Jeeze, yet another rules question

[Greybeard]

I am assuming this would be the same for both chair and AB foil.

Fencer A lunges, Fencer B takes a parry 7, does an envelopment and accidentally steps in and takes a shot to the chest or doesn't do the envelopement wide enough so Fencer B's tip hits and there is a double light.

Touch for A or B? I know the answer for Epee.

Thanks

[Stormbringer]

I am assuming this would be the same for both chair and AB foil.

Fencer A lunges, Fencer B takes a parry 7, does an envelopment and accidentally steps in and takes a shot to the chest or doesn't do the envelopement wide enough so Fencer B's tip hits and there is a double light.

Touch for A or B? I know the answer for Epee.

Thanks

From the description, it sounds like A's hit would be, if anything, a remise.

So, the question becomes, did A's remise arrive before the B's riposte started? If so, then A's remise ("through the blade"?) would be considered to have ROW, in much the same as a stop hit in time, yes?

If not, then B would have made a valid riposte (riposte in opposition?), and B would have ROW, yes?

So... did B transition from parrying to riposting before A's point arrived on B's target?

[oiuyt]

Let me rephrase a bit:

A attacks.
B parries.
During B's immediate riposte, which arrives on valid target, A also hits.

Think of it in terms of fencing actions (strip the extraneous information) and the call should be clear.

-B

[Stormbringer]

Let me rephrase a bit:

A attacks.
B parries.
During B's immediate riposte, which arrives on valid target, A also hits.

Think of it in terms of fencing actions (strip the extraneous information) and the call should be clear.

-B

However, it is not clear that the riposte was, in fact, immediate.

As stated, there was a parry, followed by an attempted envelopment.

Was the envelopment part of a riposte-in-opposition, or a separate action between the parry and the riposte (which, by being between the parry and the riposte, would delay the execution of the riposte, and allow a window for a remise to have ROW by arriving before the initiation of a riposte)?

Or, action-wise: "attack is parried, no (immediate) riposte, remise arrives" or "attack is parried, remise arrives, riposte is out-of-time"...?

[Allen Evans]

However, it is not clear that the riposte was, in fact, immediate.

As stated, there was a parry, followed by an attempted envelopment.

Was the envelopment part of a riposte-in-opposition, or a separate action between the parry and the riposte (which, by being between the parry and the riposte, would delay the execution of the riposte, and allow a window for a remise to have ROW by arriving before the initiation of a riposte)?

Or, action-wise: "attack is parried, no (immediate) riposte, remise arrives" or "attack is parried, remise arrives, riposte is out-of-time"...?

It seems pretty clear to me. Oiuyt has the right of it.

A

[Greybeard]

Sorry to be so confusing. B attempt's the envelopment after he parried 7 (it is one action) and he cleverly managed to direct A's point home. Is it mal parry or a good parry and his point on the riposte even though both lights went off? (We did this yesterday when I was practicing and we just threw it out.) It was an attempted riposte in opposition if that helps

[vivoescrimare]

Oiuyt's answer still applies, more or less. The missing information is what makes the determination. If there is a parry and a direct riposte that arrives valid (doesn't matter if it engages the blade, disengages, coupes, circles around the body and hits behind the back...as long as it is immediate and continuous) then it is touch for the riposte.

If, for any reason, the riposte was neither immediate nor continuous, then the remise has priority. Now, if you, for some odd reason, parried, then engaged the blade again and got hit in the process, many referees will probably call it a counter-riposte. Without seeing the action, a black and white answer isn't possible.

Vivo

[Greybeard]

Thanks. I just need to use my orangutan arms and not lean

[JacoKierkegaard]

Ask Christine, cesspool, etc.

[edew]

It's not unusual at the beginning levels to see a fencer make multiple parries before making a riposte. Imagine in this case, the 7 parry, then another parry, to 6 position. During this second parry, the defender brings the opponent's tip right onto the target (also a common occurrence among beginning fencers, although among beginners, the more common action is to push it to an off-target region) before releasing the blade for a riposte.

I can see the call being: "attack is parried, remise lands, second parry is late, riposte of second parry is late." Or something to that effect.

[catwood1]

If there is a parry and a direct riposte that arrives valid (doesn't matter if it engages the blade, disengages, coupes, circles around the body and hits behind the back...as long as it is immediate and continuous) then it is touch for the riposte.

You realize that "direct" has a pretty specific meaning in terms of a riposte, and thats not it, right?

~Edited because upon thinking about it, I'm not trying be a ginormous a**hole...

[bigdawg2121]

I'm pretty sure you don't know what that word means if the context you are using it in...

Really Chris? A#1 let's just go ahead and accept that a tongue was in a cheek at some point during the writing of that post. B#2 I, and likely everyone else that has seen any amount of decent fencing has seen continuous/direct ripostes (as used in the context above*) that do all of those things. Granted, they don't do them at the same time but nevertheless. Behind the back? Around the back? Straight (i.e. "direct" in the classical/pedagogical sense)? Indirect via disengage or coupé? Check, check, check and double check.


*direct in this sense clearly refers to something being immediate and continuously directed towards the opponent's target and has little to do with method of delivery.

[catwood1]

Yes, that was at least intended to be reasonably snarky, although maybe I just come across looking like a prick.. :-/

I suppose if you want to use a fencing word to mean something other than its technical meaning, then sure. But theres enough confusion with fencing words that it seems reasonable to point out that "direct" has a specific meaning, and thats not it.

Although I'm pretty sure I have seen almost all of those things happen on the same action.

[Greybeard]

Once again, I wasn't expectimg some kind of Spanish Inquisition.

[Allen Evans]

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!