Teaching Foil Counter Time

[Bonehead]

I'm not sure where anyone would be confused by the call of "parry and riposte", no matter who started the action.

I'm also confused how a "specific tactical situation" can exist if there is no consensus on what that situation is.

I think you can begin to see my objections. "Counter-time" as a tactical concept is a construct that doesn't really exist in foil. If you're making the attack, there isn't any reason to break it off. If you're not making an attack, then you're in preparation, and the attack against the preparation must be defeated.

As tbryan points out, the only reason to interrupt an attack to find the opponent's blade is if: a) the referee is unable to understand that an attack is, and gives the priority to (in most cases) the fastest mover or, b) you can't put your point on the target and you want to make sure that there is only one light on the machine, so you break off the attack to find the blade and hold it in order to have enough time to place your point.

I'm annoyed when a referee calls an action "counter-time", but I can live with it. Explaining counter-time to the opponent, however, is right out.

A

Okay, so counter-time is technically a riposte right?

So FOL starts an attack, in fact lets say she starts her lunge at this point too. FOR counter attacks. FOL chooses (for whatever reason) to parry the counter attack, during her lunge (I'd find it pretty hard to call lunging preparation). And then FOL hits with riposte.

So the call is "[Counter time] Riposte from the left".

If you omit the counter time it's seems like a really weird call, because;

FOL on the left starts an attack, there is blade contact, both fencers hit. If you say just riposte it really implies that it's going to be touch for FOR. If you say riposte by FOL, then a lot of people are going to think you're either mental, or a terrible ref, because FOL clearly was the attacker. Maybe some people watching think it wasn't a counter time riposte, but a mid-lunge beat, which is really not all that disimilar. They would expect a beat attack call.

I find just putting that "Counter time" is less to explain to the fencers what happened, but more to clarify and make sure everyone's on the same page. I agree there is no necessity in explaining why it was counter time and not something else. But it's kind of like the case where a [bad] ref just raises his hand and says 'point!'. Sure the point went to the right side, but your really sceptical that it happened for the right (or at least reasonable) reasons. The clarification is not to give the fencers tactical information, it's to assuage fears.

[Adler]

Okay, so counter-time is technically a riposte right?

Not necessarily counter-time can equally be a thrust with opposition, a beat, angulation or any action used against a counter attack.
The exception is in Italian and Hungarian fencing theory counter-time is specifically a counter attack against your opponents feint counter-attack.

[Adler]

Here's quite an interesting video about 2nd intention counter time amoung other things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l85ziDcs9vE

It's no expert village but the information seems valid

[fatfencer]

Not necessarily counter-time can equally be a thrust with opposition, a beat, angulation or any action used against a counter attack.
The exception is in Italian and Hungarian fencing theory counter-time is specifically a counter attack against your opponents feint counter-attack.

The part in bold is not what gaugler seems to say in his book Science of fencing.

To me contretemps WOULD imply what you wrote.. things like stop hits, AIP etc.. The usage of contretemps in fencing seems to contradict the usage of the word outside fencing.

I don't remember what Nadi says on the subject, only that he said something and I dont have the book with me.

I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong on the subject... but I am curious to know why they call using a bad attack to draw AIP a 'contretemps'.

FF

[Jason]

Here's quite an interesting video about 2nd intention counter time amoung other things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l85ziDcs9vE

It's no expert village but the information seems valid

Who's that guy? Never heard of him.

[Adler]

Who's that guy? Never heard of him.

I think he's been involved in the sport for a couple of years and trained a one or two of relatively good fencers. It's not like he wrote the book or anything...

[Adler]

The part in bold is not what gaugler seems to say in his book Science of fencing.

To me contretemps WOULD imply what you wrote.. things like stop hits, AIP etc.. The usage of contretemps in fencing seems to contradict the usage of the word outside fencing.

I don't remember what Nadi says on the subject, only that he said something and I dont have the book with me.

I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong on the subject... but I am curious to know why they call using a bad attack to draw AIP a 'contretemps'.

FF

Having looked at the definition again in Szabo and Vass's book counter time in the Italian sense is defined as "a pre-emptive counter attack into a counter attack".
What's Gaugler's definition?

[Allen Evans]

I think he's been involved in the sport for a couple of years and trained a one or two of relatively good fencers. It's not like he wrote the book or anything...

...and he definately needs to find a new barber.

[Jason]

...and he definately needs to find a new barber.

But that look was the rage in Eastern Europe in 1992!

[Bonehead]

But that look was the rage in Eastern Europe in 1992!

I think you'll find the correct term is "Central Europe"

[tbryan]

If only the referee can decide if an action is counter-time, does counter-time really exist in foil?

Was that a joke? Sometimes I can't tell.

When I first took the referee seminar, the referee/coach who taught it emphasized that the referee uses a limited vocabulary and that some of the words that the referee uses are often used by coaches to mean something different (.e.g, reprise). I just keep those meanings separate and understand them each in their context.

As a coach, if I use counter-time to mean some specific action in a specific context, and my fencers understand what that means and can use it to score touches in foil, then I'd say that counter-time "exists" in foil no matter what the referee calls it. Well...as long as he doesn't call it a beat attack that scores against my fencer.

[Jason]

I think you'll find the correct term is "Central Europe"

The borders of geography can't stop fashion!

[oiuyt]

Hmmm...should a referee ever say "counter-time"? It smacks of giving away tactical information to the opponent*.

Look at the digram in the lower right of Figure 3a of the rulebook (FIE or USA Fencing).

Unless your question was speculation about a potential change in the rules.

-B

[tbryan]

should a referee ever say "counter-time"? It smacks of giving away tactical information to the opponent

Is it any more information than a more complete reconstruction?

Attack.
No.
Counter attack.
Parry.
Riposte.
Touch.

Would you have a problem if the referee said all of that every time instead of saying "counter-time"?

And is that any more information than other phrases that the referee reconstructs? If he couldn't say counter-time, would he be allowed to distinguish between a counter attack and an attack in preparation? What about "two attacks" vs. "attack, counter attack"?

[Bonehead]

Is it any more information than a more complete reconstruction?

Attack.
No.
Counter attack.
Parry.
Riposte.
Touch.

Would you have a problem if the referee said all of that every time instead of saying "counter-time"?

And is that any more information than other phrases that the referee reconstructs? If he couldn't say counter-time, would he be allowed to distinguish between a counter attack and an attack in preparation? What about "two attacks" vs. "attack, counter attack"?

Actually I was thinking about that, the attack doesn't actually miss, or really even end, so much as it is abandoned to become a riposte. Saying attack no, counter attack, sort of implies that the attacker missed, but had he just finished he would still have priority. It's some how different. It's more like:

Attack
....
Counter attack
Parry.
Riposte.
Touche.

[Allen Evans]

Was that a joke? Sometimes I can't tell.

It's quite well known that I am NOT funny. Certainly not on the internet. Consider it, instead, a philosophical rambling.

I think that this has been covered pretty thoroughly, and the OP even has a couple of answers to his original question, if he's been paying attention.

I do think it's important, with all the timing changes, and everything else that foil has been going through that sometimes we ask questions like: "Does counter-time in foil really exist?". There is still too much that we talk about in fencing that's based on very old information (arm always goes first, the point in the parry shouldn't leave the target, etc.) that we should occasionally question and doubt. It's good for us, and it's good for fencing.

A

[Allen Evans]

It's more like:

Attack
....
Counter attack
Parry.
Riposte.
Touche.

If I were the fencer here, I would be very confused. What happened to my original attack?

A

[Bonehead]

If I were the fencer here, I would be very confused. What happened to my original attack?

A

Yeah exactly my point. This is why it makes sense to call counter time. The concept of abandoning your priority to do something that regains it sort of falls outside of the turn taking scope of other official referee calls, it merits it's own call.

If you say counter time riposte, the attacking fencer understand that he started first, the defending fencer understands that you didn't consider their action the attack, and people might disagree with it, but the call is clear.

[oiuyt]

I think that this has been covered pretty thoroughly, and the OP even has a couple of answers to his original question, if he's been paying attention.

Which is why we still have work to do with regards to obsfuscation, thread drift and irrelevancies.

-B

[Allen Evans]

I know, Brad, that you'll do your part.