Riposte by disengagement

[Mark]

Just start to read the formal FIE rules (English version):
Here it wrote:

Riposte by disengagement: a riposte which hits the opponent in the
opposite line to that in which the parry was formed (by passing under
the opponent’s blade if the parry was formed in the high line, and
over the blade if the parry was formed in the low line).

I'm not sure what the "opposite line to that in which the parry was formed" mean?? any solid example?

For example, if opponent attacks my 4, then i do a parry 4, and then riposte by disengagement, is it mean that i end up with hit on opponents' 6? 4? 7 or 8?

Also, what is the difference between riposte by disengagment and ripost with a coupe?

[rory]

Opposite meaning at the same "height" but on the other side.
So 4 <-> 6, 7 <->8.

And where a disengage goes under the opponent's blade, a coupe goes over.

[Mark]

thanks, rory.

[Dan H]

Originally Posted by rory

And where a disengage goes under the opponent's blade, a coupe goes over.

Note this is reversed in the low lines. When both fencers are engaged in 7 or 8, it's usually a smaller motion to change lines over the blade than back and under. Oh - upon second reading, I see this is in the rule Mark posted.

I'm not really fond of the wording of that rule/definition. A compound riposte that threatens 4 and finishes in the low line is still a riposte with disengage, isn't it? Why would a passage in the rules not let us call it a "riposte with disengage" just because it didn't finish in 6? I'm with Rory that I read "the opposite line" in this context to imply 4 <-> 6 and 7 <-> 8.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Dan H

I'm not really fond of the wording of that rule/definition. A compound riposte that threatens 4 and finishes in the low line is still a riposte with disengage, isn't it? Why would a passage in the rules not let us call it a "riposte with disengage" just because it didn't finish in 6?

Nope. It's an "indirect riposte". A disengage is a change of lines to avoid a parry: if you don't disengage, you'll run into the parry.

In the context of, say, 4 <-> 8, you haven't really avoided the parry (since the blade is moving from 6 to 4) you've just retargeted to a place where there is no parry.

Make sense?

James.

[cfaustus]

With all fencign terminology you have to remember that most of it is not English in origin. As such several terms either sound similar or several terms may actually have different definitions depending upon which school of fencing you are following.

The usage of the word 'indirect' to describe actions is an attempt to make some of that more understandable to English fencers. However one can do a compound parry ending in a dégagé. The confusion comes from the difference between a disengagement (degage - pronounced - daegaj ) and a dégagé or dégager (pronounced - daegajae). (my french pronunciation is better than my spelling). A disengagement is the changing of lines described by jBirch. Although a deception is usually such a disengage used to avoid a parry. Technically, a disengagement denotes that the blades began engaged (touching each other) and one party has dis-engaged his or her blade form the other by changing the line. Since modern fencing relies so much upon absence of blade, a disengage as become synonomous with simply 'changing lines'. Disengagements do not necessarily need to respond to a parry.

A dégagé is a simple attack made using a disengagement. In order to clarify this somewhat, the English term 'indirect attack' was established to refer to attacks made by dégagé or coupé (both ending in the opposite line they began in). I can attack using a disengagement (perform a dégagé) as an initial attack. If both myself and my opponent are engarde in the high outside and I notice that my opponent has let his guard slip a bit, exposing some of his high outside, I can launch an attack using a disengagement to attack in his high outside.. this is the dégagé. Likewise a direct attack is used to denote an attack which is executed in its starting line (a straight attack or a coulé/glide). As to the term compound, any action comprised of two or more simple actions (actions which take only one fencing tempo) is compound. One-Two's and Doublés are examples of compund attacks.

Therefore it is equally correct to say that a fencer executed a compound riposte ending with a dégagé OR that the fencer performed a compound riposte ending with an indirect attack. However, a riposte by dégagé (or using disengagement) is not a compound riposte as it is a riposte delivered with a simple action: the dégagé. There is only one action, not two. The only time that target is threatened is with the dégagé (at the end of the disengagement with point in line). A compound riposte using a dégagé might follow as such: Parry 4, feint via straigh attack, deceive opponent's lateral parry to 4 by disengage and finish attack in the high outside line (remember attacking using a disengage is a dégagé so even though the raison d'etre of this disengage is to deceive the parry, because the disengagement ends with an attack it is a dégagé). As to the riposte with the point beginning threatening the inside high and ending in the low-line, that attack action, I believe, has its own term: the descending attack. So one might riposte via descending attack.

If you think that is difficult try understanding the difference between the French and Italian bind!

[Dan H]

It's unsurprising to me that different fencers would have numerous different terms for the same action: "indirect riposte," "riposte with descending attack," etc. What does surprise me is that the FIE would drop that definition into their official rules. Here's a point I think we'll all agree upon: if my opponent attacks me in 4 and I parry and begin an immediate riposte, threatening 4 and then deceiving my opponent's parry 4 to finish immediately in another line, I have right of way over my opponent's subsequent remise regardless of whether my finish was to 6, 8, or anywhere else. Even if you want to call this riposte different things depending upon its finishing line, the priority implications are the same. So why would the FIE want to distinguish a "riposte with disengage" (finishing in 6) from a "riposte with descending attack" (or whatever you want to call it) (finishing in 8)? Do they have definitions for those, too? All that the referee needs to distinguish is that I parried my opponent's attack and made an immediate riposte, deceiving the parry.
JBirch might disagree with the way I use "deceive the parry" when talking about changing lines from 4 to 8. I should admit here that the distinction between "avoided the parry" and "retargeted to a place where there is no parry" seems to be an excessively fine detail to me. One could claim that there's a distinction in that the former implies the attack continues in the same physical trajectory as before (differing only in that the opponent's blade is now on the other side) and the latter implies I altered the trajectory of my attack, but this seems to ignore the fact that I'm continuously threatening valid target either way.
I think I mostly agree with CFaustus when he says the usage of the word "disengage" has evolved from its literal meaning to mean something like "any change of line." That's why I'd want to use it to describe my 4 -> 8 riposte.
I hope we're not confusing the heck out of the guy who asked the original question. Mark, in case you're reading all this, I think it's safe to say that Rory answered your question, and the rest of us are just worrying about minute details of the rule. It's interesting worrying, though!

[Epee_Pox]

Why do the FIE rules even have to define a particular way of making a riposte?

Isn't it enough to say that a riposte is an attack initiated upon the completion of a parry?

The urge to define every little thing, ironically, creates confusion. Finer and finer distinctions often result in ambiguity and contradiction. And if something didn't make the list, does that mean it doesn't count?

[Epee_Pox]

And how exactly does one parry 4 then pass under the opponent's blade into an attack in 6? Disengaging under the opponent's blade becomes an attack on the people on the next strip over.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

And how exactly does one parry 4 then pass under the opponent's blade into an attack in 6? Disengaging under the opponent's blade becomes an attack on the people on the next strip over.

I parry 4
My opponent pressures as they move to cover their exposed high line
I disengage on the opponents pressure and hit them in 6

the disengage occurs on the pressure or movement of the opponents blade - so it is different from redirecting the riposte to a more open line; as in the case were the opponent is all twisted and you hit in 7/8 from your parry 4. In this case I am not responding to the blade action of my opponent.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Why do the FIE rules even have to define a particular way of making a riposte?

Isn't it enough to say that a riposte is an attack initiated upon the completion of a parry?

No, because a disengage can be interpreted as a two tempo action. That's why it's explicitly spelled out in the rules as a one tempo action.

You can't say it's an attack initiated upon the completion of a parry because an attack is a seperate, specific item with its own requirements. How can a riposte be an initial offensive action made by extending the arm and continuously threatening target?

The urge to define every little thing, ironically, creates confusion. Finer and finer distinctions often result in ambiguity and contradiction.

Yes, which is why it is important to define things clearly rather then vaguely.

And if something didn't make the list, does that mean it doesn't count?

Yes.

James.

[scrapinpeg]

This must be a right-of-way rule.

Like, I just parried your attack, so it's my turn, and if I now do a disengage it's still my turn.

Is that right?

[keith]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

Is that right?

yes on the condition that:

you do not hesitate on the disengage, and;

having chosen the line you are going to riposte into you do not change your mind unless;

your opponent has closed that line with a blade action (parry) resulting in a second disengage to a new open line

repeat until someone hits something.

[scrapinpeg]

Boy, am I glad I do epee...


So what is the ROW situation here?

You attack me with a thrust at my chest.

In a single action, I take a step back while taking your blade with a circle-six binding thrust. A single corkscrew-like motion.

But you react to my pressure on your blade by disengaging underneath it and thrusting at me in a single corkscrew motion.

But as you do that, I add a little lateral motion to my still continuing thrust, sort of parrying four to push your blade away just as my point lands on your chest.

Unfortunately, I didn't push hard enough, and your point lands on my torso for a double light.

Whole thing takes less time to happen than to say "one one-thousand."

Who had ROW?

[keith]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

You attack me with a thrust at my chest.

the attack.....

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

In a single action, I take a step back while taking your blade with a circle-six binding thrust. A single corkscrew-like motion.

....is parried....

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

But you react to my pressure on your blade by disengaging underneath it and thrusting at me in a single corkscrew motion.

...the redouble (is currently not in time)...

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

But as you do that, I add a little lateral motion to my still continuing thrust,

....you make the terrible mistake of acknowledging the redouble (bloody epeeists), which puts it in time.....

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

sort of parrying four to push your blade away just as my point lands on your chest.

...despite making life difficult for yourself you parry the redouble and hit....

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

Unfortunately, I didn't push hard enough, and your point lands on my torso for a double light.

as long as you met the blade the final remise is out of time.

so in summary;

attack, parried, no immediate riposte, redouble, parried (touch), remise out of time.

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

Who had ROW?

at the end you did - you'd think it was difficult

I'd stick with epee though

[scrapinpeg]

Originally Posted by keith

.....(bloody epeeists).....

Ah, so you've seen me after a night of bouting!

Thanks, though. That really cleared up a stumbling block I've had trying to grasp ROW. It was the out-of-time-then-back-in-time bit that I hadn't understood.

[keith]

it's sometimes useful to think of RoW as a 'use it or lose it' kinda thing.

Just becuase I took RoW away from you by parrying your attack does not mean I keep it indefinitely. If I fail to take up the action then you can take RoW straight back, by being the one who does something (remise redouble etc). Of course if I make an immediate riposte after the parry the thing you have to do is parry or evade my riposte.

[Dan H]

Originally Posted by keith

as long as you met the blade the final remise is out of time.

Either we're interpreting the description of the action differently, or this last little bit is inaccurate. There's a rule stating the referee must ensure mere grazing contact is not enough to count as a parry; i.e., you must deflect your opponent's blade at least momentarily from the target. In practice if the ref sees you parry (with any reasonable deflection) and begin your riposte before your opponent's hit, he'll award priority to your riposte. If, though, you make contact and fail to deflect the blade, beginning your riposte only after you are hit, then the call will be that your opponent's action arrived in time.

Of course, we're just trying to interpret someone's verbal description of an action. To distinguish between an attack that was parried and an attack that arrives, we'd really need to see footage! Sometimes it's a fine line.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Dan H

Either we're interpreting the description of the action differently, or this last little bit is inaccurate. There's a rule stating the referee must ensure mere grazing contact is not enough to count as a parry; i.e., you must deflect your opponent's blade at least momentarily from the target. In practice if the ref sees you parry (with any reasonable deflection) and begin your riposte before your opponent's hit, he'll award priority to your riposte. If, though, you make contact and fail to deflect the blade, beginning your riposte only after you are hit, then the call will be that your opponent's action arrived in time.

Of course, we're just trying to interpret someone's verbal description of an action. To distinguish between an attack that was parried and an attack that arrives, we'd really need to see footage! Sometimes it's a fine line.

Hey DanH,

In foil, any contact of the blades is considered to be a valid parry, contrary to the rules.

James.

[keith]

well I was assuming that he made clear/obvious contact that the ref could see & hear (which is normally enough to result in the action being called as a parry). Although it is bad form for a ref to assume anything *hangs head in shame*

Originally Posted by Dan H

Of course, we're just trying to interpret someone's verbal description of an action. To distinguish between an attack that was parried and an attack that arrives, we'd really need to see footage! Sometimes it's a fine line.

oh absolutely - what the example really shows is that if you do not riposte immediately and ignore the remise/redouble you can get yourself in all sorts of strife.

If you are going to attempt to collect the remise/redouble to ensure one light you better get it right.