Remise and ROW question

[Greg]

Here's my scenario: Fencer A attacks and lands short but keeps his arm extended. Fencer B does a quick beat parry but barely deflects A's blade, but on his riposte, runs into A's point. Is it A point or B's if B hits with his riposte.

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?

Finally, one more. How do you tell if the parry is a bad parry?

Thanks for you help.

[rudd]

Scenario 1: Barely is enough. Fencer B'd Parry Riposte. He actually didn't need to parry as attack had failed. Might also be read a B's beat attack.

Scenario 2: Fencer B's remise

A parry is bad when it doesn't deflect the blade at all.

[Chafunkta]

What rudd said.

#1: Attack from A "parried" ; riposte from B "arrives" ; remise from A "arrives"

It doesn't matter that the remise from A arrives, though, because B already landed his turn in right-of-way; namely his riposte.

#2: Attack from B "parried" ; riposte from A "No" ; counter-riposte from B "arrives" ; remise from A "arrives"

Again, it doesn't matter that A hit with his remise, since B already landed on his turn of right-of-way; namely his counter-riposte.


A parry is defined as moving the blade from one line to another, with the parry being made on the foible of the opponent's blade (although the foible part doesn't always get called). So if fencer A makes an attack to the 6 line, and fencer B parries it about 6 inches to his 4 line, it's a successful parry. As rudd said, "barely" is usually enough. Some referees just listen for a "click" instead of watching what happens with the attackers blade.

[oiuyt]

A parry is bad when it piddles on the oriental rug.

No, wait, that's a puppy.

A parry is bad when it isn't. Fencer Z gets hit, then knocks P's blade away and tries to "riposte". That's not a parry.

"Malparry" (literally "bad parry") is a coaching concept that has no existance in refereeing parlance. Either the parry IS or it ISN'T. The coaching concept of a bad parry falls into the ISN'T category. If there's a parry then it's good.

-B

[noodle]

1) parry riposte for B
2) remise for B
3) a bad parry is one that misses, is not made in time (i.e. you hit the blade at the same time as you're getting hit, or afterwards), or one that is not detectible to the referee. you really don't have to deflect the blade in foil. what matters is that the referee believes you made a parry.

[forethought]

Both of these situations hinge on how the director calls Point-in-line. The Rulebook is fairly vague on PiL, but the Referee Handbook gives quite a bit of info on it. Based upon these criteria, IMHO (which on the internet may not be worth diddly), if Fencer A initiated his attack correctly, that is started extending his/her arm before he/she lunged, and then maintained the extension after it falls short, then the attack is over, but the line is still valid, and the other fencer is obligated to remove it before they attack.

This also brings up the much argued debate as to what is a parry, what is a beat, and what they are not. I was always taught not to be gentle with my opponent's blade if it's pointed at me, and to get it clear off my body before I attack, and if your opponents tip is 2-3 inches away from your chest, merely giving it a love tap at their forte is not going to suffice.

But again, that's just me, and ultimately it's up to the ref to decide what actions are going to get you touches. It makes me sad, however, that hardly anyone I've fenced with/under has any love for PiL.

[mrbiggs]

Since no one's mentioned it, the only time that a parry does not count is when it occured after the halt, which is usually after the fencer has already been hit.

So Fencer A lunges, hits B straight in the chest. Fencer B parries A's blade, which has already hit B, and ripostes, the call is attack from A.

[larkmaj]

One other thing that hasn't been mentioned. In your first scenario, the fencer didn't even need to beat/parry the blade. Fencer B's action could be called a counterattack, or just another attack after A's failed attack if he didn't make contact. In any case, it's B's touch. Although, if B waited long enough for PiL to be established, then he needed to beat, but your description makes it sound like he didn't.

[chefencer]

Wha!!! No one's going to talk about when a beat hits the opposing guard? That's my favorite! I think a 'bad parry' should also be defined as when you parry yourself! (Although I've gotta give props to the 'Double B' for piddling...)
Plus, how come we're not going to talk about how far is enough deflection? Perhaps a bad parry could be defined as the limit of P as deflection approaches zero...
Come on, people! We've got standards to maintain, traditions to uphold, dead polls to vote in!...

heeheeheehee

[oiuyt]

Since no one's mentioned it, the only time that a parry does not count is when it occured after the halt, which is usually after the fencer has already been hit.

Not quite true.

A attacks.
During A's attack B commits a rules violation (covering, turning the back, whatever).
Halt occurs.
B parries.
A remises.

Better believe that parry "counts" (as in had an effect). Doesn't help B score, but then again, parries don't score. They prevent scoring.

-B

[edew]

Both of these situations hinge on how the director calls Point-in-line. The Rulebook is fairly vague on PiL, but the Referee Handbook gives quite a bit of info on it. Based upon these criteria, IMHO (which on the internet may not be worth diddly), if Fencer A initiated his attack correctly, that is started extending his/her arm before he/she lunged, and then maintained the extension after it falls short, then the attack is over, but the line is still valid, and the other fencer is obligated to remove it before they attack.

This also brings up the much argued debate as to what is a parry, what is a beat, and what they are not. I was always taught not to be gentle with my opponent's blade if it's pointed at me, and to get it clear off my body before I attack, and if your opponents tip is 2-3 inches away from your chest, merely giving it a love tap at their forte is not going to suffice.

But again, that's just me, and ultimately it's up to the ref to decide what actions are going to get you touches. It makes me sad, however, that hardly anyone I've fenced with/under has any love for PiL.

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.

[edew]

Not quite true.

A attacks.
During A's attack B commits a rules violation (covering, turning the back, whatever).
Halt occurs.
B parries.
A remises.

Better believe that parry "counts" (as in had an effect). Doesn't help B score, but then again, parries don't score. They prevent scoring.

-B

Given the theme of this thread, I rather consider parries as enabling scoring, rather than prevent scoring. It enables the person who parried to score by taking over the right of way.

Seeing the effects of the new debounce timing and tigher preparation calls in foil, I have been advising my fencers to make the teeniest tiniest lightest slightest parry to enable an effective riposte. Heavy big parries only make successful ripostes harder to accomplish.

[oso97]

Given the theme of this thread, I rather consider parries as enabling scoring, rather than prevent scoring. It enables the person who parried to score by taking over the right of way.

Only if every parry is followed by a riposte...

Sadly, despite my earnest encouragement, the rate is somewhere from 5-80% in my students, depending upon ability level! YMMV...

[mrbiggs]

Not quite true.

A attacks.
During A's attack B commits a rules violation (covering, turning the back, whatever).
Halt occurs.
B parries.
A remises.

Better believe that parry "counts" (as in had an effect). Doesn't help B score, but then again, parries don't score. They prevent scoring.

-B

Can you explain further? My understanding is that the only action made in that situation would be a failed attack. Or am I misunderstanding you entirely?

I was only talking about the phrasing of the action and right of way, not whether or not it's a good idea for a fencer to try to make the parry in that situation, if that helps.

[eac]

Seeing the effects of the new debounce timing and tigher preparation calls in foil, I have been advising my fencers to make the teeniest tiniest lightest slightest parry to enable an effective riposte. Heavy big parries only make successful ripostes harder to accomplish.

Really? I thought I had noticed a trend of people making gliding ripostes that stay on the blade, with opposition, to prevent a remise by keeping the line closed. It seems like remises are most successful when the remiser can just keep going the way he was going, and push the riposte out of the way.

[noodle]

Can you explain further? My understanding is that the only action made in that situation would be a failed attack. Or am I misunderstanding you entirely?

I was only talking about the phrasing of the action and right of way, not whether or not it's a good idea for a fencer to try to make the parry in that situation, if that helps.

imagine the same scenario, in saber, except the attacker crossed over on the initial attack.

[mrbiggs]

imagine the same scenario, in saber, except the attacker crossed over on the initial attack.

I'm not a sabre ref so you got me there.

However, since technically the fencer's light doesn't count, it's as if he never hit.

[Chafunkta]

Can you explain further? My understanding is that the only action made in that situation would be a failed attack. Or am I misunderstanding you entirely?

I was only talking about the phrasing of the action and right of way, not whether or not it's a good idea for a fencer to try to make the parry in that situation, if that helps.

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.

[edew]

Really? I thought I had noticed a trend of people making gliding ripostes that stay on the blade, with opposition, to prevent a remise by keeping the line closed. It seems like remises are most successful when the remiser can just keep going the way he was going, and push the riposte out of the way.

Gliding ripostes are fine, as long as the pressure is minimal. Too much so that your point is not really pointing at the target will drop the success rate significantly, especially among youth and beginning level fencers.

[edew]

Only if every parry is followed by a riposte...

Sadly, despite my earnest encouragement, the rate is somewhere from 5-80% in my students, depending upon ability level! YMMV...

There is no requirement that every parry is followed by a riposte. There is a requirement that every parry is followed by recognizing that the parrier now has right of way and may perform a riposte if necessary or opportunity arises.

If I make a desperate parry and I'm still reeling backwards and my blade and body are yards from my opponent, it makes no sense to commence a riposte (that is, stick the blade at the opponent and move towards opponent), because such an action will only be easily met by a counter-parry and counter-riposte. However, my posture, my attitude and my composure should all clearly spell out to the opponent and the referee (well, clearly to the referee and spectators, but if it's hazy to the opponent, all the better) that I have right of way and will exercise it if necessary or when opportunity arises.