Off the Strip

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Since this has been touched on in a couple of other threads, let's delve in a little more.

Does it seem to anyone else that the new rule about 1 foot/2 feet off the strip is not being enforced?

We've been to just about every NAC since the rules went into effect...and I have yet to see it called. I've seen probably a hundred instances of a fencer with one foot way outside the strip, if not both feet.

Strangely, it almost seems the people who most frequently go off are lefties facing righties, when the lefty is attacking along the left side of the strip. They seem to circle out on the attack, and come in from outside.

Anyway, it just seems wrong to repeatedly have an opponent step out of bounds, and then land a successful attack. Especially when the coaches and even the spectators start calling out "off the strip!" only to have the ref shake his/her head.

Thoughts? And what do you do when your opponent is getting away with it? How do you deal with the ref?

[edew]

I call, and have been called, for having one foot off many times. I do referee primarily foil and epee, and there, one has the opportunity to see the foot going off, call halt and award the penalty. Sabre is so fast that before the refereeing can even inhale enough air to call the "halt", the guy's walking back to his on guard line after the hit has scored.

That's not to say that referees are being lazy with sabre fencers. It's tough enough as it is to watch the arm motion, the blade contact, the forward motion, and maybe whether the feet crossed going forward. It's not easy at all. And even more difficult when one has to stand just five feet away from the strip because of the narrow area available for referees.

[veeco]

I have seen it called, several times, in epee.

I have seen foil refs not seeing it, even when a fencer was attacking completely out of the strip (both feet). I think that because the issue in sabre and foil is most of the time the ROW whereas in epee there is no ROW, little things like this sometimes get more attention in epee, whereas in ROW weapons they tend to be overlooked by the ref who's watching the actions to understand the priorities.

One way of dealing with this is to ask for side judges who would look specifically at this.

I have been fencing on narrow strips against a righty (and I am a lefty) where my opponent would systematically step aside outside of the strip, and then attack me, which was to say the least very annoying.

I called up the ref and told him that he was outside of the strip, his answer was: "yeah but the strip his narrow, so I'm giving him some leeway".

Then I said that the strip's width was within the acceptable rules, and that there was no reason for someone to get leeway if I could not get any and if there was no way to clearly define just how much "leeway" was leeway, and how much was stepping out.

It did not change his calls though, but I suspect that's because the ref was from the same club as my opponent ;-).

In any case, usually, when I fence someone who's like that, I try and invite as much as possible on the inside so that I can get control of his outside.

But this could be different in sabre, though...

[Dee EffEll]

I think this is a bout committe question. If you ask the director, "did my opponent's foot land completely off the strip while he was in front of me?" and he says "yes, but I am giving him some leeway," I think that is a misapplication of the rule, and appealable. (My opinion.) Of course, whether you want to get this official involves a lot factors. (My opinion.) My threshold for things like this is usually, "is this gonna make any difference in the outcome?" If the answer is other than, "nah. Get on with it," I skip it. But if a touch was clearly awarded incorrectly, that is probably going to make me think another might be too.

On a related note, I saw an oddity at a recent NAC. During an epee bout between two fine fencers, the action had progressed to the director's left. He followed the action, but due to the venue contraints was unable move to place himself with the fencers in his line of vision between himself and the scoring box. The tones on the box, as usual, were inaudible in the noisy venue (maybe because of all the screaming?) The fencer on the right scored a one light touch. The fencer on the left, fairly, might not have seen the light, but 5 or six specators pointed at the box and yelled at the director. However, by the time the director took notice of something amiss, he called halt, but the box had reset - and he had never seen the light. Since he had not seen the light personally (and the opposing fencer did not acknowledge, and fairly, he may not have seen the light either) he would not award the touch. Neither fencer, quite properly, stopped until there was a "halt."

Boy, can I relate to being in this poor director's shoes! IIRC, the "screwed" fencer still won. Still, the director is trying his best, but this is hardly all his fault. Concentrating on the action, even in epee, at the highest level is tough! Blink on some of these guys and they will hit you six times. (Ask how it is I know this...) But rules-wise, can a director rely on 6 "spectators" reporting a one-light touch? If he does, can the other fencer appeal?

Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?

[mfp]

The director you describe violated rule t.35 (f). He should be carded

However his error with t.35 (f) wouldn't seem to be a reason to break another rule by awarding a touch which he apparently didn't see indicated.

[Inquartata]

So how is "off" defined? Is having both toes on, the rest of the feet off, considered on or off? I've seen fencers manage to spend a good deal of time on the line...

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
So how is "off" defined? Is having both toes on, the rest of the feet off, considered on or off? I've seen fencers manage to spend a good deal of time on the line...

off is defined as landing (i.e. touching the ground) with your foot COMPLETELY off the strip.

note: in the case of the back line, you don't need to land out, you just need to completely break the plane of the rear line.

-m

[JEC]

My recollection of rules. Off = The entire foot out of the strip. If toes are in, still inbounds. If action started while inbounds, it counts.

[veeco]

Originally posted by epeemike81
off is defined as landing (i.e. touching the ground) with your foot COMPLETELY off the strip.

note: in the case of the back line, you don't need to land out, you just need to completely break the plane of the rear line.

-m

Are you sure? I seem to remember reading that the breaking of the plane was sufficient in both cases... But I could be wrong... Which rule is explicitly stating the difference?

[veeco]

Originally posted by JEC
My recollection of rules. Off = The entire foot out of the strip. If toes are in, still inbounds. If action started while inbounds, it counts.

Actually this is true if you had one foot off at the end of the action. If I understand the rule change correctly, you cannot score with both feet off the strip in any case.

So let's say some one jumps with both feet outside of the strip while starting an attack, and the attack lands while both feet are outside, it would not count...

[edew]

Originally posted by Dee EffEll
I think this is a bout committe question. If you ask the director, "did my opponent's foot land completely off the strip while he was in front of me?" and he says "yes, but I am giving him some leeway," I think that is a misapplication of the rule, and appealable. (My opinion.) Of course, whether you want to get this official involves a lot factors. (My opinion.) My threshold for things like this is usually, "is this gonna make any difference in the outcome?" If the answer is other than, "nah. Get on with it," I skip it. But if a touch was clearly awarded incorrectly, that is probably going to make me think another might be too.

On a related note, I saw an oddity at a recent NAC. During an epee bout between two fine fencers, the action had progressed to the director's left. He followed the action, but due to the venue contraints was unable move to place himself with the fencers in his line of vision between himself and the scoring box. The tones on the box, as usual, were inaudible in the noisy venue (maybe because of all the screaming?) The fencer on the right scored a one light touch. The fencer on the left, fairly, might not have seen the light, but 5 or six specators pointed at the box and yelled at the director. However, by the time the director took notice of something amiss, he called halt, but the box had reset - and he had never seen the light. Since he had not seen the light personally (and the opposing fencer did not acknowledge, and fairly, he may not have seen the light either) he would not award the touch. Neither fencer, quite properly, stopped until there was a "halt."

Boy, can I relate to being in this poor director's shoes! IIRC, the "screwed" fencer still won. Still, the director is trying his best, but this is hardly all his fault. Concentrating on the action, even in epee, at the highest level is tough! Blink on some of these guys and they will hit you six times. (Ask how it is I know this...) But rules-wise, can a director rely on 6 "spectators" reporting a one-light touch? If he does, can the other fencer appeal?

Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?

Did this incident occur on the first day of competition? I ask because the next day in the officials' lounge, Bill Goering spoke up and requested all EPEE referees to stand in the correct position so that the line of sight includes both fencers and the scoring machine between them.

When I referee epee, I look at the floor between the fencers, with the scoring machine peripherally between the fencers. What I look for is stepping off the strip, hitting on the un-grounded floor, and possibly self-touches. It's tough to maintain that concentration. And it's also tough in that I can't enjoy the opportunity to watch the fencing. I'm too busy watching everything else.

[mfp]

Originally posted by veeco
Are you sure? I seem to remember reading that the breaking of the plane was sufficient in both cases... But I could be wrong... Which rule is explicitly stating the difference?

The answer is no rule explicitly states such a difference.

But then again the rules (as written) don't explicitly define what's considered to be crossing a boundary or limit either, except that a foot or both feet are somehow involved. There's no explicit mention of breaking planes, or landing, or landing completely, etc., etc..

The relevant rules are t.26 through t.29.

[edew]

Originally posted by veeco
Are you sure? I seem to remember reading that the breaking of the plane was sufficient in both cases... But I could be wrong... Which rule is explicitly stating the difference?

It is the "volume" concept: breaking the plane is sufficient in both cases, lateral or rear lines. However, it's much tougher to see "breaking the plane" when someone crosses the lateral boundary, so the reality is when the foot lands completely outside the strip.

It's easier to see whether a person has passed the rear limit line, and it doesn't require that the person put his foot down or not.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by mfp
The answer is no rule explicitly states such a difference.

But then again the rules (as written) don't explicitly define what's considered to be crossing a boundary or limit either, except that a foot or both feet are somehow involved. There's no explicit mention of breaking planes, or landing, or landing completely, etc., etc..

The relevant rules are t.26 through t.29.

The rules also don't define which arm needs to be extending for an action to be an attack.

Its all about the interpretation.

-m

[mfp]

Originally posted by epeemike81
The rules also don't define which arm needs to be extending for an action to be an attack.
Its all about the interpretation.

No, the question that was asked and answered was all about which rule explicitly states the difference. The answer is that there is no rule that explicitly states it. (So there's no need to waste time looking for it).

I'm sure veeco and everyone else understand that in cases where no explicit rules exist, interpretation is obviously involved.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by mfp
No, the question that was asked and answered was all about which rule explicitly states the difference. The answer is that there is no rule that explicitly states it. (So there's no need to waste time looking for it).

I'm sure veeco and everyone else understand that in cases where no explicit rules exist, interpretation is obviously involved.

um... I know.

I didn't disagree with your answer. I merely pointed out that most of the rules are vague and interpretation is key. also, it was heavily tongue in cheek, despite the real point. some of the people on this board need to lighten up....

-m

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew
When I referee epee, I look at the floor between the fencers...I can't enjoy the opportunity to watch the fencing. I'm too busy watching everything else.

But hey, who really enjoys watching epee, anyway?

[veeco]

Ooooh bad, sabre fencer.

I do enjoy watching epee. I'm watching some right now, and as I typed this message I probably missed 4 or 5 great touches, even I can type relatively fast.

[Mr_Foilist]

Originally posted by veeco
Ooooh bad, sabre fencer.

I do enjoy watching epee. I'm watching some right now, and as I typed this message I probably missed 4 or 5 great touches, even I can type relatively fast.

You know what level of epee is really fun to direct? High school epee. Especially the girls. It gives you so much time to just watch other fencing or think about other things. I once got to watch almost an entire round of men's sabre, foil and epee while directing one round of girl's epee. That's 9 bouts of three different weapons for 3 epee bouts. It was ridiculous. If there was no fencing to watch on the strip across from mine, I would have fallen asleep. I mean, seriously, these epee bouts were all going to time with scores of 2-2 or something like that. Sometimes the bouts even ended with no one scoring in the priority round. It's not like these girls were great epee strategists or anything. There was just a lot of blade-beating and back-and-forth with footwork. Occassionally one fencer would lose patience and fleche or lunge or whatever. But, there was usually no set up involved so the chances were 50/50 that they would get the touch. Absolutely boring.

[darius]

A friend of mine, who's within lunge distance for the Jr Women's Epee Team, once thanked me for watching one of her bouts...and in a confessional tone, said, "*I* wouldn't watch women's epee."

darius