You have GOT to be kidding me!

-m

[pkt]

veeco,

My mother tongue is Chinese - Cantonese, but I'm enough of an English student that I noticed the oddity of the phrasing of the question.

PK

[veeco]

Originally posted by pkt
veeco,

My mother tongue is Chinese - Cantonese, but I'm enough of an English student that I noticed the oddity of the phrasing of the question.

Good!

[Peach]

Originally posted by pkt
I did not miss the trick nature of the question. I'm well aware of that. I think veeco did too. The phrasing of the question is very odd indeed. It has nothing to do with reality.

Oh . . . you wanted the questions to have something to do with reality? How unrealistic of you. They are designed to encourage an obsessive study of the rule book, I suspect, rather than to evaluate experience.

The referee tests have always reminded me of my graduate school comprehensive exams, where when I proposed an exam question which might have something to do with how we were going to apply our knowledge in the field, the professors looked at me as if I were wearing a possum for a hat.

[JEC]

Originally posted by pkt
My answer to question 10 in the general rule quiz according to rule t.26 IS correct.
I know this rule has not changed.
The only way that my answer is wrong would be to mark it with a limited view of rule t.28 then I'd be wrong because the riposte might have taken place after the 'Halt!'
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.
....
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

and

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.

and

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. "

Oliver's email reply validates our (epeemike81 and I) position regarding question 10.

From Epeemike81
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.

If the immediate riposte begins BEFORE X is off the strip, then and only then, it counts.

[Craig]

I think the big issue that has been highlighted here is the issue of the written test vs. practical test.

All of pkt's arguments were based (in my opinion) on interpretation of how the actions in the test would be called in the practical section of the referee exam (when being observed while ref'ing a bout). These study guides, however, are designed and phrased to single out knowledge of specific rules and how to apply those rules.

So, on both the real written referee exam and the study guides, you will have a lot of questions that may never occur in a bout. You have to know the rules, and also have to know how to apply the rules to the actions as they are specifically worded.

To be a good ref, you have to be able to pass the written (90% or better) AND be deemed competent by the referees that are sent to observe you when you test for the referee ratings.

So, for the quizzes on this site, you need to apply the letter of the rules to the letter of the situation in the question. We can set up separate discussions on how things are called on a practical basis.

If I ever have the time to do it, I think what would benefit this area is some footage of different actions where the quiz can be to call the actions, and then bring in some highly rated referees to analyze the action and grade our answers. Until that time, we have the written questions to go by.

Cheers,
Craig

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Peach
Oh . . . you wanted the questions to have something to do with reality? How unrealistic of you. They are designed to encourage an obsessive study of the rule book, I suspect, rather than to evaluate experience.

The referee tests have always reminded me of my graduate school comprehensive exams, where when I proposed an exam question which might have something to do with how we were going to apply our knowledge in the field, the professors looked at me as if I were wearing a possum for a hat.

Yes, the point of the written exam is to test knowledge of the rules. The more practical issues are handled, appropriately enough, by the practical portion of the exam.

-m

[pkt]

Craig,

I can't agree with you
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
more.

Didn't someone accuse me of reading too much into the wording of the the quiz?


so, word of advice to the examinees, suspend your logic when doing the written exam, suspend your belief in reality, just deal with the situation as it appears on the page.

Of this mea culpa !!! 100%.


PK