Not Seeing the Touch Arrive

Discussion in 'Rules and Referee Questions' started by jjefferies, Aug 29, 2018.

  1. jjefferies

    jjefferies Podium

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    165
    In Epee, Fencer A attacks, Fencer B performs a Preen (either ceding or just blocking), Fencer A continues (remise) with angulation, light goes off for Fencer A and then there is corp-a-corps. Referee denies/annuls the touch stating he was not able to see the touch arrive.

    In epee as opposed to foil or saber is it necessary that the referee be able to see the touch arrive?
     
  2. keropie

    keropie Podium

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,478
    Likes Received:
    178
    Generally speaking, no; you should have to have a reason to doubt that the touch occurred, and in the absence of such you should generally conclude that it occurred. At least in my experience.

    If I can tell that the touch was no where near the target AND that it was near a non valid target (floor, table, etc.), that's when I would potentially annul. But the fact that I can't see it? Meh.
     
  3. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    36,867
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Or near...his own body, legs, off hand?
     
  4. Mac A. Bee

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

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,794
    Likes Received:
    182
    "t.66.1. In arriving at his judgment, the Referee will disregard touches which are registered as a result of actions:..made on any object other than the opponent, including his equipment (cf. t.36.1, t.67.e)."
     
  5. jjefferies

    jjefferies Podium

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    165
    Interesting how quickly people respond.
    But my phrasing may not be as clear as I would like. I was looking for an answer to the question "In epee, does the referee need to be able to see the touches made/arrive?" Clearly understood that if if anything else was hit, floor, table then an annulment would be appropriate.
     
  6. mfp

    mfp Podium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,089
    Likes Received:
    368
    No.
     
    kalivor and InFerrumVeritas like this.
  7. jkormann

    jkormann Podium

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,029
    Likes Received:
    206
    t.40.1. The materiality of the touch is established according to the indications of the apparatus,
    and when necessary by consulting the judges (cf. t.36).
    t.40.2. Only the indications of the electrical apparatus as indicated by its own lamps or by
    the extension lamps can be taken into consideration for judging touches. Under no
    circumstances can the Referee declare a competitor to be touched unless the touch has
    been properly registered by the apparatus

    t.64.1: Epée competitions are judged with an electrical scoring apparatus.

    There are additional Rules qualifiers about annulment (t.66 - t.68) , and none of them fit your circumstance: Touch stands.
     
  8. Goldgar

    Goldgar Podium

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,655
    Likes Received:
    178
    I'm pretty sure you mean "prime".
     
  9. Goldgar

    Goldgar Podium

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,655
    Likes Received:
    178
    Also, touch stands. You don't have to see it arrive on target, you have to see it not arrive.
     
  10. jjefferies

    jjefferies Podium

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    165
    Believe you are right. Pronunciations of French? words are often mangled in American English. I've heard it pronounced "Preen" so often that I didn't check it.
     
  11. Mac A. Bee

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

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,794
    Likes Received:
    182
    "Prime: Parry #1; blade down and to the inside, wrist pronated. The point is significantly lower than the hand. Covers the inside low-line (this is a rare sabre parry)."
     
  12. Purple Fencer

    Purple Fencer Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2001
    Messages:
    16,373
    Likes Received:
    587
    You say it "Preem," I think.

    If he's in Preen, he's grooming himself.

    As for seeing the hit arrive....nope. The rules state that all hits must register on the box in order to be counted, as Jkormann posted above.

    You may drill your opponent squarely in the chest with the blade bent almost in half....but if you have a broken wire or a short contact spring, it's not gonna register. By the same token, if you opponent is using a sabre or foil mask and you land on the lame bib, your hit may ground out if your narrel is in contact with the lame when the tip would normally fire.

    Those would be grounds of annulment based on equipment issues, but you can't make that decision just based on a visual.

    In other words..."Ain't no light, ain't no hit."
     
  13. Goldgar

    Goldgar Podium

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,655
    Likes Received:
    178
    That's not the issue jjefferies was asking about. He wasn't asking if the ref could call it good when there was no light. He was asking if the referee could call it no good when there was a light, on the sole grounds that he didn't see it hit.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2018
  14. Purple Fencer

    Purple Fencer Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2001
    Messages:
    16,373
    Likes Received:
    587
    Ah....thanks. It was early and I misread it on m phone.

    So, as a counter...if there's a light, there IS potentially a hit (depending on the floor).
     
  15. keropie

    keropie Podium

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,478
    Likes Received:
    178
    Yep. No where near target and near invalid target would include near your own leg, body, off hand, etc.
    If there's infighting and I'm having to decide if I think the fencer hit him/herself, if I don't think they did, it's a touch. I don't have to *know* it hit the opponent to award the touch.

    So, for the original question, I still assert that no, in order to NOT award the touch I have to be at least fairly certain that the touch is not on the valid target. And really, I should be VERY certain.
     
  16. jkormann

    jkormann Podium

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,029
    Likes Received:
    206
    Heh, I was on the rear hook-up socket once. Figured that was my own dumb fault and it wouldn't have changed the bout's outcome.
     
  17. Mac A. Bee

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

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,794
    Likes Received:
    182
    Not at a sanctioned tournament.
     
  18. Purple Fencer

    Purple Fencer Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2001
    Messages:
    16,373
    Likes Received:
    587
    True....in salle, tho....
     
  19. tbryan

    tbryan Podium

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    270
    I agree with keropie:
    I just wanted to note that in foil and saber, the referee doesn't have to "see the touch arrive" if you're talking about "seeing the tip as it hits target." Often, the touches will land on the opposite side of the fencer from the referee. Not a problem.

    I assumed that the "see the touch arrive" meant that your referee didn't know which action in the phrase caused the light came on.

    The referee does need to know which action in the fencing phrase turned the light on the box. In foil or saber, if there's a normal
    • attack
    • parry-riposte
    • remise of attack
    that results in 2 lights, it's critical to know whether the attack or the remise was the action that turned on the light for that fencer.

    The same is true in epee, but it's just that it often doesn't matter which actions turned on the light since there's no right-of-way. On the other hand, if there's a corps-a-corps, the referee needs to know when the action-that-hit occurred in relation to the corps-a-corps. The corps-a-corps is a halt, and if the action that hits didn't start until after that halt, then there's no touch.

    I'd use the same guidelines when annulling a touch that started after the halt for corps-a-corps. Annulling a hit that resulted in a light should be the exception. The times that I see it annulled, it's super obvious. Like
    • attack (parried)
    • riposte (misses)
    • remise (misses)
    • fencers run into each other (corps-a-corps)
    • fencers bounce off of each other
    • one of the fencers then withdraws his arm and remises to get a light
    Halt for the corps-a-corps. No touch awarded.

    But if it's more like you described (light is on before there's even a corps-a-corps), then I wouldn't expect it to be annulled.

    The one exception here is foot touches on a non-grounded strip. In that case, there's more bias for annulling the touch. If you try to hit foot and clearly hit floor, too, then I would expect the referee to annul the touch unless he clearly saw the touch hit the foot. So, I guess if fencer A in your situation was remising to foot or shin while fencing on a non-grounded strip and clearly hit the floor during the exchange, I could see the referee annulling the touch unless he "saw it hit" or saw that the hit arrived well before fencer A's tip was near the floor.
     
  20. Purple Fencer

    Purple Fencer Podium

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2001
    Messages:
    16,373
    Likes Received:
    587
    Derek Cotton once said you watch from the knees down and listen for the box on a non-grounded floor. 'Course, you have to watch for other things as well.
     
    Mac A. Bee likes this.

Share This Page