seeking clarification of rule t56 para 7

[gofence]

Hi,
I would be grateul if any experienced refs could help me out with a rule interpretation issue that is causing some confusion in my part of Scotland. The issue is the interpretation of rule t56 para 7 which as you will all know goes like this:
"If the attacker, when attempting to deflect the opponent’s blade, fails to find it (dérobement), the right of attack passes to the opponent"

The two different interpretations of the rule go something like this.

Camp A - para 7 only applies if the opponent is point in line when the attacker unsucessfully attempts to beat or take the blade. In other words, para 7 is intimately linked with the preceding paras 5 & 6 which solely relate to what happens when one fencer is point in line. This camp is effectively saying that "failure to find the blade doesn matter if the opponent is not point in line."

Camp B - para 7 is a stand alone paragraph which applies regardless of whether the opponent is point in line when the attacker unsucessfully attempts to beat or take the blade. This camp is effectively saying "why should an incorrectly executed beat attack be rewarded".

To demonstrate this difference of interpretation consider the following scenario. Fencer B is on guard in sixte, Fencer A steps forward and attempts a beat attack. Fencer B avoids the blade of Fencer A and immediately extends the arm hitting fencer B on target. Meanwhile, even though fencer A has failed to find the blade with the beat attack they continue the attack and hit fencer B on target.

In this example, followers of Camp A would give the point to Fencer A, whilst Camp B would give the point to fencer B. But which camp is right?

I ask this question not because I have an axe to grind about which is the correct or best interpretation but just so that I can teach my two fencing children the interpretation that is accepted and implemented at the higher levels - in the majority of cases. So far I have asked a lot of people (fencers & referees) this question without receiving a "killer" explanation for either case.

[GreenDot]

The way I have always been taught and have subsequently seen in directing (this is in saber mind you) is that if you search for the blade and don't find it, right of way does pass to the opponent. So if I attempt a beat attack and miss the beat but then continue my attack, while my opponent attacks right after I miss the beat, it will be his touch.

-James

[gofence]

Sorry - forgot to mention that my question relates predominantly to foil. This is because whilst the majority of sabreurs and sabre referees that I have asked this question to plump for camp B (like James above), when I ask foilists and foil referees the same question I get a greater split of votes.

[dunastor]

I agree..

I'm not really in touch with high level international fencing, but I would say it doesn't matter whether the opponent is in point-in-line or not.

Any searching for the blade makes your attack invalid. (because in effect you aren't even making an attack, you're just searching for the opponent's blade)

btw t56 says one must pay attention on several points with regard to ROW, it doesn't say all the points are pertaining to point-in-line or otherwise linked.

[Mergs]

By definition, the beat is not an attack. It is a preparation. The same applies for an attempted taking the blade in a bind (engagement). The attack is what follows the preparation. A better way to look at the situation you describe is to think of it as an opponent's attack into preparation.

Also, another thought is to look at it as an attack in time, assuming the opponent's action starts before your final action. Derobement, attack into prep, searching....a rose by any other name......basically, the same thing. You tried to set up an attack and failed. As your reward for failure you opponent gets the right of way. Sucks, don't it? But then again negative reinforcement is a valid teaching technique.

Hopes this helps.

[susanloper]

In my experience in foil and sabre, most national referees, at least in theory, are in camp B for the same reasons that people have posted here. However, in practice, it can be difficult to determine a foil fencer's attempt to take the blade during an attack. Many good fencers make valid attacks that _smoothly_ change lines in the middle. If they find your blade, great; if not, the attack just continues. (You can see how this wouldn't be a problem in sabre because if you made a habit of changing lines while attacking - you would constantly be hit in preparation.)
Thus, a smart foil fencer only derobes when the attempt to take will be very obvious to the director. The best circumstance for this is point in line. Now the attacker must try to take the blade, so the director is actively looking for attempts to do so. This could be a possible explanation for de facto camp A people.
However, there are other ways to try to get a derobement call. One is to surprise the attacker with your point. Hopefully, they will search for your blade in such a way that breaks the rhythym of their attack making their _re_action obvious. It's an awesome touch when done correctly, but it's not so easy to do or to see.

Hope this helps,
Susan

[Namir]

Originally Posted by GreenDot---
The way I have always been taught and have subsequently seen in directing (this is in saber mind you) is that if you search for the blade and don't find it, right of way does pass to the opponent. So if I attempt a beat attack and miss the beat but then continue my attack, while my opponent attacks right after I miss the beat, it will be his touch.

This is how they call it in Michigan aswell.

[The0ne]

An active search for the blade is preperation. Thus if one person runs down the strip searching and the other makes a straight attack, touch for the attacker, PiL doesn't make a difference, just looks cool!

-Isaiah

[gofence]

Thank you for the response so far - which has been pretty much in line with the majority of responses I have received elsewhere.

Leaving aside the issue of whether the referee sees the movements as a failed attempt to find the blade in a beat attack or as something else (like a feint dis-engage attack) I also get the following points made to me:

Camp A people say:- Because the attacker is making a forward movement with their hand in their attempt to find the blade they have established their priority whether they find the blade or not.
Camp B people reply:- yes the attacker is making a forward movement with their hand but they are threatening the blade not the target so they cant have established priority.

Camp A people say: the definition of the word "deroubment" means to avoid the attackers blade when you are point in line so therefore para 7 must refer only to when the opponent is point in line and no other time.
Camp B people say: ooh not sure, I am not a student of fencing history or a linguist.

Does anybody have any comments to make on these arguements and counter arguements?

My problem is this. The majority of votes I get are for Camp B with ony a few going for Camp A - but the one or two who do go for Camp A are senior coaches in our national setup with a lot of experience, connections and clout. So you see its a difficult choice - do I go with the majority vote or with the significantly smaller vote of the supposedly more knowledgable. I just dont know!

Confused of Scotland

[Wizardly]

First off, I'm no fencing history buff or linguist either, however, I've never heard derobement used exclusively for PIL. Their premise may be incorrect, which would negate their whole argument. (On an editorial note, I'm not surprised that a poorly written rule book is yet again causing confusion.)

In those cases where it is "either/or," either the opponent is attacking the blade, or the opponent is attacking the target. Even if t.56.7 applies only to the PIL case, an obvious whack at the blade does not threaten the target, is executed with a bent arm, and is a preparation. In the "both/and" case, the attacker both beats and extends, the extension will occur so quickly following the derobement, the chances of the deception finishing and an attack into preparation happening obviously enough to be seen before the opponent's attack begins are pretty nil. However, in this case, it's a fairly simple matter of parrying the opponent's blade...after all, he's TRYING to find yours.

However, my take on t.56.7 is the general case, not specific to the opponent being PIL.

Question that might confound or clarify this debate: your opponent is PIL and makes an unnecessary derobement, into which you attack. Two lights. Who get's the touch? Does it matter if the opponent caused the unnecessary derobement with a feint at a take or appel of some kind?

[jBirch]

GoFence,

The way I see it, it's the ROW that is key. In PIL you've established ROW and your opponent needs to take it from you. The do this by beating your blade, causing it to veer off target and thereby no longer threatening target. If they find your blade, the take ROW, extend and hit (2 lights). Their point (ie// ROW has shifted to them). Standard Beat Attack, right?

With a derobement, you avoid their attack to the blade (which a beat is) and thereby continue to threaten target (they haven't taken ROW from you). You both extend and hit. Your point.

Without PIL you are not threatening target. Therefor your opponent attacks by extending forward, you avoid their blade but it doesn't matter since they've now got priority. You both extend and hit. Their point.

Where it gets convoluted is in practice since the differentiator is subtle. They search for your blade (which is different then beating it) don't find it and you both extend to hit. Since they extended to find your blade and then ceased to threaten target by moving their point off line logically they have to re-establish priority and you're moving from a position of threatening to scoring a hit. Your point. However, if they beat your blade, you avoid but they still *threaten target* extend and hit, since they initiated the attack, you lose since you're attacking into their prep (beat).

The essential difference is the technical application of the beat and whether the point wanders off target or not. Since this is so hard to judge, the ref listens for the blade contact before shifting ROW since they can't tell the difference between a beat that misses and a feint, can they?

So, technically, Camp A is correct, but practically Camp B is. That's the problem.

[Inquartata]

When there are different rules for different weapons, the FIE so specifies. Thus the wording about the crossover in sabre. If there is but a single rule with no distinction etween weapons, then the rule applies identically to all three in any applicable situation.

So if this one were really ONLY about PIL, it would almost never be called in sabre, where PIL is comparatively rare. Yet it is called all the time. Ergo, unless every referee in sabre---including some very proficient and highly rated ones----is a boob, it probably isn't just about PIL.

In all candour, I think the root of the difficulty you've encountered lies in the logic-chopping proclivities of foilists generally...

[Wizardly]

Originally posted by jBirch
GoFence,

The way I see it, it's the ROW that is key. In PIL you've established ROW and your opponent needs to take it from you. The do this by beating your blade, causing it to veer off target and thereby no longer threatening target. If they find your blade, the take ROW, extend and hit (2 lights). Their point (ie// ROW has shifted to them). Standard Beat Attack, right?

Only if they attack withut delay, but yes.

With a derobement, you avoid their attack to the blade (which a beat is) and thereby continue to threaten target (they haven't taken ROW from you). You both extend and hit. Your point.

yup

Without PIL you are not threatening target. Therefor your opponent attacks by extending forward, you avoid their blade but it doesn't matter since they've now got priority. You both extend and hit. Their point.

Asside frm the fact that you could be attacking (precluding PIL) and still threatening target, yup when you aren't doing either.

Where it gets convoluted is in practice since the differentiator is subtle. They search for your blade (which is different then beating it)...

Is it? Beat is a subset of search.

...don't find it and you both extend to hit. Since they extended to find your blade and then ceased to threaten target by moving their point off line logically they have to re-establish priority and you're moving from a position of threatening to scoring a hit. Your point. However, if they beat your blade, you avoid but they still *threaten target* extend and hit, since they initiated the attack, you lose since you're attacking into their prep (beat).

You lost me here. It sounds like you just said, "if they search for your blade an fail to find it, your touch. If they beat at your blade and fail to find it, their touch." It sounded like you implied that a beat initiates an attack. It also sounded like you just said "attacking into preparation has no priority." Ummm, that's wrong.

The essential difference is the technical application of the beat and whether the point wanders off target or not. Since this is so hard to judge, the ref listens for the blade contact before shifting ROW since they can't tell the difference between a beat that misses and a feint, can they?

Call me crazy, but yeah they can. Feint = arm goes out, beat/engagement/search = blade goes towards blade, disengage/derobement/deceive = blade goes away from blade.

So, technically, Camp A is correct, but practically Camp B is. That's the problem.

Come again?

[jBirch]

Wizardly,

Is it? Beat is a subset of search.

Sorry for the miscommunication. What's the difference between a coule and a beat then? (t.60.2a "Referees must ensure that a mere contact of the blades is not considered sufficient to deflect the opponent's blade"). If a beat is a subset of search then, by that logic, a parry is also a subset of search in that both are differentiated from simple engagements by their attempt to deflect the point from valid target and both seek engagement with the opponent's blade.

BTW, you could also read this as only pertaining to PIL since t.60.2a starts "If the fencer initiates his attack when the opponent has point in
line (cf. t.10) without deflecting the opponent’s weapon." What may be even more interesting is t.60.2b "If the fencer attempts to find the blade, does not succeed (is the
object of a dérobement) and continues the attack." In t.56.7 we need to deflect the blade, but in t.60.2b we need only to find it.
Which takes precedence?

IMHO, we're into definitions here. A beat is an attack upon the blade designed to displace the tip from threatening target. As such it is properly a subset of attack au fer and not simple seeking of engagement (searching). Searching for the blade is simply an attempt at engagement that may or may not be successful and differs from a beat in that it is not an attempt to deflect anything. A derobement is a deception of an attack to the blade. A simple engagement of the blades does not constitute an attack au fer. That a beat involves engagement is secondary to the point of the motion. What is pertinent is that a beat is an attempt to deflect the blade, a search is not. A search is not an attack au fer. A beat is. As such, a search can not be derobed while a beat may be. Make sense?

Example: (It's easier to explain with PIL but substitute established priority if you want) I start in PIL, you beat my point off target, we both extend and hit. Your point. I start in PIL, you engage my blade *BUT DO NOT MOVE MY POINT OFF TARGET*, we both extend and hit. My point.

The idea is that in PIL (but with any other establishment of priority as well) you have to first deal with the attacking point before attacking yourself. So what I was trying to say is that if you search for the blade (ie// move your blade to engage their blade but don't displace it), they attack (2 lights), they win since it's the same as a direct attack without any engagement, right? And priority then goes to the individual who initiated the action first. That you managed to engage their blade is beside the point. You didn't displace the tip and thereby never removed their priority.

It's difficult to explain without showing you since the difference is extremely subtle (which is why it often isn't called correctly). The crux is the displacement of the point from threatening target. Essentially a search doesn't displace point, a beat does.

You lost me here. It sounds like you just said, "if they search for your blade an fail to find it, your touch. If they beat at your blade and fail to find it, their touch." It sounded like you implied that a beat initiates an attack. It also sounded like you just said "attacking into preparation has no priority." Ummm, that's wrong.

Yeah, I worded that pretty badly didn't I? *grin* What I was trying to illustrate was how subtle a difference between the right call and the wrong call is. Can you tell the difference as a ref between searching for the blade and beating it? Can you tell the instant a point wanders off target and technically priority lost? And attack in prep was the wrong term. Counter-attack was the proper term.

Call me crazy, but yeah they can. Feint = arm goes out, beat/engagement/search = blade goes towards blade, disengage/derobement/deceive = blade goes away from blade.

As ref it's hard to judge whether the blades are moving towards each other in any but the most obvious scenarios. If I move laterally towards your blade and you change engagement over the top was mine a beat and yours a derobement? How is that different from a feint of beat followed by a disengage? Can you tell the difference between a well executed disengage and a well executed derobement? I can't.

So, technically, Camp A is correct, but practically Camp B is. That's the problem.

Camp A being that PIL (or previously established priority) is what matters on the derobement, not whether the beat missed or not. Camp B being that an attempted beat that fails is just as good a condition. The technicality is the distinction that a beat that fails but remains on target still has priority if initiated from a neutral RoW. The difficulty in determining when precisely that occurs is why Camp B exists. The assertion being that the deception of the beat is what counts (something relatively easy to see), not whether the points are still in line or not (something hard to see).

At any rate, I think we're talking the same thing but getting mired in particulars. For GoFence, the interpretation that I'm familiar with is that RoW must be established before a derobement makes any sense. Avoiding an attacking blade by derobement does not constitute RoW unless it either maintains an attempt to remove it (since you had it before) or causes an error on the attacker's part (if the derobement causes the beating point to go off target).

Take it easy.

[pkt]

Originally posted by gofence
...but the one or two who do go for Camp A are senior coaches in our national setup with a lot of experience, connections and clout. ...
Confused of Scotland

They are coaches not licensed referees, are they? Go talk to a FIE A level ref and get his/her opinion and go with that.

My opinion? The way I was taught by an FIE A is that Camp B is correct. But the problem is that some refs do not see the attempt at taking of the blade. This is a result of clouded eyesights. It has nothing to do with the rule. The rules are very, very clear.

PK

[downunder]

the problem is that a beat-miss-attack can look remarkably like a feint-disengage-attack

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by downunder
the problem is that a beat-miss-attack can look remarkably like a feint-disengage-attack

Exactly!

Gofence, camp A is correct. T.56 item 7 has nothing to do with PIL.
The proof is in this sentence:
"If the attacker, when attempting to deflect the opponent’s blade, fails to find it (dérobement), <b>the right of attack passes to the opponent"</b>

If the opponent is PIL then he already HAS the "right of attack", it would not "pass" to him.

Often, here in Michigan, you here the term "searching" thrown around a lot. They use that term to say that the intial attacker was attempting to beat, or otherwise engage, the blade and did not make contact before the touch. Unfortunately, they often can't seem to tell the difference between a disengage and derobement.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by DanInMI
Exactly!

Gofence, camp A is correct. T.56 item 7 has nothing to do with PIL.
The proof is in this sentence:
"If the attacker, when attempting to deflect the opponent’s blade, fails to find it (dérobement), <b>the right of attack passes to the opponent"</b>

If the opponent is PIL then he already HAS the "right of attack", it would not "pass" to him.

Often, here in Michigan, you here the term "searching" thrown around a lot. They use that term to say that the intial attacker was attempting to beat, or otherwise engage, the blade and did not make contact before the touch. Unfortunately, they often can't seem to tell the difference between a disengage and derobement.

Oops....i mixed up my "Camps!" Of course I mean that "camp B" is correct.

[DanInMI]

hmmmm....
the argument that t.56 para 7 refers to point in line because "derobement" only refers to attempting to engage the blade when "point-in-line" is actually very compelling.

Here is the definition of derobement that I found online:
"An evasion of the opponent's attempt to beat or take one's blade whilst ones arm is straight, point already in line, threatening the target. "

There is no definition of "derobement" in the rulebook.

[jBirch]

DanInMi,

Heya.

1) PIL = priority of the defender.
1a) Parry-riposte = priority of the defender.
2) Attacker must therefor take priority first before attacking.
3) Succesful beat attack removes the point from threatening target and thereby takes priority. (t.56.6: deflecting the blade).
4) Coule does not remove the point from threatening target and
thereby does not take priority. (t.56.6: mere grazing does not constitute deflection)
5) Proper deceit of the attempt to deflect the blade retains priority. (t.56.7)

OK, clear to here.

Derobement definition that I'm familiar with is the deceit of an attack au fer. Hence it is the proper deceit of a beat-parry or beat-attack.

6) Improper deceit of the attempt at engagement that wanders off target (eg// points at the floor or ceiling) does lose priority. Emphasis on "lose". You must have it to lose it. (t.10: PIL = continuously threatening target & t.7: attack = continuously threatening target). Camp A.

However, you can see the beat as an attack au fer and the parry as derobement (t.7: parry = prevents attack from arriving). Camp B by parry-riposte (t.57). Hmmmm.

Seems a subtle distinction that probably doesn't ammount to much on the piste. Maybe both camps are right for different reasons? Camp B for the incorrect action, Camp A for the establishment of RoW?

Keep in mind that the rules also talk about the double touch situation being the result of an incorrect action on the part of one or both fencers or as a result of simultaneous conception. The beat that is derobed is a faulty action. A poor derobement is also a faulty action. The attack when both happen can be considered to be simultaneously conceived, each seeing the other's opening. Given that, you may simply throw out the phrase. (t.60.3)