|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 7, 2006 11:33:42 GMT -6
Okay, I blatantly admit I stole this (and NOT from f.net), but it is too good not to share:
Fencer X reports to the strip for a direct elimination bout. Upon equipment inspection, you notice that his epee's barrel is loose. At the same time, you notice the tip is affixed by only one tip screw. When you look up at the fencer to inform him about the problems, you notice that his mask is missing the mandatory inspection mark. Fencer X tells you that he does not have a second mask. You graciously allow Fencer X to leave the strip to get his mask inspected. He returns after 20 minutes with his mask properly inspected. The bout begins. After one fencing action, Fencer Y scores a touch and you call "Halt!" Fencer X then takes off his mask without asking permission. Fencer X asks you to test his equipment, and you find that X's body cord is faulty and does not allow him to register touches on his opponent. 1) What is the score of the bout? 2) What penalties did you assess, and in which order? 3) What property of Fencer X have you confiscated, and when can he get it back?
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Apr 7, 2006 11:47:06 GMT -6
Are we to presume no penalties are assessed on Fencer Y?
The score is either 1-0 or 2-0, depending on if the referee consideres 20 minutes a reasonable amount of time to get a mask inspected. In general, I'd say it isn't, and is too long. However, I could forsee tournament situations where it is clearly out of the fencer's control.
1st Penalty: Group 1 offense for Non-Conforming Weapon. 2nd Penalty: Group 2 offense for absent inspection mark. They have presented themselves, without the inspection mark. If multiple penalties are assessed at once, the least serious is applied first. (I was initially taught the other way around, but read this somewhere I considered authoratative) 3rd Penalty: Delay of bout for not promptly getting mask inspected.
Touch registered in the bout is annulled because Fencer X could not register touches.
You have confiscated 1 NC epee and 1 body cord. They may be retrieved after the end of this bout.
|
|
|
Post by fox on Apr 7, 2006 11:55:56 GMT -6
Curious. Where did you read that? I was still under the impression you started with the most serious first. Thanks in advance for the reply.
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Apr 7, 2006 12:42:28 GMT -6
The annoying thing is I can't remember. It might have been an FIE guideline posted on the British sites, in which case it wouldn't directly apply.
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Apr 7, 2006 14:09:43 GMT -6
I'd say 2-0. 20 minutes is quite excessive.
|
|
|
Post by S Simpson on Apr 7, 2006 17:48:02 GMT -6
I say it's 3-0. Fencer X removed his mask w/out permission, which is something we rarely call, yet is an offense.
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Apr 8, 2006 5:50:42 GMT -6
Removing the mask after the halt does not require permission. The penalty is for removing the mask before the referee calls "Halt".
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Apr 9, 2006 18:52:38 GMT -6
Question: (I came across this during a tournament this weekend)
Fencer A is an energetic fencer (jumps and bobs, etc...) Fencer B, lunges. As fencer A parries, he literally jumps out of his mask and ripostes after his head has left the mask. I annulled the touch. Was I right? (I believe so)
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Apr 9, 2006 19:12:14 GMT -6
Yes.
A mask falling off is an immediate 'halt' for safety reasons. No touch either by the fencer or his opponent should be counted.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 14, 2006 11:38:05 GMT -6
My own take on the problem is:
Red card to X for arriving on strip without a mask with the mandatory armorer's stamp. (Sorry, but I still have to go with the last way I was taught, most severe first).
Score 1-0 for Y
Red card to X for non-conforming weapon (since the first red card elevated what would have been a yellow card).
Score 2-0 for Y
I just can not see me giving him 20 minutes, so another card for delay of bout.
It is now 3-0 for Y.
On the first action, Y's touch is annulled.
Score remains 3-0.
No penalty for removing a mask after halt.
I have by the end of the problem confiscated X's first weapon and faulty body cord.
|
|
|
Post by MTD on May 1, 2006 22:20:34 GMT -6
... As fencer A parries, he literally jumps out of his mask and ripostes after his head has left the mask. I annulled the touch. Was I right? (I believe so) Although the actual text of the question says "ripostes after his head has left the mask", I assume that the riposte began before the removal of the mask, and was a single direct motion (i.e., it was a coup lancé starting before the halt). That's what makes the question interesting. If the action of the riposte which landed actually began after the removal of the mask, it's an open and shut case that the touch was scored by an action which began after the halt. According to the rulebook: You probably were not right. Almost all first group offenses in the penalty chart (t.120) now bear the asterisk which signifies annulling any touch scored while committing the offense. However, this is not the case for removing the mask before the halt or undressing on strip. If one references t.87, the underlying authority for those lines of the chart, one finds there is no sentence describing annullment of touches scored while committing such offenses. Nobody ever figured it would be possible to score a touch while taking advantage of breaking the rule about undressing, or score a touch while taking advantage of breaking the rule about removing one's mask. According to common sense: You were right. You have to assume that fencer B ceases functioning as a fencer the moment he saw something amiss with fencer A's protection, and as such was very likely to be the target of touches which he would not have received if he had stayed an effective fencer. Now, if you want a way to get away with the common sense answer, but don't want to bend or break the rules to achieve it, call it "abnormal fencing action" or "disorderly fencing", award the yellow card for that, and annul the touch as specifically prescribed. Just don't claim that the ruling is based on the "taking off mask before the Referee calls 'Halt'" or the "undressing on the strip" rules.
|
|
|
Post by MTD on May 1, 2006 22:50:16 GMT -6
... I was still under the impression you started with the most serious first. ... I too am still operating under instructions to apply the most severe penalty first. But, I don't know of anything which puts it in writing. It does sound like something the British wrote down, although not as part of their actual rules. It wouldn't be binding on USFA fencing, but wouldn't be binding on British fencing either. However, it may be as good as anything written about standard worldwide practice (and, in general USFA practice is modeled after worldwide practice except when a conscious decision is made to do otherwise). The FIE recently considered codifying this. For consideration at the Doha Congress in November 2005, the Brazilian fencing federation and/or Arthur Cramer personally proposed to modify the rules to specify (English version of the proposal): "The Referee must sentence all the offences starting with the most severe offence, which is, the most severe penalty, even after the order « Halt »." The proposal was offered to the FIE membership without comment. The Doha Congress did indeed act on the matter, but acted in the opposite fashion to the proposal. Rule t.114 was amended to include: "Lorsqu’un arbitre doit pénaliser un tireur qui commet plusieurs fautes en même temps, il pénalisera d’abord la faute la moins grave." ("If a referee must penalise a fencer who has committed several faults at the same time, he should penalise the less serious fault first.") The USFA rules have nothing in t.114 (or elsewhere) corresponding to this new sentence in the FIE rule t.114. However, it is quite plausible that the USFA Board of Directors this summer will receive and approve a recommendation from the FOC to insert pretty much the sentence in parentheses at the end of my previous paragraph (except for using American instead of British spelling).
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on May 8, 2006 22:56:53 GMT -6
Among other British ideas I don't want to adopt, I understand they believe the absence of a tip screw on the weapon of a fencer who wishes their epee to be checked mean that the touch should not be annulled, as if the barrel were loose or the bodycord unplugged at the socket.
|
|
|
Post by lotrstarwarsaafan on May 16, 2006 9:25:23 GMT -6
3-0 Yellow for the barrel (possibly not if your being nice), red for the tip, red for the mask and then most likely a red for taking too much time because the armorer most likely would not have a very long line at that time. Weapon and body cord you would confiscate and you would give it back at the end of the bout. Please correct me if i'm wrong
|
|
|
Post by Gary van der Wege on Jun 3, 2006 10:01:16 GMT -6
The FOC (and I believe I also heard this direct from George K too) has always insisted that a red card for the lack of control mark be issued first. IE. if a foil event requires marks on the mask, lame and body cord and none of those bear the inspection mark....the score starts 3-0. A non-conforming weapon would make it 4-0 (although the weapon is immediately withdrawn for its FIRST non-conformity) and so on. A glance toward the inspection table should tell you if 20 minutes is sufficient or not. As for the safety issue of the head leaving the mask..there is nothing in the rule book that says what to do if a bowling ball rolls onto your strip, but one would indeed call "Halt" and have no obligation to award a right of way action arriving after that. The final consideration and variation is that a mask in USFA competitions is not required to have a retaining device (strap). In FIE competitions they are required.
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Jun 3, 2006 10:05:54 GMT -6
Hm. We were very specifically instructed at Reno not to allow masks which didn't have the strap. I don't know if this was brought up at Sacramento or not.
|
|
|
Post by gary van der Wege on Jun 3, 2006 10:17:27 GMT -6
Guess they decided to get with the FIE on that one this year. It was originally part of allowing a non-FIE homologated mask at USFA events. Thats what I get for staying home to baby sit.
|
|