Epee Ref Question

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by tbryan

t.26 is clear enough, so we don't need to make up a rule.

It is not true that the defender is allowed one riposte. A counter attack could be awarded, too, if the attacker happened to miss, and the counter attack began before the pass. The defender doesn't get one riposte. If his parry is very big or late, his riposte might not start until after the pass, in which case the touch should be annulled. Likewise, he can hit on the third remise of his riposte and still get the point as long as that action started before the fleching fencer passed.

Forget about "you get one riposte." That leads fencers to think incorrectly about this situation and argue unnecessarily with referees. If you are passed (and you aren't simultaneously passing your opponent), your touch counts as long as it results from a simple action (simple riposte, remise, counter, etc.) that began before you were passed.

Well I paraphrasing the rule for practical purposes as the correspondent wasn't clear as to whether he was referring to off the strip end or over the lateral lines. From your public information I can't tell what your interests are. But if I were quoting rules I believe T21 speaks more directly to the gentleman's question as t26 addresses only the lateral lines.
.
"When a fencer goes past his opponent during a bout, the Referee
must immediately call ‘Halt’ and replace the competitors in the
positions which they occupied before the passing took place.
When touches are made as a fencer passes his opponent, the touch
made immediately is valid; a touch made after passing his opponent
by the competitor who has made the passing movement is annulled,
but the touch made immediately, even when turning round, by the
competitor who has been subjected to the offensive action, is valid."

Originally Posted by tbryan

But the referee should have explained the situation to you, and you should have been given the choice to keep the double or to have it annulled. It's not automatic, and the coach doesn't get a vote here.

Again your focus is not what I would consider practical. Particularly your last statement. I pay him and while I may have differences....
"YES Mr. Director whatever he said " is what you'll hear on the strip.
Man! arguing with Abdul on the strip? I'd hear about it for the next eternity.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Well I paraphrasing the rule

Right, but I hate that way of paraphrasing this rule. Paraphrase it as, "You're allowed to finish any action that you started before your opponent passed or went off the strip." That would be close enough for most purposes, and it's less likely to confuse fencers later than the "you get one riposte" way of paraphrasing it.

Originally Posted by jjefferies

From your public information I can't tell what your interests are.

I fence. I also coach and referee a little. I post on fencing.net mostly to babble about refereeing. It helps me understand rules better to hear all of the strange situations from other referees' bouts and to discuss how to apply the rules in those cases. I'm hoping that it will reduce the number of times where I'll be refereeing and think, "Wow. What should I do in this case?"

I just jumped in to squash the "you get one riposte" concept. I don't referee all that often, and I've already had two fencers try to tell me, "But I get one riposte!" No. You get to finish an action you started before he passed/stepped off the strip. If he's already standing off strip and then you start your riposte, it's not allowed. When I've already told the fencer, "You parried, he stepped off strip, and then you made your riposte," I want them to stop arguing with me.

Similarly, I've seen a coach who was angry because his fencer fleched, and the defender scored on the remise of the riposte. "He's only allowed one riposte." Uh...wrong. The remise started before the pass, so the remise should count. (I wasn't actually refereeing in this case...just watching.)

Originally Posted by jjefferies

But if I were quoting rules I believe T21 speaks more directly to the gentleman's question as t26 addresses only the lateral lines.

Yes, good point. It was hard to tell whether he was talking about t.21 or t.26, and either or both may apply in his case. Either way, I was just trying to emphasize that "one riposte" is (to me) a bad way to think about these rules.

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Again your focus is not what I would consider practical.

In this case, I wasn't trying to say that you should argue with your coach. I was just saying that a good referee should be ignoring your coach. The referee should be talking to you. Your coach might be screaming advice at you to have the touches annulled, but it's your decision that matters.

Same thing with appeals. Your coach can tell you to appeal, but you must make the appeal. If the coach tells the referee, "I appeal," a good response from the referee is something like, "Only the fencer can appeal." (Unless your coach is the team captain in a team event.)

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by tbryan

I just jumped in to squash the "you get one riposte" concept. I don't referee all that often, and I've already had two fencers try to tell me, "But I get one riposte!" No. You get to finish an action you started before he passed/stepped off the strip. If he's already standing off strip and then you start your riposte, it's not allowed. When I've already told the fencer, "You parried, he stepped off strip, and then you made your riposte," I want them to stop arguing with me.

Well this is an interesting point. And so lets quibble a little bit as it seems to me that the interpretation of what happened gets very grey.

1. Epeeist A advances (semi fleche if you will as is common with Vets).
Epeeist B takes the blade in a high preen. A steps off the strip
in front of B with B still holding his blade out. B ripostes and makes a touch. If I read your post
correctly the touch is annulled.
2. Epeeist A fleches past. B parries - high preen again - and follows with a riposte that touches.
And lets allow that A passed off the strip in his fleche after passing B.

My difficulty with your description is that I've had both cases allowed. The argument being where/when the riposte is begun which is why i stressed that the action has to be immediate and without hesitation seen as one continuous movement. And I've had the touch annulled based on there being a time lapse - which I certainly did not feel.

[tchwojko]

What is a "preen"? I generally don't brush my hair while executing a riposte.

[Fencergrl]

That may explain why the teeth of comb keep getting stuck in my mask. when doing this parry.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Well this is an interesting point. And so lets quibble a little bit as it seems to me that the interpretation of what happened gets very grey....

Clipped for length.

You seem to know all of this already, but I think I'll sum it up:

It's very straightforward, the defender must start his action before his opponent goes off the strip. A parry is NOT the scoring action, but a riposte is. Therefore, it is indeed necessary that you begin to riposte, not simply parry, before the defender goes off the strip. (Or you can start a counterattack or remise or whatever).

However, referees generally give the benefit of the doubt to the fencer who didn't go off the strip, so he often has a lot of leeway, even more so if he parried. Any sort of forward motion with the arm could be a riposte, so while it may seem like a fencer is still simply parrying, the referee may see it as the beginning of a riposte. It's fairly rare that a referee will annul a touch against the fencer going off the strip unless the action is very clearly late. Good referees, especially good epee referees, can call it very precisely though.

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

It's fairly rare that a referee will annul a touch against the fencer going off the strip unless the action is very clearly late. Good referees, especially good epee referees, can call it very precisely though.

Agreed. But if you look at it literally by the rule and interpret the timing slightly differently...
Which is why one should never ever 'dis lady luck.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Well this is an interesting point. And so lets quibble a little bit as it seems to me that the interpretation of what happened gets very grey....My difficulty with your description is that I've had both cases allowed.

Good point. I certainly wouldn't want referees to throw out valid ripostes here. It's difficult to discuss without a video reference.

In the case where the parry is before the pass/leaving the strip, and the riposte is immediate and continuous, there shouldn't normally be a problem. Award the touch. It is possible that the opponent passes you first, but the referee's default here is to grant the riposte unless it was clearly late.

When it is late, it's pretty obvious, and the referee should annul the touch.

In the case of the parry-riposte, the annulment normally happens because there is a delay in the ripsoste (like you mentioned). For example,

Epeeist B is standing near the lateral boundary of the strip.
Epeeist A fleches.
Epeeist B takes the blade in a big parry 4.
A tries to remise. He is also trying to pass. So, he starts a remise, then his foot lands outside the lateral boundary of the strip, and he finishes his remise (no touch).
Epeeist B continues to hold the parry 4 to prevent the remise from arriving.
Epeeist A is now clearly off the strip. The referee has observed that a fencer crossed the lateral boundary, and he's going to call halt.
Epeeist B finally makes a riposte and hits.
Referee says "halt."

B's touch should not be counted. This is exactly the case of one of the late ripostes that I annulled. The fencer wanted to argue that he was allowed one riposte.

Of course, just because the riposte is delayed does not mean that we annul the touch. B may delay as long as he likes as long as he starts the riposte before A passes or leaves the strip. For example,

Epeeist A fleches.
Epeeist B takes the blade in a big parry 4.
A attempts to pass, but B is making a big retreat while holding the blade.
A attemps to remise as he continues the momentum of his fleche, trying to pass.
Epeeist B continues to hold the parry 4 to prevent the remise from arriving.
Epeeist A's remise has failed, and he's now focused on passing.
Epeeist B finally starts a riposte.
Epeeist A passes.
Epeeist B turns as he ripostes to hit A after the pass.

B's riposte was not immediate, but the touch should still count.

In a simple case where A fleches, B makes a parry and immediate riposte, A passes, and B hits after A passes, I have never annulled the touch, and I don't think that I've ever seen a referee annul the touch. You're right, in this case, it's really hard to see the start of the riposte, and it's pretty safe to assume that if the riposte was immediate, it was started in time (before the pass or before the opponent left the strip). The cases where a riposte arrives after a pass or after the opponent leaves the strip and where the touch should be annulled will be obviously late.

Again, the only reason that I jumped on the initial "one riposte" paraphrasing was because it causes problems in almost every other case. The defender does not need to parry. The defender can hit with a counter attack after his opponent passes as long as the counter attack started before the pass. The defender does not need to make an immediate riposte as long as he starts the riposte before the pass. The defender may miss with the riposte and hit with a remise as long as the remise starts before the pass. etc.

The real rules for passing and crossing the lateral boundaries aren't that complicated. I've heard the "one riposte" simplification before, but I mostly associate it now with a fencer, coach, or referee who is making an error about the rules in one of the cases I mentioned.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

You seem to know all of this already...

I think that we all know this already. I was just quibbling with the way that jjefferies summarized the rule. Then, to explain what we're talking about, we all have to write long posts with detailed explanations of actions. I sure hope that some inexperienced referee is reading the thread and is getting something out of it. Now, I'm going to try really hard not to reply to this thread again. :

[telkanuru]

Tbryan-

I am interested to learn exactly how you determine when the parry ends and the riposte begins. Your argument about the exact rule is valid, but in practical application it's essentially useless.

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

My difficulty with your description is that I've had both cases allowed.

You're assuming that in BOTH cases, the referee was CORRECT in allowing the touch.

This may be a dangerous assumption.

AE

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Tbryan-

I am interested to learn exactly how you determine when the parry ends and the riposte begins. Your argument about the exact rule is valid, but in practical application it's essentially useless.

You think? I don't have too much trouble being confident in when I feel a fencer has made a parry and when they're doing something else. Are there other high level refs who consider this a useless distinction?

[griffindm]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Tbryan-

I am interested to learn exactly how you determine when the parry ends and the riposte begins. Your argument about the exact rule is valid, but in practical application it's essentially useless.

I would take exception with tbryan's wording of the requirement to start the riposte before the passing. The rules say "even turning around", and I often make, and as a ref call, actions where an attacker has fleched in 6 to be met with a prime parry. This parry is usually longer in duration than most, and I never concern myself with the physical timing of the riposte relative to the passing or leaving the strip. I look to see that the parry was not "held" for an action before the riposte began, and tend to look at the parry-riposte as a single action. I could be wrong, but that is the way I have always seen it called. Otherwise a fleche on the edge of the strip would have a distinct advantage of negating the riposte if the attacker could argue he was off the strip BEFORE the riposte began.

DG

[KD5MDK]

Whether or not the fencer was off the side of the strip is a statement of fact, so it can't be argued.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by griffindm

I would take exception with tbryan's wording of the requirement to start the riposte before the passing.

And I think that you'll see...

Originally Posted by tbryan

In the case where the parry is before the pass/leaving the strip, and the riposte is immediate and continuous, there shouldn't normally be a problem. Award the touch. It is possible that the opponent passes you first, but the referee's default here is to grant the riposte unless it was clearly late.

...that I agree with the way you call this action. That's also how I would call the action you described.

It seems that in trying to clarify that the defender can hit a passing fencer with an action other than a riposte, I have introduced even more confusion about how to call the action when the defender simply makes a parry with an immediate riposte. For that, I am very, very sorry.

Read the whole thread. I'm not trying to contradict everything you've ever known about refereeing epee.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

I am interested to learn exactly how you determine when the parry ends and the riposte begins. Your argument about the exact rule is valid, but in practical application it's essentially useless.

I'm with KD5MDK on this one, so I probably shouldn't even try to answer. But in for a penny, in for a pound...

To parry, you make an action on the blade. At some point, you will stop making an action on the blade and start to make an action to get your tip to target. Parry. Riposte.

In practice, the referee isn't going to see the exact point the action changes from parry to riposte. Especially when someone is passing, your normal parry-4, riposte is also going to look odd because you'll probably be rotating with your opponent to get your tip on target as he passes. But getting your tip moving to target is no longer an action on the blade. It's part of the riposte.

The parry-riposte is normally quick and fluid. Like I said...

Originally Posted by tbryan

In the case where the parry is before the pass/leaving the strip, and the riposte is immediate and continuous, there shouldn't normally be a problem. Award the touch. It is possible that the opponent passes you first, but the referee's default here is to grant the riposte unless it was clearly late.

But in the case where the referee sees that the fencer is still making an action against the blade (e.g., holding the parry) until after the opponent has clearly passed, then his riposte will be late (after the pass) and should be annulled.

I find the rule, as stated, useful in practical application. As I think that I've already said, it's probably not necessary to think about this rule much for the easy case where the defender makes a parry and immediate riposte. That case is easy. The rule becomes more useful in the other cases that I've already mentioned: when the epeeist delays his riposte (how long, was it still in time?), dodges and counter attacks, makes multiple attempts to hit as the opponent passes, etc.

Wow...have we explored this one little rule thoroughly enough? I hope that someone found something in this thread useful or interesting. Personally, I think that at least the last 10 posts have been a bunch of people who agree with each other quibbling about how best to summarize their agreement. I'm so bored with talking about it. If this is how the process of a rewrite of the rulebook to clarify the rules would feel, I understand why no one has attempted it.

Really hoping that we can let this thread die, now.