Not Seeing the Touch Arrive

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

  1. InFerrumVeritas

    InFerrumVeritas DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    74
    The only reason to annul this touch is if the referee is saying that Fencer A caused the corp-a-corps to avoid a touch (the double from B). If the light clearly goes off before the corps-a-corps, I don't see this as a valid interpretation, as B wouldn't have made the lockout anyway.

    If the referee annulled the touch because he could not tell when the touch arrived, I understand but disagree with the call. You have to be certain of a reason to annul a touch not the other way around, IMU.

    The answer to your yes/no question is: no, in any weapon. That is nearly the whole point of having a scoring box in the first place.
     
  2. downunder

    downunder is a Verified Fencing Expertdownunder Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,866
    Likes Received:
    476
    The rules are clear about when touches should be annulled.
     
  3. jjefferies

    jjefferies Podium

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    165
    Can we view this as an assertion with no supporting proof or rationale?
     
  4. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    36,867
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Oh, the rules are clear on it, true enough. But we should probably amend it to "referee consensus interpretation of the rules are clear about when touches should be annulled".
     
  5. oiuyt

    oiuyt Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2000
    Messages:
    10,302
    Likes Received:
    1,030
    Reading the original question, it's possible the situation arose as a result of a misunderstanding (followed by a misapplication) of t.24:

    This would require both thinking that following the phrase requires seeing the point arrive AND applying the portion of the rule limited to foil and sabre to epee instead. Then again, William of Ockham might suggest a (non) "rule" made up from whole cloth is a more simple explanation than a double distortion of an existing rule.

    For those interested, t.93-95 are the rules for annulment of touches in epee.

    B
     
  6. downunder

    downunder is a Verified Fencing Expertdownunder Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,866
    Likes Received:
    476
    My comment? The supporting proof is the rulebook.
     

Share This Page