Do you know the rules?

[sallearmourer]

Gav, I wont do a competion without doing a least doing the mask punch test on a mask. Mainly to protect myself from all the lawyers we have here in the states. At our NAC or North American Cups event they bring in enough armourers to check mask bodycords and all lame martial. Weapons are check on strips
The referees are issues offfical weights and shims from my booth all the weights are with in the rules. Plus I run a repair booth at all the major NAC.

Tim

[Boo Boo]

Taking the quiz reminds me of helping a friend/team-mate to revise before taking the FIE foil exam at the Paris A-grade last year: helping her revise was great for all of us (there is so much we should all know, but don't). The friend passed with flying colours :-)

Yup, weapons checks at British competitions are none existent. I have made it to the last 8 of some large national competitions without even weight testing..... Conversely I remember doing the British Universities Championships (MANY years back) and there being weight testing from the first round onwards (when, of course, many people club level fencers using university club equipment suffered...).

I don't think that we have enough armourers at British competitions to be able to do weapons checks and help with the failures that arise: there is normally only one/two armourer/s at each competition and they are normally working flat out as it is.

Boo
(keep the quizs coming - they are fun)

[Dave]

Ah yes the frantic struggle to make all of the dodgy university club kit pass weight and travel tests whilst I was hungover.

[Boo Boo]

Yup, the competition in the UK attended by the most club level fencers (those least likely to have working/legal kit) probably has the most stringent weapons checking of any UK domestic competition...

Also, I am sure that they probably insist on two rounds of poules (very few open competitions in the UK do this - they have only one round like A-grades - only the weaker ones have two rounds these days)

Still Dave, University fencing can be amongst the most fun competitions...

Boo

[Dave]

There was only one round of pools this year thankfully.

I have been doing university fencing for longer than I would care to think about (I am now in my 3rd year of a PhD) and have enjoyed every minute of it.

[Zelda]

AHHH intervarsities.....fencing/drinking/fencing/drinking Hungover, gumbies.... (I only went to one but geez was it fun!) I know someone who keeps going back to Uni to do courses so they can do IV....she is on her 15th IV or something now.....
As for mask punch tests... I have never ever witnessed one. Our mask goes through a visual inspection but that is all.

[Gav]

ahh the nostalgia! I remember my Uni' fencing days. The endless travelling-fencing-drinking-hangover-travelling! when I fenced at Uni there where less weapon checks than there are at domestic events - how things have changed. Most of the big domestic events do weights and guages from the DE onwards. Having said that I have found myself insisting that we do weights and guages at some tourey's (for various reasons.

[veeco]

Originally posted by Gav

For that matter her in the UK (as in OZ) there is very little need to go through the whole rigarmarole of weapons checking. I've always found it interesting (amazing?) that some posters, and some americans I've spoken to, get so hung up on equipment checks. I guess it all has to do with the the claims culture prevalent in the US.

I think it's also a European thing. I don't remember having my mask checked at any tournament I went to in France back when I was there.

When you had a weapon failure, the ref would also give it back to you. I guess it's just a rule that is not enforced at the national level there but is here. This might be another cultural difference in that Americans tend to be more strict enforcing rules and laws whereas europeans have a more "fuzzy" approach to it.

Things might have changed now though, since I haven't been to a competition in France in at least 3 years...

[veeco]

Originally posted by sallearmourer
Gav, I wont do a competion without doing a least doing the mask punch test on a mask. Mainly to protect myself from all the lawyers we have here in the states.

I think it's also a more of a safety issue. Americans tend to take safety less lightly than we Europeans do. I see much more Americans wearing cups than I ever saw Europeans do.

As far as the "I don't want to be sued" issue goes, I don't understand what a punch test on masks is going to prevent. Moreover, I think that anyone fencing at NACs signs waivers agreeing that they will not hold the organizing people responsible if they are injured. As far as sueing your opponent goes, I think it would be hard to prove that it was your opponent's fault to injure you if your mask failed during a bout.

Anyway, when you have the possibility to go through a punch test on every mask I still think it's a good thing to do.

[DHCJr]

It does seem to be a cultural thing. If you look at the rulebook from 20 years ago, there were no tolerances. How exact did it need to be? Weights were assumed to weigh what they said they way. I once knew of a University that had a Foil weight that was 580 grams. Many failed when they used that weight. It wasn’t until Dan DeChaine became a member of the SEMI commission, that we started getting enforceable rules. We now have tolerances for weights, resistance in the weapon and body cord. Many of us were trained or influenced by him and Joe and Ted, so we do tend to enforce the rules more.

Also, we are protecting our own skins from the sharks out there, lawyers. No offence, one of my two best friends is a lawyer.

I’m sure every fencer would rather have the mask fail the punch test at the Armorer’s table, then on the strip.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Methix
I believe a redoublement does not go back to guard. The way I was taught a redoublement was something along the lines of lunge, arm stays extended, close distance between your feet and lunge again without ever coming up into guard.

To me that's a remise...of course, while I don't know about foil and epee, in sabre "remise" seems to have become a blanket term for ANY renewed attack, and the other terms are almost never heard...

[veeco]

Originally posted by Inquartata
To me that's a remise...of course, while I don't know about foil and epee, in sabre "remise" seems to have become a blanket term for ANY renewed attack, and the other terms are almost never heard...

I was taught that a redoublement is what Methix described. But then again, I don't fence sabre ;-).

Definitely agree with Inq on the fact that remise is very often used to cover the other 2.

[Agent_V]

Well, I have heard coaches use either remise or redoublement as a blanket term for any action after the attack. However, the three terms remise, reprise and redoublement are pretty clear from the beginning of the rulebook. However, using all three correctly when refereeing is pretty damn hard... I've only just started in earnest.
-Alexander

[edew]

A remise is a hand/weapon action. A redoublement or reprise is a whole-body action.

A remise is the continuation of an attack after it has been parried. The blade's momentum hits something after it has been parried and the riposte has commenced (or at least released its hold on the blade).

A redoublement is a forward resumption of the attack, given that the opponent has not taken over the right of way after the end of your initial attack.

A reprise is, as the question describes it, an attack following a return on guard (usually does not have right of way, in that the return to guard occurs at the same time the defender is advancing towards you with right of way, and so a second attack by you would be conducted into the opponent's right of way).

[Inquartata]

And yet, from "Modern Fencing", by Michael Alaux, p.118:

"1. Theredoublement consists of doing a second attack immediately following a recovery ( backward or forward ) from an unsuccessful first attack.

2. The reprise is usually made with a disengage from the lunging position and immediately following an unsuccessful attack. It is effective against a fencer who does not riposte ( or counterattack ) and is not aware of the close distance."

Does anyone know who wrote the glossary definitions for the USFA rule book? Obviously, for purposes of the test that definition is the final word, but I wonder whether a mistake might not have crept in when it was written and been missed in proofing.

Anyone know the FIEs definition for comparison?

[peet]

wahoo! i got 'em all right!

maybe i deserve that director's rating after all....
(or, maybe not...)

[Craig]

See page 18 of the 2002 USFA rulebook. The official definitions are there:

The remise
A simple and immediate offensive action which follows the original attack, without withdrawing the arm, after the opponent has parried or retreated, when the latter has either broken contact with the blade without riposting or has made a riposte which is delayed, indirect or compound.

The redoublement
A new action, either simple or compound, made against an opponent who has parried without riposting or who has merely avoided the first action by retreating or displacing the target.

The reprise of the attack
A new attack executed immediately after a return to the on-guard position.

[135711]

i did a lot better this time, 9 right out of 10, last time i flunked. i've been carrying around a penalty chart for about 4months, and i glance at it everyonce in a while, some of it sunk in, and last night i happened to be reading the big book of ice-cream, thusly, passing the test.

[Inquartata]

Those are indeed the official definitions, but I'm wondering why they have a greater claim to being intrinsically the right ones. Is whoever wrote them a more credible authority than Alaux? Or has he/she merely gotten the imprimatur of officialdom for his/her version?

Which is why I wonder WHO wrote the definitions for the USFA glossary. Obviously, for testing purposes one would have to use the "official" answers, even if they were in fact wrong...much like "the referee is always right".

[Stryder]

The terms reprise and redoublement are rarely heard in modern fencing because referees need not distiguish between actions not defining right of way.
Coaches use the terms reprise and redoublement and some definitions vary, but referees need use only the term remise because the other two actions decribe attacks. The referee does not need to describe what type of attack was used, he/she merely needs to drop the action into one of two categories; actions with right of way and actiosn without right of way.

Definitions of terms are often debated without respect for the fact that your coach has aa reason for calling a certain action something different from what the referee calls it.

If you execute a perfect attack right after your opponant does your action is still an attack and a very good one in your coaches eyes, but the referee will have a slightly different name for it. That doesn't make one right and one wrong.

The ref has a different language than your coach.