Refereeing Question Foil

[victord66]

I have recently passed my ref's exam here in Ontario (foil) and have been ref'ing at my club for several months now. I have gained enough confidence that I would like to test in the fall for my provincial certificate. Several of my club mates though have noticed that I tend to have a difficult time with a certain call which I shall describe.

Fencer A makes what appears to be a simple beat attack and Fencer B says that it was his beat parry repost or parry repost. Of course both lights show on-target hits. Fencer A is definitely moving forward and there is definitely blade contact. I do realise that there is a question of where on the blade the beat/parry occurs but I'm wondering if there are any tips you more advanced ref's can give me - or perhaps something specific to look for in these cases in order to better call the action.

Saying all of this, I also realise that, in the best tradition of sport fencing the ref's call of the action becomes a 'point of fact' which cannot be disputed. Keeping this in mind though, I would like to develop a reputation for being a fair and unbiased referee.

I would welcome any thoughts on the matter. Thanks.

[keith]

What the fencers say happened has only a vague relationship to what you, the ref, sees. I'd only worry if an experienced ref watching the bout is suggesting your calling of the action needs work.

[noodle]

i might be wrong on this call, as i've lost my taste for refereeing and i don't keep up with it much.

provideded that the situation was fencer A starts to beat, and fencer B sees the beat and tries to meet it with a parry which ends up with just one instance of blade contact but two lights and the beat was not on the forte of B, i would call it attack for A. fencer B tried to parry the searching for the beat, the preparation of the attack which follows immediately after the beat; he basically threw his blade into the beat-in-progress. A searched and found the blade, and attacked. touch A.

[tlucente]

I once asked the same question of an experienced National Referee who I am friends with, this was his response:
-------------------------------
"You can't beat a beat, and you can't parry a beat. Nor can you beat a parry or parry a parry.

The "golden rule" is that whoever INITIATES the blade contact is the one with priority. The other action is a counter-beat, which is like a counter-attack...it came second and doesn't have priority.

The only exception to this is if the person who started second is completely and utterly controlling the blade contact (like so much that the other person's blade is on the floor).
--------------------------------

Hope that helps

[jBirch]

And one other bit of advice...

When you go for your provincial exam, just ask how this call is supposed to be called and make sure that if you see the question, you answer it according to how the marker wants you to answer it.

James.

[KD5MDK]

tlucente has it right. My rule of thumb in "who initiated the contact, or looked like they wanted it more than the other fencer".

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by victord66

Fencer A makes what appears to be a simple beat attack and Fencer B says that it was his beat parry repost or parry repost. Of course both lights show on-target hits. Fencer A is definitely moving forward and there is definitely blade contact.

If you think Fencer A did a beat, then Fencer A did a beat. Ignore the pressure from B.

I do realise that there is a question of where on the blade the beat/parry occurs but I'm wondering if there are any tips you more advanced ref's can give me - or perhaps something specific to look for in these cases in order to better call the action.

It most certainly is NOT a question of relative blade position. In sabre, yes, in foil, no. What matters in foil is who initiated the action and whether they had intent to engage the other's blade. If A meant to hit B's blade in your opinion, then it is beat A. If A did not mean to hit B's blade, then it is B's parry/riposte.

Hope this helps.

James.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by victord66

Fencer A makes what appears to be a simple beat attack and Fencer B says that it was his beat parry repost or parry repost. Of course both lights show on-target hits. Fencer A is definitely moving forward and there is definitely blade contact.

Are you practicing your demeanor or the correctness of your calls?

If you're practicing your demeanor, then you just look impassively tell Fencer B something like, "I see a beat attack, counter-attack. Please come on guard."

If you're really trying to get the actions right, you make the call. Then you can pause the bout and ask the fencers. If they disagree or both went for the blade, assume you're right until a more experience referee can observe and help.

If an attacker tries to beat-attack and the defender tries to parry-riposte and you hear only one blade contact, then it's probably the beat-attack. As tlucente said, you cannot parry a beat. The defender should wait until after the beat has finished to parry. In that case, you'll hear two clicks.

The reason I say to ask the fencers is that I sometimes have a hard time seeing a specific action: Fencer A does a straight attack with an advance lunge. In the middle or just after Fencer A's advance, Fencer B moves forward with a short advance lunge. What I see is that Fencer A started moving first. Then Fencer B started moving forward. There's one click of the blades as the fencer's come together. Was it Fencer A's beat attack, or was it Fencer B's beat-parry, riposte? It can be really hard to see.

At a tournament, I call whatever I think I saw, and I let the fencers adjust. At practice, I'll sometimes ask after the call. Fencer A can tell you whether he attempted a beat. If not, then it should have been B's.

But, yeah, in many cases, the fencers believe they did one thing, but they really did something else (from the point of view where the referee is watching). You've got the best view of the action.

You can also film a bout that you're refereeing. Have the camera operator stand next to or just behind you. Make sure that the recording picks up audio or video of your call. Then you can review the tape and see whether you would make the same call.

[chiz]

Go to some of the other ROW threads, look for some of the description and replys of:
Edew
Downunder
Oyuit

Look at:

Tips on determining beat vs. parry

But don't ask the fencers when they are on the strip.
Chiz

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by chiz

Go to some of the other ROW threads...
But don't ask the fencers when they are on the strip.

Thanks, yes, I follow the referee threads here. (That's my primary purpose for hanging out at fencing.net.)

But I have to disagree with that last comment. When you're at practice, I think that it is sometimes acceptable to ask the fencers. After the touch or after the bout (if the fencers are good at remembering specific touches), just ask whether they thought the call was right. Both will volunteer information.

For example, I can make a rather well-timed counter-attack. (Yay for epee!) So, sometimes I'll counter-attack just as a foil fencer starts an attack. I'm waiting for the attack and trying to time the action. It's definitely a counter-attack, and I'm trying to make sure that it's one light. When I do this, I'm often closing distance (not dodging, ducking, or fading backwards). My action can look very "aggressive," and when I'm fencing a slower foil fencer, some of the inexperienced referees at my club will give me the touch even when there are two lights. But unless the other fencer prepared or made some other incorrect action, it should be the other fencer's touch.

It definitely depends on the context of the practice bout. If the fencers are trying to practice for a tournament, then it is inappropriate for the referee to ask, and the fencers should just adjust to poor calls.

If we're trying to give a referee a realistic practice, the referee should never accept input from the fencers. He needs to learn to control the strip. In fact, in this situation, sometimes we'll complain even when we know the referee was right since that will certainly happen in a tournament.

If it's early in the season, or fencers are trying to help "train" a new referee to see calls better, their input can be valuable. That normally only works when you have experienced fencers who are good referees on strip. Otherwise, their input may be less valuable since they might not really understand the rules anyway.

Of course, instead of asking the fencers, it would be better if he could have a very experienced referee at his club observe him. Since he's asking here, I'm assuming he doesn't have that kind of resource.

Really, it depends on what his club is like. At some clubs, I would never ask the fencers on the strip about the actions. At other clubs, it can make sense. I was just trying to give victord66 options. I assume that he can figure out what's appropriate for the club and situation that he's in.

[downunder]

Practise.

If you don't know, ask.

Go on your gut instinct, if you're way off with your calls, then you'll be told by referees more experianced than you.

Remember that the fencer who is not recieving the hit will be much more vocal towards you than the fencer who you awarded the hit to.

[OROD]

As stated above, you cannot parry a beat. But, that doesnt mean that fencer B didnt try to parry the beat. :-) I mean, if both fencers are doing beat-attack it's different than if one is doing beat-attack and the other one is trying to do a parry reposte. In the first case it's simultaneous attacks, in the other case it's attack-counter.

So the question is, if both fencers go for the blade what is it? Simultaneous or attack-counter? The way I call it is I look for the forward motion, since that'll tell you who's action was the "initial offensive action". So if fencer A begins moving forward with his beat, while the other fencer just does a beat and then they both go, I call it attack from A counter from B. In this senerio fencer B is clearly reacting to the movement from A who is attempting to break the distance.

If both beat and both go, then it's simultaneous.

.

[edew]

Suppose fencer A has already established right of way (say, A made an absence of blade attack and made three disengages). A is almost there and then chooses to make a final beat-attack. In the meantime, B has been flailing wildly searching for A's blade. You know, quarte-sixte-circle-sixte-prime-seconde-sixte-circle-sixte. B finally finds it when A chose to make the beat.

Well, I'm tempted to call it for B. You have to. A already has right of way. A is not required to find the blade. B HAS to find A's blade. If there's contact, you gotta give it to B. Otherwise, fencer A will forever argue that any blade contact was his attempt to make a last-minute beat.

I'd make this call even if B did nothing other than retreat and held the blade in sixte and A feinted to quarte and disengaged to sixte and beat B's blade. In this case, B made a parry, even though he didn't move his blade at all. Again, for the same reason: A has shown he has right of way. Then he chose to make a disengage to a closed line. Blade contact occurs and it can't be for A (unless it's so unmistakable, like the parry to the floor sort of thing).

[victord66]

Originally Posted by jBirch

It most certainly is NOT a question of relative blade position. In sabre, yes, in foil, no.

You mean if Fencer A beats with his foible on Fencer B's forte, then it's still qualifies as a beat?

[KD5MDK]

I'm sympathetic to the "Fencer who already has right of way shouldn't be beating the blade" concept, but I don't like using it as a rule of thumb. Among other things, I got screwed by it the other year.

I was chasing a high level fencer down the strip, and he was constantly searching for my blade as I came in. The way his blade was extended made me decidedly unconfident that I could just finish cleanly without either being parried or getting a stop-cut to the wrist and a retreat out of distance. So in order to limit his blade options, I gave a nice beat in 4 and then cut extra low to make the parry late. Which worked perfectly, except the referee saw it as his parry riposte. He's a good referee, and I know it worked right because he apologized for the call as I signed the scoresheet. He specifically said "I saw him searching all those times, heard a blade contact, and just thought 'it has to be his'."

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by victord66

You mean if Fencer A beats with his foible on Fencer B's forte, then it's still qualifies as a beat?

In foil, yes. Consider the relative strengthd of foil blades. It is perfectly possible to deflect a foil blade via foible to forte contact. For a variety of reasons, it is not as likely in sabre.

[edew]

Also, offensive actions in foil are along the line of attack. Blade movements transverse to that line are clearly attempt to beat the blade.

In saber, cuts (especially to the hand) are usually transverse to the line of attack, so it is not clear whether a cut is intended as a beat or as an offensive (or counter-offensive) cut to the hand. Thus, the rule of thumb in saber is that blade contact close to the forte of the opponent's blade is considered parried.

[keropie]

In saber there is a rule that beats to the lower third of the blade are considered parries. In foil, there is not. That doesn't mean they aren't considered that way in foil, and certainly I've seen officials call it that way. I will call it that way if fencer A beats the guard, and then both fencers immediately extend. From the beat, fencer B certainly has control of the weapons (his guard, A's foible), so why shouldn't B be the 'attacker,' which is easier and more intuitive here to call the riposte? Now, if A beats the guard, then A attacks, and a split second later (before A's attack arrives) B sticks his point out, then I call A as the attacker (in foil). In saber, it would still be (A's) attack to the guard, (B's) riposte, (A's) continuation out of time.

As for the going backwards looking for blade there fore all blade contact must be mine idea, I'll only use that to separate contacts if I have no feeling for who caused it or controlled it. If I see the guy going backwards flailing around, and I see A (going forward) decide to take the blade again, I'll give it to him. It's still his beat attack. If I see A going forward against B going backward and somehow the blades hit, but I don't ever perceive A trying to control or make that beat, yeah, I'd give B the benefit of the doubt. There is certainly nothing incorrect about making a B later in a marching attack, nor is there anything incorrect about a double beat attack (which would run into the same issues... 'you already had ROW, why beat again?' 'why not?')

[edew]

I agree with your assessment. If A is marching forward and B is retreating while flailing, and then A goes and searches for B's blade, makes a beat and both hit, I would give it to A. There is no automatic gimme to suggest that any blade contact in such cases automatically goes to B.

The situation I'm visualizing is when A makes tight disengages and happens to beat B's blade in the course of the disengages and tries to pass off a failed disengage as a last-moment beat-attack. Yeah right.

[keropie]

Yeah, I'll agree w/ that too ^^ If you're just moving your blade around (either with control and panache, a la tight disengages, or randomly around, a la me), and there's blade contact, they parried, and you're probably in trouble.