Re: Notes for directors

Harold Buck wrote:
> In article <3fc25b48$0$9406$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.com>,
> Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:
>
>> The bout was
>>mixed, Suzanne B. and Lou M. Mr. Lou made a hasty retreat
>>before Ms. Suzzanne'.s attack and went ass over teakettle.
>>It was such an amazing tumble - I've never before seen
>>such a complete roll on the strip - that I was stunned.
>>And while I stood there with my mouth open Ms Suzanne
>>calmly moved up and poked Mr. Lou in his bum which was
>>still high in the air.
>
>
> Bad call. It doesn't matter when you *SAY* halt, the theoretical halt
> occurs when the Lou falls. If her action has begun before the fall, she
> gets to finish it and can score.
>
> There's no practical way to ensure that the word "halt " comes out of
> the referee's mouth at the exact correct moment, so you enforce the
> rules as if it did.
>
Actually, the awarding of the point was made after considerable
consultation and discussion. Best judgment at the time was that
the same rules would apply as if the gentleman went off the strip,
i.e. an action started before he left the strip would be allowed.
Then there were those who thought Suzanne had hesitated just a
moment as though to gloat before poking. But I didn't see that.
J.

Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote in message news:

> Actually, the awarding of the point was made after considerable
> consultation and discussion. Best judgment at the time was that
> the same rules would apply as if the gentleman went off the strip,
> i.e. an action started before he left the strip would be allowed.
> Then there were those who thought Suzanne had hesitated just a
> moment as though to gloat before poking. But I didn't see that.
> J.

Ok, real happy I don't fence epee around there. Mr. Lou should have
called a bout committee to overturn the "best judgement" call.

My apologies if I sound unduly harsh, but the hesitation on the part
of Suzanne matters not at all. Lou fell--and that very moment WAS the
halt, whether or not the presiding referee called it.

In the referee clinics I attended (hosted by Jon Moss), the rule is
that the halt in action is created by "the deed, not the word." This
means that any act which would cause the referee to say "Halt!" is the
point at which the action is considered to be stopped, never mind when
the ref gets around to saying it.

The "halt" occurred when Lou fell--by the description WELL before
Suzanne touched him, setting off the scoring box.

Further, why penalize Lou for the referee's mistake of not calling
halt more quickly? A referee's real job is to "facilitate the
fencing," and Lou could no more have defended himself than if his
weapon had broken.

From the previous description there was time for a halt to be
called--the referee simpl ydidn't call it before the touch...but the
fall itself was the point at which the phrase actually stopped.

Cheers,

TC

--

Nothing to add, just trying to move that pointless "yesterday" thing
down the page to oblivion.