Controversy Explained TLDR: Refs card Loisel for 2 instances which I’ve never seen in foil before. Instance 1 - for incorrectly stopping the bout to check if opponent started before ‘allez’ Instance 2 - Refs give a card to Loisel for stop fencing before the end of the first period, then refs move to 1 min break - thus implying that first period ended before Loisel stopped. 4:37 yellow card given to Loisel for stopping the bout to check if Cheung started early - [I have never seen a yellow card being issued this way in foil before] 12:28 Loisel stops fencing - says something like ‘it’s time’ (end of first period)’ Ref seems to have called halt because Loisel stopped fencing, not because of the end of first period. There seems to have been a sound from the box before Loisel stopped. 13:03 Refs check that Cheung was still on the piste, therefore there should not be an automatic halt. 13:26 Refs decide that Cheung was still in the piste 13:24 Second yellow card - Red Card- It seems to be for stopping fencing. Ref also makes a “too much talking” hand signal to Loisel 14:41 Loisel is saying that time is finished so he couldn’t hit Cheung; but Loisel then argues that the refs called halt too early and he stopped after the halt? - ‘it’s not my fault, it’s yours, so why should I have a yellow card?’; then Loisel argues that he misses Cheung then looks at the time (which ended) then he stopped so the refs should go back to replay to check the time when he stopped. Refs basically said: no. 15:15 Refs give a one minute break for the end of first bout - which is a strange decision because this implies that first period had ended before they gave Loisel the yellow card - so logically, if there’s no more time in the first period, then Loisel could not have stopped too early, therefore he could not have been carded for this offence?!
Not much controversy here. First card was because he stopped abruptly after allez. Second one is he turned away before 00:00 hit. It was still 00:01 at the moment he turned around. A precise call in my opinion.
I don’t see any controversy here. First card is for unjustified appeal (FIE t.170.1.17) and second card could be for several reasons but an obvious one would be interruption of the bout without valid reason (t170.1.7) because he stopped fencing before a valid halt occurred
So I guess the card happening after 12:48 is for turning head before fencing ended...the announcer said she called halt for break but I'm not sure that's true. At any case, it was very tight, and overall the directors were not very competent with lots of irregularities. Or, maybe she did her job...not saying she was paid off or anything 👀
Yeah I don’t quite understand why he was carded the second time. First one’s a little weird but seems technically valid. If he stopped fencing, they should still have like less than a second of the period left.
That red card was so not necessary. Time ran out. I would've had respect for that director if she took it back. Even the yellow was a bit much at the beginning, but I can understand the yellow to shut up the complaining early on. But that red, in a high stakes final, not right. Let the fencers fence. Good fencing overall.
@@jlnnjs8223 one can say there would be home-field advantage if the organising committee hired refs from the local vicinity, but these are all FIE refs. They have no incentive to be biased.
Controversy Explained
TLDR: Refs card Loisel for 2 instances which I’ve never seen in foil before.
Instance 1 - for incorrectly stopping the bout to check if opponent started before ‘allez’
Instance 2 - Refs give a card to Loisel for stop fencing before the end of the first period, then refs move to 1 min break - thus implying that first period ended before Loisel stopped.
4:37 yellow card given to Loisel for stopping the bout to check if Cheung started early - [I have never seen a yellow card being issued this way in foil before]
12:28 Loisel stops fencing - says something like ‘it’s time’ (end of first period)’
Ref seems to have called halt because Loisel stopped fencing, not because of the end of first period.
There seems to have been a sound from the box before Loisel stopped.
13:03 Refs check that Cheung was still on the piste, therefore there should not be an automatic halt.
13:26 Refs decide that Cheung was still in the piste
13:24 Second yellow card - Red Card- It seems to be for stopping fencing. Ref also makes a “too much talking” hand signal to Loisel
14:41 Loisel is saying that time is finished so he couldn’t hit Cheung;
but Loisel then argues that the refs called halt too early and he stopped after the halt? - ‘it’s not my fault, it’s yours, so why should I have a yellow card?’;
then Loisel argues that he misses Cheung then looks at the time (which ended) then he stopped so the refs should go back to replay to check the time when he stopped.
Refs basically said: no.
15:15 Refs give a one minute break for the end of first bout - which is a strange decision because this implies that first period had ended before they gave Loisel the yellow card - so logically, if there’s no more time in the first period, then Loisel could not have stopped too early, therefore he could not have been carded for this offence?!
Not much controversy here. First card was because he stopped abruptly after allez. Second one is he turned away before 00:00 hit. It was still 00:01 at the moment he turned around. A precise call in my opinion.
Cheung is wearing van clef on the piste is maybe the most Baller thing I’ve ever seen in my life
I don’t see any controversy here. First card is for unjustified appeal (FIE t.170.1.17) and second card could be for several reasons but an obvious one would be interruption of the bout without valid reason (t170.1.7) because he stopped fencing before a valid halt occurred
Won the bout with a circle 6 flick to the back. Love it.
That touch at 9:55 is WILD. The distance control of Cheung is amazing
So I guess the card happening after 12:48 is for turning head before fencing ended...the announcer said she called halt for break but I'm not sure that's true. At any case, it was very tight, and overall the directors were not very competent with lots of irregularities. Or, maybe she did her job...not saying she was paid off or anything 👀
Good performance👍👍👍💪💪💪💪😍😍😍
The french fencer thought he could talk his way out to victory. Refs said show me some respect young fellow. 😂
Yeah I don’t quite understand why he was carded the second time. First one’s a little weird but seems technically valid. If he stopped fencing, they should still have like less than a second of the period left.
I just posted the semi-final 😅
😅😅😅 Ah
Where can i find the reasults for this?
That red card was so not necessary. Time ran out. I would've had respect for that director if she took it back. Even the yellow was a bit much at the beginning, but I can understand the yellow to shut up the complaining early on. But that red, in a high stakes final, not right. Let the fencers fence.
Good fencing overall.
It did feel a little biased...home-field advantage-esque you could say
the ref is Korean…..
@@bananaboy1026that not the point
Doesn't matter the nationality@@bananaboy1026
Lol Cheung Ka Long doesn't train in Mainland China, but I understand why there's a controversy over the card decision
@@jlnnjs8223 one can say there would be home-field advantage if the organising committee hired refs from the local vicinity, but these are all FIE refs. They have no incentive to be biased.