Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

oiuyt · 02-19-2003, 06:11 PM

Quote:

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

So if the timekeeper's finger misses the button..... you get to keep fencing?

The "immediate" part of the question shouldn't be part of the issue. Fencer X starts an attack, leaves the strip, THEN gets parried. An immediate riposte (with absolutely 0 time delay) then hits him. Clearly the riposte started after the halt (the parry was after the halt). This fits the question exactly. No issue on how much time can occur before a riposte becomes non-immediate. I have seen this happen in a bout, this is NOT a completely artificial situation divorced from reality.

Quote:

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

No worries, you don't have to change your understanding. You'll remain wrong until you do, but don't let that stop you. I just hope I never have you as MY ref.

-B :)

pkt · 02-19-2003, 08:51 PM

oiuyt

You are changing the question:

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.

If the word is in the question, it counts, therefore it is part of the issue otherwise the FOC wouldn't have put it there. The questions are worded with consideration which your 'objections' didn't seem to be. - riposte: Oui.

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

If the ref doesn't say 'Halt!' the bout continues. It matters not when he mentally calls '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." ~ Bill Oliver

Sorry to confuse you, oiuyt. I've conceded the point already.

The exam was worded as a trick question and I've applied reality to it.

Point against me.

PK

darius · 02-20-2003, 11:12 AM

Quote:

If the ref doesn't say 'Halt!' the bout continues. It matters not when he mentally calls 'Halt!'

If you ever take a referee seminar, you will learn the exact opposite -- at least in the sanctioned ones in the US, that is emphasized.

The halt is when the referee *thinks* "halt."

darius

JEC · 02-20-2003, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JEC
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.

We have been telling pkt that several times.

pkt · 02-20-2003, 05:37 PM

JEC, darius, et al,

For the VERY last time, again.

I've conceded the piont already.

The exam is disassociated from reality.

Answer the question as it is posed.

Forget about what happens in reality, on the piste.

Stick to the question in black and white on the page.

OK, guys? I got it, alright?

I got the clarification I wanted from Mr. Bill already.

END OF DEBATE ON THIS QUESTION, LET'S MOVE ON. OK?

THIS HORSE IS DEAD, STOP FLOGGING IT.

'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This horse is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-HORSE!!
[Apologies to Monty Python. - PK]

Geez!

PK

DJ Apostrophe · 02-20-2003, 05:46 PM

PKT, if the riposte had started BEFORE he went off the strip it would have been allowed, it was the going off the strip that caused the halt. What if the director was in mid sneeze and couldn't say halt? surely you wouldnt be expecting to be allowed to fence in another room because your director hadn't had a chance to say halt yet? would you??? i can't believe we are still debating this (sic)
-w

epeemike81 · 02-20-2003, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pkt
JEC, darius, et al,

For the VERY last time, again.

I've conceded the piont already.

The exam is disassociated from reality.

Answer the question as it is posed.

Forget about what happens in reality, on the piste.

Stick to the question in black and white on the page.

OK, guys? I got it, alright?

I got the clarification I wanted from Mr. Bill already.

END OF DEBATE ON THIS QUESTION, LET'S MOVE ON. OK?

THIS HORSE IS DEAD, STOP FLOGGING IT.

'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This horse is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-HORSE!!
[Apologies to Monty Python. - PK]

Geez!

PK

NO!

you cannot simply dismiss this debate as "well, thats how they'd call it in the real world." First of all, real world experience is NO substitution for knowledge of the rules (nor vice versa). Second of all, that is NOT how they'd call it in the real world.

As oiuyt pointed out, attack, leave the strip parry riposte is what the question described, and DOES happen in the real world. when it does, the touch is annulled, in accordance with the rules.

When passing, corp a corp, or any other halt causing act occur, touches are frequently scored by actions which started (or even arrived) before the WORD halt is uttered. these touches are annulled if they started after the pass, corp a corp, or what have you.

THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE OF REALISM!

The issue here is your spotty knowledge of the rules! it does nobody any good to perpetuate the myth that you are correct in the real world. YOU'RE NOT!

Regardless of whether this post makes any dent in that marble head of yours, I at least hope it will alert other, less experienced fencers not to listen to your BS.
-m

pkt · 02-20-2003, 06:05 PM

Geez,

You guys don't know when to give up.

PK

epeemike81 · 02-20-2003, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pkt
Geez,

You guys don't know when to give up.

PK

I know exactly when to give up: when you realize that you are wrong. period.

When you realize that you are QUITE mistaken about your knowledge of the rules and vow to go take a refereeing clinic or just give up on trying to ref.

Though the above would be nice, I will accept an end to this debate right now. I just want to make sure that anyone reading this thread sees the error in your thinking and doesn't repeat it. I frankly don't care how YOU ref (unless I have you reffing me sometime), but rather about minimizing the effect of your BS on other people.

-m

darius · 02-20-2003, 06:19 PM

Quote:

You guys don't know when to give up.

No, epeemike doesn't.

But he's 100% right on this count. It's not an issue of real-world versus theory. It's an issue of correct vs. incorrect.

And knowing how the halt affects actions is a big deal. As a fencer who fleches and infights a lot, I definitely want a referee who knows that.

If uninformed mistakes persist, others will read them and be similarly misinformed. And that would be a grave tragedy. Especially if they were refereeing one of my bouts.

darius

pkt · 02-20-2003, 08:24 PM

Read my prevous LAST post again...

What did I write?? Did I write in Chinese?

You guys either don't or refuse to read properly...

D'oh?

PK

epeemike81 · 02-20-2003, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pkt
Read my prevous LAST post again...

What did I write?? Did I write in Chinese?

You guys either don't or refuse to read properly...

D'oh?

PK

you wrote that you were wrong because you assumed the question was realistic. the implication of that statement is that you are correct about the way things are in the "real world". That isn't true. that is what we are taking issue with. you hedged your mea culpa. You shouldn't have. you are wrong. period. no ifs, ands, buts about it.

-m