Is Foil "Broken"?

[catwood1]

*poke*

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

*grin*

James.

Well, one of them is describing what happened before the final action, 1 is describing what happened after the final action. Thats the big difference...

[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.

That is the sloppiest of the three phrases, but I reserve the right to say "you didn't stop the blade" for situations in which there was some blade contact before the hit, but you're sure (for whatever reason) it wasn't a parry.

[downunder]

No one's making you continue to read it.

yet i keep coming back...... one day I'll be sick of this.

[catwood1]

That is the sloppiest of the three phrases, but I reserve the right to say "you didn't stop the blade" for situations in which there was some blade contact before the hit, but you're sure (for whatever reason) it wasn't a parry.

I'd really recommend against it. By saying that, you are admitting that a fencer initiated a blade action before the hit arrived. This is dangerously close to appealable.*

*By dangerously close, I mean: I think you could probably appeal this, but I'm not totally sure...

[erooMynohtnA]

I don't think so. The ruling of fact is still that it wasn't a parry.

[Purple Fencer]

yet misleading and incorrect as the fencer wasn't attacking

Even if it was on a lunge that was passe or short?? That's how I use it...neverany confusion from the fencers...

[downunder]

Even if it was on a lunge that was passe or short?? That's how I use it...neverany confusion from the fencers...

My phrasing was in reference to how an 'attack in preparation' should be phrased.

I'm not sure how 'attack no' comes into it? Obviously your situations are attack no, etc etc.

[catwood1]

I don't think so. The ruling of fact is still that it wasn't a parry.

Yes, but if I hear a referee say that I "didn't stop the blade" when I parried, I would say its a misapplication of the rules of what a parry is. I would call the BC here. Depending on the BC member, (sigh... and who my coach is... ) I would very likely win.

Same as if a ref says "your parry is insufficient." Even if the statement of fact is that it wasn't a parry, there is a clear misapplication of a rule, which can/should be appealed.

[erooMynohtnA]

You can avoid stopping the blade in several ways. It could have been a pris de fer, tac au fer attack. Your parry could have been late. Your parry could have been executed incorrectly.

Granted, I would still probably not use the phrase for any of those."

You could also make a completely legitimate parry, and get hit while the attacker remises and you riposte. In that situation, I would hope the referee would call it for the riposter, and if it did come to a challenge, I would hope he would be overruled. I still don't think it's open to appeal.

"You didn't stop the blade" certainly has the connotation of applying only to that last action, but there's nothing definitively wrong with it.

[IanSerotkin]

Yes, but if I hear a referee say that I "didn't stop the blade" when I parried, I would say its a misapplication of the rules of what a parry is. I would call the BC here. Depending on the BC member, (sigh... and who my coach is... ) I would very likely win.

Same as if a ref says "your parry is insufficient." Even if the statement of fact is that it wasn't a parry, there is a clear misapplication of a rule, which can/should be appealed.

Wrong.

[garyhayenga]

Yes, but if I hear a referee say that I "didn't stop the blade" when I parried, I would say its a misapplication of the rules of what a parry is. I would call the BC here. Depending on the BC member, (sigh... and who my coach is... ) I would very likely win.

Same as if a ref says "your parry is insufficient." Even if the statement of fact is that it wasn't a parry, there is a clear misapplication of a rule, which can/should be appealed.

It's rather naive to think that who the bout committee member or who your coach is will have any effect on the outcome of such an appeal. You would not win in any case. The BC member would ask the referee if the attack arrived, and the referee would say "yes." Which is what he should have said in the first place instead of saying something else that means "the attack arrived" but was trying to help you understand *why* he didn't think that you had made a successful parry. The bout committee member won't care *why* the referee thought the attack arrived, only that he did.

You would of course then be carded for an unjustified appeal.

[erooMynohtnA]

It's rather naive to think that who the bout committee member or who your coach is will have any effect on the outcome of such an appeal. You would not win in any case. The BC member would ask the referee if the attack arrived, and the referee would say "yes." Which is what he should have said in the first place instead of saying something else that means "the attack arrived" but was trying to help you understand *why* he didn't think that you had made a successful parry. The bout committee member won't care *why* the referee thought the attack arrived, only that he did.

You would of course then be carded for an unjustified appeal.

I think that's what would happen with that specific case, but I think you're the one being naive if you're saying that the BC member or coach doesn't matter in an appeal.

The right BC rep knows what question to ask to get the answer they want. The right coach can make that happen.

Without considering who's friendly with who, how much clout someone has, and club/division/national politics, there are still going to be radically different approaches and interpretations among the BC members.

[bigdawg2121]

It's rather naive to think that who the bout committee member or who your coach is will have any effect on the outcome of such an appeal. You would not win in any case. The BC member would ask the referee if the attack arrived, and the referee would say "yes." Which is what he should have said in the first place instead of saying something else that means "the attack arrived" but was trying to help you understand *why* he didn't think that you had made a successful parry. The bout committee member won't care *why* the referee thought the attack arrived, only that he did.

You would of course then be carded for an unjustified appeal.

Ehhh, what if it's;


Fencer: But I made a parry.

Ref: Your parry didn't stop the blade.

Fencer: So I made a parry, and it found the blade before the attack arrived, but it didn't "stop the blade" which is why I'd doesn't count?

Ref: Yes, exactly.

Fencer: I would like a BC ruling on this definition of a parry.

[catwood1]

It's rather naive to think that who the bout committee member or who your coach is will have any effect on the outcome of such an appeal. You would not win in any case. The BC member would ask the referee if the attack arrived, and the referee would say "yes." Which is what he should have said in the first place instead of saying something else that means "the attack arrived" but was trying to help you understand *why* he didn't think that you had made a successful parry. The bout committee member won't care *why* the referee thought the attack arrived, only that he did.

You would of course then be carded for an unjustified appeal.

I am saying what bigdawg just did a very fine job of articulating. Even though the statement of fact is there, the application of a rule is wrong.

And I think its naive to think that who the BC member is or who my coach is WOULDN'T affect it. :P

[mattacox]

So the call for an AiP (Right) is:

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

Even easier:

[R] Attaque, Touche, Point.

MC

[mattacox]

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.

Correct reconstruction:

[R] Attack, Touche, Point.

"Mal Parre" is an excellent coaching term, but does not exist in the nomenclature of actions that a referee should reconstruct.

MC

[edew]

An attack versus a parry is a race. Does the offensive blade hit the body before the defensive blade intervene? If the offensive blade arrives before the intervention, the attack wins. If the intervention occurs first, the parry occurs. So a mal-parry is just an additional illumination on that fact that the offensive blade hit body before hitting the defensive blade. The reason could be that the defensive blade arrived at a spot soon enough, but that spot is not sufficient to actually cover the body; or the blade arrived at a (good enough) spot, but too late to make the intervention.

Just saying that the attack arrives and point is awarded to the attacker is sufficient, usually, to explain that the parry attempt failed.

[garyhayenga]

I am saying what bigdawg just did a very fine job of articulating. Even though the statement of fact is there, the application of a rule is wrong.

And I think its naive to think that who the BC member is or who my coach is WOULDN'T affect it. :P

It can't affect it, because the only possible ruling is that the referee's judgement as to wether a parry occurred cannot be appealed.

No matter who the BC member is the first question they're going to ask the referee is what the call was. The referee is going to say "Attack from X arrives." And that ends it right there.

You won't get, and *shouldn't* get, a chance to argue about wether the referee understands the definition of a parry or not. You can't win an appeal by insisting the referee didn't see the action properly, or doesn't understand the definition of a parry.

The only thing you can do if he actually doesn't, and *that* is entirely plausible, is ask that he be observed by someone from the Bout Committe for the rest of the bout or pool.

This rarely helps much either, since most bout committee's don't have anyone better than the guy who's already screwing things up available to observe him, or even if they do nothing controversial happens while they are observing. And even if you get him pulled it's too late to help you today. But it might help other people who avoid having him referee them in the next round.

[bigdawg2121]

It can't affect it, because the only possible ruling is that the referee's judgement as to wether a parry occurred cannot be appealed.

No matter who the BC member is the first question they're going to ask the referee is what the call was. The referee is going to say "Attack from X arrives." And that ends it right there.

You won't get, and *shouldn't* get, a chance to argue about wether the referee understands the definition of a parry or not. You can't win an appeal by insisting the referee didn't see the action properly, or doesn't understand the definition of a parry.

The only thing you can do if he actually doesn't, and *that* is entirely plausible, is ask that he be observed by someone from the Bout Committe for the rest of the bout or pool.

This rarely helps much either, since most bout committee's don't have anyone better than the guy who's already screwing things up available to observe him, or even if they do nothing controversial happens while they are observing. And even if you get him pulled it's too late to help you today. But it might help other people who avoid having him referee them in the next round.

Dude, the point is that the ref that says "the parry didn't stop the attack" HAS acknowledged a parry and that the defender made an action while ADDING some obtuse concept to the determination of the parry's validity. This is a bad place for the ref. It's worse than having your friend Captain-4-Point explain why your attack wasn't an attack*.


*+1 for proper I'd of inside ref's joke.

[IanSerotkin]

It's worse than having your friend Captain-4-Point explain why your attack wasn't an attack*.


*+1 for proper I'd of inside ref's joke.

Rep for you. Good lord, he's never going to live that one down.