insuffecient parries

[frenzl]

what is the ruling on an insuffecient(sp?) parry. do you only have to make blade contact for it to be a parry.

because some poeple "parry" but are only moving my point into another line and i still hit yet they say that they have right of way (after they ripost of course).

[labouche]

Originally posted by frenzl
what is the ruling on an insuffecient(sp?) parry. do you only have to make blade contact for it to be a parry.

because some poeple "parry" but are only moving my point into another line and i still hit yet they say that they have right of way (after they ripost of course).

If one makes blade contact (more than a graze) before the attack lands it is a parry. So yes, if your blade is parried into another line your opponent has RoW.
-la bouche

[pkt]

Simple rules:
1. If the attack lands on the opponent's blade and target at the same time it is - in official FIE lingo - "attack: through the blade" which is, in regular lingo "insufficient parry".
2. If the attack lands on the opponent's blade then the target, it's parried, and the attack becomes a remise. Whether there is a riposte or not. Fencing lingo/concept is that clear and simple.

Hope that helps.

PK

[frenzl]

thanks that does help that will change my strategy quite a bit.

[Delmont]

Wait wait wait, I want to get this clear because we were having problems withthis exact thing at my club and it was explained differently than above. So even if, in the same attacking motion, the parry simply moves the point into another viable target area its still a parry and takes ROW? So fencer A attacks 6, B's blade contacts and moves the point to, say 4. B reposts and lands. You are saying that would be B's point?

[neevel]

As PK was explaining, it has to do with the timing of the attack, the parry, and the riposte. If, in the case you describe, the attack is deflected but lands in the same tempo as the parry, then it's an mal-parry. If the deflected attack arrives on the new target the tempo after the parry is released, then it is a remise.

The real principle is that, if your opponent manages to find your blade at some point in your attack, the smartest move usually is to break off your action and deal definitively with your opponent's return action coming back at you, rather than hoping you break through the parry and hit marginally before they hit you. So the interpretation is biased in favor of the defender's contact with your blade.


-Dave

[Delmont]

Thanks, I should have been a little clearer in my question. I did mean if the attack hits in the same tempo.

[oiuyt]

You may or may not be thinking of "in the same tempo" as the same thing as Neevel is. If they find your blade (ie get a click) and start a riposte and you continue on to a slightly different target (you've never stopped moving, merely were shifted to the side slightly), you hit, then they hit (direct riposte, but speed not important), then they will get the touch. You may or may not consider what you're doing a second action (and therefore a second tempo, but the referee will.

Another thing to consider that isn't obvious is that even a slight click parry deflects the tip of your blade not just into another line but actually, for a very brief moment, clear of target before the flexibility of the blade returns the tip to target (either in the original or changed line). This return is therefore NOT part of the original attack. High speed photography will demonstrate that these parries that "don't sufficiently deflect the attack" actually do do so and good referees' calls reflect this reality. The parry does NOT have to halt the attack to gain ROW, it merely has to prevent it from arriving on the first action.

Now let's say I try a traditional/old-school blocking parry, push your blade to the side, hold onto your blade, you push through and hit in the new line, THEN I release and riposte. My riposte starts after your replacement and is therefore out of time (I might still very well get the call from a generous referee as the favor in case of doubt will belong to me most likely).

-B :)

[Delmont]

oiuyt, I agree with everything you said, if the point goes out of a threatening line, even for a micro second, its a good parry. This is hard to explain without showing you what I was talking about.

[MikeHarm]

In competitions in foil I've always had the directors say its a malparry/insufficient parry and given the touch to the attacker in foil, but in the sabre competitions I've done its called like oiuyt describes and I get the touch on the riposte.

[pkt]

I agree more with oiuyt - Happy New Year, BTW - than Neevel.

MikeHarm,
Differnt weapons, different tempi, different rules; though the same RoW concept.


PK

[CarlKnoch]

I like to think that there is no such thing as an insufficient parry. You either parry and riposte correctly, or you do not.

My rule of thumb is that if my blade (or the defenders blade) is still touching the attackers blade when the tip lands, then I did not parry. His attack is valid as all I did was try to parry, and guide it to my target BEFORE starting my riposte. My riposte started AFTER his attack landed and so it was not correct.

If the attackers blade is parried, and the riposte starts BEFORE the attack (remise in this case) lands, then it's attack, parry, riposte, remise with the touch going to the riposte.

[pkt]

Originally posted by CarlKnoch
...

My rule of thumb is that if my blade (or the defenders blade) is still touching the attackers blade when the tip lands, then I did not parry. His attack is valid as all I did was try to parry, and guide it to my target BEFORE starting my riposte. My riposte started AFTER his attack landed and so it was not correct.

In proper, officially approved FIE reffing lingo, that's called "through the blade".
In everyday language that's called "insufficient parry", "mal parry".

PK

[Katman]

I've never been too clear on what to call these actions. Sometimes I say, "Attack, parry no riposte, remise arrives," or I just say, "Attack arrives." I've always thought of a mal-parry (in foil anyway) as an oxymoron.