Referees Providing Competitors Information

[Bonehead]

Maybe we need video...

[catwood1]

Its your thread...

[remistress]

Now, to be clear, I'm not talking about parries that were not strong enough. I am firmly of the belief that any noticeable blade contact counts as a parry. A new thread can be started if someone wants to argue this again.

But it seems you contradict yourself? Seems like you are saying on one hand that any blade contact is a parry, but on the other hand that said fencer didn't prevent the "attacker" (actually remiser, now) from hitting. Aren't they really just making a remise with opposition? If it makes you feel better think of it as a continuation (continuing the attack although they got parried, however this is still called a remise in my experience). If I were you, I'd have referee of like 5 or higher watch you make this call. The defender did parry and is putting a light on the box...which says to me he might be making the riposte in time (without actually being able to see the action). As a good referee once told me, don't penalize the person who did the right thing. Parrying at the end of the action is a valid action...just depends on if they actually began the riposte.

[Dev]

Try separating the referee brain from the fencer/coach brain.

In the referee brain, a "remise" is the global term for the attacker hitting the target after an initial attack is unsuccessful. There's a lot of reasons it can be unsuccessful; it was short. It missed wide. It struck the target but didn't register. Or, in this case, the defender found the blade with a parry before the point arrived on target.

In referee terms, for there to be a remise, there need only be an attack that ended without registering (valid or invalid). This could be because it was (abruptly) ended in mid-lunge by the defender's blade. Either way, it ceases to exist once it ends, and any subsequent "hitting of the target" by the attacker becomes a "remise", whether or not it's a "smooth extension of the lunge."

[Omar Bhutta]

Late to this discussion, but here are my thoughts for what it's worth.

Obviously no one is in contention about who's touch it is, just how to describe it.

I like the call "Parry, no riposte, remise touche". It's clear and makes sense (mostly). I think it's the call I'm going to make from now on.

In response to the situation you initially posed, I agree with Dan Berke and downunder that the correct call is, "Attack is parried. Remise arrives valid." You can add in something to the effect of "There is no riposte" if you would like to clarify.

Yeah basically the question is "What do you call it when someone is making a parry while their getting hit". Even though the parry starts before they get hit, the touche arrives before the riposte.

I will presume that what you are intending to convey is that the touch arrives before the riposte begins?

It is important to remember that a parry does not give you right of way, it only gives you the opportunity to take right of way. Thus, if you say that the fencer attempts to parry the blade while they are getting hit, then the call is "Attack arrives." My choice of words "attempts to parry the blade," was on purpose. Part of the confusion that sometimes arises in discussing this action is the phrase "makes a parry." I often think of this as binary: either the attack is parried or it is not parried. It was either "made" or "not made."

If the fencer successfully parries the blade before being hit, they have the right to make a riposte. If the remise hits before the riposte begins, then by definition, the remise also started before the riposte begins and thus has right of way.

So it still seems almost unfair to make this call, because the defending fencer still believes that they gave an immediate riposte (and they turned on a light!) so it will be very confusing for them to hear "No riposte".

What a fencer believes is not what is relevant to making a call as a referee. If a fencer believes something different after you've made the call, there is no reason you can't explain the call. You are right in the referees are often instructed not to explain their calls. More on this below.

True, but we're talking about an action that hits while the parry is still being made. The attacking fencer hits while the blades are still making contact from the parry.

Again, this is a binary decision. Either the blade contact removed the threat of the attack or did not. AND the fencer must initiates a riposte prior to the attacker beginning a remise....or they did not.

Are you required to explain this to the fencer? I've heard it argued that you never explain anything.

See above...the referee is not required to explain anything, only make the call. One rationale to not explain is because when a referee phrases an action, this becomes a Matter of Fact, and cannot be protested by the fencer. If the referee then justifies the call with lots of non-standard language, it opens him/her up to various protests because the explanation may contain Matters of Application. Having said that, a brief simple explanation (without getting into a discussion with the fencer) is enough to convey what happened, protect the referee, and keep peace on the strip. When a fencer asks me a simple question, I usually answer simply and honestly. If they try to get into a discussion, I repeat my call and tell them to get on guard. The time for further discussion is after the bout is over.

A successful parry happens when there's blade contact. If the defender made the blade contact before the touch, then it's a good parry. If there were 2 lights, then I would likely give the touch to the defender. If there was only 1 light, then either the attack arrives (late parry) or remise (not late parry).

Many people have been using the term "late parry" so sorry to single out Fiat Slug. I am not a fan of this term (as a referee) because of the fact that these actions are binary. Either they happened or they did not. If an attack arrives valid, then by definition, there cannot have been a parry. If an attack is parried, but the person who made the attack goes on to score a touch without attempting defense, by definition they scored with either a remise, continuation, reprise, new attack, etc.

Thus the phrasing "late parry" is quite misleading. If the attack lands valid, then there is a halt, and nothing after that is phrased. There is no parry, late or otherwise.

[telkanuru]

And here we go again.

[Omar Bhutta]

And here we go again.

Hmmm?

[telkanuru]

ROW threads...

[Omar Bhutta]

ROW threads...

Ahhhh, yes indeed.

[jeff]

Oh, this isn't so bad. At least it isn't another Point In Line thread.

I'm of the "either the attack was parried or it wasn't" religious persuasion, myself, and really dislike use of the expression "mal parry".

[Bonehead]

Well I've gotten all I need to out of this thread I think. Thanks guys.

[Gav]

Oh, this isn't so bad. At least it isn't another Point In Line thread.

I'm of the "either the attack was parried or it wasn't" religious persuasion, myself, and really dislike use of the expression "mal parry".

Careful Jeff I have my finger primed on the "add negative rep" button. Keep pushing and I could even go nuclear...

[Inquartata]

The reason why we don't use mal-parry is that it is a coaching term with multiple interpretations. You've used it in a remise scenario

In referee terms, for there to be a remise, there need only be an attack that ended without registering (valid or invalid).

I add Dev's post only to point out that a lot of terms seem to have "multiple interpretations" in coaching contexts...but referees still use them.

I'd say mal-parre has been booted from the ref lexicon in an attempt to prune situations which left too much discretion. Other actions seem to be "binary"---fencer A had ROW, or not, his remise was good, or not, but with mal-parre you open the door to more than just "parry, or no parry". Now you've got degrees of parrying. Not good for either refs or fencers, I think.