Kolombatovich : Rules of Referees

[bigdawg2121]

Theoretically I don't think there's ever been a "preparation" hand signal. It's always been "non-correcte". In practical terms preparations while attempting to attack are, in fact, incorrect.

[Inquartata]

As preparations to attack, though, they are quite correct...

Sometimes that's what you want to do: Show a preparation as an invitation. Or to gain ground, or to let the opponent wear out his patience and do something rash ( thank you, Ivan Lee ).

These are preparations which are not intended to be attacks. They can scarcely be "non-correct" if they work as intended, can they?

At any rate, the hand signal in the USFA rule book is labeled 'preparation'. Not sure of the FIE labelling, prior to this latest form of the call...

[downunder]

I really would like to have explained to me why there is a conception that if there are simultaneous remises the fencer going forward gets the hit.

[sabreur]

I really would like to have explained to me why there is a conception that if there are simultaneous remises the fencer going forward gets the hit.

The explanation is that there are people who insist on rules-lawyering, and refuse to acknowledge that the rules are ambiguous in places, but that there are accepted interpretations of most of the ambiguous areas.

Which is why I refuse to participate in these discussions any more.

[Stormbringer]

The explanation is that there are people who insist on rules-lawyering, and refuse to acknowledge that the rules are ambiguous in places, but that there are accepted interpretations of most of the ambiguous areas.

Which is why I refuse to participate in these discussions any more.

I think the question at the heart of the matter is, "how and why did some of these 'accepted interpretations', some of which have no actual basis in the rules of the game, and - more to the point - some of which are explicitly contrary to some of the more clearly-written parts of the rules, came to be 'accepted' in the first place?"

[KD5MDK]

Sergei and Jacques agreed on it. Deal.

[Stormbringer]

Sergei and Jacques agreed on it. Deal.

Who?

[bigdawg2121]

Who?

A random generic Frenchman and a random generic representative of the soviet block most likely. It's supposed to be funny. Chuckle.

[TooLoftheDeviL]

I really would like to have explained to me why there is a conception that if there are simultaneous remises the fencer going forward gets the hit.

I don't believe it's b/c they're coming forward. Take for example, if fencer x makes an attack and fencer y makes a successful parry and begins an immediate riposte, but fencer x also begins an immediate remise. The actions occur at the same time, but it's certainly not called a simultaneous action.

Thus if fencer x makes an attack that is no, fencer y makes a counter-attack that is no, and both fencers begin an immediate remise, should fencer x not receive the touch for beginning an attack immediately after his opponent missed him just because his opponent made an immediate remise?

[forethought]

I don't believe it's b/c they're coming forward. Take for example, if fencer x makes an attack and fencer y makes a successful parry and begins an immediate riposte, but fencer x also begins an immediate remise. The actions occur at the same time, but it's certainly not called a simultaneous action.

Thus if fencer x makes an attack that is no, fencer y makes a counter-attack that is no, and both fencers begin an immediate remise, should fencer x not receive the touch for beginning an attack immediately after his opponent missed him just because his opponent made an immediate remise?

Parrying an attack and simply making one miss are two different things.

[downunder]

Thus if fencer x makes an attack that is no, fencer y makes a counter-attack that is no, and both fencers begin an immediate remise, should fencer x not receive the touch for beginning an attack immediately after his opponent missed him just because his opponent made an immediate remise?

and that trail of thought is what we are trying to crush here.

If both fencers begin an immediate remise then the referee shall signal simultaneous and award no hit.

I don't honestly believe anyone could compare it to a parry-riposte situation.

[noodle]

and that trail of thought is what we are trying to crush here.

If both fencers begin an immediate remise then the referee shall signal simultaneous and award no hit.

I don't honestly believe anyone could compare it to a parry-riposte situation.

that trail of thought is what is being taught in referee seminars in the US.

and so, you're saying that if i make an attack, my opponent counters, we both miss and remise, but my opponent remises faster, they get ROW? sounds like epee. whats the point of even having ROW if its being interpreted to allow such a remise-fest now?

[TooLoftheDeviL]

and that trail of thought is what we are trying to crush here.

If both fencers begin an immediate remise then the referee shall signal simultaneous and award no hit.

I don't honestly believe anyone could compare it to a parry-riposte situation.

How is taking the blade different than your opponent missing as long as you're still immediately taking over the action?

[downunder]

and so, you're saying that if i make an attack, my opponent counters, we both miss and remise, but my opponent remises faster, they get ROW? sounds like epee. whats the point of even having ROW if its being interpreted to allow such a remise-fest now?

They don't have to remise faster, they have to remise first to have 'ROW' in the situation above

Why should you get the hit if your opponent's remise starts before yours?

How is taking the blade different than your opponent missing as long as you're still immediately taking over the action?

Because a parry gives the right to a riposte, making your opponent falls short doesn't. Assuming you make your opponent fall short, you still need to start your 'counter' attack before he begins any remise.

[swordsen]

I think I will listen to the FIE ref and the messages from the FOC.

[tchwojko]

I think I will listen to the FIE ref and the messages from the FOC.

They went that-a-way.
<----->

[noodle]

Because a parry gives the right to a riposte, making your opponent falls short doesn't. Assuming you make your opponent fall short, you still need to start your 'counter' attack before he begins any remise.

so, this is the issue, then. i've been told and taught, as a referee, that this is wrong. from FIE and FOC refs.

not exactly wrong as worded, but in concept, wrong. you don't have the right to a riposte, but right of way passes from the attacker, in missing, to the counterattacker, and back to the attacker after the counterattack misses. edit: provided both remises are immediate, of course.

[swordsen]

I think the whole point of this announcement is that the FIE has decided that that interpretation of events is wrong and wants refs to change how they are calling it.

[noodle]

I think the whole point of this announcement is that the FIE has decided that that interpretation of events is wrong and wants refs to change how they are calling it.

and if that is the case, thats fine and i'll concede the point. however, i'm not going to change my calls based on what i'm reading on the internet, i'll be waiting until i get it in person.

or i can just wait a few years until it switches again see my thread on rewriting rules for my opinion on the situation.

[bigdawg2121]

This thread is funny. By now we should all realize that downunder will post answers from a purely theoretical standpoint 9/10 or more. People looking for likely practical answers are barking up the wrong tree. Conversely, you could just consider that he's offered the most practical explanation ever given: if someone is attacking or continuously remising or somehow imitating a bowling ball heading in your general direction the only real way to take right of way is to parry.