Covering target

[Harold Buck]

In article <4c1bba3.0307051531.1649c8f5@posting.google.com> ,
tcate@zoo.uvm.edu (Thom Cate) wrote:

> I was just wracking my brain for another "double touch"
> scenario--although, at least from the perspective of teaching young
> fencers, this is not a "double touch," but a "single touch, penalty
> for opponent" situation. (yes, my $0.02, thanks for your continued
> indulgence.)


The really obvious one from saber is, if fencer A crosses the feet
moving forward and he or she and fencer B have simultaneous attacks,
then the touch from A is annulled, so B gets a touch. And if it happens
again, B gets two touches, one for the touch--which only counts because
A's touch is annulled and it's no longer a simultaneous attack--and one
for the red card. At least, that's how it was explained to me.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

[Chris Hagen]

In article <GaIKa.148$Xf1.31348784@news.netcarrier.net>, "Dirk Goldgar"
<dgoldgar@NOalumni.SPAMprinceton.edu> writes:

>"Thom Cate" <tcate@zoo.uvm.edu> wrote in message
>news:4c1bba3.0306260803.48673ea4@posting.google.c om
>> Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message news:
>>
>>> Fencer A covers target while hitting fencer B. Yellow card for A,
>>> touch is annulled, correct?
>>
>> As has been pointed out extensively, yes. Call "Halt!" issues YC for
>> A and *write it down on the scoring sheet.*
>
>But -- as has been pointed out extensively -- A's touch is *not*
>annulled. However, if A covers target first and *then* makes an action
>to hit B, that touch would not count as it's after the halt.

In this case, I think it's helpful to remember/realize that A is not (and, in
fact CANNOT) score a valid touch by covering target area; he/she can only
prevent B from doing so:

IF, in fact, A has priority on his action, covering target is not going to help
him land it valid; since he (in the first scenario) he DOES, is is counted,
although he is justly warned (yellow card) about covering as he cannot have
been so sure that it would not have interfered with B's immediate
action/reaction.

Obviously (as pointed out elsewhere), if A misses, it still matters not what B
does, as the covering DID occur, and A should well have expected it to
interefere, and the card is shown light, or no!

Have a ncie day!!!

[Chris Hagen]

In article <GaIKa.148$Xf1.31348784@news.netcarrier.net>, "Dirk Goldgar"
<dgoldgar@NOalumni.SPAMprinceton.edu> writes:

>"Thom Cate" <tcate@zoo.uvm.edu> wrote in message
>news:4c1bba3.0306260803.48673ea4@posting.google.c om
>> Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message news:
>>
>>> Fencer A covers target while hitting fencer B. Yellow card for A,
>>> touch is annulled, correct?
>>
>> As has been pointed out extensively, yes. Call "Halt!" issues YC for
>> A and *write it down on the scoring sheet.*
>
>But -- as has been pointed out extensively -- A's touch is *not*
>annulled. However, if A covers target first and *then* makes an action
>to hit B, that touch would not count as it's after the halt.

In this case, I think it's helpful to remember/realize that A is not (and, in
fact CANNOT) score a valid touch by covering target area; he/she can only
prevent B from doing so:

IF, in fact, A has priority on his action, covering target is not going to help
him land it valid; since he (in the first scenario) he DOES, is is counted,
although he is justly warned (yellow card) about covering as he cannot have
been so sure that it would not have interfered with B's immediate
action/reaction.

Obviously (as pointed out elsewhere), if A misses, it still matters not what B
does, as the covering DID occur, and A should well have expected it to
interefere, and the card is shown light, or no!

Have a ncie day!!!