I was taught along the same lines as Brian, and consistent with Rez' post. At my
first referee clinic (we did not call it "referee" then) Giorgio Santelli said
"There is no mal pare. Either the attack was parried or it was not parried",
almost word for word what Brian wrote. I'll just add that the director can use
the expression to *explain* what happened, rather than just curtly wave his arm
and say "Attack landed." Saying "mal pare'" tells the defending fencer "Yes, I
saw your attempted parry or pris-de-fer and it failed to stop the attack." It's
a courtesy to the fencers, and it can prevent "but, didn't I make a parry?"
complaints.
cheers, Jeff
--- Brian wrote:
> At the various referee clinics I have attended, I have actually heard it better
> to simply not acknowledge a "mal pare'" or anything similar to that -- either
> the attack was, or was not parried. Either it was sufficient to deflect the
> line of the attack, or it was not sufficient. In your experience, or others,
--- Mississippi Academy of Arms <1@m...> wrote
> The USFCA (US Fencing Coaches Association) recommends not using the term
> Mal Pare'. They say that if it's not sufficient to deflect the attacking
> blade out of the line of attack then it's not a parry. It's an attempted
> (but failed) parry.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/xlw.sC/XP....kFAA/VRUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets.
http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
Linear Mode
