Beat attack in foil

[mollusk]

Thanks for the long replies, Eric.

So pretty much the director needs to apply the "Duck" test. If it look like a duck and it walks like a duck and it smells like a duck, then it is a duck. Replace "duck" with either "parry" or "beat" and you've got your answer. I have no problem with the concept of hitting the blade anywhere to gain ROW as long as it is clear that the intent was a beat and not a flicky attack.

As for the "try the beat and miss and then keep extending" trick, when I direct I look to see if the motion of the blade of the attacker is toward the position of the defender's blade. If it is and fails to find the blade I interpret it as a failed search. Of course the defender had better be ready to jump on his small window of opportunity! If the motion is away from the defender's blade, then I see it as a change of line. Defender plays a dangerous game with this as the director has to be right on top of the action. Once I tried to make absolutely sure that the director would see it correctly so I extended in the same line three times in a row. I let my opponent take the beat the first two times and then scrambled back and parried. On the third beat attempt I deceived the beat and thrust - two lights. I was hopping mad when the director called it the other way! All that setup to make sure he saw it and all he could say was that the other guy was coming forward. BLEECH!

[pkt]

Originally posted by Insipiens
My coach will criticise me if I do a beat to far down his blade, since that will become his parry. But I guess that is an interpretation rather than in the rules - that a beat should be against the foible of my opponent's blade.

Do you count engarde in sixte as a parry position? Surely in theory every engarde position should be a parry position as well.

You've answered your hypothetical question...
PK

[pkt]

Originally posted by Tireur
Yes, but I'm sure you don't beat ouside sixte, do you?

If you're a rightie and your opponent is a lefty, you do. This was the case. Sorry, I omitted this originally.


PK

[pkt]

Originally posted by GGK
So have all my coaches across time. My current coach gave a longer explanation one day… Distilled down the important question is: “Who controls?” That said let it be dually noted that leverage is on the side of strong to weak. As you give up the mechanical advantage of leverage it is still possible to control the blades, just harder.

Back to the original scenario… Did A control B’s blade with an attack on the blade, i.e. beat? Or did B, by position and placement of blade nullify A’s attack on the blade? Which one controlled the other?

Well, A felt he had control and did hit B...B just reacted instinctively.

PK

[pkt]

Originally posted by edew
If the referee says, "beat attack.." then it's a beat attack. If there's no attempt to make a parry, then the referee cannot say, "beat attack is parried, because the parry has to be an active motion in foil."

You can have a passive parry position in sabre, by holding your weapon in a particular position and letting your opponent whack at your blade. But that doesn't occur in foil because whacking at the blade in foil is clearly an attempt to beat the blade, not a possible attempt at hitting the wrist and missing.

AND, if fencer A is attempting (and succeeding) a beat attack and fencer B is attempting to parry that beat attack, then it's still A's unless there were two distinct phrases, the beat attack and a parry riposte. If the parry occurs during the beat, it's the beat's priority.

Happy New Year, Eric,

That's the basis of my protestation to the N-rated [Cdn] ref who was the coach of the club I belong to. At the end of the discussion, my basic point was this - after said ref couldn't find the pertinent section in my correctly updated FIE rule book I tossed him - if he had called it "beat attack was parried" then I would have accepted it. But when he said, "Beat landed too low on the blade... therefore attack was parried..." I agree with you,Eric, I've always thought that against a beat, the parry has to be active. Of course, the best counter action is counter-beat...but that's another sotry.

PK

[pkt]

Originally posted by Craig
Read Eric's response and also note PKT's original statement:


That B's blade was moved demonstrates that B did not have control, A did. Therefore it's A's beat attack.

Craig

mollusk,

The difference between foil and sabre is that as long as the beat landed on the bottom half of the blade, in sabre, even if the beat moved the opp's blade, it is still, BY DEFINITION, a parry .

In foil there is no such theoretical definition. A beat is a beat is a beat. the only requirement is that the opp's blade is moved. To add further to the confusion, the rules do not define how much the opp's blade has to be moved.

Of course in reality, this situation we're discussing is diff't from a PiL since the opp't is in an en-garde position in sixte - he's a lefty.

PK

[pkt]

Originally posted by edew
...

Unless you have a sharp-eyed referee.

Then we'd have reached Fencing Nirvana/Valhalla/Heaven or whatever you wish to call it. But alas, in most instances we have to be satisfied with Fencing Utopia = No-place.

PK