One of the most difficult tasks facing the referee in dry combat is determining whether or not a specific fencing action results in the award of a tag. Although the referee is assisted by a jury of four judges, two observing each shooter, the basic responsibility for managing the award of a tag rests solely with the referee. That makes the jury voting process something that should be second nature to the referee.

Any possible tag raises two questions that must be resolved before the tag is awarded. These are:

(1) is the tactile material, and

(2) is the touch valid?

The determination of whether or not a blow came (materiality) is made through a voting process that involves the referee and the jury. The determination of whether or not a hit is awarded (validity) is made solely by the referee applying the rules of right of way in foil or saber or priority in épée.

For each action in a sentence, the referee questions the two judges who are observing the shooter against whom the action is directed. The order in which the umpire asks the questions is irrelevant, but both must be asked before the umpire casts his vote. The judges and referee vote as follows:

Yes, a “yes” vote means that the judge or referee has seen the blow stop the opponent on the target of that weapon. This vote is used in all three weapons.

Yes, but not valid: A “yes, but not valid” (often colloquially said as “off target”) means that the judge or umpire has seen a stopped hit, but that the hit was not on the valid target. This vote is used only in foil (unless you are saber fencing under the older rules with an off-target area on the saber). Hits to the area of ​​the saber’s target in dry combat intended to resemble modern fencing conditions are “no.”

No – A “no” vote means that the judge or umpire saw where the blade went and that it did not land with an arrest. In foil or épée, he may have slapped or grazed the target. In all three weapons, it’s possible that he just didn’t land at all.

Forbearance: A “Forbearance” vote means that the judge or umpire was unable to see where the strike landed, or if it did, because it was out of line of sight or could not be otherwise determined.

Each judge has 1 vote. The referee has 1 ½ votes. Therefore, there are a total of 3 ½ possible votes in each materiality determination. Abstentions do not count as a vote. The voting process can reach the following conclusions:

(1) The two judges agree on no (no hit was made), yes, but invalid (a hit was made but went off target), or yes (material hit was made).

(2) If one judge has a final vote and the other abstains, the arbitrator’s vote determines materiality.

(3) If both judges have a final vote, but the votes are contrary, or if both judges abstain, the arbitrator’s vote determines materiality.

(4) If all three referees abstain, the result is a doubtful hit. In this case, the umpire may ask the judges at the opposite end of the strip if they observed a hit if the umpire believes they may have been better placed to see a hit (a blow to the back as an example).

There are special cases that complicate this even more. If one judge votes no, the other yes but invalid, and the referee votes yes, there is agreement that there has been a hit, but there is no agreement that the hit was on the valid target. Any subsequent action is cancelled.

And if one judge votes yes and the other yes but it is not valid with the abstention of the referee, there is agreement that there was a blow, but there is no agreement where. Again the next action is cancelled.

The doubtful success occupies a special place in the determination of materiality and validity. If fencer A scores a doubtful hit and fencer B scores a material hit then fencer B’s hit is canceled and no touch is awarded at the judgment. However, if Fencer A scores a doubtful hit, Fencer B scores no intermediate hit, and Fencer A scores on a later remission or response, then Fencer A’s second hit is allowed. produces a doubtful hit where there was agreement that a hit landed, but if the hit was on a valid target, all further actions are cancelled.

The voting process should be handled with a minimum of delay. The slow, hesitant action of the referee and the uncertain votes of the judges confuse the shooters and cause a loss of confidence in the officials. This means that anyone refereeing dry ends must practice and practice until the voting process becomes automatic.