Referees Providing Competitors Information

[Bonehead]

Foil.

So it's been made very clear that there is no such thing as a Mal Parry. However I can't help but use the term.

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.

The action I am referring to is when a defender holds a parry, and while they are still holding the blade, they get hit (before they release the blade to give the riposte).

As a ref, I would say "Attack Touche... Mal Parry". I add the last part not to modify the call, but simply for clarification. I Fear that if I don't add the clarification, the call becomes very confusing. The defender doesn't know how you could miss such an obvious parry.

I know some referees who are of the formal opinion: "Tough Sh*t muffin". They feel it's not the referees job to clarify their calls, only to make them. They feel that any clarification is unfairly helping the fencer.

But what about "Attack in Preparation"? By the same argument, a referee doesn't need to say "In Preparation" but just attack. To me, and obviously to someone else too, this would be confusing as hell, which is probably why the phrase exists in the first place.

So what does everyone think? Perhaps I'm making the wrong call entirely. Maybe it's better to say "Remise in time", but I think that's also confusing (it would seem like I'm calling a remise against a direct riposte).

[downunder]

Very clearly remise touche. The attack failed when the parry arrive, no immediate riposte, so the remise is a valid action.

Preparation is a term we use to phrase fencing actions, mal-parry is not.

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 - as I understand it is commonly used when the attack arrives immediately before an attempted parry. We use refereeing terms to prevent this confusion whilst phrasing the action, but you can always go into more depth if asked for clarification by the fencer.

[dberke]

Foil.

So it's been made very clear that there is no such thing as a Mal Parry. However I can't help but use the term.

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.

The action I am referring to is when a defender holds a parry, and while they are still holding the blade, they get hit (before they release the blade to give the riposte).

As a ref, I would say "Attack Touche... Mal Parry". I add the last part not to modify the call, but simply for clarification. I Fear that if I don't add the clarification, the call becomes very confusing. The defender doesn't know how you could miss such an obvious parry.

I know some referees who are of the formal opinion: "Tough Sh*t muffin". They feel it's not the referees job to clarify their calls, only to make them. They feel that any clarification is unfairly helping the fencer.

Simple. The call should be "Attack is parried. No riposte. Remise arrives."

Note that I said "no ripsote" indicating there was no riposte (in-time), as opposed to "riposte no", which implies there was a riposte, but it failed to arrive.

If the defender questions the call, you can clarify by telling them that the remise arrived before they started their riposte. In other words, they held the parry too long without doing anything. That should be sufficient to answer their question.

Using the term "mal-parry", aside from being a completely imaginary concept, isn't accurate. Their parry was fine, they just failed to initiate a riposte after parrying, thus giving the attacker the chance to remise.

But what about "Attack in Preparation"? By the same argument, a referee doesn't need to say "In Preparation" but just attack. To me, and obviously to someone else too, this would be confusing as hell, which is probably why the phrase exists in the first place.

So what does everyone think? Perhaps I'm making the wrong call entirely. Maybe it's better to say "Remise in time", but I think that's also confusing (it would seem like I'm calling a remise against a direct riposte).

Calling attack in preparation tells the fencer who thought they were attacking that they actually were preparing. That (should) be enough info for them to not ask why they didn't get the touch.

Dan

[fdad]

Very clearly remise touche. The attack failed when the parry arrive, no immediate riposte, so the remise is a valid action.

Preparation is a term we use to phrase fencing actions, mal-parry is not.

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 - as I understand it is commonly used when the attack arrives immediately before an attempted parry. We use refereeing terms to prevent this confusion whilst phrasing the action, but you can always go into more depth if asked for clarification by the fencer.

I *think* perhaps you've misunderstood what the OP is describing. I've recently seen the following called: Fencer A's attack is parred by Fencer B right before it lands. The continuation lands almost immediately. Fencer B ripostes in a normal manner (would have been called a good riposte had Fencer A's attack not landed so soon). The referee calls it attack touche (for Fencer A), latter explains that the parry was "too late" while admitting it came before the touch. My feeling was that it was the wrong call.

[downunder]

The action I am referring to is when a defender holds a parry, and while they are still holding the blade, they get hit (before they release the blade to give the riposte).

I *think* perhaps you've misunderstood what the OP is describing.

Hey mate i'm responding to this action:

The action I am referring to is when a defender holds a parry, and while they are still holding the blade, they get hit (before they release the blade to give the riposte).

I've recently seen the following called: Fencer A's attack is parred by Fencer B right before it lands. The continuation lands almost immediately. Fencer B ripostes in a normal manner (would have been called a good riposte had Fencer A's attack not landed so soon). The referee calls it attack touche (for Fencer A), latter explains that the parry was "too late" while admitting it came before the touch. My feeling was that it was the wrong call.

That's terrible. How can they admit the parry arrived before the attack landed and subsequently give the attack?

[pillow]

I *think* perhaps you've misunderstood what the OP is describing. I've recently seen the following called: Fencer A's attack is parred by Fencer B right before it lands. The continuation lands almost immediately. Fencer B ripostes in a normal manner (would have been called a good riposte had Fencer A's attack not landed so soon). The referee calls it attack touche (for Fencer A), latter explains that the parry was "too late" while admitting it came before the touch. My feeling was that it was the wrong call.

I'm not sure it's the wrong call, only because I have had it called on me many times. If you parry at the last second just as you get hit, the attacker has always been awarded the point against me. There is no riposte, and there is one light.

[fdad]

I'm not sure it's the wrong call, only because I have had it called on me many times. If you parry at the last second just as you get hit, the attacker has always been awarded the point against me. There is no riposte, and there is one light.

At a recent event, a fencer I was watching was ahead 8-0. This fencer had the other fencer's distance and timing completely figured out. The other fencer ran off a string of "touches" where the leading fencer parried and riposted very quickly right before the touch landed (two lights). The referee said the parries were "too late". Frustrated, the original fencer realized that they needed one light touches and eventually won a close bout that should have been about 25-3 by my count.

[RkfdFencer]

(response to Pillow)

And thus the coaching use of mal-parry (in my mind, at least).

Your late, attempted parry did not prevent the attack from arriving. Opponent deep into attack, defender does not clear the line, attack lands while parry still being enacted.

Can we go to video replay? :smile:

[Bonehead]

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.

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. Once again "Parry, no riposte, remise" is a seems like good call pragmatically, but it seems like there are too many actions for something that seems to have only one tempo.

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".

The action while on some level is technically the same as one where the parry is held, the lunge of the attack ends, and then the attacker immediately remises through the parry before the defender gives riposte, but it 'feels' completely different.

I feel like there should be a completely different call that exists (which is why I have been using the call mal-parry), but since it's such a poorly defined phrase I concede that mal-parry is a terrible term. I guess were stuck with "no riposte".

[RkfdFencer]

...

Yeah basically the question is "What do you call it when someone is making a parry while their getting hit".

Attack arrives. When they complain, attempted parry was late.

[Allen Evans]

A fast remise through a parry will ALWAYS arrive before the riposte. If I attack and my opponent makes a lighting fast parry that finds the blade, and then my attack continues through to hit the target, I have been parried, and the subsequent riposte (if it arrives on target) is against me.

Note that this is very different from an attack that hits the target, and then the parry removes the point from the lame. That is an attack that arrives. The call is: "Attack. Touche. Point." (you don't, as a referee, have to call any parry action). If the fencer asks about his or her parry you can, to facilitate the bout, say that the parry was late. A seasoned fencer is going to understand exactly what happened and fix it.

[Bonehead]

Parry Wasn't late. Blades made contact before defender was hit. I suppose you could say the completion of the parry was late, but I would say that a parry happens as soon as blade contact happens.

[Bonehead]

A fast remise through a parry will ALWAYS arrive before the riposte. If I attack and my opponent makes a lighting fast parry that finds the blade, and then my attack continues through to hit the target, I have been parried, and the subsequent riposte (if it arrives on target) is against me

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.

The call is: "Attack. Touche. Point." (you don't, as a referee, have to call any parry action). If the fencer asks about his or her parry you can, to facilitate the bout, say that the parry was late. A seasoned fencer is going to understand exactly what happened and fix it.

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

[Allen Evans]

RKFD was faster than me.

To further clarify. If I make a parry and hold it, and the attacker remises around or through the parry to hit (and then I start my riposte) the remise is in time.

If I hold the parry and then make a riposte -- the motion of which the attacker uses to make a remise to my target -- the remise is not valid unless I miss, or he/she times me out (possible these days).

I've given up the use of "mal-parry" when while coaching. Describing the parry as "early", "late" or "on time" makes more sense in terms of what and how I teach foil. Often, using the phrase mal-parry causes the student to think there was something wrong with formation of their parry, rather than its timing.

[Bonehead]

I agree that the call should be "remise in time", but it just seems strange when the remise is a smooth extension of the lunge.

I've given up the use of "mal-parry" when while coaching. Describing the parry as "early", "late" or "on time" makes more sense in terms of what and how I teach foil. Often, using the phrase mal-parry causes the student to think there was something wrong with formation of their parry, rather than its timing.

Good point.

[catwood1]

Parry Wasn't late. Blades made contact before defender was hit. I suppose you could say the completion of the parry was late, but I would say that a parry happens as soon as blade contact happens.

You're trying really hard to describe a way to call a correct parry riposte against this defender aren't you?

If the blade contact happens before the hit arrives, its probably a parry. If it happens after, the parry was late.

If the blade contact happens immediately after the hit arrives, I agree with Allen. Call "Attack arrives." When questioned, say "the parry was late." Sometimes I make that call and the defending fencer asks "mal parre?" I usually respond with "yea, its late."

Don't bring up the phrase while refereeing, it doesn't accomplish anything that saying "its late" doesn't, and it can bring about a number of bad things...

[catwood1]

but it just seems strange when the remise is a smooth extension of the lunge.

I would get away from this thinking as soon as possible. A good quick parry riposte can easily yield this kind of remise. You make a lunge trying your darndest to hit me, and I make a quick beat parry 4 and we both hit. You just made a smooth extension with your lunge. You weren't TRYING to remise. That doesn't make it your point.

[noodle]

remise, touch.

[Bonehead]

You're trying really hard to describe a way to call a correct parry riposte against this defender aren't you?

Defender is hit while making the parry, before giving riposte. Attacking fencers point no question.

Not a beat parry. The blade contact starts. Then the attacking fencer hits (while the blades are in contact). Then the defending fencer hits back.

The parry 'starts' before the attack hits, but 'finishes' after the remise (I guess) hits.

It's weird to call this remise in time when this all happens during one lunge of the attacking fencer, but I guess on paper, that's what the call is.

[Fiat Slug]

Defender is hit while making the parry, before giving riposte. Attacking fencers point no question.

Not a beat parry. The blade contact starts. Then the attacking fencer hits (while the blades are in contact). Then the defending fencer hits back.

The parry 'starts' before the attack hits, but 'finishes' after the remise (I guess) hits.

It's weird to call this remise in time when this all happens during one lunge of the attacking fencer, but I guess on paper, that's what the call is.

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).

.