FOC Opinions WRT “Rules of Referees”

[Inquartata]

There are, however, several priorities in refereeing. Sometimes these conflict. You would think that we'd want to let the ref on the strip decide which of these priorities is highest at a particular moment.

For example, moving the pool along can sometimes be a more vexed job than getting the actual actions correct.

I had occasion to talk to a sabre ref the other day who pointed out that a phrase like "malparre" can be very useful in this task. "Attack, no" when there's just been a loud bell clang and two lights can provoke complaints and arguments. ( Ask me how I know. ) In this same case, "malparre" will be instantly understood and accepted more easily, at least amongst fencers below the top ranks. So why court disputes and confusion when you can make things clear with two words and get on with the bout? Is using the "correct" words really more important than control of the strip?

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I had occasion to talk to a sabre ref the other day who pointed out that a phrase like "malparre" can be very useful in this task. "Attack, no" when there's just been a loud bell clang and two lights can provoke complaints and arguments. ( Ask me how I know. ) In this same case, "malparre" will be instantly understood and accepted more easily, at least amongst fencers below the top ranks.

The problem is that it really sends the wrong message to a lot of people. There are already fencers and referees who think that you need to beat the **** of the blade to make a valid parry. Otherwise, they say that it was "incidental contact." With these referees, a fencer can make a parry, find the blade before the touch arrives, and start the riposte before the touch arrives, but still have their parry called "malparre," and the touch awarded to the opponent. That's just awful refereeing, of course, but every referee seminar that I have attended has had at least one candidate who was very surprised by the idea that basically any attempt to parry that finds the opponent's blade before the touch arrives is a valid parry.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

So why court disputes and confusion when you can make things clear with two words and get on with the bout? Is using the "correct" words really more important than control of the strip?

Understood, but most fencers who have encountered this way of calling the action seem to have no problem with it. When they're worried that the referee just missed the blade action, it normally sounds like this:

"Attack, touch."

"No parry, sir?"

"The attack arrives. Then you parry. On guard, please."

Or sometimes.

"Attack, touch."

"No parry, sir?"

Referee pokes/"cuts" himself with his left hand, and after that "touch" arrives, he pantomimes a parry that makes "blade" contact after the touch.

Personally, I feel that if you have referees using the word malparre, it would just perpetuate the wrong idea that the referee can throw out legitimate parries because "it was just a light tap." You'd slow down bouts with a bunch of questions from people who don't know what what they're talking about. You'd have calls like this:

"Attack, parry, riposte, touch."

"Sir, wasn't it malparre?"

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[bigdawg2121]

Originally Posted by kuroutesshin

The second action I think is what George K. was referring to, rather than the first action. It's unfortunate, IMHO, that the terms became so confused as to necessitate elimintation of the term.

The second action (attack is parried, the riposte is locked out by a fast remise) is, IIRC never discussed by George. It is an action that clearly has no RoW. Although, I've never actually heard that referred to as malparre either...

Originally Posted by Inquartata

There are, however, several priorities in refereeing. Sometimes these conflict. You would think that we'd want to let the ref on the strip decide which of these priorities is highest at a particular moment.

For example, moving the pool along can sometimes be a more vexed job than getting the actual actions correct.

I had occasion to talk to a sabre ref the other day who pointed out that a phrase like "malparre" can be very useful in this task. "Attack, no" when there's just been a loud bell clang and two lights can provoke complaints and arguments. ( Ask me how I know. ) In this same case, "malparre" will be instantly understood and accepted more easily, at least amongst fencers below the top ranks. So why court disputes and confusion when you can make things clear with two words and get on with the bout? Is using the "correct" words really more important than control of the strip?

In the interest of full disclosure, I was that ref. The call was attack arrives. Upon a confused look from FotL wondering about his parry I uttered the word malparre, which got a nod a moved things along much quicker than trying to explain that the touch arrived before the parry was actually made even though there were two lights. Call it a game day decision but I don't really feel that bad about it.

Originally Posted by tbryan

Edited to remove most of the other stuff any attempt to parry that finds the opponent's blade before the touch arrives is a valid parry.

You're right and there's a reason we discourage people from using mal parre as a term in refereeing activities. Darn it if the total schmucks don't sometimes ruin it for those of us that are just interested in getting through pools accurately and quickly so we can stop standing on the damnable concrete floors.

[KD5MDK]

I think a key part of being an expert is knowing when you can step outside the guidelines, and being right.

[Guymelef]

Well of course! Bigdawg is the Great Babaji.

[bigdawg2121]

That's Divine and Infinite my friend. Divine and Infinite.



___________________________
Respect my skull bowl of intoxicants.

[Guymelef]

Right...also pertains to how much beer you can put away.

[AndrewH]

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

The second action (attack is parried, the riposte is locked out by a fast remise) is, IIRC never discussed by George. It is an action that clearly has no RoW. Although, I've never actually heard that referred to as malparre either...

The action I'm describing isn't two deliberate actions, it's hitting the blade on the attack, and through a combination of force/momentum continuing through the parry to score. There was a clear parry, which should be recognized, but it wasn't held long enough to prevent the continuation/remise.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by tbryan

it normally sounds like this:

"Attack, touch."

"No parry, sir?"

"The attack arrives. Then you parry. On guard, please."

Or sometimes.

"Attack, touch."

"No parry, sir?"

Referee pokes/"cuts" himself with his left hand, and after that "touch" arrives, he pantomimes a parry that makes "blade" contact after the touch.

Oddly, perhaps, I have never observed these methods in use. What I see from the referee is usually nothing more than a head shake. If the fencer is querulous ( still speaking from experience here ), this is very far from palliative. Because clearly, the fencer thinks there WAS a parry, or he wouldn't have asked in the first place. In fact, he "knows" there was a parry. That big clanging bell contact, to be precise. So if the referee just says "Nuh uh", well, that's cognitive dissonance.

If he says "malparre", though, he's acknowledged that he, too, heard that big clanging bell contact, but just didn't think it quite got the job done. The fencer is, if not happy, at least somewhat mollified. His experience has been confirmed; the ref is not entirely deaf and blind; it's just a disagreement on degree...

[bigdawg2121]

Originally Posted by AndrewH

The action I'm describing isn't two deliberate actions, it's hitting the blade on the attack, and through a combination of force/momentum continuing through the parry to score. There was a clear parry, which should be recognized, but it wasn't held long enough to prevent the continuation/remise.

Where we agree is that it's a remise. Where we disagree is that's it's not two actions. If there is a parry and it is made before the attack arrives whatever hits is a separate distinct action. It has no RoW, whereas if it were one action it would. Practically it's sort of like one action (sorta) but are you wearing a ref's hat or a fencer's hat? You shouldn't do both usually as they're at least subtley different (e.g. my ref's hat is not actually tinted blue).

[downunder]

Originally Posted by tbryan

"Attack, touch."

"No parry, sir?"

Referee pokes/"cuts" himself with his left hand, and after that "touch" arrives, he pantomimes a parry that makes "blade" contact after the touch.

This is a favourite of mine.

Or suggesting that the attack was 'immediately' good.

[ysbadadden]

The question isn't what happened (there was an attempt at a parry which failed or was insufficient), or how to explain the action in a teaching situation (same: "you tried to parry, but the attack came through,") or how to discuss the action when judging visually: ("The attack? -- Yes! [Referee asks again in disbelief] "The attack? -- Insufficient parry.") Rather, the question is how the referee should call it in an official, formal tournament situation with electric weapons. That's why there is no such formal call as malparé.

Originally Posted by kuroutesshin

I was just discussing the reinforcement of interpretations the other day, and we came to the thing that's called "mal parry," or "parade insufficiante." The letter seems to say that this doesn't exist- that the correct action is simply "attaque, touche."

I wonder, though- the phrase "insufficient parry" exists to define an action where the attack (at least in sabre) strikes the guard/forte as well as the target at the same moment. The call would still be "attaque, parade insufficiante, touche." The insufficient parry has been a part of orthodox fencing instruction and theory for many years. The other concept, "parry by distance," is an aborted fetus of interpretation.

My question is- what is the harm in the action being called "insufficient?" I see this only applicable in sabre, where attacks landing on the guard are counted as being parried. Can someone clarify it for me please?

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Oddly, perhaps, I have never observed these methods in use. What I see from the referee is usually nothing more than a head shake.

Maybe not so odd. I've seen it mostly among foil referees. Maybe something about skill at sabre refereeing runs counter to this kind of explanation. Or maybe good sabre referees are just too dignified to play charades.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

In this same case, "malparre" will be instantly understood and accepted more easily, at least amongst fencers below the top ranks.

Yes, and in the case bigdawg mentions, it sounds completely appropriate. I think that the problem is among all of the fencers way below the top ranks. The top ranks might not need it. Those below the top ranks may want to hear "malparre" just to confirm their understanding of what happened. But when you go way down below that to the crazy local fencer who hasn't been taught properly, he won't instantly understand. He'll come back from Nationals with a story of how "all the referees at Nationals" are throwing out parries as "malparre" unless you do X, where X is some crazy thing that seemed somehow correlated to the good parries in that fencer's observation.

Like I said, we already have this problem in the US. I think that widespread use of malparre would make it worse.

On the other hand, I do believe that referees should offer enough explanation to keep the bout moving. If you care, search for my old posts on this topic. I normally use just the approved gestures and words to describe the action. If a fencer asks a question, I don't want to give help and advice to either fencer, but I may give a more verbose description of the action. That may include pantomime, additional words, or a brief explanation of timeline (he attacked, you parried, he stepped off strip, and then you started a riposte: no touch). Doing this, especially when refereeing a rules lawyering epee fencer, can really help keep the bout going. Of course, if I provide the elaboration that I think is necessary to clarify the situation, and the fencer wants to discuss something (but didn't he step off like this, and I was over here doing this, etc.), then I'm just going to ask him to come on guard.

I think that KD5MDK explains the the example you cited very well:

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I think a key part of being an expert is knowing when you can step outside the guidelines, and being right.

I like the current situation. Malparre isn't part of the official words that are used to describe an action. I would trust bigdawg and other top referees to say malparre when they know that the fencers will understand it and when it will keep the bout moving but not to use it when it will just add confusion.

I'll let you try to convince all of those phlegmatic sabre referees that they sometimes should provide more clarification than a head shake.

[Allen Evans]

At the time that the phrase "mal parre" was going out of fashion, I saw a number of saber bouts at a regional and national level turn into long disucssions (not always friendly) between a referee and a saber fencer concerning what the referee might consider a "good parry" if the previous parry had been "insufficient".

There were also -- during these discussions -- occasional segues into geneology and paternaty. Usually with this interest being on the referee's family tree.

I think that dropping the term "mal parre" ended much of these discussions. During my own limited saber refereeing, when someone asks me if they parried, I usually respond with: "Yes, but you were late"*, if I bother to respond at all.

More and more, referees are asked to use an economy of words, not only to move the bout along, but to make sure that excess information isn't being given to one opponent or another.

AE

*I'm apt to do this in local competitions with young fencers, rather than anything else. At a National level, I don't think the fencer is owed even that much.

[catwood1]

I saw a ref at SNs this year using the term mal parre to describe a foil action, saying that the parry was insufficient.

It made me sad.

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by downunder

This is a favourite of mine.

Or suggesting that the attack was 'immediately' good.

In this kind of situation I am inclined to say "Attack arrives".

[notalent]

Originally Posted by catwood1

I saw a ref at SNs this year using the term mal parre to describe a foil action, saying that the parry was insufficient.

It made me sad.

Did you ask him/her about it?