When is a parry really a parry

[gofence]

Hi,
I have just started fencing foil again after a fifteen year leave of absence and I am a little confused about the rules on when a parry is a parry and when it is not.

When I was learning to fence foil - oh so many years ago - I was taught that a parry had to deflect the attackers point away from the target. If you touched the attackers blade but it still managed to hit on-target (in the same movement - no remise or anything) then you had performed an ineffective parry and the point went to the attacker even if you riposted.

Now on my comeback trail I have noticed that some referees have a different interpretation. This interpretaion says that the defender merely needs to find the blade in order to be considered as having parried and get the right of way to riposte.

Now I am prepared to adapt my fencing to either rule if somebody can just tell me which is the correct one. I have read the British fencing rules for competitions and they are not entirely clear on the subject as both interpretations are possible based on what is written there. Funnnily enough, though, the definition of a parry in sabre is much clearer.

As a result I would welcome all feedback on the subject of when is a parry - a parry? A good way to disccuss the matter is probably to use an example. Who should get the point in the following scenario - which happened to me at the fencing club this evening.
Fencer A does a disengage attack. Fencer B finds the blade with a parry and although he fails to deflect the blade he immediately ripostes. The attack of A lands on target in the low, line, in the single movement (ie no remise) because his blade has not actually been deflected. Barely a moment later B's flicked riposte lands on the shoulder of A. Both lights are on and both fencers are staring at the ref - but who should get the point?

gofence

[pkt]

gofence,

I happen to have the 2000 British FIE rules here courtesy of a friend from England.

The index lists under 'Parry: t.7, t.9, t.57, t.79
t.7
The defensive actions are the parries.
- The parry is the defensive action made with the weapon to prevent an offensive action arriving.

All the others explain the RoW and state the immediacy of the riposte, etc.

Judging from what you wrote I think you are confusing the parry with the beat.

t.56/6.If the attack is initiated when the opponent is 'point in line' (cf. t.10), the attacker must, first, deflect the opponent's blade. Referees must ensure that a mere contact of the blade is not considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent's blade. (cf. t60/2a).

t.10 defines what is a 'point in line'
t60/2a defines who is hit if the looking of hte blade fails.

In your example, my instinctive call is:
attack parried;
immeidate riposte is good;
rimise is good.
Point for the riposte.

Then I re-read the scenario and noticed you did not mention when A's blade was found.
Was A's blade found while he was executing the disengagement or during the attack?
That said, I come back to my initial call.
Point for B.

Reason: the parry does not have to deflect the attack.

If the attack arrives at the same time as the parry, then it's an insufficient parry. Attack is good.

If the attack arrives after the blade contact, then it's been parried.

In the last case, if the riposte starts immediately, i.e. without hesitation, after the contact, then riposte is good. Remise is no good.

I hope this helps.

I'm sure you'll get some opinions on this.

Enjoy it.

PK

[Danzan]

Heh. And here I'd been wondering if it was just me, or the difference of coaches. I was away from fencing for about 12 -13 years, and experienced the same thing when I came back. My current coach was teaching the parry as much quicker and lighter, than I had learned all those years ago. ("Ah, when I was young, a parry really was a parry..." )

So I'm interested in hearing more about this as well.

[Inquartata]

A parry is...whatever the referee says it is.

Given their perspective on the action, it can be really difficult to tell whether or not a lateral parry really "deflects" an attack or moves it momentarily out of line of the target---especially at full fencing speed. Hence there is a strong tendency to call virtually any blade contact a parry, especially if it is plainly audible, even if it is indeed very slight and would not "if the blades were sharp" meet anyone's definition of a parry. It's just the way the game has evolved.

[edew]

I have been fencing for well over twenty years and have not noticed any particular change among the referees as to how to determine whether a parry is a parry or not.

Very seldom would an intended parry that includes actual blade engagement be called anything but a parry.

One exception would be if fencer A makes a beat while fencer B parries that beat. In that case, it's usually called as fencer A's beat. Parrying a beat is usually not called as a parry, although if the action was executed poorly by fencer A and rightly by fencer B, the referee may lean towards fencer B's parry.

Anyway, the belief that a slight "tick" on the oncoming blade is not sufficient to move it from the target is quite wrong. If one were to see some televised actions and see the action occurring in real-time, one might think that the attacking blade was barely touched. But in slo-mo, one can see that the barely touched blade has in fact had its tip move quite a ways away from the target, and then spring back quickly back towards the target. But that would constitute a sufficient parry under any rule book, current or previous editions.

In summary, there has not been any change, as far as I can tell, in how referees decide to call a parry a parry. Any contact is rightly called a parry, because it does, indeed, move the point out of line.

Incidental contact, as the rulebook mentions, really pertain to counterattacks that also include touching of the blades. That is, contact where there was no intent to make contact.

In a nutshell, if I intend to make contact, and indeed make contact, then it's a parry. If I don't intend on making contact, yet contact between blades occurred, then it may be construed as incidental. That also includes attempts at closing out during a counterattack. In many instances, I might try to counterattack with a close-out attempt included. If the attack arrives, even if there's blade contact, the attack counts, and the blade engagement is not (usually) considered a parry.

[gofence]

pkt,
I too have a copy of the 2000 British FIE rules and have looked at the sections you quote - again, and again. My problem is that the rule book is contradictory on the subject of what is a parry.

t.7
- The parry is the defensive action made with the weapon to prevent an offensive action arriving.

t8/c/1
The remise
A simple and immediate offensive action which follows the original attack, without withdrawing the arm, after the opponent has parried or retreated.

Now this is what I remember from the pre-history period of my university fencing days when my example would have resulted in a hit for A because B just plain failed to prevent the attack from arriving. Also A's action is not a remise because it is not a second attack - he only makes the one action.

But I can also see where the alternative definition of a parry as merely finding the blade is coming from:

t.58
- When a compound attack is made, if the opponent finds the blade during one of the feints, he has the right to riposte.

However, even if one goes with this lighter definition of a parry there is another part of the rule book which suggests that it applies only to compound attacks with feints.

t.60/3/b
says the attacker is counted as hit
- If during a compound attack his opponent finds his blade but he continues the attack and his opponents ripostes immediately.

So is one meant to think that a parry is a different beast when met in different situations?
- it is only in compund attacks with feints that the mildest definition "find the blade" qualifies the defender to riposte
- in simple attacks, the defender must really parry (ie deflect) the blade before riposting

Balancing these different definitions in the way that is consistent with all parts of the rule book, the point in my example again goes to A because it is a simple attack. If however the attack had been compound with at least one feint then the point would have gone to B.

At the end of the day though, Inquartata is correct when he says the parry is whatever the referee says it is. ( I would just like to know which referees to curse under my breath - and those to praise)

gofence

[gofence]

Edew,
I agree with your comments that real parries will deflect the opponents blade - even if it sometimes doesnt look as though they have because of the speed of the action.

My question has arisen because here in Scotland some clubs are actively teaching that parries do not need to deflect the blade and that any contact is a parry. This is quite different from your view which implies that you are at least trying to deflect the blade. There is a big difference between arguing whether a parry has actually deflected the blade - and aguing whether a parry needs to deflect the blade.

Because these fencers are not actively attempting to deflect the blade - they frequently dont. It is not unusual for these fencers to make only the lightest of blade contact before riposting and unfortunately who gets the point frequently depends on who is judging. If the referee is from one of the "any contact will do clubs" the defender gets the point. If the referee is from the "parries must deflect the blade" school of thought then the attacker gets the point.

What this means is that every time you step onto the piste you have to know the background of the referee as well as your opponent and adjust your fencing accordingly. All I really want is consistency of judging one way or the other.

gofence

[Gav]

Originally posted by gofence


My question has arisen because here in Scotland some clubs are actively teaching that parries do not need to deflect the blade and that any contact is a parry. This is quite different from your view which implies that you are at least trying to deflect the blade. There is a big difference between arguing whether a parry has actually deflected the blade - and aguing whether a parry needs to deflect the blade.

Which clubs are actively teaching this? I'm not aware of any clubs that teach anything other than what a parry is - an attempt to deflect the attacking point away from target.

Perhaps people are getting confused with the concept of ROW and how this relates to parries?

I gave up Foil years ago preecisely because of the poor standard of Foil presiding in the UK. In fact in a recent bulletin to FIE ref's it was noted that Foil is the worst presided of all weapons [worldwide] with Sabre being the best (Epee has the 'honour' of being listed as the most violent - LOL).

[gofence]

Hi Gav,
I dont really want to "name names" because I dont think its very nice to do so - but I will say that the most obvious paractitioner of the "any contact will do" school of thought is a kids club. And it is at kids level competitions that I see the widest diversion in the interpretaion of what qualifies as a parry.

As many of the referees at kids level competitions are either quite elderly or just parents helping out it is no real surprise that the decision making lacks consistency. If their eyesight is not as good as it used to be then the oral cue of blade contact is purely what they go on. And parents will obviously preside in line with the interpretation of the rules that their kids have learnt. If their kids have been taught that any contact will do - then its understandable that they will referree in such a manner.

Now dont get me wrong I think its great that people give up their time and volunteer to help at the competitions because without them the kids wouldnt get to fight at all. So in general anybody who helps out gets my total support. I am just try to educate myself as to whether this "any contact will do" interpretation is a general trend in foil fencing or a more localised development in the fencing clubs near me.

Now I really like foil and dont want to change to another weapon just out of frustration with the standard of foil refereeing - like I know so many other people have done. But maybe a switch to Sabre is on the cards.

gofence

[Gav]

I agree that it might not be very nice to name names - I was just being curious.

SF recently put round a request for volunteers to go for a refereeing course but this never happened as thre weren't enough numbers. If you are heavily involved in the Schools circuit then why not bring up the subject with the parents who regularly attend and 'preside'? It would give them a better understanding of the game that their children are involved in, and potentially raise the standard of the schools circuit.

[gofence]

Gav,
Yeah - I was one of the "too few" that asked/volunteered for the refereeing course. Basically I want to increase my own knowledge base before raising my head above the parapet and starting a dialogue on the standard of refereeing on the schools and youth circuit. Safety first!!

At the moment I actually feel quite sorry for the refs on the school circuit. They normally squash so many pistes into the hall that they have to stand virtually on top of the fencers and can really only see the scoring box - not the fencing action itself. Then you add in the parents who stand menacingly in the wings and you have a recipe for inconsistency. I was particularly amused at a recent competition where it rapidely became apparent that one of the presidents was quite young (20's) and very nervous - and he basically gave the point to the fencer whose parents cheered loudest. It was only amusing because my children were not involved on his piste.

gofence

[Gav]

I volunteered as well.

I don't see any harm in sticking your head up and making a suggestion. I firrmly believe that all ideas brought to the table for improving the standard ofour chosen sport should be considered not just rejected 'because you don't know enough'. I find that the Fencing community is a fairly close friendly group I doubt that any suggestion which has th. In Scotland I find that the main barrier to improvement [in any sport] is apathy. If people can be encouraged to take a more active role then I believe that we can certainly take major strides forward.

[edew]

The point is this: if I INTEND to parry and actually find your blade while doing it, then it's a parry, regardless of whether it really deflected or not, because the combination of intent and engagement equals parry.

[The_Claw]

Originally posted by pkt
gofence,

I happen to have the 2000 British FIE rules here courtesy of a friend from England.

The index lists under 'Parry: t.7, t.9, t.57, t.79
t.7
The defensive actions are the parries.
- The parry is the defensive action made with the weapon to prevent an offensive action arriving.

All the others explain the RoW and state the immediacy of the riposte, etc.

Judging from what you wrote I think you are confusing the parry with the beat.

t.56/6.If the attack is initiated when the opponent is 'point in line' (cf. t.10), the attacker must, first, deflect the opponent's blade. Referees must ensure that a mere contact of the blade is not considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent's blade. (cf. t60/2a).

t.10 defines what is a 'point in line'
t60/2a defines who is hit if the looking of hte blade fails.

In your example, my instinctive call is:
attack parried;
immeidate riposte is good;
rimise is good.
Point for the riposte.

Then I re-read the scenario and noticed you did not mention when A's blade was found.
Was A's blade found while he was executing the disengagement or during the attack?
That said, I come back to my initial call.
Point for B.

Reason: the parry does not have to deflect the attack.

If the attack arrives at the same time as the parry, then it's an insufficient parry. Attack is good.

If the attack arrives after the blade contact, then it's been parried.

In the last case, if the riposte starts immediately, i.e. without hesitation, after the contact, then riposte is good. Remise is no good.

I hope this helps.

I'm sure you'll get some opinions on this.

Enjoy it.

PK

This is very interesting, gofence has the same experience as I. I like the clarity of the rules as stated above. you have to move the point off out of the way, your point has to 'arrive', land, get on the target. So, I feel that for the fencer's benefit, parry as hard as you want, you're not there to help someone else win a bout, you may look like a windshield wiper, but who cares?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by gofence
Now I really like foil and dont want to change to another weapon just out of frustration with the standard of foil refereeing - like I know so many other people have done. But maybe a switch to Sabre is on the cards.

That's a heartwarming statement to us sabrists, but, truth be told, we have some of the same issues with parry calls that foil does. Some refs reward the faintest of tinks with a parry call, others require you to physically "close the line" with a discernable movement of the hand/wrist/blade.

With our larger bell guards, we also have another issue...attack "on the guard" vs mal parry. With some referees, if you land on the guard and the fencer's arm at the same time, they'll call it a mal parry if the defender made little movement to close the line. Other refs will always call a hit that touches the guard in any way as having been parried.

It just proves that you have to fence the referee as much as your opponent.

[Purple Fencer]

Originally posted by edew
The point is this: if I INTEND to parry and actually find your blade while doing it, then it's a parry, regardless of whether it really deflected or not, because the combination of intent and engagement equals parry.

THANK you, Eric! That's the simplest description I've heard yet...and it dovetails nicely with what I remember from Derek Cotton's directing clinic a couple of years back (the one right before the Palm Springs NAC where I botched my foil practical.)

Note to self -- remember that description for the next sabee class on Wednesday...

[edew]

Doesn't quite work in sabre, though, as it's not always clear whether an attempt to find the blade is an intent to parry versus a bad attempt at trying to hit the wrist.

If I cut at your weak part of the blade, that's the cue to the referee to interpret that action as an attempt to parry: your intention is to parry (or beat). If you cut at the strong part of the blade, that's a cue to the referee to interpret that action as possibly a bad attempt at parrying or a bad attempt at stop-cutting to the wrist. In either case, you won't gain right of way immediately after the blades contact each other.

[pkt]

gofence,

Wow!! The Scots parry with their mouths? Then they're tougher than Rob Roy!!!
"...then the oral cue of blade contact is purely what they go on."

Oh, you mean aural. Now I get it. I'm just a poor Chinese guy trying to learn 'proper English'.

--)----------------

I think In4 is correct to have written
"A parry is...whatever the referee says it is."
It is the ref who interpretes the rules.
It is he/she who sees the actions and calls it the way he sees it.

I know it sounds like a cop out but that's life. If you don't like it just think of ice dancing...

--)----------------

edew, gofence, et al,

I think that's the reason why the rules are written the way - read vague - as they are.

t.7
- The parry is the defensive action made with the weapon to prevent an offensive action arriving.

None of the other sections other than t56/6 and the equivalents in the epee and sabre sections specifically spell out the deflection of the opponent's blade in a parry.

edew,

'Any contact is rightly called a parry, because it does, indeed, move the point out of line.'

You found the blade that's good, but it could be a beat, it could be a parry, but it definitely is a defensive action. Therefore the rules, in order to accomodate as many situations as possible, have to be vague. As a result one sees 'if the opponent finds the blade' in stead of spelling out if it is a parry or a beat or whatever.

"If I cut at your weak part of the blade, that's the cue to the referee to interpret that action as an attempt to parry ..."

[An attempt to parry by whom? Not by 'I'.
A cut to the foilble is a beat, by definition, in sabre, not a parry.
-PK]

"...: your intention is to parry (or beat). If you cut at the strong part of the blade, that's a cue to the referee to interpret that action as possibly a bad attempt at parrying or a bad attempt at stop-cutting to the wrist."

[A cut that lands on the strong part of the blade is parried BY DEFINITION. The ref can and should only call what he sees, not to read the attempts... - PK]

"...In either case, you won't gain right of way immediately after the blades contact each other."

In sabre, an attack that lands on the opponent's blade or guard is parried whether the defender intends to parry or not. A lot of refs in fact call the latter incorrectly: i.e. a cut that lands on the guard then finishes on target should rightly be called thusly:
attack: no - give hand signal for parried
remise: yes - give hand signal for hit.

--)----------------

Gav,

"I gave up Foil years ago preecisely because of the poor standard of Foil presiding in the UK. In fact in a recent bulletin to FIE ref's it was noted that Foil is the worst presided of all weapons [worldwide] with Sabre being the best (Epee has the 'honour' of being listed as the most violent - LOL)."

I have to agree with the FIE.

If only the foil refs will enforce the def. of an attack, then 'flick' attacks will disappear.

2002 Rev A

2. Offensive and defensive actions
t.7 The offensive actions are the attack, the riposte and the counter-riposte.
—The attack is the initial offensive action made by extending the arm and continuously threatening the opponent’s target, preceding the launching of the lunge or flèche (cf. t.56ss, t.75ss).

Foil
"t.56(a) Every attack, that is every initial offensive action, which is correctly executed must be parried or completely avoided and the phrase must be followed through — that is to say, coordinated (cf.t.7).
In order to judge the correctness of an attack the following points must be considered:
The simple attack, direct or indirect (cf. t.8), is correctly executed when the extending of the arm, the point threatening the valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge or the fleche."

Sabre
"t.75(a) Any attack properly executed (cf. t.7) must be parried, or completely avoided, and the phrase must be followed through.
(b) The attack is correctly carried out when the straightening of thearm, with the point or the cutting edge continuously threateningthe valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge."

Notice that the word "continuously" has been removed from t.56.(a). IMHO this is the source of the 'poor' refing in foil.

PK

[The_Claw]

here's what i've done in the past, as soon as i feel that a ref is listening for the ping, move the feet, because for me, there's so many pings going on, i don't know if [no offense to anyone here, but,] anyone can follow every sound, so move quickly back and i avoid the blade, no contact, coupe, over the blade, and touche![on a good day]

p.s. what i just realized also, in fencing epee, the parry is part of the strategy, you can decide not to parry and go into an 'impalement' if you will, to get a double touch to save yourself for the next touch, especially when you're close to the end of the bout and you have to have the touch, you can forego, parry/riposte, but then later on, if you need to take time overall, you can parry like mad and etc. [don't forget, me and the epee are just one year old- i mean, i don't know very much].

[Inquartata]

I still don't think it's QUITE as simple as Eric makes it out. pkt noted the reason above.


I have many times done parries and beats which met Eric's criteria, and it was even plain that the opponent's blade was very definitely deflected. In fact there have been times when one such nearly disarmed an opponent. Yet I was NOT awarded the parry. Why? "Your beat was on his forte, so it's HIS parry. QED." Just the way the rules are. So I can knock his blade into next week, and if he somehow manages to hit me, however late, it will still be his riposte if I parried his forte with my foible. And a little "tink" there won't have a chance of being called valid, despite my intent to parry and finding his blade. Is this not the same in foil? If you tap the last inch of your blade against his forte, you have not parried despite your intent and success at finding his blade, have you?