Parry or non-parry?

I found two references in the USFA Fencing Rules -2000 Edition that direct
the referee to make a judgement call on the sufficieny of a parry:


t.56(a)6 - Referees must ensure that a mere contact of the blades is not
considered sufficient...
t.60-2(a) - Referres must ensure that a mere grazing of the blades is not
considered as sufficient...

Tom

"Don Badowski" <Donq@totheescrime.org> wrote in message
news:ef4fb76.0302111505.566b9052@posting.google.co m...
> Here's a thought: Strong against weak?
>
> Perhaps the referee couldn't see if Fencer A's point was deflected,
> but he should be able to tell if Fencer A had to make another action
> to fix the point. If he did, its Fencer B's touché.
>
> > In my experience, the referee will call this B's parry even if the blade
> > isn't deflected from the target. And this makes sense, since the referee
> > can't be expected to be able to see if the point was deflected or not.
> > Maybe when the foils have laser pointers tied onto the tip, but not now.
> >
> > The referee listens for the parry.

In article <3E4C3A40.6040004@qwest.net>, "R.S.E." <rse2@qwest.net> writes:

>Geeze Bryan what is your problem! Get a grip, firm but not too firm, as
>one would hold a live bird, but no you are probably a "modern" fencer
>using an orthotic? grip so this may be outside your experience.
>Consider that you or I may not know everything.

Clearly, you do not know much about this newsgroup, or you would know that
Bryan IS more interested in classical fencing that sport fencing; also, you
also appear lacking in some of the fine points of sport fencing, as even
orthotic (aka orthopedic) handles are more effective when held with a more
'open' hand, such as you describe. Granted, many beginers, and intermeditate
level practitioners DO employ the 'Death grip', but this is the fault of the
human, not the hardware.

In article
<Tvb4a.57419$zF6.3921085@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Tom" <t.buesing@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
> I found two references in the USFA Fencing Rules -2000 Edition that direct
> the referee to make a judgement call on the sufficieny of a parry:
>
>
> t.56(a)6 - Referees must ensure that a mere contact of the blades is not
> considered sufficient...
> t.60-2(a) - Referres must ensure that a mere grazing of the blades is not
> considered as sufficient...
>


But there's a LOT of middle ground between "merest grazing" and
"knocking the point off target." I can graze your blade and barely make
a sound; that might not be a parry. OTOH, a beat parry that makes a loud
sound might not deflect the point off target, but would probably be
called a parry.

And the important thing is not the exact wording of the rules, but how
you'll actually see it called if you go to a fencing meet.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

In article
<Tvb4a.57419$zF6.3921085@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Tom" <t.buesing@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
> I found two references in the USFA Fencing Rules -2000 Edition that direct
> the referee to make a judgement call on the sufficieny of a parry:
>
>
> t.56(a)6 - Referees must ensure that a mere contact of the blades is not
> considered sufficient...
> t.60-2(a) - Referres must ensure that a mere grazing of the blades is not
> considered as sufficient...
>


But there's a LOT of middle ground between "merest grazing" and
"knocking the point off target." I can graze your blade and barely make
a sound; that might not be a parry. OTOH, a beat parry that makes a loud
sound might not deflect the point off target, but would probably be
called a parry.

And the important thing is not the exact wording of the rules, but how
you'll actually see it called if you go to a fencing meet.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

I am not saying that the referee should be a "protractor." Rather,
referees should judge parries the same way they judge right of way.
That is, by the general character of the motion.

No high level referees actually watch the elbow joint to see if it is
bending or unbending. They watch the fencer as a whole, to see if he
is attacking, or preparing (yes this does include their arm motion,
but it is of a general nature, not a specific definition).

The same should apply to parries. If an unwitting spectator would
describe the action as a light grazing of the blade, then it is not a
parry. If it is a clear and forceful motion, then it is a parry.
Everything in between is left to the discretion of the referee, as in
right of way.

I am not saying that the referee should be a "protractor." Rather,
referees should judge parries the same way they judge right of way.
That is, by the general character of the motion.

No high level referees actually watch the elbow joint to see if it is
bending or unbending. They watch the fencer as a whole, to see if he
is attacking, or preparing (yes this does include their arm motion,
but it is of a general nature, not a specific definition).

The same should apply to parries. If an unwitting spectator would
describe the action as a light grazing of the blade, then it is not a
parry. If it is a clear and forceful motion, then it is a parry.
Everything in between is left to the discretion of the referee, as in
right of way.

apaul@comcast.net (Lion) wrote
>
> No high level referees actually watch the elbow joint to see if it is
> bending or unbending.

Pardon, but this generalization is based on...what? Have you talked
this over with every single "high level" referee personally? How in
short can you know this to be the case?

Watching the tapes of the sabre fencing in the most recent World Cup,
the
slo-mo replay revealed that what looked to be simultaneous actions at
speed weren't...and in each case the only apparent difference was that
one fencer began extending fractionally ahead of the other. The refs
may indeed have been watching "the fencer as a whole", but it sure
looked like it was that extension they were seeing to award ROW.

apaul@comcast.net (Lion) wrote
>
> No high level referees actually watch the elbow joint to see if it is
> bending or unbending.

Pardon, but this generalization is based on...what? Have you talked
this over with every single "high level" referee personally? How in
short can you know this to be the case?

Watching the tapes of the sabre fencing in the most recent World Cup,
the
slo-mo replay revealed that what looked to be simultaneous actions at
speed weren't...and in each case the only apparent difference was that
one fencer began extending fractionally ahead of the other. The refs
may indeed have been watching "the fencer as a whole", but it sure
looked like it was that extension they were seeing to award ROW.

Harold Buck wrote:
> In article
> <Tvb4a.57419$zF6.3921085@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Tom" <t.buesing@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > I found two references in the USFA Fencing Rules -2000 Edition that d=
irect
> > the referee to make a judgement call on the sufficieny of a parry:
> >
> > t.56(a)6 - Referees must ensure that a mere contact of the blades is =
not
> > considered sufficient...
> > t.60-2(a) - Referres must ensure that a mere grazing of the blades is=
not
> > considered as sufficient...
>
> But there's a LOT of middle ground between "merest grazing" and
> "knocking the point off target." I can graze your blade and barely make=

> a sound; that might not be a parry. OTOH, a beat parry that makes a lou=
d
> sound might not deflect the point off target, but would probably be
> called a parry.
> =

> And the important thing is not the exact wording of the rules, but how
> you'll actually see it called if you go to a fencing meet.
> =

> --Harold Buck
> =


Harold: =

The exact wording of the rules is CRITICAL! Here's what t.56(a)6
says in its entirety:

If the attack is initiated when the opponent is =91point in line=92 =

(cf. t.10), the attacker must, first, deflect the opponent=92s blade.
Referees must ensure that a mere contact of the blades is not
considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent=92s blade (cf. =

t.60/2a).

There is no mention of a parry in this rule. Parries are defensive.
This rule concerns an attacker's action. Tom was mistaken
in his citation. =


Tom: =

It's impossible to misunderstand this rule if you keep it
in context. Acrobat's search function is no substitute =

for reading the rule book.

Joe

Harold Buck wrote:
> In article
> <Tvb4a.57419$zF6.3921085@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Tom" <t.buesing@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > I found two references in the USFA Fencing Rules -2000 Edition that d=
irect
> > the referee to make a judgement call on the sufficieny of a parry:
> >
> > t.56(a)6 - Referees must ensure that a mere contact of the blades is =
not
> > considered sufficient...
> > t.60-2(a) - Referres must ensure that a mere grazing of the blades is=
not
> > considered as sufficient...
>
> But there's a LOT of middle ground between "merest grazing" and
> "knocking the point off target." I can graze your blade and barely make=

> a sound; that might not be a parry. OTOH, a beat parry that makes a lou=
d
> sound might not deflect the point off target, but would probably be
> called a parry.
> =

> And the important thing is not the exact wording of the rules, but how
> you'll actually see it called if you go to a fencing meet.
> =

> --Harold Buck
> =


Harold: =

The exact wording of the rules is CRITICAL! Here's what t.56(a)6
says in its entirety:

If the attack is initiated when the opponent is =91point in line=92 =

(cf. t.10), the attacker must, first, deflect the opponent=92s blade.
Referees must ensure that a mere contact of the blades is not
considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent=92s blade (cf. =

t.60/2a).

There is no mention of a parry in this rule. Parries are defensive.
This rule concerns an attacker's action. Tom was mistaken
in his citation. =


Tom: =

It's impossible to misunderstand this rule if you keep it
in context. Acrobat's search function is no substitute =

for reading the rule book.

Joe

In article <3E56B8F3.B760C5A9@patriot.net>,
Jonathan Hoffman <jhoffman@patriot.net> wrote:

> Harold:
> The exact wording of the rules is CRITICAL! Here's what t.56(a)6
> says in its entirety:
>
> 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 blades is not
> considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent’s blade (cf.
> t.60/2a).
>
> There is no mention of a parry in this rule. Parries are defensive.
> This rule concerns an attacker's action. Tom was mistaken
> in his citation.


You know, as I thought about his cite off-line, it occured to me that
the "mere contact of the blades" thing was somethign I recalled from
point-in-line but not from the rules about parrying. Oh, well.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

In article <3E56B8F3.B760C5A9@patriot.net>,
Jonathan Hoffman <jhoffman@patriot.net> wrote:

> Harold:
> The exact wording of the rules is CRITICAL! Here's what t.56(a)6
> says in its entirety:
>
> 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 blades is not
> considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent’s blade (cf.
> t.60/2a).
>
> There is no mention of a parry in this rule. Parries are defensive.
> This rule concerns an attacker's action. Tom was mistaken
> in his citation.


You know, as I thought about his cite off-line, it occured to me that
the "mere contact of the blades" thing was somethign I recalled from
point-in-line but not from the rules about parrying. Oh, well.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson