Remise and ROW question

[theLuz]

[QUOTE=noodle;525647]1) parry riposte for B
2) remise for B
[QUOTE]

I think you meant "remise for A
Isn't it wonderful that there is so much agreement on this question. Hurray for foil fencers!

[mrbiggs]

If B would not have made the parry, A's attack (i'm assuming) would have been successful.

If B had committed that penalizable action (turning the back, covering) during A's attack (which lands), A would still get the touch, and B gets the card.

So since B parried, A has no action that counts as a touch, so the referee can't award a touch for A. He'll still card the fencer, though.

The parry saved B a touch.

Oh, I see. Thanks.

[noodle]

[QUOTE=theLuz;525834][QUOTE=noodle;525647]1) parry riposte for B
2) remise for B

I think you meant "remise for A
Isn't it wonderful that there is so much agreement on this question. Hurray for foil fencers!

no, no i don't.

If Fencer A after a parry misses with his riposte, but keeps his arm out and Fencer B runs into it with his new attack, is it Fencer's A point or B's if B hits with his attack?

B attacks, A parries, riposes but misses. priority passes to B, B makes an immediate attack. touch B. not enough time to establish point in line from A.

[forethought]

It might hinge on how the referee calls point in line IF there was a point in line. Given that B beat the blade, whatever PiL that might have occurred has been knocked out.

He didn't say that Fencer A remised in the first example, he said Fencer B ran into Fencer A's point, leading me to conclude that there was no further blade action after the lunge on Fencer A's part, so since the beat did not move the point off the line, the beat attack failed and Fencer B ran into Fencer A's line.

Referees must ensure that a mere grazing of the blades is not considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent's blade.

This is in reference to the parry, but since they clearly want to make sure there is deflection of the blade at some point during the attack (or when there is an established PiL, see t.60/2a) I'm sure this can be applied to the beat attack as well.

[CvilleFencer]

He didn't say that Fencer A remised in the first example, he said Fencer B ran into Fencer A's point, leading me to conclude that there was no further blade action after the lunge on Fencer A's part, so since the beat did not move the point off the line, the beat attack failed and Fencer B ran into Fencer A's line.

I have no idea what you are talking about. At least I hope I don't... It seems to me that you are saying that:

A: A failed attack immediately becomes a point in line as soon as it misses
and
B: That a beat is not enough to remove a point in line if the person had one, which they didn't in the example

If you are saying either one of those, or anything close to them, you are wrong.

A line takes a full tempo to establish. That is a full tempo where the other person is not attacking or even preparing to attack (in the step phase of a step lunge for example. Furthermore, if the blade is found with a point in line, the point in line is done. Call it a parry or a beat or whatever, in order to have a PIL the fencer needs to avoid/derobe a search for the blade.

So, just to clarify: Fencer A did not have a PIL in the initial post. The first example is really as simple as attack no, attack arrives. He did not even need to beat the blade. In the second example it is reposte no, remise. Again nothing complicated and nowhere in there is there anything anywhere close to a PIL. Nothing. Even. Close.

[Phaeton]

Wait...is someone implying foil has right of way...and that it changes... I just figured they flipped a coin except for when the one fencer is moving lethargicly down strip chasing another....

[forethought]

I have no idea what you are talking about. At least I hope I don't... It seems to me that you are saying that:

A: A failed attack immediately becomes a point in line as soon as it misses
and
B: That a beat is not enough to remove a point in line if the person had one, which they didn't in the example

Forgive me, I was working under the assumption that the arm was extended before the lunge; after having this drilled into me for over 3 years it becomes not only habit but assumption as well. Mea culpa.

And I'm sorry, if you try to beat a blade that's merely inches from your chest and you run into the blade without your opponent having to remise, your beat failed. Utterly.

[noodle]

Forgive me, I was working under the assumption that the arm was extended before the lunge; after having this drilled into me for over 3 years it becomes not only habit but assumption as well. Mea culpa.

And I'm sorry, if you try to beat a blade that's merely inches from your chest and you run into the blade without your opponent having to remise, your beat failed. Utterly.

hope you fence epee

[larkmaj]

Forgive me, I was working under the assumption that the arm was extended before the lunge; after having this drilled into me for over 3 years it becomes not only habit but assumption as well. Mea culpa.

And I'm sorry, if you try to beat a blade that's merely inches from your chest and you run into the blade without your opponent having to remise, your beat failed. Utterly.

I agree with noodle.

First of all. Technically, if you fully extend your arm before the lunge you are not attacking. As is stated many times on this forum, an attack involves EXTENDING the arm. I don't want to get into a discussion on this as it has been done ad naseum.

The second is very much an epee concept. The whole point in foil and sabre is not so much to prevent your opponent from touching you, but to insure that you have RoW when you touch your opponent. The waid foil and sabre have developed, as long as a beat/parry happens before you get hit, it is successful at takind RoW.

[KD5MDK]

If the point is just inches from your chest, either you have priority over their counterattack, and so the beat is just pretty window dressing, or you're actually making a parry. Unless they've already established PiL, but we've already verified there wasn't time for that.

[CvilleFencer]

Forgive me, I was working under the assumption that the arm was extended before the lunge; after having this drilled into me for over 3 years it becomes not only habit but assumption as well. Mea culpa.

And I'm sorry, if you try to beat a blade that's merely inches from your chest and you run into the blade without your opponent having to remise, your beat failed. Utterly.

Okay, I think I get it now. Miscommunication/misunderstanding on my part. I was assuming (always a dangerous thing to do) that you were a competitive as opposed to a classical/historic/recreational fencer.

For modern sport fencing an attack does not need to have an extended arm. Under the right circumstances you can even withdraw the arm to deliver and still have the attack. Also, having an attack miss by a couple of inches and then launching your own attack is just good distance/fencing for foil/saber. There is no continuation of line after a failed attack in competitive fencing as missing/failing is not rewarded. After a failed attack, the opponent has the opportunity to take over ROW. Finally, a beat does not have to rip the other guys arm out of its socket or knock the blade to a 90 degree angle to gain priority. The other guy basically has to find the blade with enough force that the referee hears the click of the blades. A beat, or parry for that matter, can never fail. It can be late, it can not find the blade (becomes a search or is derobed), it can happen or it can't happen. Nothing in between.

Interestingly enough, if you look at high speed footage of a fairly soft beat or parry, you will see that the blade deflects at a fairly radical angle and then snaps back faster than the eye can follow.

I understand that things are A LOT different in classical fencing, and I think that is where the miscommunication happened. If you tried to make calls like you mention above in at a USFA tourney of about C level or above, you would be having some very uncomfortable conversations with the fencers, coaches, BC, clubmates, parents, spectators and maybe even the janitor!

[forethought]

I agree with noodle.

First of all. Technically, if you fully extend your arm before the lunge you are not attacking. As is stated many times on this forum, an attack involves EXTENDING the arm. I don't want to get into a discussion on this as it has been done ad naseum.

The second is very much an epee concept. The whole point in foil and sabre is not so much to prevent your opponent from touching you, but to insure that you have RoW when you touch your opponent. The waid foil and sabre have developed, as long as a beat/parry happens before you get hit, it is successful at takind RoW.

I'm not even going to argue the first point...

However, it is explicitly stated in the Rulebook that parries have to deflect the initial attack to be valid. A can attack, B can parry & riposte, and A can remise/redouble/whatever, both hit, it's B's touch, as long as he makes A's initial attack fail and his riposte is immediate. If A attacks, B gives his blade a love tap and attacks and A lands without having to remise/redouble/whatever, then that's B's fault, and A's touch.

[larkmaj]

as long as he makes A's initial attack fail

He did make A's attack fail. A lunged, fell short, his foot landed, end of attack, not enough time to establish PiL. Any touch by A after the attack finishes and before the establishment of PiL in this situation is considered a remise.

[CvilleFencer]

I'm not even going to argue the first point...

However, it is explicitly stated in the Rulebook that parries have to deflect the initial attack to be valid. A can attack, B can parry & riposte, and A can remise/redouble/whatever, both hit, it's B's touch, as long as he makes A's initial attack fail and his riposte is immediate. If A attacks, B gives his blade a love tap and attacks and A lands without having to remise/redouble/whatever, then that's B's fault, and A's touch.

The rulebook also says that the arm must begin extending but does not say which arm. The rule book says that the mesh for the mask MAY NOT extend below the chin. I could go on...

The rulebook is the beginning of wisdom, not the end. As I mentioned, if you look at high speed footage, most any parry will deflect the blade from it's initial line, but due to the construction of modern blades, will snap right back into place faster than most people can see. Some of the people you are arguing these points with are Div 1 level fencers and/or national level referees. We are not making this stuff up, this is the way it is.

I would strongly suggest, should you be interested in competitive fencing, that you take a referee seminar or workshop. For modern fencing, you are laboring under some very old fashioned and incorrect ideas. Not your fault mind, the rulebook has needed a complete rewrite for years IMHO, but I doubt it will ever happen in our lifetimes. So much stuff has to be seen in a bout to be understood that it is very difficult to convey in writing. Even after seeing it, it helps to have a strong referee to explain it to you. Hence the workshop/clinic.

[oiuyt]

I'm not even going to argue the first point...

However, it is explicitly stated in the Rulebook that parries have to deflect the initial attack to be valid. A can attack, B can parry & riposte, and A can remise/redouble/whatever, both hit, it's B's touch, as long as he makes A's initial attack fail and his riposte is immediate. If A attacks, B gives his blade a love tap and attacks and A lands without having to remise/redouble/whatever, then that's B's fault, and A's touch.

We should probably not even bother arguing the second point with you, but we will, because that's what we do here.

The "love tap" you mention DOES "make A's initial attack fail". Even if A doesn't consciously bring the point back into line or hit a target other than that intended. It's B's touch.

You can either accept that the conventions of the sport allow for this, or, if you insist on a literal reading, refer to the high-speed photography mentioned by Cville.

If you call things the way you describe in this thread -- and I assume you (and the rest of your salle) do -- you are well outside the mainstream of what is considered correct by the majority of those in our sport. You will fail miserably if you bring your concepts into a wider arena, where more standard conventions apply. If/when fencers accustomed to standard refereeing come into your little world they will likewise be extremely frustrated.

-B

[oiuyt]

his foot landed, end of attack

Careful with this one. I'm not sure we've specified that we're talking about sabre in the thread, and the implication sure is that we're discussing foil.

-B

[Goldgar]

First of all. Technically, if you fully extend your arm before the lunge you are not attacking. As is stated many times on this forum, an attack involves EXTENDING the arm.

That's a complete misunderstanding of the rule. The attack begins with the start of the extension, but it doesn't necessarily end when the extension completes. A correctly executed advance-lunge attack may start extending with the advance, complete the extension by the end of the advance, and flow smoothly into the lunge, without somehow ceasing to be an attack.

[CvilleFencer]

That's a complete misunderstanding of the rule. The attack begins with the start of the extension, but it doesn't necessarily end when the extension completes. A correctly executed advance-lunge attack may start extending with the advance, complete the extension by the end of the advance, and flow smoothly into the lunge, without somehow ceasing to be an attack.

What he said. Sort of... It depends on what the other guy is doing, but basically Goldgar has the right of it from my understanding. An attack begins with the initial extending of the arm and finishes with the lunge or the fleche. If the attack is continuous, even if there are numerous advances/tempo changes/changes in line, it is not over until the lunge or the fleche arrives assuming the opponent does interupt. I don't think I explained that very well...

[Greg_D]

Even though this is a never ending conversation, I'm going to make an attempt to clarify the following rule...

Referees must ensure that a mere grazing of the blades is not considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent's blade.

The idea behind this rule is to keep someone from getting a 2 for 1. In this case the 2 for 1 is a counter-attack that also happens to incidentally contact with the opponents blade. You do NOT get to have both. If you are counterattacking, you'd better hit without the opponent's light going off. If you can counterattack with opposition in order to make this happen, so much the better. But you do NOT get the parry as a result of it.

On the other hand, If you are making a parrying motion rather than an attacking motion and you find the blade (i.e. you get the click) you HAVE made a parry. It doesn't have to move the blade from one line to another. It doesn't have to be on the foible but can, rather, be on the forte (see note below). It DOES have to be on the blade rather than the guard. (If it's on the guard, just assume it was a counter attack that failed.) If, as the referee, you hear a click, even a very soft one, it is either a parry or a beat. It's your job to decide who got what and you should call it as such. Mal parre, as described in other posts, is a coaching term, not a refereeing term. If there is a parry, you have established an opportunity to take over right-of-way with a riposte.

In the scenario in question, it is clear that the action is either a parry riposte or a beat attack after a failed attack. (It doesn't really matter which you call.)

Greg_D

[Note: In sabre there is a rule that you cannot make a BEAT on the lower third of the blade to establish right-of-way. It doesn't say anything about a parry. Parries and beats are different things. Call them as such. Again, this rule is there to keep people from getting a 2 for 1. You can't attempt to attack your opponent's hand, hit his/her blade instead, continue on with a head cut, and claim that you have made a beat attack...]

[larkmaj]

Careful with this one. I'm not sure we've specified that we're talking about sabre in the thread, and the implication sure is that we're discussing foil.

-B

That's not to say his attack wasn't over. In greg's scenario, he states that:

Fencer A attacks and lands short

Which to me means that his attack finished unsuccessfully.