Passing in epee - current interpretation

Discussion in 'Rules and Referee Questions' started by nwtrout, Jan 26, 2018.

  1. nwtrout

    nwtrout Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    8
    Thanks all for the replies. While "FullyCompletely" is a nice Tragically Hip song, it doesn't clarify what constitutes Fully or Completely past/passed. The literal interpretation would be no parts of the fencers' bodies are parallel. In the crude example below, the back/non-weapon leg and arms haven't FULLY or COMPLETELY passed. Center mass has passed. What would be the call?
    upload_2018-2-20_15-22-39.png
     
  2. tbryan

    tbryan Podium

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    322
    It's probably a combination of

    and

    Therefore, once the fencer is completely past his opponent, the referee calls "Halt," and the fencer who was passed "may not start a new action."

    In that interpretation, when t.21.4 says, "When hits are made as a fencer passes his opponent, the hit made immediately is valid...the touch made immediately, even when turning around, by the competitor who has been subjected to the offensive action, is valid," I believe that it is viewed as a clarification that "the movement which has begun before the order was given remains valid" should include actions that started before the halt / passing but that require the fencer to turn around to hit, as long as there is no pause or delay (i.e., it is immediate).

    In theory, this interpretation would mostly result in the same calls as an interpretation that permits an action started after the pass as long as it is "immediate." In practice, based on what I've seen on FIE Video and in a limited amount Div I / Div II epee at NACs, US referees sometimes discard touches as "not immediate" when those touches would be allowed by FIE referees.
     
    jdude97 likes this.
  3. jkormann

    jkormann Podium

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,245
    Likes Received:
    250
    This is all good theoretical, but... how do you explain to a ref that when you hit the flesching fencer, the point should count.
     
  4. Mac A. Bee

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

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,971
    Likes Received:
    211
    If all the above conditions are met, you appeal on misunderstand/misapplication of the rules. If you have a good Head Ref or BC, you should be upheld. Otherwise you risk a Group I Yellow Card for Unjustified Appeal.
     
  5. tbryan

    tbryan Podium

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    322
    Aside: this isn't really a rules and refereeing question, and this part of the thread should probably be moved to the general fencing forum.

    If it's not clear from the referee's call, and you thought that the touch should have been yours, ask the referee to clarify. Ask politely, "Why was the touch annulled?" Good referees will know exactly why you're asking and will be happy to clarify. The referee will probably say, "You made two actions. Your opponent passed. Your first riposte missed." Or maybe something like, "Your counter attack (riposte, etc.) was not immediate (or didn't start until after you were passed)." At this point, it should be clear what the referee is saying happened and whether he applied the rules correctly based on what he says happened.

    As with most calls in epee, this call is mostly the referee's judgment of a matter of fact. If you disagree with the referee's description of the action, and if you're fencing with replay, you can use a video challenge. Otherwise, if the referee says that your action was not immediate / did not start until after the halt, then there's nothing you can do. If he says it, that's what happened. You cannot successfully appeal the referee's ruling on a matter of fact. If I'm your referee, and you keep arguing after I've clarified, I'll just ask you to get on guard.

    From time to time, you may have a referee who doesn't know the rules or didn't apply the rule correctly. In this case, you could continue to ask clarifying questions until you have a rule application that you can appeal.
    • Fencer: Why was my touch annulled?
    • Referee: You hit him after he passed. No touch.
    • Fencer: Didn't I start the riposte before he passed me?
    • Referee: Yes, you parried and started the riposte, but but you didn't hit until after he passed. I called halt for the pass. No touch.
    • Fencer: But I just made one riposte? I parried and started my riposte action, and that same riposte hit after he passed me?
    • Referee: Right.
    • Fencer: I'd like to appeal.
    Normally, epee fencers want to argue about what they think they did. It's silly, and it wastes time.

    But from time to time, the referee applies the rules incorrectly. For example, I saw a referee attempt at the Junior Olympics award two touches once when a fencer was hit just after he was pushed off the back of the strip. One touch for the hit. Another touch for crossing the end line. The fencer appealed. The call was overturned, of course. (And the referee learned something.)
     
  6. mfp

    mfp Podium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,190
    Likes Received:
    415
    I imagine US refs are saying the action/ripsote needs to start before the pass because that's what their US Fencing Official Commission / Referee Commission keeps telling them:

    If a fencer being passed makes an immediate riposte started before the opposing fencer is completely past, that riposte is still valid if it lands after the pass has concluded (as stated in t.21.4).

    Devin Donnelly
    On behalf of the Rules Committee and the Referees’ Commission​

    http://www.refereescommission.org/blog/2016/10/rules-blog-on-passing-what-is-completely-past/
     
  7. K O'N

    K O'N Podium

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,930
    Likes Received:
    689
    You don't explain anything to a ref. It doesn't do any good. You ask for an explanation of a point, and if the explanation has a clearly incorrect rules interpretation you call a bout committee, if it's that big a deal to you. If not you move on. That's it. You're not going to argue a ref into giving you a point.

    This passing thing is a place where high level refs call actions very differently from lower level refs, IME. An epee 1 or 2 will let the passing fencer get well out of reach before calling a halt. A local ref will often call a halt as soon as someone passes. A national level ref will allow for a much later riposte on a passing fencer than will many local refs. It's just a difference you have to get used to.

    Sometimes you can get them to say something like "It's not your touch because he was past you" and you can call a BC and get the touch. Usually not.

    Honestly it's not that big a thing. It's not going to happen that often. After the bout, after the pool is done, you can sometimes tell the ref that you think they've made a mistake and they'll go ask someone and learn to call a halt later. Arguing on the strip during the bout is useless, and it takes you out of fencing mode and into arguing mode which is a bad idea anyway.
     
  8. downunder

    downunder is a Verified Fencing Expertdownunder Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,878
    Likes Received:
    495
    I know you're just hypothesising but this is again very clearly addressed in the rules:

    t.26.2 FIE rulebook (t63.4. US rulebook) “On the other hand the “flèche which is made by running, even going past the opponent,” and without a corps à corps is not forbidden: the Referee should not call “Halt” too soon, in order not to annul a possible riposte; if, when making such a running flèche without touching his opponent, the fencer who makes the flèche crosses the lateral boundaries of the strip, he must be punished as laid down in Article t.28.3.”
     
  9. nwtrout

    nwtrout Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    8
    Maybe the third time will work:

    What is the current direction/directive/take on what constitutes passing in epee, and thus halt of fencing?

    Responses have been Fully and Completely. In clear language, fully and/or completely means no body parts are parallel to each other. Yet,I've been given different interpretations of this - space between fencers, shoulders passed with space between, center mass passed with space between, hips, thighs, legs, even feet.
     
  10. Goldgar

    Goldgar Podium

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,694
    Likes Received:
    191
    The last I heard, it was "torsos completely past".
     
  11. swordwench

    swordwench is a Verified Fencing Expertswordwench Podium

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,979
    Likes Received:
    291
    This keeps getting defined and re-defined, every couple of seasons. For now, I go with "when I see daylight between your torsos." I often get asked by fencers what I consider "passing" and that is the definition I give them every time, and I make sure that both of them hear it. Often, they ask what I will call before they even start fencing - which usually means I will see a fair amount of it in that bout. :) BTW, the season where we were told to count trailing feet and fingers made me want to cry.
     
    InFerrumVeritas likes this.
  12. iktovian

    iktovian Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    9
    this is one rule which a lot of referees keep trying to read down, no matter how clear the written rules are.

    Asking 'When have they completely past' is a bit ridiculous. I don't want someone closing a door on my trailing foot and then telling me that informed minds differ on whether I was completely through the door at that moment. 'Completely past' means the whole fencer has passed. An 'immediate' riposte means you can't riposte when your opponent has passed you completely, you've heard the halt called and you see that your opponent is out of reach.

    The rules tell me how the bout is supposed to work. I'm not going to look at them as a referee and come up with an innovative reading that saves me from having to worry about the ambiguity that naturally arises in these situations. The rules look to me to be designed to encourage athletic actions within safe boundaries. So fencers may pass but they must pass quickly, or risk being hit in the process. Fencers may riposte after the pass but fencing must stop safely after the pass has occurred.

    Epee works better if the referee can deal with a certain amount of ambiguity. I think you need to accept that you won't always know if the trailing hand or foot passed the opponent or not. The video replay won't be able to prove anything, most of the time, (even if there is one) because most of them point diagonally across the strip. A lot of the cameras that are being used at the moment don't have enough resolution to pick out these details reliably even if they're pointing straight across the strip. No-one has a better point of view than the actual referee has at the moment an action occurs. As soon as you start to pass around sentences like 'the riposte didn't start until after I saw light between their bodies' you start to privilege the fencer who passes slowly and knows how to argue with you and the fencer who passes quickly and who doesn't speak your native language.
     

Share This Page