Touch after turning the back

Discussion in 'Rules and Referee Questions' started by Blackwood, Sep 22, 2018.

  1. Blackwood

    Blackwood DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    29
    I have no video for this, and (as you may guess from the two variations presented), the facts are in dispute. Still I would appreciate it if you could explain the ruling in each of the two cases described. This is in epee.

    Case A
    In this case, the order of events is:
    • Fencer on the left begins an attack.
    • Fencer on the right turns his back as described in rule t27.2.
    • Fencer on the left's attack arrives and the light goes off.
    Case B
    In this case, the order of events is:
    • Fencer on the right turns his back as described in rule t27.2.
    • Fencer on the left begins an attack.
    • Fencer on the left's attack arrives and the light goes off.
    Penalties and touches
    In each of the two cases, can you tell me:
    1. Does fencer on the right receive a Group 1 penalty for "turning the back"?
    2. Does fencer on the left's touch count (I'm asking about the touch indicated by the light, not any touch that might result from a penalty on fencer on the right)?
    3. Is there any penalty on fencer on the left for an attack that lands (or, in Case B, starts) after his opponent's back is turned?
    4. If the referee believes that fencer on the right turned his back in order to cause a halt and avoid a touch is there any additional penalty on him (and if so, under what rule)?
    My initial thought was that in both cases, fencer on the right gets the Group 1 penalty and fencer on the left does not get the touch. The problem I have with my answer is that this would give a fencer a one time opportunity to avoid a touch by turning his back (hence my 4th question). Obviously parrying would be a more effective way to avoid a touch, but perhaps fencer on the right had just missed on an attack and isn't in a position to parry.

    I haven't stated, in either case, when the referee actually said the word "Halt" as I believe that is not relevant. Is that true? If it is relevant, then assume the referee intended to call halt as soon as fencer on the right turned his back, but didn't manage to articulate the word until after the light came on.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2018
  2. Mac A. Bee

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

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,799
    Likes Received:
    184
    Case A: attack begun before complete turn but arrives after. Touch and penalty. Case B: Turn begins before attack begins but completed before arrival. Touch and penalty because penalty can't prevent legal action.
     
  3. Goldgar

    Goldgar Podium

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,655
    Likes Received:
    178
    Case A: Group 1 penalty for the fencer on the right; attack from the left, which began before the turn, is valid.

    Case B: Group 1 penalty for the fencer on the right. From the description, the attack from the left began after the halt for turning, so the touch is annulled. It doesn't matter when the referee actually said "Halt;" the timing depends on when the infraction actually occurred.

    There is no penalty for the fencer on the left, so long as the action is in phrase. If the referee called halt, there was a pause, and *then* the fencer on the left made a late hit, there could be a penalty.

    There is no additional penalty for turning the back to avoid a touch/cause a halt, because the turn itself brings its own penalty.
     
  4. keropie

    keropie Podium

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,479
    Likes Received:
    178
    Agreed. The halt occurs because of the turn, no new actions can be started after that. However, actions in progress are allowed to finish.
    No penalty on the attacking fencer UNLESS halt had already been called, and they began the attack clearly after halt had been called. Then maybe (failure to obey the referee). But that's like 'Halt!' .... and there's the attack. If it's largely at the same time, it would be hard to card (unless this was something that had been happening a lot in the bout, or something like that).
     
  5. jdude97

    jdude97 Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,922
    Likes Received:
    228
    I disagree with this conclusion. As others have stated, actions started before the turn may continue and validly arrive, but any action started after the turn is not valid. The OP explicitly gave the order of events as 1) turn, 2) attack starts, 3) attack lands, so group I penalty for FotR and no touch for FotL.
     
    keropie likes this.
  6. Mac A. Bee

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

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,799
    Likes Received:
    184
    True - but I redefined the problem similar to "Star Trek's" CPT Kirk's "Kobayashi Maru" test, to illustrate an action starting before.:D
     

Share This Page