|
Post by fox on Oct 18, 2006 12:56:15 GMT -6
Second query Fencer X and Fencer Y are in an epee bout. Double hits are registered. Fencer X clearly hit fencer B. Fencer B, just as clearly, deliberately hit the ungrounded floor off the piste.
I know X gets a touch and Y's touch is annulled, but my understanding is that a deliberate hit on the floor is a red card. Would X then be awarded a second touch, as well?
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Oct 18, 2006 14:19:46 GMT -6
If it's deliberate. (You answered your own question.)
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Oct 18, 2006 20:34:18 GMT -6
Second query Fencer X and Fencer Y are in an epee bout. Double hits are registered. Fencer X clearly hit fencer B. Fencer B, just as clearly, deliberately hit the ungrounded floor off the piste. I know X gets a touch and Y's touch is annulled, but my understanding is that a deliberate hit on the floor is a red card. Would X then be awarded a second touch, as well? You can't ordinarily card and award a touch, but my understanding is the touch is awarded, and a red card as well because it's deliberate. Any other inerpretations out there?
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Oct 18, 2006 22:09:55 GMT -6
If fencer Y commits an offense and scores a touch, the penalty is applied and the touch is annulled. If fencer Y commits an offense and fencer X scores a valid touch, the penalty is apllied and the touch is awarded.
In the given example, X would receive 2 points.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Oct 19, 2006 7:57:20 GMT -6
Just as a warning - make SURE all your ducks are in a row, that you are POSITIVE it was deliberate, and that you very clearly and simply explain the action and cards. Otherwise you are opening yourself up for a world of hurt here.
There are a few penalties that are almost never called - because they require the referee to parse intent instead of action.
A deliberate hit outside the scoring area is one of these. (emphasis mine) The referee can see that the fencer hit outside the playing field, yes, but then he has to parse intent. Sometimes (very rarely) its clear, but most of the time its ambiguous. Better to error on the caution, unless you are dead certain.
Another is leaving the strip to avoid a touch. Again, yes, the fencer left the strip, but are you sure it was to avoid being hit? And given that the fencer can still BE scored upon while off strip, (while not being able to score in return) are you sure it was deliberate. Again, better to error on the side of caution, unless you are dead certain.
These dead certanties are very rare. That is not to say that they don't happen (I've called both penalties myself), but be very cautious.
Another is deliberate brutality. This is even trickier although, probably easier to call. But the consequences are much greater. Can the action be handled under a generalised "brutal hit" or "Corps-a-corps" or "scoring with the bell gaurd" or "disorderly fencing" kind of a penalty? Obviously, this is not to disuade you from making the call if you are sure, but only if you are sure.
Again, one of the biggest gray areas is when referees try to parse intent, instead of action. Just like when you're calling a right-of-way phrase, try to stick to what the fencers DID, and not wha they wanted to do.
|
|