Is Foil "Broken"?

[catwood1]

i'd love it if we we could make this more polite, about facts/info, and less personal

ROW threads tend to deteriorate.

Amen.

[zenpharaohs]

The testimony you've given is to the contrary. There is a difference between being able to see what goes on and being a good referee.

Well I've easily directed several thousand bouts. And not really all that many complaints. In the relatively few tournaments where I directed a lot of bouts, nobody yet took anything to a bout committee. In fact, the one weird incident involving my directing was in one tournament, I was directing sabre, and for one DE foil bout the fencers asked that I direct the bout as opposed to the foil director who they thought was making bad calls, and who in my opinion was actually doing a good job. When the foil director himself asked to have me direct the rest of the DEs, I did, although I wasn't sure that was such a good idea (and I still have misgivings about that).

I suppose may sound like a bad director, and I surely won't promise in advance that anyone will be happy with my calls, but over the decades, it's not really been that rough a ride. The hardest adjustment I had to make so far was awarding touches for as opposed to touches against.

[dberke]

It makes a whole giant amount of sense to teach things that are completely unlike high level competition; it always has, and it will for the foreseeable future. One of the best ways to train people in the conduct of the bout, the rules, and how to analyze the fencing phrase is to have seven people get together and conduct round robins in non-electric sabre and/or foil. I'm not even aware of any significant non-electric competitions these days, but this is still a great way to teach the rules (whatever interpretation you subscribe to). And yet, it is not the way it will be done in any competition I'm aware of.

There's a lot of other objections to pretending that the exigencies of high level competition are the be-all end-all of fencing, but the one example should serve for the moment.

National events does not imply hight-level competition. The Division II and III events, as well as some of the youth events, are easily within the realm of "developmental" tournaments that do not cater to the "high-level" fencers.

The fundimentals of the game are the same at all levels. It makes no sense to teach newer fencers skills that don't apply at the "high levels" - it just is teaching the fencers more bad habits that they will have to break if they choose to advance further. By teaching them different things, you are, in fact, hindering their progress toward the "high level".

I would also argue that having fencers fence dry bouts with a jury has little practical relevance today. Instead, invite some experienced fencers (such as those two guys you mentioned in your earlier post) to come help referee some bouts in front of your newer fencers. Encourage them to explain their calls and demonstrate what they (and by extension, the national referees) are looking for when analyzing the phrase.

Dan

[bigfirststep]

How did this thread get hijacked in another (endless) discussion of ROW? The OP was talking about timings wrecking foil. If changing the timings gets rid of squirming foilists and hits that bounce off without turning on the light, I think that would improve foil much more than arguing about extended vs. an extending arm. What do people think about the timings in foil?

[erooMynohtnA]

1. This is what every thread turns into.
2. The new timings are allegedly a product of the RoW that is being discussed here.
3. We don't like them.

[bigdawg2121]

i'd love it if we we could make this more polite, about facts/info, and less personal

ROW threads tend to deteriorate.

Whatever Noodle. You're just a big poo face. That's poo as in poo-poo, not as in Winnie The.

[noodle]

Whatever Noodle. You're just a big poo face. That's poo as in poo-poo, not as in Winnie The.

i'm tellin mom!

[catwood1]

Whatever Noodle. You're just a big poo face. That's poo as in poo-poo, not as in Winnie The.

BAHAHAHAHAHAH. Rep given...

[OROD]

I will say that there is a lot of pressure in this direction. When I direct, I want to see the extendING arm and I want the weapon to continuously threaten valid target before I give any priority. And I say so. The two best foilists in the club are national level fencers and they keep telling me "But this is the way they call them at the NACs". And they are right about that. I say, "fine, you fence those directors their way and when I conduct a bout you fence my way, and until the rules are off the books, I go by the rules."

But the truth is I can only do this because I absolutely do not care at all about officiating at "high level" tournaments, and never will. Anyone who DOES want to officiate "officially" is going to get nothing but pressure on this issue.

Dude, I'm totally with you here. When I direct I never give touches to anyone with a bent arm, even a little bent.. no way. Bent arm = preparation, that's what the rules say and that's what I call. So, basically, I only give touches to PiL. Yeah, yeah, I know that thats not how the "high level" types like to call it, but I dont care. It's MY strip and when you're on MY strip, you fence the way I like it. Also you have to call me Grand Desider Orod when you're on MY strip. And you have to kiss my ring, all 10 of them, before and after a bout.

Besides I think it's good that fencers should fence by the actual rules as I see them. It builds character. I dont care if that means that they get pwned when they go to NACs and other fencers laugh at them... it all builds character, so it's all much better for them.

.

[jBirch]

Some people here are crazy.

Non-correct in French is preparation in English and should be used to describe the phrase in foil and sabre.

So the call for an AiP (Right) is:

[L] Attaque (non-correct)
[R] Attaque Touche

?

I find that confusing to declare in foil, but I'll bow to your greater experience.

James.

[jBirch]

Then why does the rulebook show a director's hand signal FOR preparation??

So, I'm like "it doesn't!" and then, I looked in the 2008 rules and, sure enough, preparation has a signal. Which has apparently been there for a while. Which is different then the tattle-tale finger wag that I learned as "non-correct". Which looks like the old "pumping the arm" action which was used for, well, pumping the arm! And how the heck "non-correct" ended up translating to "preparation" is completely beyond me.

At least it's obvious when I last qualified as a ref. *grin*

*sigh*

Refereeing properly would be *SOOOOOO* much easier if they confined themselves to changing only minor things every year and the English terms remained, at least loosely, related to the standard French ones.

As I've said in other threads:

Listen to Downunder.

James.

[downunder]

So the call for an AiP (Right) is:

[L] Attaque (non-correct)
[R] Attaque Touche

?

I find that confusing to declare in foil, but I'll bow to your greater experience.

James.

Just say and signal:

[L] Non-correct
[R] Attaque
[L] Touche
[R] Point


Referees do say 'attack non-correct', and whilst it's not technically right in the strictest reading of the rules, unless you're sitting an FIE foil or sabre exam no one is likely to care.

[Purple Fencer]

Just say and signal:

[L] Non-correct
[R] Attaque
[L] Touche
[R] Point


Referees do say 'attack non-correct', and whilst it's not technically right in the strictest reading of the rules, unless you're sitting an FIE foil or sabre exam no one is likely to care.

Which is why "attack - no" is usually heard at local events....pretty clear to the participants.

[jBirch]

I had to give a big what-what-what to this whole statement. What are you talking about?

In my mind, a preparation is the first part of a compound attack. A "non-correct" action is one that is not executed correctly. They are different.

Sabre is the only weapon that has the notion of a simple action being "non-correct", things like "unnecessary change of line", "blade not forming 135 degrees", "mal parre", etc... In foil, there isn't that constraint.

So, a mal parre (L) in sabre would be called:

[R] Attack
[L] Parry
[L] No
[R] Continuation
[L] Touche
[R] Point

But as downunder pointed out, that's probably an obsolete way to call the action (though I'm at a loss about how to correctly signal it...Attack/Touche?Do malparre's still exist?)

James.

[erooMynohtnA]

In my mind, a preparation is the first part of a compound attack. A "non-correct" action is one that is not executed correctly. They are different.

Sabre is the only weapon that has the notion of a simple action being "non-correct", things like "unnecessary change of line", "blade not forming 135 degrees", "mal parre", etc... In foil, there isn't that constraint.

You have unique definitions. As a coach, it can be useful to have additional vocabulary. However, they mean the same thing to most people, and they most certainly mean the same thing to refs.

So, a mal parre (L) in sabre would be called:

[R] Attack
[L] Parry
[L] No
[R] Continuation
[L] Touche
[R] Point

But as downunder pointed out, that's probably an obsolete way to call the action (though I'm at a loss about how to correctly signal it...Attack/Touche?Do malparre's still exist?)

James.

A mal parre in saber would be called
[R] Attack
[R] Touch

Because the bad parry didn't stop the attack from arriving, it is 1. not a parry 2. not pertinent to the phrase.

Mal parre is one of those phrases you're not supposed to say anymore. If a fencer asked me "didn't I parry?" I might say "no, you were late," "no, you didn't stop the blade," "no, you got hit then your parry," but I wouldn't use mal parre. That's a coaching term.

[downunder]

Which is why "attack - no" is usually heard at local events....pretty clear to the participants.

yet misleading and incorrect as the fencer wasn't attacking

[catwood1]

Why I'm back in this thread, I don't really know. Anyway...

I've never seen prep called as attack no, but maybe in other regions thats how its done. Thats definitely wrong. If its prep from the right attack from the left, I can see 2 possible calls. Attack from left arrives, or preparation from right, attack from left arrives; calling attack no is definitely way too misleading. (Unless thats what actually happened of course. ie, after the foot lands in sabre, or the 2nd or 3rd poke in foil.)

And a mal parre shouldn't be called as parry riposte no remise. erooMynohtnA is 100% correct in saying its just attack touche. Essentially, good post by erooMynohtnA.*

Note: don't say "you didn't stop the blade." You were late, or you get hit then you parry are both fine, but saying you didn't stop the blade leaves an opening because the defender doesn't need to STOP the blade, but merely deflect it. My favorite is "late." Its gets the point across pretty quick.

[catwood1]

Is Foil “Broken”?

No.

Can we just end the thread now????

PLEASE?!?!?!?!?!?!

[jBirch]

Why I'm back in this thread, I don't really know. Anyway...

I've never seen prep called as attack no, but maybe in other regions thats how its done. Thats definitely wrong. If its prep from the right attack from the left, I can see 2 possible calls. Attack from left arrives, or preparation from right, attack from left arrives; calling attack no is definitely way too misleading. (Unless thats what actually happened of course. ie, after the foot lands in sabre, or the 2nd or 3rd poke in foil.)

And a mal parre shouldn't be called as parry riposte no remise. erooMynohtnA is 100% correct in saying its just attack touche. Essentially, good post by erooMynohtnA.*

Note: don't say "you didn't stop the blade." You were late, or you get hit then you parry are both fine, but saying you didn't stop the blade leaves an opening because the defender doesn't need to STOP the blade, but merely deflect it. My favorite is "late." Its gets the point across pretty quick.

*poke*

Then why the double standard for AiP? That's just Attack/Touche as well.

*grin*

James.

[HDG]

No.

Can we just end the thread now????

PLEASE?!?!?!?!?!?!

No one's making you continue to read it.