Team Event Rule

[kathe23]

A question for those in the know:

During a team event, team 1 subbed in their alternate and, at some point during the event, proceeded to fence out of order. The out of order fencer from team 1 "lost" that round 0-5. The error was not discovered until the end of that bout.

I believe that the ref checked with the BC, and the fencers were told that they would have to refence the bout, this time with the correct fencers. The points earned during the"out of order" bout were wiped out, as if the bout had never happened. Was that the correct procedure? There was talk of black carding team 1 (which I thought was harsh) but the BCs decision actually penalized the team that had followed the rules by making their fencer fence twice.

Thoughts?

[fdad]

o.44 The formula for the competition is as follows.
...
3. The bouts of each match have to be fought in the following order:
...
If this order is altered, intentionally or unintentionally, all the touches scored since the modification are annulled and the match is resumed in the correct order.

[SJCFU#2]

o.44 The formula for the competition is as follows.
...
3. The bouts of each match have to be fought in the following order:
...
If this order is altered, intentionally or unintentionally, all the touches scored since the modification are annulled and the match is resumed in the correct order.

This is the current rule (which is all that really matters). However IIRC that was a fairly recent change to the rule and prior to that the rule called for a black card against the team who's fencer was out of order.

[KD5MDK]

The penalty used to be loss of match, not black card, I believe. They are very different.

[Omar Bhutta]

Black card is not a penalty, but an indication given for a class of penalties. They are very different. The situation above used to be indicated by a black card.

[downunder]

The subtle differences between exclusion, explusion, elimination etc.

[kathe23]

Thank you. Although it seemed unfair at the time, it appears that the correct rules was applied.

[bigdawg2121]

Both teams have a responsibility to fence in the appropriate order. You have score sheets and you're supposed to keep track. Also how the heck do you miss this until the end of the match?

A question for those in the know:

During a team event, team 1 subbed in their alternate and, at some point during the event, proceeded to fence out of order. The out of order fencer from team 1 "lost" that round 0-5. The error was not discovered until the end of that bout.

I believe that the ref checked with the BC, and the fencers were told that they would have to refence the bout, this time with the correct fencers. The points earned during the"out of order" bout were wiped out, as if the bout had never happened. Was that the correct procedure? There was talk of black carding team 1 (which I thought was harsh) but the BCs decision actually penalized the team that had followed the rules by making their fencer fence twice.

Thoughts?

[fdad]

Both teams have a responsibility to fence in the appropriate order. You have score sheets and you're supposed to keep track. Also how the heck do you miss this until the end of the match?

The OP said it was noticed at the end of the bout, not the end of the match. If the term was used correctly, only the one 5 touch bout was re-fenced.

[downunder]

It's entirely the responsibility of the referee to make sure fencers go on in the right order. Obviously common sense from the athletes helps too.

[D'Art]

Dave, you have met fencers before? You should know that common sense to us is like particle physics is to Forrest Gump...

[bigdawg2121]

The OP said it was noticed at the end of the bout, not the end of the match. If the term was used correctly, only the one 5 touch bout was re-fenced.

Fair enough. I misread. My apologies.

It's entirely the responsibility of the referee to make sure fencers go on in the right order. Obviously common sense from the athletes helps too.

Perhaps technically but from a fencer and coach perspective I'm pretty sure the last person I'm mad at in that situation is the referee.

[hello?]

It's entirely the responsibility of the referee to make sure fencers go on in the right order. Obviously common sense from the athletes helps too.

I don't think the referee gets (or ever was) black carded if the fencers fence out of order. That's because it wasn't his/her "fault" (unless he/she said: "You, over there, hook up NOW!"). He/she is there to make sure that the calls/touches are right. Sure, he/she should be paying attention...but it's ENTIRELY the fencers' responsibility. (In a team event, I'd rather have the referee focused on what is going on once the fencing starts, not on who hooks up when. This is not kindergarten.) In the case the OP brought up, BOTH teams have their sheets...The other team could have (I have) said: "Hey, she/he is not up!" The sheets at most team events are practically idiot-proof!

[downunder]

I don't think the referee gets (or ever was) black carded if the fencers fence out of order. That's because it wasn't his/her "fault" (unless he/she said: "You, over there, hook up NOW!"). He/she is there to make sure that the calls/touches are right. Sure, he/she should be paying attention...but it's ENTIRELY the fencers' responsibility. (In a team event, I'd rather have the referee focused on what is going on once the fencing starts, not on who hooks up when. This is not kindergarten.) In the case the OP brought up, BOTH teams have their sheets...The other team could have (I have) said: "Hey, she/he is not up!" The sheets at most team events are practically idiot-proof!

I don't just make this stuff up:

PROPOSITIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Modifications to the Rules
Proposition 1 : Team events.
o.44 3. To be deleted : If this order is altered, intentionally or unintentionally, the team making the alteration loses the match.

Motivation : This is not logical to disqualify a team in case of an inversion of fencers because this is
the duty of the referee to check that both fencers on the piste are really the one he called for the bout.
This is therefore the referee’s responsibility to check that the fencers present on the piste are really
the one who are supposed to meet.

[Inquartata]

PROPOSITIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Modifications to the Rules
Proposition 1 : Team events.
o.44 3. To be deleted : If this order is altered, intentionally or unintentionally, the team making the alteration loses the match.

Motivation : This is not logical to disqualify a team in case of an inversion of fencers because this is
the duty of the referee to check that both fencers on the piste are really the one he called for the bout.
This is therefore the referee’s responsibility to check that the fencers present on the piste are really
the one who are supposed to meet.

It should be the referee's responsibility; and IF the FIE changes the rule it will be; but until then it is not the referee who IS penalized, but the fencers. Hence at present the responsibility is theirs.

[downunder]

It should be the referee's responsibility; and IF the FIE changes the rule it will be; but until then it is not the referee who IS penalized, but the fencers. Hence at present the responsibility is theirs.

(the rule changed more than 5 years ago)

[Inquartata]

It's entirely the responsibility of the referee to make sure fencers go on in the right order. Obviously common sense from the athletes helps too.

Sorry, I saw that word "Proposition" in your post and...

I withdraw the objection.

[kathe23]

The OP said it was noticed at the end of the bout, not the end of the match. If the term was used correctly, only the one 5 touch bout was re-fenced.

That is correct. It was at the end of the bout. My fencer thought they might be out of order, but he couldn't see the name on the back of the jacket, and since none of the others (ref, overseeing ref, either team) questioned it, he thought he was mistaken.

[bigdawg2121]

Sorry, I saw that word "Proposition" in your post and...

I withdraw the objection.

Yeah. He's absolutely right on his point/justification of the rule change. Although I'm tempted to ask if I'm the only one that thinks the, "it's the referee's responsibility" stance was an entirely new stance taken by the rules committee to make justifying the rule change easier? I mean the rule before was just silly but I imagine justifying the change by saying really both teams have fault not just the one with the fencer out of order would have made it much more controversial.