Technical defect leading to annulment of a touch

[sabreur]

Ok, for all you strip lawyers out there.

I was directing a bout this weekend (sabre), and during a long touch (back and forth the length of the strip a couple of times), one of the fencer's body cords pulled out of the socket in his bell. At the end of the point, the other guy scored a touch.

I annulled the point, but was instantly informed by a high muckety-muck that the decision was wrong, and that I should have allowed the point--that I couldn't penalize one fencer for a problem with the other fencer's equipment.... I said that I had seen several similar situations (thanks to the miracle of television) at World Championship events, and the touch had always been annulled.

I stuck to my decision at that point (sort of like an umpire in baseball, I wasn't going to change my call), it didn't make any difference in the bout, and when the situation recurred, as it did several times during the day, I called it the way the high muckety muck had instructed me that it should be called.

However, this morning (I was too worn out from fencing last night), I decided to check the rule book, and lo and behold, para. t.73 says: "The location of a fault in the equipment (including the equipment of the competitors) has no bearing on whether or not a touch should be annulled."

So who's right? I mean, I'm an antique sabreur from the days of steam sabre, and I'm much more comfortable with questions of right of way that I am with discussions of equipment malfunction, which in my youth I viewed as the exclusive purview of epee and foil fencers. Reading the rules, I think I am right, but I was very clearly told that I was wrong by THE senior rules guy in the German federation. It is only because I'm a hard-headed american with no respect for authority that I even raise the issue, but I would love to know what I'm missing.

Cheers, MR

[Craig]

Did the body cord have a clip to secure it to the socket? If no, then that fencer should have received a yellow card for nonconforming equipment. (That penalty is in place so that there won't be the problem of body cords falling out in the first place.)

I'll check on your actual question and see what I get. I'll have to consult the rules and an FOC rep to be 100% sure.

Craig

[sabreur]

Craig,

Yeah, it had a clip--it was a standard sabre body cord.

Regards, MR

[edew]

Standard sabre body cords may not necessarily have a clip. The Prieur type requires that one have the clip on the socket side. The Uhlmann type have the clip on the plug side. Both types (and any others, with the possible exception of the Leon Paul) may have the clip part missing.

Even if all the equipment is in place, if the body cord came loose, it is still the fault and problem with the fencer.

The question is whether you called the halt because you saw the body cord was loose (or the machine showed a white light), or because of the fencing action.

If you called halt because of the loose body cord, then neither fencers' action matter and no point should be awarded. If you called halt for the action and then discover that the body cord is out, then tough cookies for the one with the loose body cord.

[pkt]

I agree with Craig, Eric and the anonymous "high muckety-muck". If the fault is caused by the fencer's personal equipment, tough luck the hit was good. See t.73(d). Sorry, you did make the wrong call the first time even if one is generous to assume there's a simultaneous attack - since you did not call "Halt!" when the inside plug came undone which would have turned on the white light, so one can only assume that the action was a simultaneous attack.

cf this case - assuming there is either no retaining clip for the in-quard plug or defective one - with a missing clip on the reel plug and the breaking of a blade. The former is not a fencer's personal equipment, so the hit may be annuled. That said, the reel should be replaced and repaired. [These easiest repair is to attach a long enough piece of double-sided velcro where the clip/strap was s'posed to be.] The latter case is well defined in t.73(f).

Pk

[sabreur]

t 73. f. in my book is about broken blades...

I quoted t 73. d which says that it doesn't matter whose equipment fails... "(d) The location of a fault in the equipment (including the equipment of the competitors) has no bearing on whether or not a touch should be
annulled;"

How is this case different than, for instance, an epee or foil tip gone bad? Or is the rule the same? Ie., I'm fencing epee or foil, there is a phrase, the other guy's light goes on, I ask for my weapon to be tested, it doesn't work, touch against me anyway?

I'm really curious. In the epee rules, there is a clear statement about the body cord coming unplugged:

"t.68 (f) If the incidents mentioned in Article t. 67 occur as a result of the competitor’s bodywire being unplugged (either near the hand or at the
back of the fencer), they cannot justify the annulment of the touch registered."

However, there is nothing so clear in either the foil or sabre rules--that I can find anyway.

[oiuyt]

In foil and sabre there should be a halt called at the time of the unplugging (after all the machine is now registering a (off target) touch). If the action by the opponent had priority and scores in the current tempo why should it be annulled? If it didn't, it wasn't awarded in the first place and therefore need not be annulled. So in no case should the touch be annulled (it may not be awarded, but it shouldn't be annulled).

-B :)

[sabreur]

I suppose I should add that I did not notice when the off-target light came on (in fact, I don't remember it being on...).

Noisy hall, so I didn't hear the beep either, which normally would have clued me in...

MR