Annulment of Corps a Corps hits in Epee

Discussion in 'Fencing Discussion' started by Anari, Sep 29, 2006.

  1. Anari

    Anari Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry if this has been asked before, I did try and find it but couldn't.

    I have heard many and conflicting stories ons this matter and was wondering if you could help clear it up for me.

    The rulebook is appropriately vague on the subject of annulment of hits in epee. My question is specifically directed to hits ending in a simple corps-a-corps. More especially, where a fleche results in a hit but ends-within the fleche-in a simple corps-a-corps.

    There are three arguments on the matter:
    1. The hit is not annulled as simple corps-a-corps is AFTER the hit is scored is not relevant to the bout as the fencing has 'ended'. This means the corps-a-corps does not annul the touch scored. So in essence, the fencer who fleched gets the point.

    2. Simple corps-a-corps never annuls any hits in epee anyway so the argument is for naught.

    3. The hit is annulled as the fleche ended in simple corps-a-corps.

    Two things remain constant, the fencer hits, and the corps-a-corps happened BEFORE the end of the fleche or AT the end end of the fleche, but not afterwards.

    I would hope that you could help me on this.

    Thankyou
     
  2. RebelFencer

    RebelFencer Podium

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,889
    Likes Received:
    395
    Body contact halts action. If the hit was before the body contact then it's good.
     
  3. DJ Apostrophe

    DJ Apostrophe Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2000
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    150
    Incorrect... but only slightly... one does not need to hit before the body contact, but the action needs to have started before the body contact... you can finish an action and hit after the c-a-c, but as long as it started before the c-a-c, you should get the touch...

    -w
     
  4. tbryan

    tbryan Podium

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    239
    A simple corps-a-corps in epee does not annul touches, but the referee should halt the bout when the corps-a-corps occurs. Any action started after this halt will not be permitted to score, of course. But that's not really annulling a touch for corps-a-corps. It's just not permitting new actions after a halt.

    The touch is awarded.

    The logic here is faulty in any case. If the fencer making the fleche hits at the beginning of the fleche (his light is on) but finishes the fleche by jostling his opponent, then the touch will be annulled, and the fencer will receive a group I penalty.
     
  5. IHateMrPotatohead

    IHateMrPotatohead Rookie

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,613
    Likes Received:
    39
    However, CAC with jostling or to avoid a touch is an automatic yellow card and annulment of touch scored (if scored by the fencer who committed the CAC).

    Simple CAC is only a halt though.
     
  6. RoninX

    RoninX Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,455
    Likes Received:
    85
    Sorry to jack, but the question has been answered.

    What is the rationale behind allowing simple corps a corps in epee but not in foil?
     
  7. Sciurus-Rex

    Sciurus-Rex Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    234

    (Imagine a light sigh here.) Ya know, trying to discern the "rationale" behind almost any rule is a funky exercise in second-guessing and history recall. At some point I stop caring WHY something is the way it is and instead just learn to work with it.

    And ofttimes investing in a rationale leads to more faulty assumptions and interpretations later. I'm not saying that's the case here, mind you ...
     
  8. oiuyt

    oiuyt Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2000
    Messages:
    10,246
    Likes Received:
    977
    My best guess? Because the rules are based on compromises of what different people/groups/countries wanted 80 years ago. The epeeists had no problem with the indelicacy of occasionally brushing sleeves, while the foilists -- delicate blossoms that they are/were -- prefered to avoid all contact. In the rules-generation process it was more acceptable to set different standards for the different weapons than to try to move one of the groups to the other's position.

    -B
     
    sabreur likes this.
  9. downunder

    downunder Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    466

    To clarify:

    At épée a fencer who either by a flèche attack or by advancing vigorously brings about a corps à corps even several times in succession (without brutality or violence) does not transgress the basic conventions of fencing and commits no fault thereby (cf. t.20, t.25).

    A fencer who intentionally causes corps à corps to avoid being hit or who jostles his opponent is penalised according to Articles t.114, t.116, t.120

    The ‘flèche ending systematically in a corps à corps’ referred to in this article must not be confused with the ‘flèche resulting in a shock which jostles the opponent’ which is considered as an act of intentional brutality at all three weapons and is punished as such (cf. t.87, t.120).
     
    shlepzig likes this.
  10. RebelFencer

    RebelFencer Podium

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,889
    Likes Received:
    395
    Ahhh, ok. Thanks for correcting me on that.
     
  11. shlepzig

    shlepzig Podium

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    66
    Variations on a theme

    This issue has been discussed a number of times and Bill Oliver has helpfully chimed in on the discussions with some guidance. But this is another of the variations on the theme of epee and Corps A Corps which may not appear explicitly in a search.

    My previous post with links to other posts on the subject.

    I will try to sum up the basic points (DownUnder has sufficiently given us the appropriate rules and sections above) I will just try to simplify.

    1. CaC is not a penalty in epee. It does not annul a touch

    2. CaC does halt the action in epee.
    a. An action started after the CaC should not be allowed to score.
    b. An action started before the CaC should be allowed to score.
    c. Bell to Bell contact is not to be considered CaC​

    3. Jostling is not the same as CaC
    a. Jostling is a penalty, any touch scored with jostling should be annulled.
    b. What is considered jostling and who is at fault is up the discretion of the ref. Basic guidelines have been debated at length, the rule-book has left the definition of the jostling assumed to be self-evident.​

    Arguing about a point, because CaC stopped the fencing before the action or arguing whether you have been jostled or not is just not worth it. It is considered a point of fact under the observation of the ref.

    Shlep
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2006
  12. TrojanMD

    TrojanMD Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2003
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    7
    But wouldn't that imply that sabre fencers would be allowed to beat their opponents to the ground, rip out their hearts with their bare hands and not get carded? Most of us are hardly "delicate blossoms," and yet, subject to the same corps a corps carding practices as foilists..

    ;)
     
  13. oiuyt

    oiuyt Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2000
    Messages:
    10,246
    Likes Received:
    977
    Yes, except that sabre fencers were busy beating each other into bloody pulps while the delicate blossoms and rules lawyers were debating HOW fencing ought to be done.

    The epee fencers were egocentric enough not to care what happened to the savages and the foil fencers think that everyone should be as "enlightened" as they are.

    -B
     
    RoninX and IHateMrPotatohead like this.
  14. KD5MDK

    KD5MDK Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    13,294
    Likes Received:
    636
    It's unlikely in this particular given situation, but epee referees should always be alert for CaC to avoid the touch. A fencer who fleches directly into his opponent, even without jostling, is likely trying to avoid the touch.
     
  15. downunder

    downunder Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    466

    This is a very inaccurate generalisation. The action you described is specifically permitted in the rulebook.
     
  16. oiuyt

    oiuyt Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2000
    Messages:
    10,246
    Likes Received:
    977
    I agree with downunder. I have NEVER caused cac to avoid being hit. I have fleched into an opponent.

    -B
     
  17. Mitchell

    Mitchell hi Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    467
    causing cac to avoid a touch is a pretty bad idea, imho, in epee.
    we all have decent infighting games. at least.
     
  18. oso97

    oso97 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    3,889
    Likes Received:
    204
    Ahh, so you deliberately caused c-a-c? With the intent of hitting your opponent with your body? To gain position or dominance? Coming awful close to c-a-c with jostling there, ol' buddy ;)

    t.63 In épée, a fencer who either by a flèche attack or by advancing vigorously brings about a corps à corps even several times in succession (without brutality or violence) does not transgress the basic conventions of fencing and commits no fault thereby (cf. t.20, t.25).

    (emphasis mine)

    I read this as the c-a-c was a result of the action, not the intent thereof. I'll now wait for Downunder to tell me I'm an idiot - or maybe he won't, since I've refereed at USFA Summer Nationals ;).
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2006
  19. downunder

    downunder Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    466

    He said nothing of the sort.

    He said that he has fleched into his opponent.

    oso, i'm sure you're a perfectly competant referee. I'm sure you know what corps a corps with jostling is at epee, and as a referee how you expect me to distinguish between the two actions presented above at the speed of a fleche. Why do you need to start this?
     
  20. shlepzig

    shlepzig Podium

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    66
    I don't follow

    I don't get where you are going with this. Could you explain your thinking or the action you have in mind more clearly. (This is not an attack I have made the assumption, you know what you are talking about and I have interpreted your meaning incorrectly).

    The way I see it.
    With the fleche (with or without contact) action would end as the fencers crossed or a fencer left the strip. The reason I don't see what you are getting at is that as long as the counter attack (or Parry-Riposte) is started before the end of the action it makes no difference to the call. I can't see where causing a CaC gives a fencer any advantage.

    Where I see it could be applied.
    If the attack is botched and turns to in-fighting, a fencer whom is uncomfotable in this situation or in a bad position to defned himself could cause a CaC to end the action, take a step back and get out of a situation that is bad for them. He still runs the risk that an action has been started, in the chaos that in-fighting can be, will hit him and be called against. That fencer would probably be wiser to plan a good trajectory off the strip in a proper fleche, which would not be an offence of any kind and would be far less risky.

    Shlep.
    (in NJ and has read too many flame wars this week)
     

Share This Page