bobb121
Scribe
[ss:Antique Foil]
Posts: 47
|
Post by bobb121 on Jul 17, 2006 9:11:51 GMT -6
If an epee fencer test his weapon without permission from the ref, but finds the reason the weapon doesn't work is do to the fact that the wire has snapped and popped out from the midle of the blade. Should the last touch be annuled?
Also, If an epee fencer has no secondary weapon but borrows one, and gets a hole in his glove. How many cards are given, if any?
|
|
|
Post by thecarpinator on Jul 17, 2006 12:06:05 GMT -6
A million refs on this board, so they can correct me if I'm wrong... but here's a shot... no card for testing the weapon without permission and it's up to the ref to judge whether the self test might have altered the weapon enough to annul the touch or not. If you gently touch the floor, the ref probably annuls it, if you flick the side of the strip hard, probably not annuled.
No secondary weapon will then be yellow card.
If they just discovered the hole in the glove, it must have happened while fencing so no card there, but you'd have to replace it or patch the hole.
That's how I'd call it anyway...
|
|
Gary M van der Wege
Guest
|
Post by Gary M van der Wege on Jul 17, 2006 13:01:20 GMT -6
OK folks. A fencer MAY make a GENTLE test of the weapon in full view of the referee and then ask for the referee to also make the test. A wire broken on the blade by fencing would be grounds to anul the touch scored by the opponent. Hopefully you have a good ref who was not aseep and knows the rules. This question has been on the referee exam for a long time so you all should know this by now. BTW. I will be conducting a ref seminar in conjunction with the Texas State Games in Round Rock at the end of July. Also, my NEW contact info is : Gary van der Wege wedge@austin.rr.com 663 Hogan Kyle, TX 78640 512 504-3853
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Jul 22, 2006 15:29:51 GMT -6
A fencer MAY make a GENTLE test of the weapon in full view of the referee and then ask for the referee to also make the test. Speaking as a referee, I really appreciate it when a fencer tests his own weapon, just as long as he does nothing ambiguous! - When the fencer tests his weapon brutally, it doesn't matter whether the light lights or not. The weapon can now be presumed no longer to be in the condition it was when bouting ended, and I don't have to watch him any more to see if he might be doing anything to create a weapon problem before requesting a test.
- When the fencer tests his weapon gently, and the light lights, I don't have to watch him any more to see if he might be doing anything to create a weapon problem before requesting a test. If he requests a test, I tell him it was already tested under my supervision, and passed the test.
- When the fencer tests his weapon gently, and the light does not light (and the fencer acts surprised rather than like he intentionally pushed too little), it's a pretty good sign that the system is no longer really conforming, and I initiate an investigation of my own without waiting for a request (with confidence that the investigation will not be a waste of time). Investigation promptly reveals whether the touch will be annulled, and, either way, no effort need be spent watching the fencer any longer.
I also appreciate it when the fencer clearly turns his back to me and hides his weapon and both of his hands for a while, particularly if the weapon seems to be quivering and the fencer is not walking. Then, I can decide no future test will be meaningful and stop watching the fencer. What's annoying is when there is an extremely long period between when the touch is scored against the fencer and when no test could be valid any longer. (Picture a touch scored just before the end of a period, followed by a short period when the clock is running but the fencers are passive and the weapon is under no strain, hence bouting cannot be considered to have effectively commenced, followed by a one-minute break during which the weapon is not abused and not tested. Or, picture the final touch being scored, but the loser takes forever to test the weapon, to stress the weapon, or to disconnect anything, and never hides the weapon from view long enough to do anything to it.) What's also annoying is a fencer who hides his weapon from view just enough so it's on the razor's edge between still being testable and not -- or tests the weapon not quite gently but not quite abusively either, so it's on the razor's edge between still being testable and not. It doesn't matter how lenient or how strict the referee is. For any referee, someplace there will be these annoying boundary lines between still being testable and no longer being testable. The only variation is where the boundary lines are.
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Jul 22, 2006 18:16:40 GMT -6
I go by the principle that once the command "Fence" has been given, the action has effectively started, and that any irregularities discovered cannot annul the previous touch. Likewise, if the break has started, I cannot supervise both fencers at the same time constantly (since they're at opposite ends of the strip and I'm in the middle), but I must watch both during the break, so I can't be sure the weapon wasn't altered. For that matter, it's impossible for time to expire at the same time as a touch, so there must have been a time between when the last touch was scored and the break during which fencing recommenced, and time expired.
I recall reading the rule which states that even if the bout has recommenced, unless there is blade contact (and not just taps, I think) touches can still be annulled, but I think that's from the 1995 rulebook, and is certainly not in the current one, so it is not still in effect.
|
|