VISIT WEBSITE >>>>> http://gg.gg/y83ws?3344447 <<<<<<
This is just to put the new rules on your radar. These changes are not immediate. From what I understand, they will not come into effect during an Olympic qualification cycle. Timing of enaction is to be determined. Change 2: Non-Combativity will no longer advance the bout to the next period Why this is Noteworthy: Under the current rules, when non-combativity is called, it advances to the next period without a one-minute break and into priority if called in the third period.
One minute of fencing happens with no touch scored. Red card is given to Fencer A and Fencer B. The score is then Because Fencer B is down, Fencer B receives a red card. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. In fencing, what is a point of fact?
Ask Question. Asked 9 years, 2 months ago. Active 8 years, 9 months ago. Viewed times. Improve this question. David H. Clements 7, 4 4 gold badges 29 29 silver badges 74 74 bronze badges. Robin Ashe Robin Ashe 1, 14 14 silver badges 17 17 bronze badges.
I don't understand why it doesn't make sense? Point of fact — Actuality, Occurrence. Is Heidemann a beginner? She didn't back up and scored …. If it was You who gets hit … would that be rigth? The ref was not an amateur, that's the bitch of it. It shouldn't have happened. Not Heidemann's fault. In fact, looks like the IOC is acknowledging it.
Note that they are trying to appease Shin instead of punish Heidemann. Perfectly allowed. But they aren't. Because even though they screwed up, they know they can't punish her. Nor should they. Is it fair? No… but then I did get myself into this mess with a tied score on the wrong end of the piste… it's reasonable to conclude the clock was faulty for both fencers. If I got hit, that would suck.
I would be upset. But my anger would be at the referee for not backing Heidemann up. I should have put my hand up and said "Distance, s'il vous plait! Remember the old adage, "Just not only has to be done, it also has to be seen to be done.
Compare this to the fiasco with what's happened in badminton. The ref black-carded the double players for "not playing to their capability", in fencing, we call it "favouring an opponant", he withdrew the black card after the teams protested. But the Badminton International did the right thing and booted those 4 pairs out, thereby upholding the ref's original ruling. The audience, who have paid huge amount of money, blacked-carded the players by booing them. She obviously acknowledged the score as if nothing wrong happened.
Despite the fact that she got away with it the act of cheating remains couse she knew she was too close …. The referee by not interfering just made it worse. That's why Heidemann has got her "mia culpa" in all this and she knows it …. I say it's not cheating because the referee is the one responsible for setting the center and ensuring the fencers are at the right distance.
Do you not acknowledge it's the ref's job to set them at the appropriate distance? It's illegal to touch each other in fencing but it happens every bout. If you'd like to draw the line arbitarily here, then I guess I can't stop you.
And if you'd like to take some credit away from a medalist for that reason, then I wonder if you've ever fenced a bout or otherwise relate to this sport. You seem to know something of the game yourself, I'm amazed at this position you're taking.
If my uniform is undone or I am not en guard, and the referee says "fence" and I fence. Then I am cheating. If I should be ashamed of my olympic medal because of that, then I guess there is nothing to say. You acknowledged several times that this whole ordeal took more than one second. I recently read a part of the rulebook that addresses this:. If there is a malfunction with the time-keeping equipment, the referee's job is to estimate the amount of time left.
Come next Olympics it damn well better be. But for now, no rules were broken on the time aspect, just poorly managed. You want blood here, and it's not going to happen. The only fault is a mistake at the bout management. If Shin made the hit, Heidemann could say Shin was not appriately off the strip.
Or that the referee should have backed them up so that SHE wouldn't get hit! I just hope You are not planning to become a coach. Don't forget this is The Olympics here and thousands of young fencers from all over the world are watching it! I do not want blood here … I just stand here for a sportsmanship! Shin did not do anything I would call "disobeying the rules" and the victory goes to Shin Shame! Excuse me, but which error did the referee exactly commit? At , after yet another double score was hit, the referee called "halt", and the clock was still showing Fencing rule t.
Within this one second, Heidemann attacks and manages the winning hit. Please tell me how else the referee was supposed to conform to the rules: Should she have declared the bout to be over after Heidemann's attack at , with time still left on the clock?
Should she have ignored the clock continuing despite the interruption she ordered? What call would you suggest she have made? No no, that's not what I said—I said repeatedly now that the referee is the measure for distance. I intentionally crowd my opponent knowing that it will be fixed. Because I trust the referee to set it right. It's not poor sportsmanship to do this. It's good fencing. I know you really don't want blood here, but I haven't disagreed with anything insofar as rules were broken and protocol not followed.
You unfairly insist that Heidemann change anything she was doing. There is shame, but not with Heidemann. I don't have time to go through all the video to see the hundreds of infractions in all the other bouts. It just seemed significant here because of when it happened.
The same conventions were followed everywhere. A bad call yes, but a call nonetheless. However, the rulebook address a false start in track and field just like there are many rules that address many infractions here. It's a different kind of contest thought—truly apples and oranges.
I think it's unreasonable to demand perfection in a situation where several significant decisions needed to be made in the space of 1 second of playing time. Nothing was made in bad faith here and I suspect you know it.
It can be easily noticed that in all her 3 attempts Heidemann intentionly sets herself up way too close should be yellow-carded at least …. I agree, she should have been carded. I agree, they were too close. I agree, the bout was improper.
I agree, it's heartbreaking for Shin. I agree I agree I agree. Look at the photo again. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
Status Not open for further replies. Feb 24, 3, 63 48 sing. One second left to fence. Germany versus Korea. The fencing moves obviously took morre than 1 second. All the dumb dumb officials debate so long on it. Incredibly stupid. Just play back the video with the time running. Mar 11, 11, 47 48 59 Singapore www. Jerry Chan Member. Nov 17, 1 18 56 Jurong West. Yup, saw that moment too. To me its so so dumb. With 1 second left, for a sport like fencing, when either competitor can move back and forth, its considered game match over.
Just imagine looking at the TV screen with 2 of them posing for the start of the final 1 second of the match. Even if the Korean lunged forward, it would take a huge effort to jump at the German who would surely move backwards. So funny to run out the last second like that Deyeno Member.
Comments