Determining Priority in Dry Epee | Nara

One of many nice contributions of electrical fencing to the administration of competitions was the introduction of electrical epee fencing within the Thirties. No extra did the jury should congregate across the fencer and look at his uniform for the assorted marking brokers used. No extra did they’ve to make use of a pencil to cross out hit marks that have been already adjudicated. And no extra did the President of the Jury have to find out which hit landed first. However, even at this time, not all epee is fenced electrically. So should you do fence dry epee (scored by judges visually sighting arrests), how do you establish what’s a success (materiality) and which hit has precedence (validity)?

The primary query, whether or not the hit is a success (and thus is materials) is answered in the identical means as in foil. The judges and the referee look ahead to arrests and vote as as to if or not a contact arrived. Though epee within the classical interval did use chalk, dye, tin-tack factors, and factors d’arret to make sure that a success may very well be seen, foil throughout the identical interval didn’t, and didn’t endure appreciably from counting on visible evaluation solely.

The second query as to the validity of the fabric hit is harder. The principles of epee set up that the primary materials hit has precedence and is the legitimate hit for which a contact is awarded. This results in 4 attainable conditions:

(1) Solely one of many two fencers lands with a fabric hit, as indicated by Sure votes by the judges and referee. If just one hit arrives, that hit should have precedence and be the legitimate contact.

(2) Each fencers arrive with materials hits, as indicated by Sure votes by the judges and referee, however one hit is clearly prematurely of the opposite. On this case the referee’s judgment as to which is first determines the legitimate hit and award of the contact.

(3) Each fencers arrive with materials hits, as indicated by Sure votes by the judges and referee, and the referee can’t decide which hit landed first. On this case, the referee could ask the judges which hit landed first of their opinion and be guided by their feedback. Alternatively, the referee could award a contact to each fencers for a simultaneous hit.

(4) Each fencers arrive with materials hits, as indicated by Sure votes by the judges and referee, and it seems clearly that each hits arrived concurrently, or so near concurrently that the attention couldn’t distinguish (that is the supply of the 1/25 second timing for electrical epee simultaneous hits). The referee awards a contact to each fencers for a simultaneous hit.

The intent of epee is to simulate the duel with the sharp dueling sword. Within the duel of the late 1800s and early 1900s, a success which drew blood and was considerably forward of an opponent’s motion may very well be counted on to cease the motion, by both the hit fencer withdrawing or by the seconds intervening. The simultaneous hit represents the case when each duelists had already dedicated to the assault and each have been wounded. Given the intent of the weapon, the referee mustn’t over-analyze the simultaneous hit. Whether it is shut sufficient that you just can’t decide a distinction, it could have been shut sufficient to attract blood from each duelists.

The simultaneous hit represents an essential tactical device in epee, with differing functions in pool bouts, direct elimination, and one-touch swimming pools distinctive. As a referee it is best to develop the flexibility to assign precedence and award touches rapidly and appropriately to make sure that fencers in dry competitions have a good and satisfying bout.



Source by Walter Green

Please rate Stellar

0 / 5

Your page rank:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *