Derobement?

[Grey]

Lets assume Fencer A executes a point in line. Fencer B initiates a beat on Fencer A's blade but Fencer A evades Fencer B's beat by executing a small coupe which Fencer A proceeds to finish the coupe in a lunge. Fencer B, automatically lunges after the failed beat. Both scored together, both hit valid. How should the right of way be called?

Additional Notes : Its foil.

[dunastor]

Of course this is a point for A. He starts the attack first, as B was trying to do a beat ie was in preparation.

[grotto]

Fencer A gets the point, ROW allows for evasions, and with the properly executed coupe' A would reestablish the line before B.

[Robert (2)]

Slightly awkward. A's coach should have a word and tell him not to do cut overs from the line as they make the presidents job awkward.

If it were a disengage then it is clearly A's. It sounds like it is still A's in this case, but without seeing it to get all the details it might be difficult to say.

Robert

[dunastor]

That's the great thing about writing.
It says above that there's an attempted beat on the blade, which is evaded, ergo a derobement, and the point for A.

The big question is whether it is always that clear in actual bouts...
(I say no)...

[cowpaste]

I was in normal engarde and this dood came up and tried to beat my blade. I derobed and extended onto target area. He attacked after his failed beat. Naturally, his beat was considered a feint, and he was given the point.

Of course, I bet the director gets even more confused when the defender uses a coupé.

[EricS]

Originally Posted by cowpaste

I was in normal engarde and this dood came up and tried to beat my blade. I derobed and extended onto target area.

I get this mental picture of the confused referee saying "what?! what are you doing?", while cowpaste begins to take his clothes off.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Under the scenario described, it's clearly A's point--a coupe is just as legal as an under the blade disengage in avoid a beat on PIL.

However; in the real world of club to NAC directing, it's much more likely to have a coupe called as a break or withdrawal of the PIL rather than a derobement. If you use a coupe, take extra care to do it all from the wrist, and not bend the elbow. That may make it easier for the director to see the action in its proper context.

[Tireur]

Originally Posted by EricS

I get this mental picture of the confused referee saying "what?! what are you doing?", while cowpaste begins to take his clothes off.

DErobed and extended, not DISrobed and extended.


Then again..................

[edew]

If A tries to reestablish a point in line with a coupe, then it's B's attack. If A attacks with a coupe from a point in line position, then it's A's attack.

[fencerontheline]

Lines don't count when you use a coup to evade a beat. To are breaking the line when you make the coupe. Depending on the timing, the call could go a couple ways.

1. If A tries to beat and goes immediately, his attack. B breaks the line.
2. If A tries to beat, waits, you finish your coupe, go and then he goes, your attack. A's attack stops and B's attack(not line) begins.
3. If A searches and waits, B coupe's and waits, and you both go at the same time, I would call two attacks together. Neither person has done anything to make (or take) the time.

[Robert (2)]

The response of Edew and Fencerontheline explain why you explain to the fencer to use disengage and counter-disengage in future. The situation is this:

While PIL fencer B has priority. If he makes a succesful derobement (avoids A's beat) B has priority, and can do anything he likes with it either attacking or returning to PIL. However, if B bends their arm during the derobement they are more than likely going to be open to a stop-hit in time if an attack immediatly follows A's beat.

So for Fencerontheline the actual calls (assuming the arm remains extended and this is a neat small finger movement coupe) are:

1)B derobment, A attacks into line. B's hit.
2)B's hit as it is the initial offensive action (there is no attack to fail from A only a preparation)
3)B derobment, B's line, B's hit. B just chose to use his derobement priority to re-establish the line. Again A is not attacking with the beat just doing a prep.

Having said that I would expect 90% of presidents to call it the way fencerontheline descibed (the reality being most fencers and most presidents simply do not understand the line and the rules surrounding it).

Robert

P.S There are very specific rules for PIL and derobment. Fencerontheline, revise them and then if you still hold to your opinion feel free to respond.

[fencerontheline]

I was thinking in terms of how I would call them during a bout. To be honest, when I referee, it is not about the rules as much as it is about the gut feeling the fencer's actions give me. Calls come more instinctualually than as a product of thought.

So, in this case, I tried to visualize the actions, and I offered those three possibilities as different possibilities and the calls I would make given these situations. It could be easily remied by disengaging instead of coupeing(is that the proper form of the verb?). Point in line is much easier to call when disengages are used.

[edew]

Fine if you want to call instinctively, as I usually do when I'm refereeing (I'm as much in a "zone" when referee as when I am fencing, sometimes: I know I was when I was refereeing at the JOs), but make sure that your instincts jibe with the rules.

So A has point in line, B attempts to find A's blade (via an attempted beat or a bind or whatever: the issue is that B is moving his blade toward A's blade and not just sticking the tip toward A's body), A evades by a coupe.

Case 1:

If A replaces the point after the coupe and B follows his attempted beat with an attack, then the point goes to B. A's replacement of a point in line is late.

Case 2:
If A makes the coupe as part of an attack, and B follows his attempted beat with an attack, then the point goes to A. B's failed search gives priority to the opponent and the opponent (A, in this case) needs to take immediate advantage of it. Well, how much more immediate is it when A makes the coupe a part of the attack.

Many people call this latter scenario wrong. Many people give the point to B regardless of whether it was case 1 or case 2. There's a big difference, and that is that A is attacking in case 2. Better referees will definitely give the point to A in case 2. Better fencers (being B) will make the searching less like a search and more like an attack to hide the search. In that case, B would get the point whether it was case 1 (replacing a point in line after a coupe) or case 2 (attacking with a coupe). Even better referees will see the very subtle attempt to search the blade and call it for A. But even better fencers would know whether to even search at all.

(Not claiming I'm one of the even better fencers, but...) I've often attacked straight against a person with a point in line, not even pretending to try to beat the blade. The fact that I'm coming in hard and fast makes some just a little nervous and they pull the point away, or make disengages. Merely making disengages against a simple attack invalidates the point in line. If A had a point in line, B attacks straight against A and A makes a simple disengage, it's B's point. A moved the line for no reason.

[Schiavona]

EDEW-I'm afraid your reasoning is confusing me a bit. Are you saying that a cutover or action over the top of the blade can't be a derobement? Grey's statement of the action has B attempting a beat against A's PIL. Rule t56, 6 & 7 seem pretty clear to me, that ROW goes to A-the rule says nothing about re-establishing the line.
I agree that this would be hard to see correctly, especially if B's searching beat were subtle.

[mollusk]

In general I like edew's analysis. The only trouble I have is that against PIL I often start a search from seconde or octave and finish in quinte and then from there I can execute a flick or change to another line for a thrust. This search will find attempted disengages because it sweeps the entire plane in front. Very cool for me if any withdrawing of the blade automatically breaks the PIL because I don't see any other way to avoid the search. In this case do you still call it the same way?

[telkanuru]

Card left, undressing on the strip

[angrylemur]

Originally Posted by mollusk

In general I like edew's analysis. The only trouble I have is that against PIL I often start a search from seconde or octave and finish in quinte and then from there I can execute a flick or change to another line for a thrust. This search will find attempted disengages because it sweeps the entire plane in front. Very cool for me if any withdrawing of the blade automatically breaks the PIL because I don't see any other way to avoid the search. In this case do you still call it the same way?

I'm not sure if I understand this... you've found a parry that can't be disengaged?

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by angrylemur

I'm not sure if I understand this... you've found a parry that can't be disengaged?

I think he's essentially just executing first a clockwise and then a counterclockwise (if he's right-handed) search on the blade, thus a single disengage will not work against it.

[mollusk]

Originally Posted by angrylemur

I'm not sure if I understand this... you've found a parry that can't be disengaged?

It's not a parry, it's a beat. Imagine the blade starting low in 2. First the blade is rotated parallel to the horizon. Now the hand sweeps straight up ending with parry position 5. The entire blade sweeps in front of the target area in a linear, not rotary, fashion. I see no way to make a pretty, tight disengage around the guard against that. Moving around the guard would require a very large blade motion because the guard is never brought close to the opponent's blade. The easy and natural way to avoid this beat it if you are in PIL is to move displace your blade horizontally, let your opponent's blade pass, and bring it back into line. Eric's analysis would say the the PIL is broken if you do this, so you had better lunge!