When will The F.I.E. Referees Commission get it's act together?

[Barry Paul]

I started this on the fencing forum, what do you think?
When will The F.I.E. Referees Commission get it's act together?
At the world Championships the Refereess commission had a 6 hour meeting prior to the world chanpionships. At the meeting major issue of hand signaling, socks being pulled up and shaking hands were discussed. When some referee had the absolute outrage to ask a question about the interpretation of the rules they told it would come later, Now about the socks !!!!!! needless to say the question was never answered.

The question being asked was one in which foil referees from Germany and Italy are in absolute disagreement with referees from the Anglo French countries.
The question is thus: Fencer A attacks with a straight line. Fencer B moves back. Fencer A keeps his arm straight with out bending or the point moving from the target. Fencer B attacks hitting fencer A but at the same time is hit by the straight arm of fencers A. What is the referees decision?
Anglo/French (and old fashioned me) A gets the hit. Attack never parried staight arm, fencer B runs onto straight arm.

German/Italian Fener B has parried by moving out of dististance, then has right of way to attack. ie B gets the hit. A is counter attacking. (What rubbish. where in the rules is a parry defined as moving out of the way?)

The problem is that the F.I.E. referee commission cannot agree amongst its self so it just avoids the issue. Is this the way to run a international body? If it was not important to fencers who have spend a life time training it would be a joke.

Its like watching a football match in which the offside rule is interpretated completely differently by referees depending if they are are Fench or German. When questioned by the press the International Football Body has no answer, but points out how the players now shake hands after the whisle is blown, and are'nt the referees hand signals so clear.

Barry Paul M.D. Leon Paul

[wflaschka]

Originally posted by Barry Paul
(What rubbish. where in the rules is a parry defined as moving out of the way?)

This question came up on these boards several months ago, and it's interesting to see that it's causing dissent at the higher levels. "Parry with distance" might be a misnomer, but a convenient one. With retreats, Fencer B has caused Fencer A's attack to terminate in failure, and priority shifts direction.

It seems like a situation where orthodox realism is in conflict with orthodox rules. Realistically, a fencer whose attack missed but leaves his arm out is still dangerous. In terms of rules, Fencer A's attack is concluded and Fencer B has a chance to attack before Fencer A's extended arm "turns into" a line and gets back priority.

Ultimately, I side with the rulebook's description of attacks (I have to!). Also, in "real life," a fencer who misses (in any manner) would be wise to convert to a defensive posture. The Germans and Italians seem to be reading the rules with this interpretation.

The issue has only come up once for me in the last year. Most of the time, Fencer B isn't in position to do an immediate riposte after his "parry with distance." And if the riposte is indirect or not immediate, then Fencer A gets the line.

[mfp]

Originally posted by Barry Paul
(What rubbish. where in the rules is a parry defined as moving out of the way?)

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

And here the "defensive action made with the weapon" was moving it back with the body.

Good to hear they're getting the socks under control.

[dunastor]

Originally posted by Barry Paul
What rubbish. where in the rules is a parry defined as moving out of the way?

In German they have a really nice word for it, namely Körper-parad ("body-parry")

I myself would agree with them in saying that the ROW goes to the riposte, after the missing of the attack.

otoh, what I would like to know, when in such an action is the jump between the end of the attack and the beginning of the point in line....?

[Barry Paul]

Can somebody show me where in the rules it defines a parry as a movement of the body. Call me old fashioned but as far as I remember a parry involved a movement of your blades deflecting your oponents blade from your own target.

As for tha attack fails and before he can get R.O.W.. what are you talking about? Fencer A has attacked left his arm blade point in line threatening the target. Fencer B impalls himself on a straight arm, which has never been parried. Or have we invented a new parry, impalling on a straight arm point while moving forward?

I don't want to get to bogged down in arguments but my real point is that the F.I.E. referee commission should be able to come out with a interpretation which fits in with our present rules.
Now about the socks!!!!! Barry Paul

[edew]

Barry, a parry may require the use of the blade. But the termination of an opponent's right of way need not be performed only by a parry. The term, "distance parry" or "body parry" may be an abuse of the language, but the effect is the same: causing an attack to fail. The failure of the attack allows the opponent the opportunity to gain right of way.

If my opponent makes and attack and I duck under it, is that attack effectively lost? Shouldn't my counter-attack have precedence over a remise?

That said, in the scenario you painted in your post suggests to me that fencer A may have right of way: to me, fencer A is merely taking a long-winded approach towards making a point in line. The question is whether the point in line is established prior to the commencement of fencer B's attack.

That is, fencer A makes a lunge, maintains the point threatening the target area. At no time did A drop the arm or pull back the arm. If B commences the "riposte" or "attack" after A has established that posture, then A should get the point for having a point in line.

If B commences the attack while A is still in that lunging mode, then B should have the right of way. Why? The movement of A, during the lunge may be construed either as an attack or an attempt to establish a point in line. In either case, the attack failed as the point did not hit anything by the time the lunge is completed, or the point in line was not established prior to the initiation of fencer B's attack. B had that window of opportunity to avoid the attack and overtake the point in line. If B timed the attack properly, B should be awarded the point for a properly executed attack (or riposte).

Again, if you can't find anything in the rule books stating that a parry can be performed without the blades engaging, that may well be true. But there is more than just parrying to end another's attack (and, more crucially, the right of way).

As for the socks, maybe Leon Paul can sell sock holders: white plastic cuffs to snap onto one's lower leg. Works well as a protective plastic armor as well. Please send royalties to me.

[MikeHarm]

Right of way in foil was developed to as a concept to help you train for a duel by stopping you from making suicidal/psychotic attacks that get you run onto the blade.

If someone had a real sword, with the point out at you, I think it would be idiotic/suicidal/psychotic to think that the method of dealing with it is to jump onto their blade, driving it through your body and then hit them, wether you've jumped back a step or not first.

I think that from reading this the German/Italian directors are losing sight of the whole point of what right of way was for.

[edew]

And I'll bet you won't find it in the rule book that right of way was created to train for a duel and prevent people from doing suicidal actions.

And hey, I've made two good picks with bets. I think I'll be correct on this one as well.

[downunder]

what we are trying to say is.

Fencer A lunges, and remains on lunge, with a straight arm pointing at the target.

Fencer B steps back, out of the way of the lunge, and then commences a movement.

Both colored lights go on. There was never a remise or redoublement by A.

In my opinion it should be Point in Line A, hit to A... but this is not how it is refereed.

[cowpaste]

I don't think it matters what we think. What matter is what the directors think. I learned a while back that my fencing is much more successful if I fence according to the director's rules.

In this case, I think the way most directors would call it is attack from A is no, counter from B is yes, remise from A. I really don't think it's possible for a point in line to be established from an offensive action.

[wflaschka]

Originally posted by MikeHarm
If someone had a real sword, with the point out at you, I think it would be idiotic/suicidal/psychotic to think that the method of dealing with it is to jump onto their blade, driving it through your body and then hit them, wether you've jumped back a step or not first.

It's possible to make a more flexible interpretation. Supposing that Right of Way is an expression of best-practice methods for surving a duel: If your attack fails, you're over-committed, off balance, and exposed. Your most survivable action would be to switch modes and defend yourself against the enemy's offense.

Whether the attack fails because you missed, fell short, got parried, or hit a buckler -- the attack failed. Ergo, defense. If we make an exception for arms that are lazily left out, we'd have to start making exceptions for other circumstances too. As it stands, we can say, "A failed attack loses priority and there are no exceptions."

[downunder]

Originally posted by cowpaste
I really don't think it's possible for a point in line to be established from an offensive action.

but thats not what the rules say... have a look at t.10

[I_luv_saber]

From the saber point of view, USUALLY (not always, it depends on who's directing, hence the problem) if you lunge, with the point, and continue holding you're arm out, this is considered attack - remise. BAM, your foot hits the ground your attack is over. Hell, if you're attack of any sort lands after your foot hits the ground, it's almost always attack - remise. On the "distance parry" argument, this can be so, keeping in mind fencer A stopped his attack. Ok, so fencer A steps forward and extends arm (again we will talk about this with the point as to make it at least similair to foil ROW), if fencer B moves back, then attacks without beating/parrying the blade, fencer A gets the touch because he never stopped his point in the line. Now if he extends, then lunges, that's 2 attacks. Therefore the point would go to fencer B, because he lunged (first attack), then point in the line (remise). That's from most saber directors views anyway.

[wflaschka]

but thats not what the rules say... have a look at t.10

t.10 describes what a point in line is, but not how/when it can be established. Also, "distance/body parry" won't be found in the rules, because it's a colloquialism for what's actually happening.

The answer won't be found under "what is a line" and "what is a parry." If it were this simple, I think that there would be nothing for FIE judges to disgree about!

It's really a question of When is the attack over? When the attack fails for some reason, the priority shifts and the defender gets his/her moment of opportunity.

Doubtless, the Germans and Italians are using t.60.2 Only the fencer who attacks is counted as touched (f) "If he makes a touch by a remise, redoublement or reprise when his original attack has been parried and his opponent has made a riposte which is immediate, simple, and executed in one period of fencing time without withdrawing the arm." t.60 informs about situations of simultaneity or double touches.

AFAIKS, the rules make no mention about how long it takes to enter into the line, but commonly directors think it should be there at least one or two tempos -- or else we could use a line against direct attacks! This is one or two tempos more than our scenario allows. For Fencer A, there's simply not enough time for a line to become established after the failure of the attack. If Fencer B hesitates, however -- different story!

[wflaschka]

t.8.d.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, when the latter has either quitted contact with the blade without riposting or has made a riposte which is delayed, indirect or
compound."

So it's a question of what to call Fencer A's "insistence" -- is it an immediate remise, or an immediate line? And is there such a thing as an immediate line?

Everything else Fencer B should and shouldn't do fits with this definition, as well. If Fencer B hesitates he loses priority.

[edew]

Yes, the line is immediate if it precedes the initiation of the counter-action by B. That is, if A makes a lunge and retains the posture with arm straightened, point aimed at opponent. The opponent hesitates or waits, even one fraction of a moment, and then starts the offensive action, it is then an offensive action against an established line.

[Wizardly]

I do believe you are allowed to finish your retreat if the lunge ended in the middle of it.

[edew]

Yes, as long as your advance after the retreat is immediate and without delay.

[Barry Paul]

The point I was originally making is the F.I.E. commission cannot/ will not answer a simple question of rule/refereeing interpretation.

We have two views both cannot be right. The referees commission need to spend less time politicing and handing out trips and more time doing what is necessary to make sure fencing remains an interesting sport.

Hand signals have been a great invention but having a unified agreed refereeing interpetation of the rules is more inportant.

Now about the socks!!!!!!!!! Barry Paul

[Wizardly]

Standard remise rules apply, especially with respect to delayed ripostes.

To answer your question Barry, t.60.1.a is the applicable rule (usfa rulebook). Bear in mind that it may technically be wrong to call B's attack a "riposte" but it is often called that way when the concept of "parry zero" is applied (in which case, as wflaschka pointed out, you use t.60.2.f). Said another way, the action is "attack A, no. attack B (arrives), counter-attack A (stop-hit i.e. remise, arrives), touch B." Furthermore, with either definition of B's offensive action, paragraph 1 of rule t.56.a applies.

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).

This passage indicates that avoidance is a valid defense to an attack.

I can't speak for what once was. The rule book is quite vague, and downright laconic as far as rule t.10 is concerned. Clarity probably belongs in subsection 2 of section III in the rules for foil and saber in addition to clarifying this specific example in subsection 3.

But hey, they never listen to me.

Hope it helps! And yeah, I do agree that it's rather pathetic that the referees don't see eye to eye. It's like not agreeing on a strike zone in baseball...hell, it's like not agreeing on how long a meter is!

BTW: what's your specific beef with the socks?

Edew: wow, it feels like forever since we agreed on anything!