Cite me the appropriate Regulations

[jjefferies]

I am confused. My understanding has been that in EPEE, if your opponent fleches and you parry his attack, you can then riposte even if they are upon you or have passed you. So long as it is one movement, parry riposte. You aren't allowed to hesitate or take a second thrust at them.

Had this happen to me this weekend at a BayCup. My opponent fleched, I parried and then turned as he bumped into me and I riposted. One light, Mine. The call was that he had passed and was off the strip when my riposte arrived. Which he surely was as he bounced off after knocking me back. So the touch was annulled.

Later my coach tells me that the riposte is legal only "IF" I do not turn, i.e. I have to parry and then riposte while he is still in front of me. If I have to turn to get him after he passes it's illegal. So the riposte after he is past is legal only if still facing forward I riposte over my head. A move that I've seen but not been able to replicate without doing damage to my shoulder.

I think what pissed me off most about this particular touch was that my opponent is a salle mate who proceeded to take advantage of the director's inexperience and insist on his interpretation before I could appeal. The actuality of the attack was that there was no way anyone could tell when my riposte arrived. The riposte was obscured by his running into me.

But for future reference I would like to make sure of the rules and the current interpretation within the game.
J.

[telkanuru]

You are allowed an immediate riposte if you were *passed*. If you do the passing, then once you're by you get nada. My rule book is in my dorm, so I can't cite chapter and verse, but it seems the wrong call was made.

[Sciurus-Rex]

I think what pissed me off most about this particular touch was that my opponent is a salle mate who proceeded to take advantage of the director's inexperience ...

I'll let someone else address the details of the riposte on/off-strip rules.

For the excerpt quoted above, however, I'll point out that once the game is in progress, it's every man for himself. Friend or no. It's your responsibility to support your own case, not your salle-mate's.

Yes, you're asking and learning the rules now. Kudos; you'll be a better fencer for it. But don't be pissed off at the other guy for playing to win.

[veeco]

Attack - parry - pass - *immediate* riposte is OK

Attack - parry -pass - non-immediate riposte is not OK

Attack - pass - parry - *immediate* riposte is not OK

Attack, parry - bump - riposte is not OK (I would assume that in that case if he has the time to bump into you the riposte cannot be called immediate, and in any case the director might have stopped the action for corps a corps).

How do you define an immediate riposte? Well I know one when I see one.

But it is clearly possible to parry and then turn and do an immediate riposte, if the parry was made very late into the attack and the attacker was already passed you by the time you can make the immediate riposte.

The fact that he is off or on the strip doesn't matter at this point, as long as the riposte is immediate.

As you probably noticed here, the keyword is "immediate", and it's the director's job to define whether your action was immediate or not.

From the looks of it, and I wasn't there so I cannot judge, but it seems like the action was confusing enough for a young director to just say (I call halt, I couldn't follow the action) and therefore throw the touch out. So I think it could have been the right call.

[shlepzig]

This is the stuff, from t.21 and t.63

t.21 P4 and P5
When a fencer goes past his opponent during a bout, the Referee must immediately call ‘Halt’ and replace the competitors in the positions which they occupied before the passing took place. When touches are made as a fencer passes his opponent, the touch made immediately is valid; a touch made after passing his opponent by the competitor who has made the passing movement is annulled, but the touch made immediately, even when turning round, by the competitor who has been subjected to the offensive action, is valid.

Then addressed specifically in the Epee section

t.63 P3

On the other hand the ‘flèche which is made by running, even
going past the opponent’, and without a corps à corps is not
forbidden: the Referee should not call ‘Halt’ too soon, in order
not to annul a possible riposte; if, when making such a running
flèche without touching his opponent, the fencer who makes
the flèche crosses the lateral boundaries of the strip, he must
be punished as laid down in Article t.28.

So the basic priciple is you are allowed a riposte, but the director gets to determine what qualifies as an immediate riposte. The action should be halted as the shoulders cross.

Shlep

[CvilleFencer]

Uhm, how about attack, parry and a halt for the corp a corp.

[jBirch]

Corps-a-corps isn't an issue in epee. Jostling is. t.63

Attack, parry, bump, riposte-with-turn-as-opponent-jumps-off-piste should be ok. It's a timing thing though.

If the ref thinks you hesitated or weren't fast enough on the riposte, then no touch, even though you scored the light.

James.

[oiuyt]

Corps-a-corps isn't an issue in epee.

Still causes a halt.

In order to score you must have started your action, whether a riposte, a counter-attack, a remise, whatever, before the halt. Additionally, if you are the person passing you must score prior to the pass. If you are the fencer leaving the strip with both feet you must score prior to leaving the strip (with the second foot).

Assuming that, as it sounds from your description, you were still on the strip and were the passed fencer, you should be allowed any action that began prior to the halt (whether for corps-a-corps or passing). If you make a parry, get passed, and then begin a riposte you are not allowed the touch. If you make a parry, begin a riposte, then get passed your riposte is allowed. This holds for actions other than ripostes. If you parry, miss on a riposte, start a remise of the riposte, then get passed and then hit on the remise you score a touch.

This is why the oft-repeated saying that you are allowed one riposte is BAD. You are NOT allowed one riposte. You may have multiple actions or you may have no actions, depending on when your actions start relative to the halt.

As noted in the rules cited by shlepzig, turning around does not affect the riposte. If my opponent fleches at me, I take with (e.g.) a circle-6 parry and start to riposte, my opponent passes on my non-weapon side, I can continue to follow him/her with my tip in a continuous motion around in a long circle, anding with my lunging towards my end of the strip, pegging him/her in the small of the back and still be credited with an immediate and in-time action.

-B

[veeco]

I would like to correct your statement: "Corps a corps isn't an issue in epee".

Corps a corps is an issue. It is not carded, but when it happens, the referee does have to call halt, and put the fencers back on guard. t.20 is clear about this and doesn't specify that corps a corps doesn't halt the action only for foil and sabre. Therefore it applies to epee as well. The carding rules are different, but that's another thing, irrelevant to the matter at hand.

[KD5MDK]

Depending on the circumstances, it could have been considered Corps a Corps to avoid the touch, if you started the riposte before the contact.

[jBirch]

I would like to correct your statement: "Corps a corps isn't an issue in epee".

Sorry Veeco, but the training I got was that "mere corps-a-corps" meaning body to body contact (but without jostling) is not to cause a halt and not to be carded. If the fencers could still wield their weapons safely then we were to let them go (especially as corps as corps often happens in infighting situations).

Where there is any amount of "bumping" though, we were to stop the bout and assess whether the "bumping" amounted to jostling. In foil/sabre ANY contact was to be carded. The difference being that corps a corps can come about legitimately in epee when fencers are hitting extremely deep target (back leg, or back arm) from infighting. These targets don't really exist in Foil/Sabre and contact between lames causes weird things to happen.

This could just be yet another regionalism though.

James.

[KD5MDK]

In the case of any body contact, a halt is to be called immediately, at least in the USFA.

[MikeHarm]

How do you tell when it should be a legitimate jostle in epee? Sometimes its seemed like light contact counted for the card, or crashing the bell guards together with a director other times I've seen people instead of fleching to the side go directly into their opponent without the jostle card being tossed even though it seemed more like a tackle than a fleche. Is it more displacing their position or knocking them off balance?

[veeco]

How do you tell when it should be a legitimate jostle in epee? Sometimes its seemed like light contact counted for the card, or crashing the bell guards together with a director other times I've seen people instead of fleching to the side go directly into their opponent without the jostle card being tossed even though it seemed more like a tackle than a fleche. Is it more displacing their position or knocking them off balance?

It depends... The director has the last word on what consitutes or not jostling.

When watching, or directing a bout, you have to take into account that some people are extremely talented "divers" or "actors" and can fake really well being hip-checked or shoulder-checked when in fact just a light contact occurs. A good director who knows the fencers will not get swayed by this, but sometimes it happens, and an unlegitimate card is given, or no card is given when one could have been given.

[veeco]

Sorry Veeco, but the training I got was that "mere corps-a-corps" meaning body to body contact (but without jostling) is not to cause a halt and not to be carded. If the fencers could still wield their weapons safely then we were to let them go (especially as corps as corps often happens in infighting situations).

Where there is any amount of "bumping" though, we were to stop the bout and assess whether the "bumping" amounted to jostling. In foil/sabre ANY contact was to be carded. The difference being that corps a corps can come about legitimately in epee when fencers are hitting extremely deep target (back leg, or back arm) from infighting. These targets don't really exist in Foil/Sabre and contact between lames causes weird things to happen.

This could just be yet another regionalism though.

James.

Hi James,

I think t.20 is pretty clear on this, any type of body contact in all weapons should be sanctionned by a halt. That's the way I have seen and been recommended to call it in both the US and France, but it might be different in Canada.

Certainly just a light grazing isn't going to be called sometimes (in all weapons) just because most of the time the referees aren't really paying attention to that, just like sometimes some referees don't see the occasional foot stepping outside of the strip in foil or sabre, but it doesn't change the fact that it should be called regardless, when one sees it.

[tbryan]

Sorry Veeco, but the training I got was that "mere corps-a-corps" meaning body to body contact (but without jostling) is not to cause a halt and not to be carded. If the fencers could still wield their weapons safely then we were to let them go (especially as corps as corps often happens in infighting situations).

The last US refreee training seminar I attended emphasized that even simple corps-a-corps should result in a halt in all three weapons.

The US FOC has a
rules interpretation sheet that emphasizes this rule. It says, "Any body contact (even the smallest nudge) should always result in a halt....In epee, a halt must be called, but no card given." In the seminar, they left out the part about the "smallest nudge." Basically, any body contact at all caused a halt.

[kalivor]

The last US refreee training seminar I attended emphasized that even simple corps-a-corps should result in a halt in all three weapons.

True, but assuming that the action is as follows:

fleche, parry, bump, IMMEDIATE riposte

Where the riposte is immediate, but arrives post contact, and the attacker is causing the contact, the riposte should count as it began before the halt.

The reasoning given, be it that (a) the opponent had passed, (b) the opponent was off the strip, or (c) corps a corps stopped the action, all before the hit ARRIVED do not warrant the annulment of the touch.

Unless the halt occurred before the riposte was started, these things do not matter.

[kalivor]

(I would assume that in that case if he has the time to bump into you the riposte cannot be called immediate, and in any case the director might have stopped the action for corps a corps).

I'm not sure why an immediate riposte can't occur if there's a bump ... if you can manage an immediate riposte when the opponent passes, then surely you can manage an immediate riposte if they don't make it all the past you ...

[tbryan]

True, but assuming that the action is as follows:

fleche, parry, bump, IMMEDIATE riposte

Where the riposte is immediate, but arrives post contact, and the attacker is causing the contact, the riposte should count as it began before the halt.

The reasoning given, be it that (a) the opponent had passed, (b) the opponent was off the strip, or (c) corps a corps stopped the action, all before the hit ARRIVED do not warrant the annulment of the touch.

Unless the halt occurred before the riposte was started, these things do not matter.

Agreed. I just wanted to add my voice to the "simple corps-a-corps is a halt in epee" crowd. I wasn't really addressing the original post's question.

If the riposte begins before the contact, the touch stands, etc.

And in the case where the parry is successful but the riposte does not begin until after the corps-a-corps, it would probably start to look like corps-a-corps to avoid a touch.

[veeco]

I'm not sure why an immediate riposte can't occur if there's a bump ... if you can manage an immediate riposte when the opponent passes, then surely you can manage an immediate riposte if they don't make it all the past you ...

Because, as Oiuyt, and the rules stated, the riposte has to start before the bump or the pass.

In that specific case, it was described as "he bumped into me, then passed me, then I riposted". If someone has the time to bump into you, then pass you before you make your riposte, it is quite clear to me that the riposte didn't start before both the bump and the passing.