a couple of referee questions

[milstdfarm]

1) Fencer A direct attack, Fencer B parry/riposte. Both hit valid. Fencer B's parry is weak and never deflects Fencer A's point from valid target. Who gets the touch?

2) Fencer A is against his back line. Fencer A executes fleche attack and goes off the strip. No touches. It is obvious Fencer A is using the fleche to attack AND to avoid a touch. Should Fencer A get a yellow card for leaving the strip to avoid a touch? Or does his legitimately executed fleche attack and subsequently running off the lateral boundary only result in Fencer A's opponent gaining 1 meter on the restart?

[fdad]

1) Fencer A direct attack, Fencer B parry/riposte. Both hit valid. Fencer B's parry is weak and never deflects Fencer A's point from valid target. Who gets the touch?

My unqualified opinion is ...

According to the rule as written (which is not to say how its enforced), the parry needs to "close the line" to be valid. It is possible for Fencer A's point to whip around the parry (which closed the line) and land on target, if so the riposte has priority.

2) Fencer A is against his back line. Fencer A executes fleche attack and goes off the strip. No touches. It is obvious Fencer A is using the fleche to attack AND to avoid a touch. Should Fencer A get a yellow card for leaving the strip to avoid a touch? Or does his legitimately executed fleche attack and subsequently running off the lateral boundary only result in Fencer A's opponent gaining 1 meter on the restart?

I think its hard to objectively judge that an attacking action was initiated to avoid a touch. Since the scenario you describe is likely to result in Fencer A being backed off the end of the strip (after giving a meter to Fencer B), the least objectionable result would be not to give the card.

[epeelion]

1) Fencer A direct attack, Fencer B parry/riposte. Both hit valid. Fencer B's parry is weak and never deflects Fencer A's point from valid target. Who gets the touch?

2) Fencer A is against his back line. Fencer A executes fleche attack and goes off the strip. No touches. It is obvious Fencer A is using the fleche to attack AND to avoid a touch. Should Fencer A get a yellow card for leaving the strip to avoid a touch? Or does his legitimately executed fleche attack and subsequently running off the lateral boundary only result in Fencer A's opponent gaining 1 meter on the restart?

1.) You said Fencer B makes a parry. So, Parry riposte, touch to B. Where's the question? No such thing as a "weak parry". There is only "parry" or "no parry". Channeling Yoda here...

2.) Subtle distinction. A fencer can use any legal fencing action to avoid a touch. There is a difference between fleshing to close and avoid getting hit and leaving the strip to avoid the touch. The way you describe it, the fencer is fleshing to avoid getting hit. That's legal. That's different from jumping off strip to avoid getting hit/ Sadly, it's a mistake, and A's opponent gets a touch, because if A fleshes and goes off strip from the back line, it is extraordinarily likely that the resulting gain of a meter by his/her opponent will push A off the strip. Always go past in that situation, not off the strip.

[CvilleFencer]

1. As said, all a parry needs to do is find the blade (and make noise so the referee can hear the contact). If it finds the blade and is in time, its a parry. There is none of this "It was weak" or "If they were sharp" nonsense.

2. You can use any action that is legal to avoid a touch. You can't corp a corp, knowingly hit off target (good luck calling that one), or so forth but you can fleche, lunge, quack like a duck, whatever. The entire point is to not get hit after all. As was said by EL, the distance penalty for going out of the strip boundary while inside the warning line will likely result in a touch for the opponent unless something really odd is going on.

[Purple Fencer]

1) Fencer A direct attack, Fencer B parry/riposte. Both hit valid. Fencer B's parry is weak and never deflects Fencer A's point from valid target. Who gets the touch?

Unless B his A's guard, it's B's valid parry/riposte. If B is being attacked and makes a parrying action, and there is blade contact because of THAT action, then it's a parry (unless it's on the guard or damn close to it). Even a seemingly "weak" contact can move the blade.

2) Fencer A is against his back line. Fencer A executes fleche attack and goes off the strip. No touches. It is obvious Fencer A is using the fleche to attack AND to avoid a touch. Should Fencer A get a yellow card for leaving the strip to avoid a touch? Or does his legitimately executed fleche attack and subsequently running off the lateral boundary only result in Fencer A's opponent gaining 1 meter on the restart?

Does A land the touch...either on or off target? Once there's a light, the action's done. Plus going off the strip to avoid a collision -- especially if one of them is a lefty hugging the edge of the strip -- is entirely proper....sure better than slamming into the other guy. Going off to avoid a collision is VERY different than going off to avoid a touch.

[tdwg83]

1) Fencer A direct attack, Fencer B parry/riposte. Both hit valid. Fencer B's parry is weak and never deflects Fencer A's point from valid target. Who gets the touch?

2) Fencer A is against his back line. Fencer A executes fleche attack and goes off the strip. No touches. It is obvious Fencer A is using the fleche to attack AND to avoid a touch. Should Fencer A get a yellow card for leaving the strip to avoid a touch? Or does his legitimately executed fleche attack and subsequently running off the lateral boundary only result in Fencer A's opponent gaining 1 meter on the restart?

Also note that simply stepping off the strip while dodging is NOT leaving strip to avoid a touch. Leaving the strip to avoid a touch is usually looked at as a very deliberate action (similar to non combativity).

[fdad]

1. As said, all a parry needs to do is find the blade (and make noise so the referee can hear the contact). If it finds the blade and is in time, its a parry. There is none of this "It was weak" or "If they were sharp" nonsense.

I am not saying that you are wrong about how it should be called. But at a recent tournament, the director repeatedly made the call against my kid that the parry did not deflect the blade enough (making a point to say she heard the contact), and since the opponent did not make a visible remise action, it was a malparry. Never having encountered this interpretation before I ran to the nearest copy of the rule book which did not cover this in enough detail to be used to refute the call.

I wish the FOC would create a wiki to put all of the current rule interpretations into one authoritative place which could be referenced during an appeal.

[pinkelephant]

2. You can use any action that is legal to avoid a touch. You can't corp a corp, knowingly hit off target (good luck calling that one)...

No rule against hitting the OPPONENT off target deliberately.

t53.2. A competitor who, intentionally, causes the apparatus to register a
hit by placing his point on the ground or on any surface other than
that of his opponent will be penalised as specified in Articles t.114,
t.117, t.120.

It says nothing about the opponent's VALID surface.

Or is this another difference between the USFA and the FIE?

[catwood1]

No rule against hitting the OPPONENT off target deliberately.

t53.2. A competitor who, intentionally, causes the apparatus to register a
hit by placing his point on the ground or on any surface other than
that of his opponent will be penalised as specified in Articles t.114,
t.117, t.120.

It says nothing about the opponent's VALID surface.

Or is this another difference between the USFA and the FIE?

I don't think its any different. Although it can be illigal, depending on how its done.

[anecdote]

Foil bout. Fencer Mypoints Enline is winning the bout on PiL actions. Fencer Eycant Beettack is losing, and getting angry.

Enline has the line out, and Beettack says to himself "ok, I'll just flick you in the arm till you stop doing PiL." Beettack flicks to Enline's elbow a bunch of times in a row. Enline tries to argue touch with brutality to no avail.

Enline says "ok, I'll just go for the hand pick when you prep the flick." This happens a few time. Pil. Prep for flick. AiP hand pick. Now Beettack is arguing touch with brutality, again to no avail. Bout ultimately ends with both fencers bleeding.

[/anecdote]


This is 1 time when intentionally hitting off target should NOT have been allowed, and should have been carded.

[Cerian]

Except the reason for it not being allowed has nothing to do with hitting off target, but with brutality. Being off target is entirely incidental to the brutality problem.

[Gav]

... etc ...

Are you aware that pinkelephant is a FIE certified referee?

[tbryan]

I am not saying that you are wrong about how it should be called. But at a recent tournament, the director repeatedly made the call against my kid that the parry did not deflect the blade enough (making a point to say she heard the contact), and since the opponent did not make a visible remise action, it was a malparry....

I don't know. The description sounds like a pretty standard parry-riposte, remise. I think that this exact action has been covered at every referee seminar I've ever attended.

That said, it's a pretty popular call among for certain referees. When you get that kind of referee as a fencer, you just make sure that your parry deflects the blade. Make a stronger beat parry, or just make a blocking parry. Maybe even hold the parry a moment (more like a fermata, less like a tempo) before riposting.

Or, if the other fencer also makes light beat parries, attack with a firm extension and remise through the parry. Let your opponent figure out how to deal with this "attack."

I wish the FOC would create a wiki to put all of the current rule interpretations into one authoritative place which could be referenced during an appeal.

Even if you could not appeal this one, you could try to ask the head referee about what was being called on your strip. Assuming that the head referee at the event agrees that this interpretation is incorrect, that gives the head referee the opportunity to try to observe the other referee and maybe tactfully discuss this problem. In a division that cares about quality refereeing, a lot of referee mentoring happens at local events.

Even divisions that care about quality refereeing have to work with the lower-ranked referees somewhere, and you'll often see them first at the small, local events. Fencers are probably going to have deal with odd interpretations or poor perception of the action from some of these referees. The fencer probably isn't going to convince the referee to call something differently in the middle of the bout. (It is possible to guide the referee to see an action better during a bout, but even that isn't always possible.) Assuming that the referee is consistent, the fencers is probably better served simply to understand quickly what the referee can and can't see or will and won't call and then to use that information to help form a plan to beat your opponent.

[Allen Evans]

One of the difficulties with describing actions on F.net and asking for opinions is the Rashomon effect. While I think that most everyone here has covered the OP questions well (and in the case of TBryan, with his usual completeness) there is yet a third possibility, and that is that the parry was made just as the fencer was hit. This would technically not be a parry at all, and the call would simply be "attack arrives". At this point, most fencers ask about the parry and most referees will say "there was no parry" or "the parry was late". A referee a little less experianced might say that the parry "was not sufficient", which would have been a poor choice of words on his or her part, but I could see them coming out of a referee's mouth.

Or, your referee was just wrong, as others on this thread have explained. That happens too.

Catwood: there is no penalty for a deliberate hit off target on the opponent. I've never seen it called, unless a hit was delivered with obvious brutality (whipping, stricking, etc) which then had nothing to do with the hit being on or off target.

[CMiner]

I think the calls of a parry being 'insufficient' might be coming from this section in the rules:

Respect of the Fencing Phrase
t.56 (a)

~~~~

6. If the attack is initiated when the opponent is 'point in line' (cf. t.10), the attacker must, first, deflect the opponent‘s blade. Referees must ensure that a mere grazing of the blades is not considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent‘s blade (cf. t.60/2a).

Never says the parry has to deflect the opponent's blade away from valid target though (for example, if the parry knocks the opponent's blade from hitting in 4 to hitting in 6,) just must 'deflect'.

[fdad]

I think the calls of a parry being 'insufficient' might be coming from this section in the rules:



Never says the parry has to deflect the opponent's blade away from valid target though (for example, if the parry knocks the opponent's blade from hitting in 4 to hitting in 6,) just must 'deflect'.

Actually, the situation was not PiL. It was simple. The director explained that (in her opinion) since the simple attack was able to continue without a visible remising motion of the arm, the parry did not deflect the blade "enough" to prevent it from landing on target.

From having read this forum, I knew the common interpretation of the rule was that any small deflection should be enough, but I could not find anything to support this position in the rule book. It is frustrating how many times I've encountered a director, who had a non-standard interpretation of an ambiguously written rule. I've also found that directors, epsecially at the local level, are somewhat like doctors; it takes a lot for one to contridict another based on a verbal description.

[CMiner]

Actually, the situation was not PiL. It was simple. The director explained that (in her opinion) since the simple attack was able to continue without a visible remising motion of the arm, the parry did not deflect the blade "enough" to prevent it from landing on target.

Thing is, that section that I took the quote from never mentions what fencer A must do if fencer B is in the motion of a simple attack, and neither do any of the other sections with the 'mere grazing not considered sufficient' language. It only says what he can do if fencer B is in PIL, or not in PIL.

"To judge the priority of an attack when analysing the fencing phrase, it should be noted that:" If fencer A attacks while B is not in PIL, he can do this, this and this. If Fencer A attacks while B is in PIL, he must deflect.

There's a whole other thread about whether or not a properly executed attack can also be PIL, but the relevance to this thread was just that there was a section in the rulebook that I found that specifically mentions a circumstance where a parry (correction: "attempted parry") could be considered not 'sufficient'.

And I completely agree about the ambiguity of certain things in the rulebook..

[Allen Evans]

I've also found that directors, epsecially at the local level, are somewhat like doctors; it takes a lot for one to contridict another based on a verbal description.

And, sadly enough, there are many referees who feel that the current interpretations of priority are "wrong" and feel that it is their mission to "right" the system. Quite a few years ago, at a local tournament, a referee insisted that ROW was only given to those attacks that were preceeded by a completely extended arm. Several people spoke to him over the course of the tournament, but it was his club, and his tournament, and he was not going to be moved.

In the end, the fencers voted with their feet, and didn't attend that event the next year. I believe it has since disappeared, and I don't believe the referee in question is an active referee.

[catwood1]

Yes, I'm aware that pinkelephant is an FIE ref. I wasn't disagreeing with him/her. I'm confident that he/she knows his/her stuff way better than I do.

While there's no rule against intentionally hitting off target, what would you do in the situation I described. None of the hits were delivered with excessive force. I wouldn't say it was the traditional definition of brutality. I still think that should DEFINITELY of been carded. Do you guys disagree?

If they were hitting on target there, there would be no problem with it. But, because they weren't, and were clearly doing it to just hurt the opponent, it should have been a card. I merely provide that as a case where because they were intentionally hitting off target, (and the other stuff they were doing) they should have been carded IMHO.

[Allen Evans]

None of the hits were delivered with excessive force. I wouldn't say it was the traditional definition of brutality. I still think that should DEFINITELY of been carded. Do you guys disagree?

If they were hitting on target there, there would be no problem with it. But, because they weren't, and were clearly doing it to just hurt the opponent, it should have been a card. I merely provide that as a case where because they were intentionally hitting off target, (and the other stuff they were doing) they should have been carded IMHO.

The problem with your example is that it is internally inconsistant. You can't be hitting hard enough to hurt someone, yet not hitting so hard that you aren't committing "hits with brutality" and thus a cardable offense.

[downunder]

Yes, I'm aware that pinkelephant is an FIE ref. I wasn't disagreeing with him/her. I'm confident that he/she knows his/her stuff way better than I do.

While there's no rule against intentionally hitting off target, what would you do in the situation I described. None of the hits were delivered with excessive force. I wouldn't say it was the traditional definition of brutality. I still think that should DEFINITELY of been carded. Do you guys disagree?

If they were hitting on target there, there would be no problem with it. But, because they weren't, and were clearly doing it to just hurt the opponent, it should have been a card. I merely provide that as a case where because they were intentionally hitting off target, (and the other stuff they were doing) they should have been carded IMHO.

Hits made with violence t.87.2 yellow card first time