Am Fencing Mag Vs. "Cesspool"

[touchefriend]

Thanks for clarifying, bigdawg. I do wonder how the referee decides what is incidental contact. KShan, I don't care what the rulebook says either but referees care. Like Bukantz sez - we cesspool refs may not know the answers and my question has a serious point (somewhere). IMO (reading the rules) a parry should deflect the blade as would a parry(deflection in the rules) for PiL. If the attacking fencer still hits.....referee, FOC or otherwise decides RoW. I've only fenced for 16 years but still see this as somewhat arbitrary. Guess I should move this to another thread as its likely already been consigned to the depths of the cesspool some time ago.

[epeemike81]

KShan, I don't care what the rulebook says either but referees care.

Pretty sure KShan knows what referees care about...

As for how to determine what is incidental blade contact: intent. If you look for and find the blade, it's a parry. if you counterattack and happen to hit the blade, it's not.

-m

[touchefriend]

Although I understand and agree with your post, I seem to remember posts on this forum stating that deciding "intent" is mindreading. Finding the blade and still getting hit seems divorced from the reality of the term deflection. I have observed many parries that actually deflect the blade from the target(no touch) and find the action easy to call;whereas grazing parries get the same respect, while not accomplishing a true deflection. I do teach my students to go with current referee calls on this and fence that way myself but still find a gray area when I think about it. In sabre rules t.79 it is stated that the parry "prevents the arrival of the attack" and then goes on to make allowance for flexible blades. I wonder if this is the real reason for a seemingly double standard? (in foil as well)

[KD5MDK]

No, it's just that we actually do mindreading.

[DHCJr]

Although I understand and agree with your post, I seem to remember posts on this forum stating that deciding "intent" is mindreading. Finding the blade and still getting hit seems divorced from the reality of the term deflection. I have observed many parries that actually deflect the blade from the target(no touch) and find the action easy to call;whereas grazing parries get the same respect, while not accomplishing a true deflection. I do teach my students to go with current referee calls on this and fence that way myself but still find a gray area when I think about it. In sabre rules t.79 it is stated that the parry "prevents the arrival of the attack" and then goes on to make allowance for flexible blades. I wonder if this is the real reason for a seemingly double standard? (in foil as well)

That is interesting. I am glad you brought it up. I wonder if the flexable part is an obsolete rule that was never changed when other rules changed. This rule in the before TOM rulebook was 421. Since that time we have gone to the 'S2000' blades which are supposed to be as stiff or even stiffer than a Epee blade.

[Inquartata]

Standardization? I thought you were a free market proponent?

In economic competitions, someone often wins eventually.

Pretty sure KShan knows what referees care about...

Per diem and the local brewery scene?

No, it's just that we actually do mindreading.

Except in refereeing epee, where it's neither necessary nor possible.

[tchwojko]

In economic competitions, someone often wins eventually.

But you want to impose a standard from the top down, rather than letting the market eventually settle on a "winner".

[Inquartata]

Do I?

( and characters )

[Foil.Leicester]

and the local brewery scene?

Yeah because that's just restricted to the referees!

The last two competitions I've been to were made as a way of getting lots of fencers in the same place to make going out drinking easier.

[eac]

An attempt to make an intent-free heuristic for incidental blade contact in foil:

Referees are required to parse and separate distinct actions in order to do what they do in general. In particular, they have to identify motions that are extensions-to-hit, for purposes of deciding when those extensions started and ended, and therefore (in combination with the sequence of footwork motions) when attacks started and ended. This does not really require mindreading.

So the following rules of thumb seem reasonable to me:
1) If you complete an extension-to-hit motion (successful or not), and sometime during that motion there was blade contact, you can not reasonably expect the referee to say that you parried or beat the blade during that motion, even if you deflected your opponent's blade with it. (This is a closeout counterattack, and the blade contact is said to be incidental.)

2) If your opponent DOES complete an ETH motion, and before he hits, you contact his blade with a non-ETH motion, you can reasonably expect the referee to say that you parried. (This is the one where deflection is not particularly required.)

3) If neither you nor your opponent is making an ETH motion, then whoever appears to deflect the other's blade more is said to have beat or parried, with the caveat that if neither is particularly deflected, the tie goes to the person going forward (aka, "you can't parry a beat").

[Inquartata]

The last two competitions I've been to were made as a way of getting lots of fencers in the same place to make going out drinking easier.

Meh, as if that's ever difficult...

[Grasshopper]

Reading this thread I sometimes feel that I am required to parse and separate distinct actions in order to do what I do in general.

[Inquartata]

And what IS that voodoo that you do so well?