another foil ROW question

[drizzt_do_urden]

I have a question concerning the way I’ve seen right of way for foil called at tournaments. This seems to have been called for me as much as against me, so I’m not complaining, but in order to play the game most efficiently, I feel I should have a better understanding of how the rules are most commonly interpreted by directors.

The situation is this. Fencer A lunges at fencer B. Fencer B attempts to parry, and blade contact is made. However, fencer A’s attack still lands on target from his initial attack motion in the same line as his initial attack. Meanwhile, Fencer B has landed an immediate riposte on target.

It seems that this action usually gets called as a score for the parry/riposte of Fencer B. (Attack no, parry/riposte yes, remise yes). My question is, why isn’t this a mal parry on the part of Fencer B, and a point for Fencer A? Fencer A didn’t make a second attack or remise, his attack was one motion.

If the correct call is for the parry riposte score, then does that mean I don’t really need to worry about making successful parries that stop the attack, but rather I can kind of fake the parries just so long as I make slight blade contact to get the right of way for the riposte?

If this specific question has already been discussed thoroughly in previous thread, will someone please put a link to it? Thanks.

[pammie003]

Was A's tip deflected from its origional line?

[edew]

In foil, there is no such thing as mal-parry. Either the attacking blade was intercepted before hitting the target or after hitting the target. If it was intercepted before hitting the target, then it's parried. It's up to the referee to decide whether the hit arrived before the parry.

There is no need to discern whether the attacking blade has been moved out of target area. As long as the defender actively tries to take the blade and there is indeed blade contact, that is sufficient. (And in slo-mo replays, one can see, what in normal speed might be considered an "insufficient" parry, that the blade indeed has been moved quite significantly.)

There is also no mal-parry in sabre either. Either the attack landed or it was parry.

The colloquial use of "mal-parry" in sabre is to explain to the defender that indeed, his parry was late, or positioned insufficiently.

In sabre, it's possible to make a passive parry. That is, you hold your parry position and the attacker whacks on your blade or guard, causing his attack to be parried. You don't do a thing other than hold tight. But if your hand is not properly positioned, that whack could be accompanied with a "thwop" on the arm or chest or wherever, indicating that you indeed did not parry it, that it was insufficient or improperly placed.

In foil, it's rare to have a passive parry. If your hand is in the proper on guard sixte position, you need to actively make a parrying motion to intercept the incoming attack to any other line. If the attacker decides to attack into your closed sixte line, you should not have to move the blade at all, but at the same time, one needn't call the defensive action a parry, just call the attack no. (It's as if the attacker made a thrust to the leg in foil, there's no need to actively try to parry such a threat.)

Also in sabre, when you make that cutting action, you may hit the target then the blade as the momentum of the cut continues. That blade contact after the target contact is what makes the defender think he's made a parry. But it's a late parry, insufficiently parry, or improperly placed parry position. We group all that to say, "mal-parry," which is just a kind way to tell the defender that he got hit, but "good try in defending yourself, old boy. Better luck next time."

In foil, the momentum of a contact to the target generally doesn't include hitting the blade, so such an occurrence where the defender's blade is hit after the target is hit is rare. If the defender actively makes the move to hit the blade after the target has been hit, well, it's a late parry. Here, we're not so kind and just say, "attack arrived. Duh."

As a matter of personal experience, I frequently get caught making big steps against my opponent, wherein they make a stop-hit, counter-attack, whatever, and I try to do a second-intention of parry riposte. If I hit the blade before it hits me, my parry riposte counts. If the point hits me before I can parry, it's my opponent's score. Very simple.

[DanInMI]

I would consider it an unsuccessful parry....but most directors would not.

"The parry is the defensive action made with the weapon to prevent an offensive action arriving." t7


However, there is this rule as well:
"When a parry is properly executed, the attack by the opponent must be declared parried, and judged as such by the Referee, <b>even if, as a result of its flexibility, the tip of the opponent’s weapon makes contact with the target."</b>t79
I believe that this is to discourage flick-like attacks that bend around the blade and still hit on target.

I think that most directors would argue that the attacker was deflected and took up a "new line" making the continuation a remise.

"The parry is properly carried out when, before the completion of the attack, it prevents the arrival of that attack by closing the line in which that attack is to finish."t.79

I know some directors that just listen for blade contact, if they hear it they assume a successful parry.

I think that goes against the intent of the rule, which I believe is that the successfull should deflect the blade enough to prevent it from hitting target .

[pkt]

drizzt_do_urden,

In official FIE-sanctioned refereeing vocabulary, there is no such thing as "mal-parry". There is, closest to it, "through the blade". I know, they basically mean, in reality, the same thing but the difference in concept speaks volumes, and Eric's contrubution is but a small part of the volume.

I don't think I have more to add to what Eric wrote but to re-emphasise the simple rules:
~ If the attack lands on the target first, then the blade attack is good.
~If the attack lands on the blade first - and it's not an "attacque au fer" - then the target, if there's a counter action from the defending fencer, then the RoW passes over to the defending fencer's action.
~ A mere contact of the blade does NOT constitute a parry.


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


Pls also remember, referees are humans, they spend a whole lot more effort than the fencers - they have to concentrate 100% of the time during the whole bout, even during the break in the action, for the whole pool or D/E bout. furthermore, standing there is a lot more tiring than moving about. AND, the ref is expected to make correct calls 100% of the time. So you can appreciate the Sisyphian nature of the ref's task.

On the other hand, each fencer fences only his/her own bouts, 1/6th or 1/7th of the pool. They may even 'rest' during the bout.

PK

[drizzt_do_urden]

So, basically, the way I'm understanding it is that under current rule interpretations in foil for most directors I don't really need to parry an attack fully enough to make it miss, I just make blade contact before I'm hit and riposte immediately on target (I know, easier said than done.) But with that concept, I can probably shave some time of my riposte. Plus since I would be starting it early, not having had made a full parry, I'd assume my opponent would have a harder time parrying my riposte since he would still be in the process of landing his initial attack.

And I'd probably also have to be aware of how each specific director calls the action, in case I get a director who is of the mindset of DanInMI who might consider my fake parries unsuccessful parries and award the touch to the attacker, in which case I'd have to switch back to making full parries before posting.

Is that correct?

Also, I agree with DanInMI that it seems to go against the original intentions of the rules for mere blade contact to be counted as a parry. After all, wasn't fencing originally developed as training for dueling, in which case you would really want to make those parries. But, on the other hand, if this is how the modern game has evolved, I want to be aware of the way the rules are interpretted to give myself the best chances for success.

And thanks to everyone for the advice filled replies.

[The0ne]

The objective of a parry today in foil is to take ROW. If you make a parry and quickly and come off the blade, even though it doesn't "defend" you, it's still a parry. If you want swordfighting fence Epee.

[Agent_V]

Remember that a solid parry which keeps the opponent's blade out of line is always preferred to a simple beat - not only because it is much easier for the ref to see, but because it does just that, it keeps your opponents blade out of the way, so that they don't hit you. This can be quite invaluble if your reposte misses....

-Alexander

[The0ne]

Of course a parry that does control the blade is optimal, but in many situations that's not going to be possible to execute.

[edew]

Originally posted by drizzt_do_urden
So, basically, the way I'm understanding it is that under current rule interpretations in foil for most directors I don't really need to parry an attack fully enough to make it miss, I just make blade contact before I'm hit and riposte immediately on target (I know, easier said than done.) But with that concept, I can probably shave some time of my riposte. Plus since I would be starting it early, not having had made a full parry, I'd assume my opponent would have a harder time parrying my riposte since he would still be in the process of landing his initial attack.

And I'd probably also have to be aware of how each specific director calls the action, in case I get a director who is of the mindset of DanInMI who might consider my fake parries unsuccessful parries and award the touch to the attacker, in which case I'd have to switch back to making full parries before posting.

Is that correct?

Also, I agree with DanInMI that it seems to go against the original intentions of the rules for mere blade contact to be counted as a parry. After all, wasn't fencing originally developed as training for dueling, in which case you would really want to make those parries. But, on the other hand, if this is how the modern game has evolved, I want to be aware of the way the rules are interpretted to give myself the best chances for success.

And thanks to everyone for the advice filled replies.

Parries are like light switches, it's either on or off, no in between (dimmers notwithstanding). Either you made a parry or you didn't. There's no "full parry" or "half parry" of "65% parry". If you touch the blade before the point hits, you made a parry. You can parry and block the blade from hitting you, or you can parry and block the blade from hitting you and the Brady Bunch standing next to you.

Again, just a little touch on the opponent's blade is sufficient to physically move the tip out of line. It really does. Try it in practice. Have your partner extend and lunge. Make a nice gentle whippy beat to it. Watch the tip go flying off to the sunset and come back into line. That flying off to the sunset really did displace the point from the target area.

On the other hand, if you make these slow, arm-based parry, you won't get such a push and the attacker's tip goes as far as your parry carries it. Still, the issue for the referee is that the parry took control of the attacker's blade. You, the defender now have control of the blade, thus the attacker no longer has right of way.

I don't think there's much time to be shaved by making such a parry-riposte, by the way. Your opponent, if he's of any accomplished caliber, should be able to defend against any such parries.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by edew
Parries are like light switches, it's either on or off, no in between (dimmers notwithstanding). Either you made a parry or you didn't. There's no "full parry" or "half parry" of "65% parry". If you touch the blade before the point hits, you made a parry. You can parry and block the blade from hitting you, or you can parry and block the blade from hitting you and the Brady Bunch standing next to you.

Again, just a little touch on the opponent's blade is sufficient to physically move the tip out of line. It really does. Try it in practice. Have your partner extend and lunge. Make a nice gentle whippy beat to it. Watch the tip go flying off to the sunset and come back into line. That flying off to the sunset really did displace the point from the target area.

Still, the issue for the referee is that the parry took control of the attacker's blade.

I don't disagree with any of that....that is certainly the way that parries are called these days, but I think that it is a shame that referrees are calling any contact of the blade a parry. It is true that there is either a parry or not, (there is no in-between) and the rules do not use the term "mal-parry."
The rules do, however, define a parry :
"The parry is the defensive action made with the weapon to prevent an offensive action arriving." t7

It seems to me that if the blade deflects the tip a few inches and it still hits on target, then you have not "prevent(ed) an offensive action arriving." I think that it goes against the intent of the rules to call it a "parry." I also think it is awfully hard to claim that you had "control" of the blade if the momentum of the attack carried the point to target, if you truly had control then the blade would not hit anything.

[The0ne]

seems to me that if the blade deflects the tip a few inches and it still hits on target, then you have not "prevent(ed) an offensive action arriving." I think that it goes against the intent of the rules to call it a "parry." I also think it is awfully hard to claim that you had "control" of the blade if the momentum of the attack carried the point to target, if you truly had control then the blade would not hit anything.

DanInMI,
by your logic every parry repost has to be one light to score, go to a tournament and see how many good directors call it like that.
Listen to EDew and your directing will improve

[edew]

Look, it's possible for me to bash the other's blade, make my riposte, and still have the opponent hit me with a remise. What difference is there between that and a simple, elegant tap, riposte and remise?

Frankly, very few fencers still make slight tick-tick parries. Most make the big sweeping parries and they clearly take the blade out of line.

When a person makes a successful parry, then by definition, the offensive action has failed. The attack is done. Whatever that occurs afterwards is called a remise, and may count for a score if the intervening riposte failed.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by The0ne
DanInMI,
by your logic every parry repost has to be one light to score, go to a tournament and see how many good directors call it like that.
Listen to EDew and your directing will improve

I am not disagreeing with Eric that this is the way that it is called.
I am fully aware that this is how good directors call it, I am saying that I think it is a shame. I don't think that it honors the intent of the rule.

Also, I do not believe that "by (my) logic every parry repost has to be one light to score." Often, at lower, to mid levels, there are two lights when the parry HAS effectively prevented the original attack from arriving, and the attacker changes his angle of attack causing the point to hit target. That is quite clearly a second action (a remise) and the right of way should go to the repost.

When a parry causes the tip to go off target and immediately reposts the director does not call it a parry, repost...it is attack, off target and the action is stopped.
"A touch which is made on a part of the body other than the target (whether directly or as a result of a parry) is not counted as a valid touch, but it stops the phrase and therefore annuls all touches which are scored thereafter." t48

So a parry that causes the attack to hit off target is penalized in comparison to one that follows through and DOES hit target. Does that make sense?

[gojujay]

I agree with DanInMi. Although the current interpretation of the rules allows tick-tick parries, I think it is totally opposed to the reason the "sport" was founded. Remember your history.

p.s. I hate flicks too

[darius]

"The parry is the defensive action made with the weapon to prevent an offensive action arriving." t7

Did the point arrive at the time of the parry? If not, then the parry has done its job. Just because I can muster enough strength to power through Liz Van Son's parry-four, doesn't mean it should be counted as my touch -- if she made a parry and then riposted immediately, her action was more correct than mine.

"The parry is properly carried out when, before the completion of the attack, it prevents the arrival of that attack by closing the line in which that attack is to finish." t.79

When you call it, how soon is it that the point must arrive after the parry for it to be "malparre"?

Watch some videos in slo-mo. I was amazed at how far the lightest tick-tick parries will deflect the tip. Voila, that deflection has closed the line and prevented the arrival of the attack.

Now, immediately after that, you begin your riposte. If Fencer X is still powering his way forward, all the better for you!

Perhaps we could come up with an electronic solution, using an overhead video camera angle with a protractor to judge the angle of the blades and see that the tip is sufficiently deflected more than a certain amount away from the defender.

A video foul line could be projected onto the instant replay, to calculate whether or not the point would go passe.

The box would contain a circuit to detect the length of contact of the blades and deem it sufficient; only opposition would save one's *** in a duel, after all!

Or we could listen for the clicks.

darius

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by gojujay
I agree with DanInMi. Although the current interpretation of the rules allows tick-tick parries, I think it is totally opposed to the reason the "sport" was founded. Remember your history.

p.s. I hate flicks too

don't get me wrong....I don't care whether it has anything to do with an actual duel, I recognize that fencing is a sport. I am not one of those "classical" fencing enthusiasts. I have no interest in wearing a fluffy shirt on the weekends. I simply think that directors, as a whole, have decided to interpet the rules in a way that is contrary to the original intent, which was that a parry should prevent the attack from arriving successfully on target.

[labouche]

Originally posted by edew
In foil, there is no such thing as mal-parry. Either the attacking blade was intercepted before hitting the target or after hitting the target. If it was intercepted before hitting the target, then it's parried. It's up to the referee to decide whether the hit arrived before the parry.

There is no need to discern whether the attacking blade has been moved out of target area. As long as the defender actively tries to take the blade and there is indeed blade contact, that is sufficient. (And in slo-mo replays, one can see, what in normal speed might be considered an "insufficient" parry, that the blade indeed has been moved quite significantly.)

There is also no mal-parry in sabre either. Either the attack landed or it was parry.

The colloquial use of "mal-parry" in sabre is to explain to the defender that indeed, his parry was late, or positioned insufficiently.

In sabre, it's possible to make a passive parry. That is, you hold your parry position and the attacker whacks on your blade or guard, causing his attack to be parried. You don't do a thing other than hold tight. But if your hand is not properly positioned, that whack could be accompanied with a "thwop" on the arm or chest or wherever, indicating that you indeed did not parry it, that it was insufficient or improperly placed.

In foil, it's rare to have a passive parry. If your hand is in the proper on guard sixte position, you need to actively make a parrying motion to intercept the incoming attack to any other line. If the attacker decides to attack into your closed sixte line, you should not have to move the blade at all, but at the same time, one needn't call the defensive action a parry, just call the attack no. (It's as if the attacker made a thrust to the leg in foil, there's no need to actively try to parry such a threat.)

Also in sabre, when you make that cutting action, you may hit the target then the blade as the momentum of the cut continues. That blade contact after the target contact is what makes the defender think he's made a parry. But it's a late parry, insufficiently parry, or improperly placed parry position. We group all that to say, "mal-parry," which is just a kind way to tell the defender that he got hit, but "good try in defending yourself, old boy. Better luck next time."

In foil, the momentum of a contact to the target generally doesn't include hitting the blade, so such an occurrence where the defender's blade is hit after the target is hit is rare. If the defender actively makes the move to hit the blade after the target has been hit, well, it's a late parry. Here, we're not so kind and just say, "attack arrived. Duh."

As a matter of personal experience, I frequently get caught making big steps against my opponent, wherein they make a stop-hit, counter-attack, whatever, and I try to do a second-intention of parry riposte. If I hit the blade before it hits me, my parry riposte counts. If the point hits me before I can parry, it's my opponent's score. Very simple.

Edew, you are a freaking genious! That is exactly correct.
-la bouche

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by darius
Did the point arrive at the time of the parry? If not, then the parry has done its job. Just because I can muster enough strength to power through Liz Van Son's parry-four, doesn't mean it should be counted as my touch -- if she made a parry and then riposted immediately, her action was more correct than mine.

When you call it, how soon is it that the point must arrive after the parry for it to be "malparre"?

darius

The question is not whether i have mustered enough strength to power through someone's parry. The question is whether they have mustered enough strength to deflect my blade so that it does not arrive on target.

If the defender manages to make blade contact just as my tip is 3 inches away from hitting target, and causes it to hit an inch to the left, has the parry really done it's job? Has it really caused the "offensive action arriving?"

[labouche]

Originally posted by DanInMI
The question is not whether i have mustered enough strength to power through someone's parry. The question is whether they have mustered enough strength to deflect my blade so that it does not arrive on target.

If the defender manages to make blade contact just as my tip is 3 inches away from hitting target, and causes it to hit an inch to the left, has the parry really done it's job? Has it really caused the "offensive action arriving?"

Have you ever been to a national competition?
-la bouche