Imboden-Le Pechoux Cairo

Discussion in 'Fencing Discussion' started by HalfBlue, Mar 6, 2019.

  1. HalfBlue

    HalfBlue Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2016
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    7
    This bout seems to have an unusually high level of contention / protest / etc from each of the fencers, particulary on & after Imboden's 10th touch.... can any of the experts out there provide some color for us less expert watchers, as to what all was going on?

     
  2. K O'N

    K O'N Podium

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,879
    Likes Received:
    657
    I'm not an expert in anything, but it certainly looks in that touch like Imboden stepped off the strip, then finished his riposte. I would suppose that that's what all the fuss was about.
     
  3. mfp

    mfp Podium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,135
    Likes Received:
    401
    The finish isn't the important bit there -- it's the timing of the start that matters: t.33 (1) and (3)
     
  4. Strytllr

    Strytllr DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    130
    so, Le Pechoux called for video replay, then the US coach called for an appeal to the BC?
     
  5. HalfBlue

    HalfBlue Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2016
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    7
    It's not just that one touch.... the rest of the bout has a bunch of arguments. For example 2:49, 2:19 and 1:50 in the 2nd period. It's hard (for me at least) to tell whether there are legit bad actions going on or if these guys are just in a mood to argue.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2019
  6. Diesel

    Diesel Made the Cut

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    19
    I think the initial challenge from Le Pechoux was whether Imboden had passed him.
     
  7. Strytllr

    Strytllr DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    130
    it also seemed that someone off camera on the left said something that Imboden took offense at after the bout. I thought it was interesting that the french coach was the first person to try to hold him back. ahh, for better sound and a better knowledge of french.
     
  8. jdude97

    jdude97 Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,980
    Likes Received:
    257
    There's a lot to unpack in this one.

    Race's 10th touch [9:20]:
    Actions begun on the strip but landing with one foot off the strip are valid. This has long been a point on which I desire clarity: does the action count as having started when you pull back the arm to take another shot or once the arm actually starts moving forward to the target. If the former (which is how I tend to apply the rule), then Race's touch was good. It's possible it's this point Le Pechoux was appealing to the bout committee. When there is video replay, the BC can view the video, so it is, in a way, possible to appeal the interpretation of the action to the BC (unlike normally where one can only appeal the application of the rules), although unusual to see an appeal in this circumstance. Once the ref has seen the video and made his call, seems very low probability that it'll get changed. I don't believe we see it on camera, but I do believe Le Pechoux got a yellow card for unjustified appeal after this touch, which will be relevant later.

    Race's contention [19:00]:
    Le Pechoux seems to run past and off the strip after Race parries. Race is asking for a call of leaving the strip to avoid the touch but I don't think he's going to get it here. Probably just some frustration bubbling over now. He doesn't even ask for a video review (although not sure if he has any left at this point).

    Le Pechoux's red card [20:00]:
    I've watched this touch a bunch of times and I can't figure out what the card is for. But Race seems to know something is awry immediately. The referee apparently agrees as he goes to the video without being asked. Covering? Use of the non-weapon arm? I really can't tell and would appreciate enlightenment. Recall how Le Pechoux got a YC for unjustified appeal earlier. Now assuming this wasn't a straight Group II penalty, this new Group I penalty is a red card and touch for Race.

    Race's yellow card [22:50]:
    I had to watch a few times and in slo-mo, but Race pretty clearly dips his mask down to cover target at the very last second. It's actually pretty impressive (assuming it was intentional) that he has fast enough reaction times to recognize he's going to get hit and cover target in this way. Once that's determined on the video, it's a pretty straight forward Group I penalty. However, referring to the USFA rules but noting I believe them to be the same in the FIE rules, t.79.1b states that if a fencer covers target leading to a touch registering as off target that would've otherwise been on target, the touch should be awarded, i.e. Le Pechoux should get the touch here. I'm not sure why he does not receive the touch here given this rule. Assuming this FIE ref knows the rules, I'd guess he ruled that Le Pechoux would've hit off target regardless of if Race covered target (I can understand this ruling as it'd be a huge call to give Le Pechoux the touch in this circumstance).

    Le Pechoux's corps a corps to avoid a touch?:
    I watched the whole bout from 9-9 onwards and Le Pechoux seemed to regularly body up Race after most of the close encounters. You see Race expressing frustration directly to his opponent on some of them, such as 22:50. I'm surprised there isn't more appeal to the referee in these cases. The one at 24:45 seemed like it'd be a clear penalty on Le Pechoux had Race not hit off-target just before.

    The fencers' behavior:
    Both fencers seem to be talking a surprising amount to each other, but especially Race. Sometimes you see this with guys who are pretty familiar with one another but not exactly friends. IMO the ref really should've put an end to this jawing early on. It's one thing to appeal to the referee but another to be talking directly to your opponent.
     
    HalfBlue and Allen Evans like this.
  9. HalfBlue

    HalfBlue Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2016
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    7
    Jdude, thanks for all that detail!

    For that Le Pechoux red card around 20:00, it sounds like Race is saying that Le Pechoux is parrying with "both arms" (??) but I don't really see it. It does seem like Le Pechoux doesn't keep his back arm very far out of the way.
     
  10. mfp

    mfp Podium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,135
    Likes Received:
    401
    Uh, no. Why do you believe Le Pechoux got a yellow card for unjustified appeal after this touch?

    Watch again.

    Two lights go off. The ref signalled touch right for Race. Hand signal at 9:31. Le Pechoux immediately makes the "video" signal with his hands (9:34). The refs look at the video. The ref then 1) doesn't add the point to Race's score (at that point) and then 2) directs both fencers back to the end of the strip where the last action/halt was (9:52 - 10:08).

    According to rule t.62:

    Once the referee, together with the video consultant, has analysed the action, whether it is : - at the referee's initiative - at the request of the athlete - in case of a tied score, before the decisive hit - at the video consultant's request the decision given by the referee is final and no other review of the same action can be requested.​

    However it looks like Race and coach objected to the decision given by the referee after the ref and video consultant analysed the action. Their "no, no, no, no ..." was objecting to not awarding a touch after the video review and placing the fencers back to where the last action was.
     
  11. jdude97

    jdude97 Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,980
    Likes Received:
    257
    My bad, I got it backwards. Thanks for the correction.
     
  12. jjefferies

    jjefferies Podium

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,876
    Likes Received:
    188
    And once again I'm so happy to be an epeeist.
     
    NKFA likes this.
  13. Mac A. Bee

    Mac A. Bee is a Verified Fencing ExpertMac A. Bee Podium

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,891
    Likes Received:
    203
    What about Race's turn-and-close early on? At the minimum, card for turning.
    During my former high school competitor's and my Vet NAC DE, we puzzled our 20something ref with our "Princess Bride"-like en-phrase banter, e.g. "Nice shot!", "Good one!" or "Almost!"
     
    HalfBlue likes this.
  14. tbryan

    tbryan Podium

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,081
    Likes Received:
    298
    FYI - my references to times below are based on the YouTube video, not the bout time.

    I have no international experience, and I don't know the fencers personally. But I'll guess a few factors that lead to arguments...
    • High stakes. L16 bout at a world cup as we near the Olympic qualification cycle. (With his loss, Race earned just 8 points. LePechoux took second and earned 26.)
    • Have you ever seen these fencers before? ;)I know that that's not the first time I've seen Race arguing with the referee.
    • Most the the touches that they're arguing very early in the bout are just close calls.
      • Attack-in-prep or counterattack: one call for each at 2:39 and 3:44. Both challenged. Both upheld on review against the challenger.
      • Beat-attack or parry-riposte at 4:24. Challenged and overturned.
      • There's probably both some confusion about what the referee is seeing and some effort from each fencer to influence how the referee sees the action.
    • Scoring context also plays into the amount of arguing.
      • Race pulls ahead to 8-4 and looks like he's running away with the bout.
      • Up to this point, not an unusual amount of arguing.
      • Then LePechoux goes on a 5 touch run to take a 9-8 lead with a counterattack, remise of attack, counterattack, attack, and beat attack. As LePechoux is fighting to get back into the bout, and Race is trying to regain control, they both start arguing more.
      • This run of touches includes a halt (and no touch) and 2 right-of-way calls that LePechoux didn't like. Race also argued for a leaving the strip to avoid a touch penalty for LePechoux, and Race thought that LePechoux's beat-attack at 7:50 was his parry-riposte. (Race only has one challenge left here, and he decides not to challenge after a look at his coach.)
      • On the next touch at 8:04, Race draws out LePechoux's attack, finally gets the parry, but then LePechoux dodges and passes. Race's riposte is off-target. He's annoyed, of course, but I don't think that LePechoux did anything illegal. Referee checks video, and no card is awarded was a card here.
      • Race levels it at 9-9.
      • LePechoux retakes the lead at 10-9 on a touch in the center where Race failed to turn on a light.
      • Then there's the critical 10-10 at 9:28. Called as Race's riposte. Overturned on video challenge. This is the big, messy call with the coaches on strip, and presumably an appeal. 5 minutes later, and we go back to the original call.
      • After the break, it's a sprint from 10 to 15, and no one wants to give up a touch. So, more arguing.
    Regarding your specific questions:

    I agree with jdude that there's not much of a case for leaving the strip to avoid a touch at 19:00. You could maybe argue that LePechoux lurches sideways while he passes. Race is arguing because it's the second time where he was trying to riposte as LePechoux passed, and LePechoux is clearly angling off strip instead of running straight past. Personally, I don't think that I've ever seen a fencer penalized for that infraction. The convention seems to be that it has to be obviously a fencer realizing "oh, no!" and then just leaping off of the strip. Most referees let fencers leave the strip if they're making legitimate fencing actions while doing it.

    At 20:12, Race was trying to finish his attack, and LePechoux hits with a counterattack. It looks like Race is arguing for illegal use of non-weapon arm. After review, it's clear that the referee penalizes LePechoux for covering target. To me, this one is a hard call. LePechoux is mostly just squaring up. Unlike the earlier yellow card at 15:52, LePechoux doesn't clearly put his non-weapon arm in between his target and Race. He hits and then tries to parry Race's attack, but since Race is finishing to LePechoux's inside / chest target, you could argue that LePechoux does cover target. It probably doesn't help LePechoux's case that he didn't just square up but kind of twisted and lowered his non-weapon shoulder into the attack.

    At 22:52, covering target with mask. Race does duck his head here, and he doesn't argue. It's a reasonable call, but since the referee didn't penalize LePechoux for the action at 17:08, I was surprised that he gave a card here.

    Regarding jdude's question about t.79.1(b), I almost never see "substitution of target" called in foil. I think that most referees feel like there's a lot of uncertainty about whether the attacker would have registered the touch and that the Group I penalty is sufficient sanction for covering target. The only time I'd expect to see a touch awarded for substitution of target according to t.79.1(b) is if a fencer has his hand pressed on his lame, and the opponent clearly hits the hand. Otherwise, I'd just expect a normal group I penalty and any touch scored during the action to be annulled.
     
  15. tbryan

    tbryan Podium

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,081
    Likes Received:
    298
    Are you talking about the one at 16:24? Or an earlier one?

    I was thinking that there would be a card for turning back at 16:24, but when I watched again, I see that LePechoux had hit off target well before Race even started to turn.
     
  16. wwittman

    wwittman Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    9
    someone clarify for me the rule about removing the mask without permission in the middle of a bout
     
  17. tbryan

    tbryan Podium

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,081
    Likes Received:
    298
    t.125 The fencer, whether on or off the strip, must keep his mask on until the Referee calls halt. He may under no circumstances address the Referee until the Referee has made his decision (cf. t.158-162, t.165, t.170).​

    If a fencer is removing the mask after the halt but after every touch, I think the referees sometimes penalize them for delay of bout.

    t.43.2 Any fencer who attempts improperly to cause or to prolong interruptions to the bout is penalized as specified in Articles t.158-162, t.165, t.170.​
     
  18. wwittman

    wwittman Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    9
    Interesting.
    I’m pretty sure the rule USED to be that you asked for permission until the bout was over.

    Whatever it is, these guys clearly tear the mask off way too much and too soon.
    It looks juvenile.
     
  19. downunder

    downunder is a Verified Fencing Expertdownunder Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,870
    Likes Received:
    487
    This is a well trodden myth of fencing.
     
    Allen Evans likes this.
  20. jdude97

    jdude97 Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,980
    Likes Received:
    257
    I'll trust tbryan that the rules are as he says they are but I will note that, from my experience watching FIE bouts, the refs are always telling the fencers to put their masks back on. "Mask. Mask." you hear them demand. So if not a rule, certainly a convention or interpretation of the two rules tbryan quoted.
     

Share This Page