Directing "Clash of the Blades Part One and Two"

[flyingfencer]

I've been doing a little more directing of bouts at the club level recently; and one of the ROW areas that I've had more confusion about from fencers is the beat attack versus the parry.

My question is how would you explain or handle these Foil actions as they come up in practice bouts or tourney bouts?

Two examples that happened at the club in the same bout. Clash of the Blades Part One:

Fencer A from the right initiates an attack from a low line, advance as Fencer B from the left retreats in six. Fencer B moves from six to a low line between eight and seven with a pronated hand, Fencer A moves from the low line to a high line, taking the blade at the foibles with a beat, extend, lunge, lands. Fencer B extends from the blade contact, lands.

Director (Me): "Attack lands, touch right." (Fencer A).
Discussion ensues-These bouts are learning experiences for fencers and directors. Fencer A is a very experienced fencer and Fencer B is a young fencer with less experience but still alot of regional and some national tournament experience:
Fencer B, "Wasn't it a parry riposte?"
Director, "It was a beat attack. You changed your line; and yes, there was blade contact, but I saw the blade contact as intiated from the right. Also, the contact was on a part of the blade, the foibles, associated with the attack."
Fencer B, perplexed, demonstrating his action "Isn't this a parry?"
Director, "I saw you change lines from six to a low line, but you did not initiate blade contact. There is a pause where Fencer A initiates blade contact. The contact also occurs on the foibles, indicative of a beat rather than the forte, which would have been more indicative of a parry. Finally, if you're making a parry, your not making it very clear for the Director. You move from six to a low line in a pronated position between seven and eight. I'm not sure if you're trying to parry or initiate a counter attack from a low line. Make it easy for the Director. Parry at the forte and make the parry in a clear line. You don't have to parry big or hard but give the Director a clearer indication of your action."

Clash of the Blades Part Two:

Fencer B from the left initiates an attack from a low line, advance as Fencer A from the right retreats in Six. Fencer B advance, moves to the high line to beat. Fencer A retreats a half step, closes the line with a four parry, taking the blade with his forte with the beat attempt, riposte, lands. Fencer B extends lands.

Director (Me): "Attack, parry, riposte, touch right." (Fencer A).
Discussion ensues:
Fencer B, "Aw! come on. That was a beat attack."
Director: "You attempt to beat and attack, but Fencer A closes the line with a four parry and ripostes. He shows a clear parry, closing the line, taking your blade with his forte. Your action becomes a remise of your initial attack, and his riposte has ROW."
Fencer B gives me an incredulous look. Fencer A steps in to help explain both actions again, and the differences between the two.

These are fairly simple actions, but I've observed that alot of foil fencers get confused by them, why?

[keropie]

Because what it looks like from the side is different from what it feels like while doing it (or watching from the side from a biased perspective, even). The pictures I conjure from reading your description lead me to say that your calls were probably right. Of course, since I didn't see the action, even my vague statement may be too concrete

But generally speaking, if you can tell who controlled the contact, it's their contact. If you can't, then the contact is of questionable meaning, so it's really who attacks that matters more.

So, if A CLEARLY controls the contact, then it's either A's beat attack or parry. If neither A nor B clearly control the contact, A lunges, B stands still and extends, I usually either call it A's attack ('I don't know who controlled the meeting of the blades, but A attacks and B counters'), or throw it out ('Sorry, dunno who's in control').

But that's just me.

[Frank Pratt]

If I am picturing your description accurately, I would agree with the calls. It's pretty clear that Fencer "A" had control of the actions that resulted in the touches. Most importantly, however, is the fact that the referee's judgment is final. If you, as the referee, believed that fencer "A" beat in the first example and parried in the second example, than that's what happened.

I think you have a pretty good point about how a beat must land on the foible, but technically, this rule only applies to sabre:

(g) Attacks by beats on the blade
1. In an attack by beating on the blade, this attack is correctly carried out and retains its priority when the beat is made on the foible of the opponent’s blade, i.e. the two-thirds of the blade furthest from the guard.
2. In an attack by beating on the blade, when the beat is made on the forte of the opponent’s blade, i.e. the one third of the blade nearest the guard, the attack is badly executed and the beat

There is no such rule in foil. As a matter of fact, the foible and forte are not even mentioned in any other part of the rules. So a foil referee could technically give the beat attack to fencer "B" in your first example, but I don't think many referees would do so.

[RITFencing]

First off, you explain too much. Common problem. If you see a beat attack, all you have to say is "Beat attack form the left arrives." When they ask if it was a prry riposte, they've already had that question answered. When it's unclear, look at how many blade contacts there are (listen for them) and try to find out who controlled that first one. If fencer A comes forward with a beat and then you hear a second blade contact, that beat attack was probably parried. If the parry came first and a second contact came after it, the riposte could well have been counter parried. As a ref, your ears are a very valuable tool.

Also, I forget whether you talked about this, but don't worry about whether something is "parried enough." In foil, if you can hear that sharp click, then for a split second the tip was very likely off line. Large deflections are not necessary, neither is closing the line completely or holding a tip out of line for a certain amount of time. Just general advice.

EDIT: In the second example you give, you can clear up a lot of questions by saying "Beat attack from the left is parried. That way a fencer knows that they did go for a beat attack, but that it was parried, and they are less likely to argue with you about the call.

[mrbiggs]

There is no such rule in foil. As a matter of fact, the foible and forte are not even mentioned in any other part of the rules. So a foil referee could technically give the beat attack to fencer "B" in your first example, but I don't think many referees would do so.

It's not mentioned in the rulebook, but it is mentioned in the handbook.

[fencerbill]

It's not mentioned in the rulebook, but it is mentioned in the handbook.

Handbook?

[peet]

Parsing beat-attack from parry-riposte is without a doubt the hardest part of refereeing foil. Not having seen the actions in person, it's impossible to say what the correct call was, but:

There is a valid argument against your call in case #2 that you might consider: A common "rule of thumb" in ref'ing foil is: "You can't parry a beat." In other words, if the attacker is attempting to beat the blade, and the defender reacts by trying to "counter-beat", then the beat and the touch belongs to the attacker. Or put another way, You can't parry unless I'm attacking. If I'm beating, I'm not (yet) attacking.

Of course, this may not apply well to the case you had in front of you, but it's worth considering.

cheers!

-p

[Inquartata]

Handbook?

I'm guessing the Referee's Handbook. Although possibly the Boy Scout Handbook, for all I know of foil.

[Chafunkta]

THE BEAT VERSUS THE PARRY
In foil and sabre, it is very important for the referee to differentiate between the beat and the parry. Whenever there is a meeting of the blades, the referee must decide which fencer is then able to have the right of way.

It is equally true in foil as it is in sabre that the parts of the two blades that meet are critical in deciding whether the meeting is a beat or a parry. If one fencer’s weak [foible] part of the blade meets the strong [forte] part of the opponent’s blade (not a mere grazing of the blades), it is a parry by the opponent. If it is the strong that meets the weak, it is a beat.

Yeah, it's in the referee handbook.

Yet another problem with the rulebook.

[downunder]

Yeah, it's in the referee handbook.

Yet another problem with the rulebook.

I'd consider it a problem with the handbook that it is worded so strongly. Beat/Parry in foil is defined by deflection, not where on the blade contact occurs. Obviously it can be very difficult to beat or parry foible to forte, but that doesn't mean it should be ruled out completely.

[Chafunkta]

I'd consider it a problem with the handbook that it is worded so strongly. Beat/Parry in foil is defined by deflection, not where on the blade contact occurs. Obviously it can be very difficult to beat or parry foible to forte, but that doesn't mean it should be ruled out completely.

Why is it that as soon as I post something from the rulebook/handbook/some kind of quasi-official document you come right back with some quick comment? j/j

I see what you mean, though. The handbook assumes that any beat on the forte of a foil will not be sufficient enough to deflect the blade, thus the handbook is trying to make it easier for refs. It seems it's basically applying a "rule of thumb" for refs. But isn't the rulebook doing the same thing with sabre?

For a beat to be successful, it must deflect the blade (hence all the "Referee must ensure that a mere grazing of the blades is not considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent's blade" references). This is the intent for both foil and sabre, yet the rulebook includes the "beat must be on the foible" only in sabre. Is this assuming that a foil can be beat on the forte and be deflected, but a sabre cannot? It seems these two are a bit incongruous.

[peet]

I see what you mean, though. The handbook assumes that any beat on the forte of a foil will not be sufficient enough to deflect the blade, thus the handbook is trying to make it easier for refs. It seems it's basically applying a "rule of thumb" for refs. But isn't the rulebook doing the same thing with sabre?

I'm no great saber ref, but i believe there is a good reason for the saber part of the rulebook (and actual saber ROW convention*) to be more picky about where on the blade a beat arrives. In saber, the main thing separating a cut to the wrist (which is parried) and a beat to the blade is where on the blade it arrives. So that difference makes all the difference in whether the action is a failed attack or a successful preparation.

In foil you can't really make a plausible attack like that, since it's a point weapon, and the wrist isn't target, so the distinction is less critical. Therefore we don't need so much help from the rules to call that action a successful beat.

I believe edew posted something to that effect in some other thread a long time ago.

-p

* which as we all know are NOT the same thing!