One of the most difficult tasks facing the referee in a dry match 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 fencer, the basic responsibility for managing the award of a hit rests solely with the referee. That makes the jury voting process something that should be second nature to the referee.

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

(1) is the tactile material, and

(2) Is touch valid?

The determination of whether or not there was a hit (materiality) is made through a voting process involving 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 observe the shooter against whom the action is directed. The order in which the referee asks the questions is irrelevant, but both must be asked before the referee casts his vote. The judges and referee vote as follows:

Yes, a “yes” vote means that the judge or referee has seen the hit stop the opponent in the target of that weapon. This vow 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 referee has seen a stopped hit, but that the hit was not on the valid target. This vow is used only in foil (unless you are saber fencing under the older rules with an off-target area on the saber). Hits in the saber target area in dry combat intended to resemble modern fencing conditions are “no”.

No: A “no” vote means that the judge or referee 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.

Abstain: A vote of “abstain” means that the judge or referee could not see where, or if, the blow landed, because it was out of sight or could not be otherwise determined.

Each judge has 1 vote. The arbitrator has 1 ½ votes. Therefore, there is 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) Both judges agree no (no hit was made), yes but not valid (a hit was made but went off target), or yes (a physical hit was made).

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

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

(4) If all three referees abstain, the result is a doubtful hit. In this case, the referee may ask the judges at the opposite end of the strip if they saw a hit if the referee 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 votes yes but invalid, and the referee votes yes, there is agreement that there was 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 referee’s abstention, 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 dubious hit and Fencer B scores a material hit next, Fencer B’s hit is canceled and no touch is awarded on the sentence. However, if Fencer A scores a doubtful hit, Fencer B does not score any intermediate hits, and Fencer A scores on a subsequent remission or reply, then Fencer A’s second hit is allowed. produces an dubious hit where there was agreement that a hit came, but if the hit was on a valid target, all subsequent actions are cancelled.

The voting process should be handled with a minimum of delay. The slow and 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 wingers must practice and practice until the voting process becomes automatic.