PDA

View Full Version : epee rules, what if?



Fencer's dad
-29th October 2003, 00:55
My wife accompanied our daughter to a recent tournament and whilst watching a bout not (involving our daughter) noticed one of the contestants wrap her wire around her little finger! Her opponant was getting the better of the contestant when suddenly she raised her arm and told the referee her wire had become detatched from her sword! Again the girl wrapped the wire around her little finger and the bout resumed. Two points later her opponant again was getting the better of her when suddenly again she said her wire had become detatched!

My wife scrutinised the girls actions that she became aware that my wife was watching her and she then unwound the wire from her little finger and surprisingly her wire did not become detatched again!

My questions are quite simple. 1) Are you allowed to wrap the wire around any finger? 2) If it is not allowed what should a spectator do if they witness such an act? 3) If this is not allowed what would be the result if a fencer was caught doing this (by 'this' I mean detatching his/her wire by pulling it out of its connection on purpose).

-------------------------------------------------------------

Smile today for it can only get worse!
Smile tomorrow because yesterday was not as bad as it could have been!

Gav
-29th October 2003, 07:07
Hi Fencer's Dad welcome to the board. You appear to have placed this question in the wrong section. It has been moved to Referee's.

Gav
-29th October 2003, 07:19
I can't think of anyh rule that prohibits wrapping the body wire around the little finger.

However...

If the wire becomes detached from the Epee in the course of a bout and a hit is scored [on the weapon or on any other legitimate area] then the hit stands. Ensuring that the connector is in correctly is the responsibility of the fencer - if it comes out and they haven't noticed then ... tough!

The other part of this question is:


what would be the result if a fencer was caught doing this (by 'this' I mean detatching his/her wire by pulling it out of its connection on purpose).

Well none really. If a hit lands it stands - stupid girly fencer for trying it. However if the fencer is interfering with her connections [with intent to cheat] or [I think this is how it put in the rules] interfering with the good order on the piste then the referee can take the necessary actions as defined in the rules. Incidentally 'manifest cheating' is a serious offence and can cause a fencer to be ejected from a tournament.

I've suggested this to every parent that I have spoken to about rules and concerns about what constitutes cheating - why not get a set of rules and study them. Additionally why not take the referee's exams and become a registered ref? That way you can assist in tournament and also help to stamp such things out.

Mantis
-29th October 2003, 09:47
As Gav said, you cannot have your opponents hit annulled if your wire gets disconnected inside the guard - it is the fencers responsibility that the connection is secure. For most (all?) other faults, including the bodywire becoming disconnected from the spool wire, the referee may annul the hit.

I think there is a rule that says that you are not allowed to touch the electrical equipment which presumably is to stop precisely this from happening, although normally it would involve your back hand and the back of your jacket.

reposte
-29th October 2003, 10:31
I think we should clarify for Fencer's Dad: Fencer A's hit doesn't require fencer B to be connected in Epee,
The lights are registered independently. The only light the "rogue" girl fencer annulled was her own.

DrT
-29th October 2003, 11:54
plus she was allowing hits on her guard to register!

stevejackson
-29th October 2003, 20:20
We've all seen a similar trick played before, a fencer needs a short break to regain composure catch breath stops and ask to tighten the handle that was satisfactory till 2 seconds ago. Funny how no one carries the right key in their pocket isn't it.

From the description it sounds as though she was running an epee only version of the loose handle trick. It's probably illegal the ref could (perhaps should) have asked her to change weapons and imposed the penalty for equipment not conforming to the regulations i.e. Yellow card for first offence red card for second and subsequent. Under rule m5 -3 on atachment of the body wire " It must have a security devicewhich makes it impossible for contact to be broken during the bout.

Mantis
-29th October 2003, 22:27
It is not the same trick, Steve. In this case the intention is to get her opponents points annulled, not to get a moments break. You can get a moments break just by saying, "no", when the referee asks, "ready?"

Muso440
-30th October 2003, 08:03
Originally posted by stevejackson
Under rule m5 -3 on atachment of the body wire " It must have a security devicewhich makes it impossible for contact to be broken during the bout.

Is that just an epee rule, or generally? My wire pings out of my foil all the time (NOT on purpose!). Should get someone to look at it really. :confused:

Australian
-31st October 2003, 01:56
Originally posted by Muso440
Is that just an epee rule, or generally? My wire pings out of my foil all the time (NOT on purpose!). Should get someone to look at it really. :confused:

m5 is a rule for all weapons... foil starts at m6

randomsabreur
-31st October 2003, 11:22
The bayonet clip is just such a device! However, if the spring in the sockiet or the clip is in the process of dying of old age, they can fall out

stevejackson
-1st November 2003, 21:16
Mantis, I may have misunderstood the initial description. I thought from this that the fight was in progress when the offender asked to stop because her body wire had come unplugged. As was noted earlier in the thread she gains no advantage by unpluging her bodywire after the hit because this does not justify the annulment of her opponent's hit. "if the incidents mentioned in t.67 occur as a result of the competitors bodywire coming unplugged (either near the hand or at the back of the fencer) they cannot justify the annulment of the hit registered." see t.68f