Weird sabre PIL

[GGK]

The earlier correction about the bell touché is completely different than the original scenario.
One way to look at it is that the point was not completely fair to both competitors. That being said the person whose equipment failed should not gain an advantage for equipment failure. Likewise their opponent should not be penalized for the same equipment failure. Which is what happened.
Look at two simultaneous attacks. Fencer A has an intermittent body cord and it causes his weapon to not register, than one light for Fencer B, point B, A change your body cord. But if Fencer A’s body cord causes B’s attack to not register and only one light for A, than no touché, fencer A change your body cord.
So Fencer B scores a touché, but it gets annulled due to Fencer A’s worn out equipment failing?

[jBirch]

GGK,

But Fencer B wouldn't have scored the touch without the equipment failure. Further, the equipment failure creates an unsafe condition which prevents the match from continuing. This is different from a regular equipment failure (like if your lame becomes dead in the middle of the match) that should have been prevented by pre-competition inspection and doesn't nullify any already awarded points.

If I attack in 6, your parry shears off my blade, then I poke you with the sharp stump, my point?

Take it easy.

[GGK]

Originally posted by jBirch

But Fencer B wouldn't have scored the touch without the equipment failure.

Maybe mabe not...attack no remise yes happens sometimes. Hard to say...I wasn't there. But you make an excellent point concerning stoppage due to reasons of safety vs equipment failures

If I attack in 6, your parry shears off my blade, then I poke you with the sharp stump, my point?

Not if I imediately repost. In which case the call is attack no, repost yes -point, remise 911.

[pkt]

Originally posted by whtouche
I gather from your previous post that you were fencer B in the first post, in which case: congrats for winning the tournament

Thank you.
It was a small tourney. Our Seattle friends did not come up to participate due to the snowy conditions...

PK

[pkt]

Originally posted by jBirch
PKT,

Near as I can tell the halt happens whether the ref calls it or not. So the unsafe condition caused by poking through the glove would have been the halt, regardless of whether the blade carried through to valid target or not.

Fencer A should have appealed the decision to the ref'ing commitee on those grounds and you two should have re-fenced the last point. Honourably, you SHOULD have corrected the presider and asked to refence the last point. That you did it earlier in the match is irrelevent.

Take it easy.

James.

James,

As I've pointed out, and as a qualified ref myself, I hate being corrected more than once in a bout... besides, all 3 of us are clubmates...

PK

[pkt]

Originally posted by whtouche
The halt is in the mind of the director - it is not an intangible condition that already exists and the directors job is to notice it.

The "Halt" exists only when - properly done, following the latest FIE hand signals - the ref holds up his hand and calls "Halt". We had this discussion before. Think of the timekeeper, etc.

This is akin to "When a tree falls in the forest..." but with a difference: when a ref calls "Halt!" there are at least 2 other people there whose actions depend on hearing the "Halt!".

Furthermore, if an action is initiated before the "Halt" is enunciated, the ref has to allow it as "With the halt".

PK

[pkt]

Originally posted by GGK
Maybe, mabe not...attack, no remise, yes happens sometimes. Hard to say...I wasn't there. But you make an excellent point concerning stoppage due to reasons of safety vs equipment failures


Not if I imediately repost. In which case the call is attack no, repost yes -point, remise 911.

...but the ref can not give a hit that's not registered on the machine...assuming you're not fencing "steam".

...OTOH, following whtouche's logic about when the conditon of "Halt" exists, the "Halt!" should exist when the blade breaks...

PK

[Fechter1]

Originally posted by pkt
The "Halt" exists only when - properly done, following the latest FIE hand signals - the ref holds up his hand and calls "Halt". We had this discussion before. Think of the timekeeper, etc.

This is akin to "When a tree falls in the forest..." but with a difference: when a ref calls "Halt!" there are at least 2 other people there whose actions depend on hearing the "Halt!".

Furthermore, if an action is initiated before the "Halt" is enunciated, the ref has to allow it as "With the halt".

PK

Not having been part of the previous discussion mentioned here, I don't know the arguments made therein.

However, I would have to disagree with this argument. I have always been taught that the Halt occurs when the referee sees it (the action/circumstance that requires the halt as per the USFA/FIE rules), and not when it is announced. This allows the referee to breathe, cough, swallow, without having to worry about mistiming the halt.
Example: (Epee,Foil) You execute a fleche attack, which misses (or is parried w/o riposte), just as the ref begins to sneeze. Your opponent hits you well after you have passed (and completely left the strip, let's say), but before the ref can recover and say "Halt". Should this touch against you stand?

I realize this was a very specific example and doesn't occur much, but I've had seen it happen from all four positions (attacker, defender, ref, spectator).

...OTOH, following whtouche's logic about when the conditon of "Halt" exists, the "Halt!" should exist when the blade breaks...

That's what my ruling would be.
Last Sunday I was fencing in a tournament, and on one of my beats, my blade broke near the tip. That's a halt right there, not when the ref finally notices what happened.

As for actions "with the halt", the phrase is deceiving. Either an action was initiated before the halt (and therefore valid or not depending on the halt condition), or not.

Sorry about the length of the post.

[jBirch]

PKT,

I'm not giving you a hard time because of your credentials, nor am I saying you were wrong for acting as you did. I just mentioned that honourably you should have denied the point since you knew it wasn't right. That's all.

On the halt itself, the ref isn't awarding a hit, they are denying one that was registered improperly, which they can do without the box.

Take it easy.

[shmagoogin77]

this is a stupid thing to still be disscussing i mean come on
this tread has been here for pretty long now and there are alot
of posts now so just drop it

[Inquartata]

Gee, when did Craig make you a moderator?

[pkt]

Originally posted by jBirch
PKT,

I'm not giving you a hard time because of your credentials, nor am I saying you were wrong for acting as you did. I just mentioned that honourably you should have denied the point since you knew it wasn't right. That's all.

On the halt itself, the ref isn't awarding a hit, they are denying one that was registered improperly, which they can do without the box.

Take it easy.

No quarter asked.
No quarter given.

This raises another question, to be honourable, how many times in ONE bout should one correct the referee and how many hits should give up to maintian the chivary nature of our sport.

BTW, in the "Beat attack in Foil" thread, my opponent wasn't honourable since he did not agree with the ref. He didn't feel he made a parry and he did NOT correct the ref. And by the time he did correct the ref, very half-heartedly I must add, he ref said he must ignore his concession which he correctly did.

So, was I more honourable than my foil opponent since I did concede the point and my foil opponent didn't?

Something to ponder.

PK

[sabreur]

Originally posted by pkt

some common actions that are easily missed by lesser or inattentive refs:
- cut misses target completely but remise lands on the rebound;
- attack landed on the guard or blade and finishes on target;
- beats that get called the wrong way... d'oh!

By all means add to this list.

PK

A has PIL.
B attempts to take the blade.
A derobes and attacks with a cut.
B continues to attack.
Both hit.

Way too many refs will miss the attempt to take the blade, or will claim that you have to hit with the point from a PIL, and give the hit to B. The correct call is for A--B loses right-of-way when he fails to take the blade. Failure to call this correctly really hurts the effectiveness of a PIL.

MR

[kix_jgn]

Originally posted by fence1848
There is a rule on that, but it does not mention throwing out touches. By practice, I see that referees will stop the bout if they see that a fencer cannot wield their weapon, but if the touch is scored before the halt, it usually stands. It has a lot do to with timing sometimes. In this case, however, you mention that fencer B had a point-in-line. If they are unable to wield their weapon correctly when their opponent didn't even make a move, I'd probably give the point to B.

[sabreur]

Originally posted by sabreur
A has PIL.
B attempts to take the blade.
A derobes and attacks with a cut.
B continues to attack.
Both hit.

Way too many refs will miss the attempt to take the blade, or will claim that you have to hit with the point from a PIL, and give the hit to B. The correct call is for A--B loses right-of-way when he fails to take the blade. Failure to call this correctly really hurts the effectiveness of a PIL.

MR

I'll add another one:

A tries to establish PIL too late.
B attempts to take the blade anyway.
A disengages and hits with the point.
B continues to attack and hits.

Referee says, "PIL is not in time, touch for B."

Bad ref. Bad, bad ref. No zebra cookies for you tonight.

MR

[dreadfoily]

Since saber went electric, I think some touches are sort of questionable, the entire blade sets off an alarm. Maybe the blade needs to be revamped or something, I can see from the forte down wired, but the entire blade never seemed fair. The tip seems sort of light as well, in fact, the entire blade is very light, with the whole thing wired, it's like playing a game or something, then it just slides down someone's arm to the glove, how is this fencing.

[Inquartata]

Um...sabres aren't wired. The whole blade is "hot", electrically. No one has been able to come up with a viable way to limit the electrified areas of the blades to stop flats and such from registering. Neither wiring schemes nor insulation of some parts have worked out...

[pkt]

In4,

...errrr, I think dreadfoily is making a "it should have been..." scenario.

PK

[GGK]

Originally posted by dreadfoily
but the entire blade never seemed fair.

Even before electic sabre the entire cutting edge, the back top third of the blade as well as the tip could be used for a hit. What isn't fair?

it's like playing a game or something

Unlike foil?

[pkt]

Originally posted by GGK
... What isn't fair?

Unlike foil?
[/b]

Life.

PK