Simple-ish foil action call

[edew]

Fencer J23X makes a lunge attack. Falls short because fencer Mp$K jumped back. Immediately after this lunge/jump-back, Mp$K advances and beats J23X's blade. But wait, J23X recovers from the lunge and makes a parry-riposte on Mp$K's attack.

Normally, if Mp$K makes just an advance-lunge as one might usually do, I would call it J23X's parry-riposte. (Full call: attack by J23X is no, attack by Mp$K is parried by J23X. Riposte is good.)

Or, if J23X didn't try to parry and perhaps remised or just left the blade there, I'd call it as, "attack by J23X no, attack by Mp$K with a beat is yes."

However, with both making active motions with the blades, it's not clear.

Usually, one would use the "beat has precedence over a parry" rule, but Mp$K didn't do an immediate beat. Mp$K advanced towards J23X and then beat the blade. The convention here is that if J23X is required to parry because the threat has been established, then the parry has precedence over the beat. (Otherwise, my tactic would make an attack, wait for the parry, then beat at the same time and claim that I should maintain RoW.)

I think I probably answered my question here, but the action wasn't so clear as to who started first with the blade movement. I called for no touch, but that left a bad taste in my mouth. Sorta something lemony, I guess.

[Tavataar]

However, with both making active motions with the blades, it's not clear.

Usually, one would use the "beat has precedence over a parry"

so my question is does the sound of the blades go beat *clack* parry *clack*? because that seems pretty clear that the point goes to the parry riposte.

but are you asking if it is beat/parry with ONE *clack*, then how do you judge who has the RoW?

i would call that for whoever i felts arm movement indicated the proper gesture. if there is one clack, and the defenders arm didnt seem to be a parry motion, its a beat. however, if the defenders arm is clearly the one making the motion to parry, then i would give him the parry.

[Grasshopper]

Fencer J23X makes a lunge attack. Falls short because fencer Mp$K jumped back. Immediately after this lunge/jump-back, Mp$K advances and beats J23X's blade. But wait, J23X recovers from the lunge and makes a parry-riposte on Mp$K's attack.

Normally, if Mp$K makes just an advance-lunge as one might usually do, I would call it J23X's parry-riposte. (Full call: attack by J23X is no, attack by Mp$K is parried by J23X. Riposte is good.)

Or, if J23X didn't try to parry and perhaps remised or just left the blade there, I'd call it as, "attack by J23X no, attack by Mp$K with a beat is yes."

However, with both making active motions with the blades, it's not clear.

Usually, one would use the "beat has precedence over a parry" rule, but Mp$K didn't do an immediate beat. Mp$K advanced towards J23X and then beat the blade. The convention here is that if J23X is required to parry because the threat has been established, then the parry has precedence over the beat. (Otherwise, my tactic would make an attack, wait for the parry, then beat at the same time and claim that I should maintain RoW.)

I think I probably answered my question here, but the action wasn't so clear as to who started first with the blade movement. I called for no touch, but that left a bad taste in my mouth. Sorta something lemony, I guess.

It all depends on what IG88, C3PO and R2D2 do.

[garyhayenga]

Fencer J23X makes a lunge attack. Falls short because fencer Mp$K jumped back. Immediately after this lunge/jump-back, Mp$K advances and beats J23X's blade. But wait, J23X recovers from the lunge and makes a parry-riposte on Mp$K's attack.

Normally, if Mp$K makes just an advance-lunge as one might usually do, I would call it J23X's parry-riposte. (Full call: attack by J23X is no, attack by Mp$K is parried by J23X. Riposte is good.)

Or, if J23X didn't try to parry and perhaps remised or just left the blade there, I'd call it as, "attack by J23X no, attack by Mp$K with a beat is yes."

However, with both making active motions with the blades, it's not clear.

Usually, one would use the "beat has precedence over a parry" rule, but Mp$K didn't do an immediate beat. Mp$K advanced towards J23X and then beat the blade. The convention here is that if J23X is required to parry because the threat has been established, then the parry has precedence over the beat. (Otherwise, my tactic would make an attack, wait for the parry, then beat at the same time and claim that I should maintain RoW.)

I think I probably answered my question here, but the action wasn't so clear as to who started first with the blade movement. I called for no touch, but that left a bad taste in my mouth. Sorta something lemony, I guess.

Since Mp$K did not finish his action, be it a riposte or not, he abandons it to make an attempt to take his opponents blade, the key question is did he initiate the blade contact or did his opponent.

If his opponent had already begun his attempt to parry the riposte when Mp$K broke off his action then his opponent is correct.

If Mp$K began his attempt to take the blade while his opponent was doing nothing or remising/redoubling the original attack then Mp$K is correct.

gary hayenga

[edew]

Well, that's the question...

Mp$K moves forward, then makes an action on the opponent's blade. At just that time, J23X makes an action on Mp$K's blade.

If the prior action never occurred (that is, J23X making an attack and Mp$K running back to avoid it), I'd would calmly call simultaneous actions (both beat -- or both parry -- followed by the offensive thrusts).

In other words, abstracting this situation, suppose what you would normally call as "both beat, both attack, no touch" occurs after one makes a lunge-attack and the other makes a jump-back to avoid being hit. Then, would the prior action of attack/avoid affect the call?

[bigdawg2121]

Eh... I kinda feel like the answer is rather highly dependent on what you saw the fencers doing as well. I'm also going to simplify to fencer A and fencer B b/c frankly I'm not a fan of long strings of letters, etc (yes 4 is long, what of it?)

If A attacks and B moves out of the way, both wait and then start simultaneously, both look for the blade, both find the blade, and both hit then it should be a simultaneous call. Both beat, both attack, nothing done.

If in this situation, as you seem to describe, A misses and B then starts an advance (for all intents and purposes here B is attacking, as they are the first fencer going forward and they haven't done anything stupid with their hand/arm yet) and makes a beat. While B is making their beat A decides to make a parry, both find the blade and both hit. Touch for B. Beat attack from B arrives. If you check the handbook (positive about that one...rulebook maybe, don't remember) there's a reference to the idea that if both fencers attempt to take the blade and you can't decide which one was successful the benefit of the doubt goes to the "attacking" fencer (i.e. B who decided to begin a beat attack with advance lunge).

Practically speaking the answer is usually more simple. As the referee you probably had some idea of who controlled the action, that is, whether one contolled the blade or seemed to initiate the actual action. If you were thinking to yourself, hmmm A took the blade but B was clearly attempting to make a beat attack then A probably made the riposte or vice-versa. If you really had a tie then see above.

[fencer1960]

I think you made the right call, because you didn't know. I never call an action if i'm not sure, and I'd rather my refs not call what they're unsure of. It may bug me a little if I think I should have caught the action, but not as much as it would if I called it wrong.

[keropie]

I'll generally agree w/ BigDawg here... if you know that one of them had control over the meeting of the blades, then that guy attacked. If you can't tell, then the one who made the attack (presumably by lunging, fleching, whatever) made the attack, and the guy who stood there and tried to riposte didn't. If they both somehow lunged at that distance, they probably both ran into each other and got yellow cards anyhow, but if not, simultaneous. (Or, more accurately, no one establishes control, no touch... in my head it would sound like 'yuck, that was crappy... neither of you deserves anything for that).

[garyhayenga]

Well, that's the question...

Mp$K moves forward, then makes an action on the opponent's blade. At just that time, J23X makes an action on Mp$K's blade.

If the prior action never occurred (that is, J23X making an attack and Mp$K running back to avoid it), I'd would calmly call simultaneous actions (both beat -- or both parry -- followed by the offensive thrusts).

In other words, abstracting this situation, suppose what you would normally call as "both beat, both attack, no touch" occurs after one makes a lunge-attack and the other makes a jump-back to avoid being hit. Then, would the prior action of attack/avoid affect the call?

No. The fact that you would normally call it a riposte when Mp$K moves forward after moving backward to avoid the attack becomes irrelevant once Mp$K abandons that tempo and attempts to take the blade instead of finishing his earlier action.

If you would normally call "both beat, both attack, no touch" then that is still the correct call.

Suppose that instead of jumping back Mp$K had parried with the blade and then stepped forward and then instead of finishing that action had sought the blade a *second time* beginning his second beat simultaneously with what J23X intends as a counter-parry. Would you call that "riposte no, counter-riposte yes"? Many would, but in that case it maks no sense that a distance-parry would be given an advantage that a normal blade-parry is not.

In both cases the correct call is "attack no", and either "no riposte" or "riposte no" since Mp$K never finishes his riposte, and then "both beat, both go".

gary hayenga

[LordShout]

I'm confused, I thought (and had I been reffing this bout) that this is the interpretation:

Attack is no, beat attack is parried riposte arrives valid. (If the beat occurs in a distinguishable time period from the parry, IE not one click but a beat click then a parry click)

attack is no, beat attack arrives valid, if both the beat and the parry arrive at the same time, IE one click one fencer moving forward (attacking) one fencer clearly not attacking.

[edew]

No, there was just one click.

[randomsabreur]

Sounds like original defender was being sensible - some foil refs are too incompetent to notice the initial attack failing, and so it makes sense to get the blade as well, to make sure you have priority. Beat attack would have priority for me, if it was clearly a beat with the hand moving forward, rather than a defensive parry.

Hard to tell without being there though

[tlucente]

A really good Referee, who frequents this forum, gave me this pearl of wisdom when I was a new Referee:
=================================
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).
=================================
If Edew could not determine who initiated the contact this doesn't help, but there are certainly many instances, especially in D-Under Foil, where this would guideline would assist a new Referee (certainly now Edew) in determining priority.