another foil ROW question

[dreadfoily]

I know we went around about this before in another discussion, which was very interesting, but it appears we still have not arrived at a concensus on a broad enough scale. My instruction has different in a few salles: mal parry literally means - bad parry' like mal tete [headache - bad thing in the head], the debate seems to center on whether or not it is necessary to bring your opponents blade 'out of line' or to 'ping' it sufficiently for the director to understand that a parry action has taken place, giving you the row, then riposte immediately. In reading this thread right before the remise was first mentioned, I realized that without sufficient, or, wide parries, the remise would count and you may lose the point. Maybe both are correct, the wide parry, as well as the smaller movment, which some salles prefer in terms of trying to attain a streamlined effect in their students movements. The size of the fencer may have something to do with the style which they employ???

[jBirch]

dreadfoily,

The problem with any advice here is that it is going to be inconsistently applied at any level. Part of the problem is that you have to sell your blade action to the director in a manner that makes them interpret what you were trying to do in your favour.

The rules say many things, but they are not consistently or even correctly applied in all instances because of the problem with perception. Actually figuring out if the point moved off target is an excercise in futility in all but the most obvious cases. Especially so at the upper levels where you can assume that the parry was correctly executed and so the point automatically removed from threatening target. Further, take a fencer with point in line at your club and tick the blade just a little. Observe that it actually does clear your target (especially if you're properly en guarde).

So does a beat that clears your target but doesn't stop the remise count as a parry or a mal-parry? You stopped the initial offensive action but the follow-up got you nailed. Enter the priority system which is designed to teach good form and how not to get killed. You, as the defender who parried the attack but not the remise, did everything correctly whereas your opponent, didn't. The end result, with live blades, would be both of you hit, something the fencing instructors were trying to teach you was a bad outcome. *grin*

The parry in foil is designed to do two things. First, it is supposed to end your opponent's attack, which means that your riposte is more dangerous then their remise so they need to defend themselves. Second, it gives you a great opportunity to hit back since they are extended in range and you are not. Recovery is always trickier then advance. You've got an advantage and so you should exploit it. They, at a disadvantage should defend themselves. The tick parry satisfies the criteria for a parry in that you made them overextend to the point where it was easier for them to commit suicide and take you with them then it was for them to defend themselves. In the world of convention, this is a bad idea for the guy killing themselves. Make sense?

Hope this helps.

[Namir]

Originally posted by labouche
Have you ever been to a national competition?
-la bouche

What does that have to do with it? Are you saying that he is wrong, that directors do call a parry that only deflects the blade slightly , but still hits on target , an insufficient parry?

I am pretty certain that Eric and Dan are correct, at all levels of competition directors are calling any blade contact a parry.

[The0ne]

Originally posted by Namir
What does that have to do with it? Are you saying that he is wrong, that directors do call a parry that only deflects the blade slightly , but still hits on target , an insufficient parry?

I am pretty certain that Eric and Dan are correct, at all levels of competition directors are calling any blade contact a parry.

EDew, and DanimMI have almost opposite arguments, DaninMI's is mostly as a devil's advocate I believe, but their arguments are not the same.

[labouche]

Originally posted by Namir
What does that have to do with it? Are you saying that he is wrong, that directors do call a parry that only deflects the blade slightly , but still hits on target , an insufficient parry?

I am pretty certain that Eric and Dan are correct, at all levels of competition directors are calling any blade contact a parry.

No, eric is completely correct. But I think dan needs to see the way top level directors call RoW because he seems to be mis-lead a lot.
-la bouche

[labouche]

Just one more thing. If the FIE decided that solid parries were the only ones to be counted that would almost completely eliminate early parries. After all, it is very hard to close out someones attack before they finish.
-la bouche

[oiuyt]

I think both Dan and EDew agree on what DOES happen. Their only disagreement is on what SHOULD happen.

-B :)

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by oiuyt
I think both Dan and EDew agree on what DOES happen. Their only disagreement is on what SHOULD happen.

-B

Thank you. I think that is a fair way to put it.
Let me put it this way.
Disclaimer:
I agree with Eric completely, it is my opinion that the original intent of the rules was that a parry should actually prevent the attack from arriving on target.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by labouche
No, eric is completely correct. But I think dan needs to see the way top level directors call RoW because he seems to be mis-lead a lot.
-la bouche

What are you talking about?
I have agreed with Eric completely on how RoW is called.

[edew]

Changing people's opinions are harder than changing people's views of facts (although in some circumstances, that's pretty hard as well).

I think your opinion that the rules should stipulate completely clearing the target is a noble one, but in reality, that is indeed the case. I suggest you do some visual tests with a partner wherein he makes a simple lunge and you make a gentle beat parry. See how far the tip goes.

If you do a bind-parry and choose to stop the parry half-way across your chest, so that the tip doesn't exactly clear the target, then it might be justified to use your opinion to argue otherwise. In that case, I think some referees do call it against the defender. Usually, the call is parried into the target (or off-target, like the leg or somewheres).

The point is that if you take the blade as the defender (or as the blade-taker, which is really what is the case), you've taken over control of the opponent. The name of the game in RoW fencing is control: who has control over the other fencer. If I make an action that causes you to flinch, generally that makes it my right of way.

If you prefer the "in target or not" debate, there's epee.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by edew
I think your opinion that the rules should stipulate completely clearing the target is a noble one, but in reality, that is indeed the case. I suggest you do some visual tests with a partner wherein he makes a simple lunge and you make a gentle beat parry. See how far the tip goes.

Yeah ...I know that most parries really ARE sufficient to clear target...and that most times when there is a touch after the contact that there has been a second action on the part of the attacker. But what about that situation in which the parry is so late that it can not deflect the blade more than a couple inches before the tip touches? How do you feel about that scenario Eric? Do you think that really meets the criteria of "prevent(ing) an offensive action arriving?" (I am asking for opinion here guys....not a ruling on what the call would be at an NAC event.)

[edew]

If the defender parries and during the parry, the attack arrives, I'd probably call it attack arrives. There are many instances when a defender makes a parry and pushes the point to the mask or to the leg or to the arm. Sometimes, it's to the body.

Usually, the hit arrives before the parry is released. In other words, the riposte has not started. Then the attack is either on or off-target and it's called as such. That's pretty routine.

Most referees can clearly discern when the attack arrives. It's also very hard for a defender to make such a long and slow dragged-out parry when the point is that close to the body. Any hold and the remise will arrive before the release and the start of the riposte, so the defender will make the riposte as soon as possible. Then, it's pretty clear whether the buzz for a hit occurred before the tick of the parry.

If, to your ears, the buzz and the tick came at the same time, make a call one way or the other, or say you can't tell.

[Agent_V]

hmm, it seems to me that if the buzz and the tick came at the same time, then that's a pretty strong argument for the parry being late, because by the time the defender found the blade it was already too late...

-Alexander

[edew]

That's why there's a referee.

[Agent_V]

ok, but then why did you tell him to make the call one way or the other, or just throw it out?

-Alexander

[edew]

Well, those are the three possible conclusions the referee has to make: touch for the right, touch for the left, or I don't know.

[Joe biebel]

For all practical purposes, there are only two possible ways to look at whether an action is parried or not. The first case: I make an attack that either hits before, during or after my opponent parries. Result, my touch, attack arrived. The second case: My opponent attacks me and I slightly graze his/her blade before, during or after they hit me. Result, my riposte, touch for me. All the other rules stuff is irrelevant.
Joe Biebel

[edew]

That does seem to be the way you've been arguing it.

[damianip]

Originally posted by Joe biebel
For all practical purposes, there are only two possible ways to look at whether an action is parried or not. The first case: I make an attack that either hits before, during or after my opponent parries. Result, my touch, attack arrived. The second case: My opponent attacks me and I slightly graze his/her blade before, during or after they hit me. Result, my riposte, touch for me. All the other rules stuff is irrelevant.
Joe Biebel

I'm coming into this late, and I'm an épéeist but, that argument is sound if it truly is the attack which lands.

Jeff Bukantz gave us an earfull at a ref's seminar this past summer about the evils of the fast remise. I believe he has since published an article on the subject.

The point being, if it is the attack that lands, then the parry is inadequate, end of story, the attack gets the touch.

As long as it really isn't a fast remise.

I'll bet this was covered earlier...

Paolo