Avoiding a riposte

[rsy]

I recently saw a foil bout where the director carded a fencer for avoiding a riposte.

The carded fencer initiated an attack which was parried. As the opponent executed his riposte, the carded fencer continued his forward motion so that he was inside the guard of his opponent and then stepped past him. There were no lights nor was there any contact between the fencers.

When the card was awarded, the fencer asked the director if there had been a corps a corps. The director said no and that the card was not being given for a corps a corps to avoid a touch. The director said that the penalty was for, “closing distance to avoid a riposte.”

I have looked at the rules, but I can not find any such penalty. Can anyone enlighten me or was this just a strange call?

[CarlKnoch]

The only thing I know about avoiding a touch is that in foil and saber if you step off the strip to avoid a touch it's a yellow card. Not a touch mind you, but a yellow card. Subsequent cards would be a touch. If the guy already had a yellow, and stepped off the strip to avoid a touch, then a touch should be awarded with the red card.

I've never heard of awarding a touch because you avoided a touch in any other way.

[Marcos]

sounds to me the president was making-up rules as he went along...

[Craig]

rsy - email me on this one. I'm curious as to who/where that was.

Cheers,
Craig

webmaster@fencing.net

[Craig]

Originally posted by rsy
The director said that the penalty was for, “closing distance to avoid a riposte.”

I can find no such rule within the foil or general sections of the rule book.

There are rules for stepping off of the strip to avoid the touch and for corps-a-corps, but nothing for making it tough on your opponent to hit you. (Isn't that why we practice infighting.)

Craig

[jesup]

One of the points of the fleche is that if it fails, you're often too close (or past) and the riposte becomes hard/impossible with the point. So this director was apparently taking hallucinogens. (In sabre it used to be possible to riposte a parried fleche without too much trouble since it's not a point weapon.)

[nahouw]

Originally posted by rsy
The director said that the penalty was for, “closing distance to avoid a riposte.”

I have looked at the rules, but I can not find any such penalty. Can anyone enlighten me or was this just a strange call?

You'll only find older referees that will apply this. Another thing omitted from the rules upon simplification, however, there are other rules which would cover this, depending upon the particulars, I would have had to see it to apply any of these alternates: corps-a-corps to avoid a touch (corps-a-corps begins at the bell guard, and you had said that the one fencer was already inside the other fencer's bell guard), crossing the boundaries to avoid a touch, disorderly fencing.

Also, the referee is obliged to halt the action when he can't follow the phrasing of the actions or the opponents are not in a position to wield their weapons appropriately.

[Wizardly]

Nahouw, are you saying that this was once a rule? I guess some directors are in need of reeducation. Corps a corps begins at the bellguard??? I seem to have been lead to believe it began at contact. I would also be wary of overly liberal use of "disorderly fencing."

This isn't a rule in the current version, both upon examination and experience - I was never once carded for running bye nor have any of my opponents.

It's too bad the fencer being carded didn't know the rules either - time to call bout committee.

[frenzl]

just a dumb question would one that ran off the strip after doing a fleche recieve a yellow card or only if running off the strip was purley the defense.

[MikeHarm]

Hmm, reminds me of the time I got carded for 'fleching to the left of my opponent'. I think this one should of been appealed definately.

[pkt]

Originally posted by Marcos
sounds to me the president was making-up rules as he went along...

I agree with Marcos.

PK

[nahouw]

Originally posted by Wizardly
Nahouw, are you saying that this was once a rule? I guess some directors are in need of reeducation. Corps a corps begins at the bellguard??? I seem to have been lead to believe it began at contact. I would also be wary of overly liberal use of "disorderly fencing."

It's too bad the fencer being carded didn't know the rules either - time to call bout committee.

Yes, it used to be a rule. Actually, we once had a fencer in Sectionals come into the bout committee room to appeal this. We brought the director in, and told him that phrasing isn't in the rule book anymore, so please give her a different explanation. We explained to her that the referee will now choose a different phrasing that is still in the rulebook.

Corps-a-Corps begins at the bell guards. Behind the bell guard is your hand, and when 2 people are fist-to-fist, they are in body contact. If you don't like that explanation, then there is the one in the rules that the referee is obliged to stop the bout when the fencers cannot effectively weild their weapon. When the weapons are guard-to-guard, neither fencer can effectively wield their weapons -- they are locked up and a halt needs to be called.

If someone is fencing in a bizarre way, ask them to fence normally, and/or you card them for disorderly fencing. If they continue, you don't have to keep giving out disorderly fencing cards -- you can give out the disobedience card instead. Or, depending upon how disorderly their fencing is, it might encroach upon being dangerous, violent or vindictive. The rules provide for many options -- it behooves the fencers to adjust to the referee and avoid receiving cards.

As to fleching to the left of the opponent, that is the incorrect way to fleche. If, as you were going off the strip with your fleche as the opponent tried to riposte after parrying, you would be carded for leaving the strip to avoid a touch -- another case that even though there used to be a specific rule on the books, that when they simplified the rules, there is still the framework to card the offenses.

[Wizardly]

Thanks for clearing up what you mean by corps a corps beginning at the guard. Being inside the guard does not imply contact - contact is still necessary for corps a corps.

Is there a section in the rulebook regarding which side of the fencer one is supposed to fleche? I'm a lefty, people go by my left side ALL the time, particularly when accompanied by a shoulder flick. Never is this criticized or carded. Also, I was under the impression that passing the opponent resulted in only a halt - you're perfectly allowed to leave the strip after passing. Leaving the strip to avoid a touch is still in the rulebook.

What alternate explanation was given for "being inside the guard?"

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by nahouw
Yes, it used to be a rule. Actually, we once had a fencer in Sectionals come into the bout committee room to appeal this. We brought the director in, and told him that phrasing isn't in the rule book anymore, so please give her a different explanation. We explained to her that the referee will now choose a different phrasing that is still in the rulebook.

If someone is fencing in a bizarre way, ask them to fence normally, and/or you card them for disorderly fencing. If they continue, you don't have to keep giving out disorderly fencing cards -- you can give out the disobedience card instead.

You're recommending that referees become lawyers and think up ways to make fencers conform to their ideas of how they "ought" to fence, whether they are in fact violating the rules or not?

I hope you never get a referee with the "classical fencing" minset, then, or maybe he'll find ways to card you for fencing a modern game. Or maybe he'll just devise ways to use the rules to ensure that the fencer he likes best wins.

The rules should be applied OBJECTIVELY, not to enforce the referees pet opinions, prejudices or habits.

[veeco]

You're also basically saying that a referee is allowed to change their call after a fencer appeals to the BC. That is not what should happen. A referee should make a call, and not change that call. If it's wrong (i.e. the rule doesn't exist, or the referee called a parry riposte and gave the point to the person who was parried) then the call will be overturned by the BC. If the call is right, the fencer will get another card for unjustified appeal.

[pkt]

what veeco is saying is this:
the ref should be consistent as far his call is concerned.

A ref can NOT and MUST NOT enforce a rule that WAS but is no longer in the rule book!

==)-----------

nahouw

'c-a-c' literally means 'body to body', right, veeco?
(Je ne parle pas francaise.)

To stretch the rule to say that guard-to-guard is a c-a-c is a bit farfetched. I'll agree that fist-to-fist is in fact in body contact, but when there are two layers of legal metal in between, that's a totally diff't story.

To card someone for guard-to-guard is rather DRACONIAN to say the least and inhibits the flow of the action esp. in epee where this happens most often.

What is fencing 'normally'? There is no such animal in the Rules. A ref cannot and should not invent rules

In my books, a foil flick attack is not fencing normally and is in contravention of the basic definitions of an attack and is therefore, in most cases, a broken-time attack and is therefore very susceptible to stop hits.

- - -

In4,

We did have a foilist who refed and he was constantly dispairing about the state of modern foil fencing! I took joy in popping his balloon by stop-hitting or counter-attacking him on his compound attacks and doing sabre attacks on him!

That said, he never dared apply the rules as he deemed it should be...

PK

[veeco]

Actually, being consistent is another matter. It's about interpretation of the actions during the bout. The same action should be interpreted the same way during a bout.

However, the issue here is another: referees who once the bout comitee has been called change their mind. For example:


Fencer: Can you give me the phrase d'armes sir?
Referee: Attack from right, parry riposte valid from left, remise valid from right, point right.
Fencer: I am sorry but I think that you misinterpreted the rules, I'm going to have to ask for a ruling from the bout comitee...

... bout comitee comes over ...
bout comitee: Can you give us the phrase that you saw?
referee: Attack from right arrives valid, point right.

In that case the referee gives a phrase d'armes to the fencers, and then another, different one, to the bout comitee. This is unfair and should not be done.

Corps a corps is defined in the rule book in rule t.20:

Corps a corps is said to exist when the two competitors are in physical contact

So the bell guard doesn't apply. However, as Nahow pointed out, most referees will stop the bout as the 2 bell guards come into contact, not for corps a corps, but because both fencers cannot at this point, wield their weapons effectively. This is however not a cardable offense, whereas corps a corps is cardable in foil and sabre.

[nahouw]

Originally posted by Wizardly
Thanks for clearing up what you mean by corps a corps beginning at the guard. Being inside the guard does not imply contact - contact is still necessary for corps a corps.

Is there a section in the rulebook regarding which side of the fencer one is supposed to fleche? I'm a lefty, people go by my left side ALL the time, particularly when accompanied by a shoulder flick. Never is this criticized or carded. Also, I was under the impression that passing the opponent resulted in only a halt - you're perfectly allowed to leave the strip after passing. Leaving the strip to avoid a touch is still in the rulebook.

Being inside the guard is corps-a-corps -- it you don't like that explanation, then the explanation is that the halt was caused because you couldn't effectively wield your weapons.

I, as you, am a lefty. Do you parry and riposte these flicks to your shoulder before your opponent has passed? If yes, and the referee did not card the opponent for avoiding a riposte, then you are within your rights to appeal a misapplication of a rule. If your opponent passed you when you did not parry and riposte, then yes, it is only a halt.

[nahouw]

Originally posted by Inquartata
I hope you never get a referee with the "classical fencing" minset, then, or maybe he'll find ways to card you for fencing a modern game. Or maybe he'll just devise ways to use the rules to ensure that the fencer he likes best wins.

The rules should be applied OBJECTIVELY, not to enforce the referees pet opinions, prejudices or habits.

I actually PREFER a referee who is of the the classical mindset -- his opinion will not affect my game at all, and rather, his mindset would HELP my game because he would card all the infractions of my opponent. Like others in other threads have said, the fact that a referee DOESN'T card an opponent for an infraction is in fact a point TO the opponent.

You are misinterpreting what I said -- I had given an extreme example of someone well beyond the conventions of the rules.

I have fenced in the Havana World Cup for many years, and am quite comfortable as to how they apply the rules. However, many Americans fence in only 1 Havana World Cup and never again -- they do not like how the rules affect them -- they are applied strictly, and in the US the rules are not applied strictly, so that is why they do not come back to Havana again.

[nahouw]

Originally posted by veeco
You're also basically saying that a referee is allowed to change their call after a fencer appeals to the BC. That is not what should happen. A referee should make a call, and not change that call. If it's wrong (i.e. the rule doesn't exist, or the referee called a parry riposte and gave the point to the person who was parried) then the call will be overturned by the BC. If the call is right, the fencer will get another card for unjustified appeal.

ABSOULTELY NOT WHAT I AM SAYING -- what I am saying is that there are rules to be enforced, and whatever the referee chooses to explain to the fencer, is what it is. If the fencer chooses to appeal to the bout committe, the only thing that they can appeal is the missapplication of a rule.

The fact that any infraction of the rules was incurred, is a fact. Whatever the phrasing that the referee chose is his choice. The bout committee, upon hearinng the details of the dispute is the final aouthority of their decision.