Interesting. I wonder if it's available in English. Or maybe PeterG will volunteer to come over and run it. I know someone he would get along fabulously with.
You should come over here some time and see how our events are. Flights across the Atlantic frequently aren't that bad.
If I make a parry or a beat, do I get the right of way? The answer is "No." It is a very important concept that it is the offensive action that gives one the right of way. A parry only stops the opponent's offensive action; the riposte gives the right of way. A beat is only a preparation; the offensive action after the beat is what can give the priority.
There's a problem with being so literal, however. If a parry doesn't win you right of way, what happens if I parry and my opponent and I start an action immediately and simultaneously? According to George's literal analysis, the action would be simultaneous. After all, the parry doesn't win me right of way -- an offensive action does. And our offensive actions start at the exact same time.
This is what logically follows from his wording, but that obviously goes against the conventions of foil/sabre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
The priority of the point in line is retained whether one advances, retreats, or lunges. With all this in mind, it is obvious that the referees are correct when one fencer finishes an attack that is short in the position of point in line, that fencer continues to have the priority, and the opponent must deflect the opponent's blade.
Why? PIL is PIL is PIL, whether the fencer is advancing, retreating, or lunging, yes. But first the line must be established. If I fall short (with a cut, in sabre) and stick the point out while my opponent makes an immediate and direct attack, line was never established. He has to either wait one tempo or be outside advance lunge distance. That much is in the rules, no?
Last edited by ViewtifulMisho; 06-09-2008 at 01:25 PM..
There's a problem with being so literal, however. If a parry doesn't win you right of way, what happens if I parry and my opponent and I start an action immediately and simultaneously? According to George's literal analysis, the action would be simultaneous. After all, the parry doesn't win me right of way -- an offensive action does. And our offensive actions start at the exact same time.
This is what logically follows from his wording, but that obviously goes against the conventions of foil/sabre.
Granted that could be surmised as plausible. As long as the repoiste is immediate I don't for see a problem. The whole idea is that a parry doesn't win ROW but it certainly defeats it. I know they are trying to standardize definitions and all but I suspect you are right in some of the hiccups and rational competitors will use to score points. Personally I like the ruling on PIL being established immediately after an attack. (that is to say a break in the arm will lose it but it remains a valid threat otherwise)
There's a problem with being so literal, however. If a parry doesn't win you right of way, what happens if I parry and my opponent and I start an action immediately and simultaneously? According to George's literal analysis, the action would be simultaneous. After all, the parry doesn't win me right of way -- an offensive action does. And our offensive actions start at the exact same time.
This is what logically follows from his wording, but that obviously goes against the conventions of foil/sabre.Why? PIL is PIL is PIL, whether the fencer is advancing, retreating, or lunging, yes. But first the line must be established. If I fall short (with a cut, in sabre) and stick the point out while my opponent makes an immediate and direct attack, line was never established. He has to either wait one tempo or be outside advance lunge distance. That much is in the rules, no?
If I parried, we consider that I stopped the attack in some way, no? If I riposte immediately while the attack has been stopped, then the riposte must have started first. If I parry and wait a bit, then actions start simultaneously then they should be considered simultaneous, right? My only job is to start an immediate riposte after my parry or to start my next action before my opponent. It's the referees job to make sure they're watching to tell when the riposte starts and who's doing what regardless of tempo (b/c situations can be constructed where touches should go one way or the other regardless of who hits first or whether touches arrive simultaneously). The way I see it, all George is really doing is trying to get rid of the common concept that rules of thumb are always right (e.g. "if I hear a parry I am obligated to call the touch for the riposte")...they may often be right but ultimately it's a little lazy on the reffing side of things.
__________________ I now dangle to the left....my tassle. Get your minds out of the gutter.
"Martin was not an optimist; he was a prisoner of hope." Optimism is about assuming there's evidence that justifies your outlook while hope is about creating the evidence and procuring your own happiness or vision of the world. - Professor West
Granted that could be surmised as plausible. As long as the repoiste is immediate I don't for see a problem. The whole idea is that a parry doesn't win ROW but it certainly defeats it. I know they are trying to standardize definitions and all but I suspect you are right in some of the hiccups and rational competitors will use to score points. Personally I like the ruling on PIL being established immediately after an attack. (that is to say a break in the arm will lose it but it remains a valid threat otherwise)
I agree. A parry does not give you RoW, it sets up a new tempo to determine RoW from that point on (theoretically).
My understanding (from a long time ago) is that when you parry successfully (move an opponent's point out of line to valid target) then you may take the RoW by means of tempo (immediate reaction, no pause) and a threatening action/attack (extending the arm, putting PiL). If you parry successfully and riposte immediately and your opponent makes a second attack/remise at the same time as your riposte, the RoW should go to you. If you parry and pause ever so slightly but noticeable on the riposte (adding second tempo), both your riposte and your opponent's remise/second attack may be judged as simultaneous.
If I move out of distance so that the attack is short but the point is still in line, the first tempo is lost by my opponent along with the initial RoW. This sets up the second tempo. Depending upon what you or your opponent does, will gain RoW from here.
If my opponent remains with a PiL (arm extended), no one has RoW... yet. All my opponent is doing at the end of the failed short attack is to continue to threaten with a PiL. In order for me to win RoW, I need to move his point out of line first, then initiate an attack (arm extension, PiL). If I attack into his PiL, I'm impaling myself. The touch should go against me.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that RoW is determined by tempo, action, and point in line.
There's a problem with being so literal, however. If a parry doesn't win you right of way, what happens if I parry and my opponent and I start an action immediately and simultaneously?
The point is that if your riposte is immediate then it *must* have started before your opponent *could* have begun a remise.
So if you parried then you can't *both* start immediately, the remise, no matter how quickly begun, *will* be after an immediate riposte, by definition.
Let me see if I understand ViewtifulMisho's situation-
John attacks, and Hank parries. Hank immediatly begins a riposte, while John immediatly begins another offensive action. Both touches land. Using George's new ruling, wouldn't the call be thus:
"Attack is parried, riposte arrives valid."
Hank parried, winning right to riposte, which is an offensive action that carries right-of-way. John's attack was defeated, which necessitated his second attack- which would either be a remise, redoublement, or reprise of his initial attack. Any of the three actions would lose priority over Hank's simple attack, unless any of his actions were out of time.
Am I right?
__________________ The time which we have at our disposal every day is elastic; the passions that we feel expand it, those that we inspire contract it; and habit fills up what remains.
-Proust
The point is that if your riposte is immediate then it *must* have started before your opponent *could* have begun a remise.
So if you parried then you can't *both* start immediately, the remise, no matter how quickly begun, *will* be after an immediate riposte, by definition.
gary hayenga
I believe after reading George K's explanation, if you parried then at the same time, you immediately riposted and your opponent immediately remised (same time), the RoW goes to you because your opponent is obligated to parry your riposte. If your opponent actually starts the remise before the riposte, then that may constitute a pause after the parry by you in which you lost the tempo after the parry to take the RoW.
Let me see if I understand ViewtifulMisho's situation-
John attacks, and Hank parries. Hank immediatly begins a riposte, while John immediatly begins another offensive action. Both touches land. Using George's new ruling, wouldn't the call be thus:
"Attack is parried, riposte arrives valid."
Hank parried, winning right to riposte, which is an offensive action that carries right-of-way. John's attack was defeated, which necessitated his second attack- which would either be a remise, redoublement, or reprise of his initial attack. Any of the three actions would lose priority over Hank's simple attack, unless any of his actions were out of time.
Am I right?
I believe that you are right. In fact, as it had been explained to me (long ago), if you immediately riposte after a successful parry, your immediate riposte can be slow but must be continuously moving forward toward a valid opponent's target to maintain the RoW.
As I read it, everything in the message about parries and ripostes is pretty consistent with current and long-established conventions. It's just clarifying some points that sometimes get missed in all the sturm und drang, like "it's the offensive action that takes ROW, not the defense". So really, I think everyone who's scratching their heads up there in earlier posts about ripostes can just relax and continue as before.
Now as for this bit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by George K
The priority of the point in line is retained whether one advances, retreats, or lunges. With all this in mind, it is obvious that the referees are correct when one fencer finishes an attack that is short in the position of point in line, that fencer continues to have the priority, and the opponent must deflect the opponent's blade.
That is pretty "new". And well, if it says what it sounds like it says, boy is that a really big fat drag!
It's been enforced for a while now at world level. It seems quite sensible to me. Point in line is point in line, regardless of footwork.
It would be kinda new to the US. I personally don't like the idea, 'cause it would seem to confound the distance defense, a.k.a "Parry Zero" that foilists have been doing for some time now. I really like that action, and if we have a thousand refs all over the US trying to call their varied understandings of "residual PIL" after short attacks, it will be really hard to predict what will be called a successful distance defense, and what will be called an attack ending in a valid PiL.
As if the timing changes didn't do enough to pervert the game of foil, let's kick it while it's down!
I won't comment on its application to saber. I don't ref enough saber to hazard an opinion.
there is no such thing as a 'defence distance'. If the attack ends with a valid point in line it must be deflected, regardless of how much or little you evade the attack.
As much as I hate to say it, the logic is with the PiL being established regardless of footwork, and I agree with it. If someone lunges and then just sits there, and does not retract their arm, they are a continuing threat, that unless somehow dodged during the "counter" attack, the lunge PiL is still a valid threat that must be removed. Unless you have a grossly greater amount of reach than said PiLer, you will almost certainly be hit during your counter-attack, which since the counter-attacker ran into the point to start his own attack, he is at fault for not first removing the threat. If said counter-attacker can somehow dodge the blade during the counter-attack and achieve a one-lighter, than I would say the "distance" parry has been successful, similar to a good bind after a parry and during a riposte. I think the distance parry is trying too hard to apply epee mentality to foil, but that's just what it looks like from my point of view.
This will not go over well in St. Louis, I can see the arguments arising now. FNet should be required reading 2 hours daily by all fencers, IMO, so that stuff like this isn't argued over in the smaller cities/towns/divisions.
If I fall short (with a cut, in sabre) and stick the point out while my opponent makes an immediate and direct attack, line was never established. He has to either wait one tempo or be outside advance lunge distance. That much is in the rules, no?
I'm really confused about this. What ViewtifulMisho has described is what I have understood the relationship between PiL vs. "atttack no" to be. But now what George is saying appears to contradict this. It sounds like George is saying that tempo / distance requirement for PiL to be established no longer exists, and PiL is there basically from the moment the initial attacker's foot hits the ground and the line hangs there. Is that really true??
Tempo/distance was never a requirement. Just a rule of thumb that was taught a lot. Here you must be careful. Switching from a cut to a PIL is not quite as clean as it sounds. It doesn't usually hang there. A cut usually has either a little bit of bounce or follow thru. It will take a little bit of thought and time to then establish PIL after a cut. What this ruling says is a line is a line is a line. Taking a line before a lunge and remaining in the line gives it priority. Some fencers and some refs believed falsely that because there was a lunge it makes it an attack and ends when the foot hits the floor. This is incorrect because the line is completely independent of the footwork and still MUST be defeated.
What this is going to change is the following sequence.
Two attacks-two lights - simul no touch.
Attack left, right step back so attack misses, counter. - one Light - right touch.
Attack left with point remains in position so PIL, right step back so PIL is short, counter.- two lights - left touch.
there is no such thing as a 'defence distance'. If the attack ends with a valid point in line it must be deflected, regardless of how much or little you evade the attack.
This for me is the key.
If I lunge (foil, high sixte line), fall short, and stay in the lunge, I'm maintaining my PIL.
If I waver, my hand wobbles or my arm bends, no line.
The key is how strictly the referee watches your arm and hand position, no?
__________________
"First, second, third, dead f***in' last." - Greg Glassman
This for me is the key.
If I lunge (foil, high sixte line), fall short, and stay in the lunge, I'm maintaining my PIL.
If I waver, my hand wobbles or my arm bends, no line.
The key is how strictly the referee watches your arm and hand position, no?
And we both know that I have been *****ing about the sabre "Interpretation" of this for about a week now...
there is no such thing as a 'defence distance'. If the attack ends with a valid point in line it must be deflected, regardless of how much or little you evade the attack.
Because this is a sport where semantics matters, an attack that is short, should not be called a "distance parry", "distance defence", or "parry zero" etc.
When a valid parry is made (no touch, point taken out of line), the defending fencer is given the RoW WHEN an immediate riposte is made to a valid target. The other fencer is now obligated to parry or evade.
When an attack is short (point remains in line), then at the very instant that the attacking tempo ends, there is no RoW for either fencer, only a threatening PiL from a short attack. The defending fencer is not given the RoW for a riposte.
Now to really throw a monkey wrench into this discussion...
When an attack is short or misses AND the point is NOT in line threatening a valid target (for instance, defender evades by sidestepping a lunge) at the end of the first attacking tempo, the defending fencer can take the RoW by initiating an immediate attack. This is not a riposte, simply an attack that has the RoW.
Clear as mud? It sounds as if the rules have not changed since I was fencing and if so, the above should still apply. Whether it is enforced is another thing.
Linear Mode
