Annul the touch or not?

[notalent]

From an Epee bout this weekend, FOL thinks he scores as does FOR both stop fencing, FOL signals to ref for a halt. FOL ask if any touches were scored, ref replies no. Thru a series of hand feints by FOR FOL is backed off the strip with no attmepts at scoring by FOL. FOL THEN asks to have his weapon. What do you do?

[Bonehead]

From an Epee bout this weekend, FOL thinks he scores as does FOR both stop fencing, FOL signals to ref for a halt. FOL ask if any touches were scored, ref replies no. Thru a series of hand feints by FOR FOL is backed off the strip with no attmepts at scoring by FOL. FOL THEN asks to have his weapon. What do you do?

Hmmm. I would say that FOL can have his weapon?

I don't really understand what the question is...

[RITFencing]

I assume the action was restarted properly?

As far as annulling the touch, so long as the ref did everything right, yes I would annul that one. If FotL's weapon is malfunctioning in a manner that could have been caused by the fencing, the touch should be annulled. Whether it was caused by leaving the strip or by the opponent hitting is irrelevant.

However, I would have tested that weapon immediately upon the first halt, since both fencers seemed to think it wasn't working.

[WGH]

Where is the touch? Is it from FOL going off the strip completely? Did the ref not call a halt before talking to the fencers?

[dsapery]

t.54: He must annul a touch which he has just awarded as a result of a touch signaled as on the valid target (colored lamp) if he establishes, by tests made under his personal supervision, before the bout has effectively recommenced (the command 'Fence')...

This is the rule that instructs a referee to annul a touch due to faulty equipment. However it specifically discusses touches awarded "as a result of a touch signaled." It does not allow a referee to annul a touch due to the fencer leaving the rear limit of the strip (t.27).

[erooMynohtnA]

I would annul the touch since apparently one of the fencers didn't have a weapon?

[Allen Evans]

I agree with Andrew. You have to have a weapon to fence. The referee should not have restarted the bout until FOL had his weapon in hand.

[catwood1]

It makes sense that FOR's hand feints were so effective considering that FOL didn't have a weapon to defend himself...

[edew]

I agree with Andrew. You have to have a weapon to fence. The referee should not have restarted the bout until FOL had his weapon in hand.

Please, "sports equipment"

[notalent]

I assume the action was restarted properly?

However, I would have tested that weapon immediately upon the first halt, since both fencers seemed to think it wasn't working.

It was.
I dont normally test weapons unless the fencers asks me too, for what ever reason he didnt ask and chose to resume fencing with it. Its not something I would do.

[pinkelephant]

If I think there's something wrong with a weapon I'll test it - it saves all sorts of havoc later on. It's not necessarily the fencer's equipment - it could be a spool, or a ground lead. In just the same way I would test the piste if I think it is no longer earthed (sorry, grounded).

[Bonehead]

It was.
I dont normally test weapons unless the fencers asks me too, for what ever reason he didnt ask and chose to resume fencing with it. Its not something I would do.

Okay to clarify...

From an Epee bout this weekend, FOL thinks he scores as does FOR both stop fencing, FOL signals to ref for a halt. FOL ask if any touches were scored, ref replies no.

In the next action, through a series of hand feints by FOR, FOL is backed off the end of the strip with no attempts at scoring by FOL. FOL THEN asks to have his weapon checked.

What do you do?

Is this correct?

I assuming you pretty much have to let the fencer test their blade officially, because you will look like a pretty big jack-ass if you say no, and then they hit their foot producing no light. I also assume that since you do test their blade, that it fails, since the former case would be a moot point.

In this case, the previous action where no lights went off seems irrelevant to me. Both fencers continued fencing, and it was no established whether the blades worked at this point.

So the action is one fencer is moved off the end of the piste with apparently no attempt to hit.



I think the two rules that would apply here are

t.67. The Referee must take note of possible failures of the electrical equipment and must
annul the last hit registered in the following circumstances:
...
b) If a hit properly made by the competitor against whom the hit was registered
does not cause the apparatus to register a hit;

t.68. The Referee must also apply the following rules regarding the annulment of hits:
...
c) With these tests, one is trying only to establish whether there is material
possibility of a mistake in the judgement as a result of a fault. The location of
this fault in the electrical equipment, including that of either of the fencers, is
unimportant in reaching a decision.

So on one hand, since you didn't think you saw a hit at all, you might decide there was no 'Properly made' hit, and therefore nothing to annul. But since you're cornered into letting the fencer test their blade as mentioned earlier regardless of whether you think they hit, and since it fails, then there is a material possibility that a failure prevented a possible touch (even though you didn't see it), and therefore you are forced to annul the touch.

[Gav]

I hope bonehead is correct or the ref needs a smack on the back of the head. Until someone actually states what the question is my hand is prepped for back of head smacking...

[WGH]

So correct me if I am wrong... but FOL never even got close to hitting FOR while running back, yes? And then asked to have his weapon checked? The way I understand it, a failed weapon only voids the previous action if the score would be effected by the failed tip. If you're just running off the strip, it wouldn't even make a difference if the weapon was plugged in. Now if he'd counterattacked and possibly struck right before going off the strip, then the tip would really matter and the action would be void.

[Bonehead]

So correct me if I am wrong... but FOL never even got close to hitting FOR while running back, yes? And then asked to have his weapon checked? The way I understand it, a failed weapon only voids the previous action if the score would be effected by the failed tip. If you're just running off the strip, it wouldn't even make a difference if the weapon was plugged in. Now if he'd counterattacked and possibly struck right before going off the strip, then the tip would really matter and the action would be void.

I would agree with you, and if he blatantly ran off the back of the strip about 5 meter away from his opponent the whole time, I would say you could get away without checking the weapon.

However, if his point was even remotely close to being able to hit something (even like a foot from the arm) too me, there seems to be a possibility, all though low, that you could have missed it.

And if he says, please check my tip, and you say "No" then he checks it himself and it doesn't go off, well you're in trouble as a ref. You gotta let him change weapons, since his weapon clearly doesn't work. And how do you justify not annulling the touche?

you: "I can't annul the touche if you check your weapon yourself"
him: "I asked for you to check it, and you refused"
you: "Well you didn't hit him"
him: "Yes I did, but my blade didn't work, which is why I asked you to check it"

Regardless of whether he hit or not, it becomes a really awkward situation that more or less makes it look like your trying to cheat this guy. In any case all he has to do is prove the 'material possibility' that a touch that didn't register could have occurred.

I think your hands are tied, you have to test it, and you have to annul the touch.

EDIT: I haven't voted yet because I'm still not sure if this is the correct situation the OP described.

[Alexander Kai]

Though when they FIRST stop you and ask if any touches were score...... should not that doubt indicate that one desires to have their weapon tested, and hence their not testing it right then is their own fault?

Let me rephrase that. Say there's a questionable phrase, but no test.

Fencing continues for X number of minutes a number of halts (no light is ever once fired)

After (insert tediously long amount of time here) one of the fencers gets the bright idea to check their blade. It fails, do you annul the touch that happened 15 minutes ago?

---

I guess what I'm really asking, is "is time a factor in deciding whether or not to annul a touch for faulty equipment? Or must all annulments of touches for faulty equipment be done so promptly?"

[Bonehead]

Though when they FIRST stop you and ask if any touches were score...... should not that doubt indicate that one desires to have their weapon tested, and hence their not testing it right then is their own fault?

Let me rephrase that. Say there's a questionable phrase, but no test.

Fencing continues for X number of minutes a number of halts (no light is ever once fired)

After (insert tediously long amount of time here) one of the fencers gets the bright idea to check their blade. It fails, do you annul the touch that happened 15 minutes ago?

---

I guess what I'm really asking, is "is time a factor in deciding whether or not to annul a touch for faulty equipment? Or must all annulments of touches for faulty equipment be done so promptly?"

You can only annul the previous touch. It doesn't matter how long the action was.

EDIT: Which is to say, if you have to ask for a halt to test your weapon, there can be no touch annulled. If the halt comes from a touch, and during the halt you ask to have your weapon tested, you (possibly) can have that touch annulled, but ONLY that touch.

[bigdawg2121]

Please tell me you didn't let someone get out of a touch like that...

[Bonehead]

Please tell me you didn't let someone get out of a touch like that...

Well I mostly ref foil, and I don't ref all that much as is stands anyway. So no.

I think the real problem though is that you let fencers fence when you suspect there is broken equipment. If you as the ref think that they hit, and they don't want to test, well hell, I would insist on it. Otherwise you open the opportunity for all that crap in the Jeff B thread (fencing touches with knowingly broken weapons).

But yeah, if someone can demonstrate that their tip doesn't work during the halt after a touch, as far as I know you pretty much have to annul the touch.

[tchwojko]

After (insert tediously long amount of time here) one of the fencers gets the bright idea to check their blade. It fails, do you annul the touch that happened 15 minutes ago?

Your hypothetical situation: Touch right. No one asks for their tip to be checked. Next touch starts. Halt for some reason. Fencer on the left asks for his/her tip to be checked.

You can't annul the previous touch, can you? There's no way to tell if it failed during the subsequent fencing after the previous touch. (For example handle comes loose and cuts wires.) I thought once fencing started the previous touch is set in stone.