Beat attack in foil

[pkt]

If this has been covered before - I'm sure it has - please elt me know.

In a foil beat attack, A's beat landed low on the blade. B's blade was in a parry position and was moved albeit temporarily, B did not actively do anything other than react and both hits land.

How would you call this?

Fact:
1. There is NO rule in foil - as in sabre - about defining where the beat should land.
2. Foil rule states that a beat has to move the opponent's point off the line. In this case B's blade was not in line, it was in a parry/on guard position.

Thank you and Happy New Year to all,
PK

PS: Ooops, sorry to mention this:
A is a lefty, so B's beat was to his 6th, on the outside. Doesn't really change things much...

[swordsen]

Hmmmm Can't call it without seeing it.

[The0ne]

so B just happened to have his foil in a parry 4 position? If A initiated the beat, it's his touch. THe moving the point out of line refers to whatever line the point is in at the time.

[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.

[swordsen]

OH I will criticise my students if they beat against their opponents forte. In most fencing books, especially the older ones, contact between the forte and the foil is generally called a parry by he who holds the forte.

[Tireur]

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

Yes, but I'm sure you don't beat ouside sixte, do you?

[MikeHarm]

In the foil tourney's I've gone to on average the director's have called it that the beat was too low making it my opponents parry when I've tried this giving my opponent the right of way. I suspect in the cases where they didn't call that and I've gotten the touch for this action its likely they probably didn't catch where my blade contacted and just heard the clang of blade contact and saw the opponents blade move.

[Craig]

There is no rule in foil as there is in sabre that makes a distinction with where the beat lands on the opponent's blade. I believe this was discussed in one of the last "make the call" discussions held here. I'll have to go back and look at my notes on it.

B was not actively making a parry, so A claims the attack. If B were actively going for a parry at the same time that A was actively making a beat attack, then I may bring "stong vs. weak" in to determine who had obtained control of the blade. Since B was in a passive state, B can not obtain control so priority is with A.

In sabre, the defense is "passive" in nature - the blade must be placed in a position to receive and block the cut. In foil, the defense is "active" in nature - you have to find the blade and deflect it.

Cheers,
Craig

[canthidefromme]

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

Why not?

[GGK]

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.

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?

[mollusk]

Originally posted by Craig
[snip]
B was not actively making a parry, so A claims the attack. If B were actively going for a parry at the same time that A was actively making a beat attack, then I may bring "stong vs. weak" in to determine who had obtained control of the blade. Since B was in a passive state, B can not obtain control so priority is with A.
[snip
Cheers,
Craig

I'm confused here, Craig. Are you saying that if A is attacking in the closed line he can get ROW by beating low on the blade? And if I were defending why would I have to move my blade (actively making a parry) if I was already guarding against that attack? If those are the rules and the way they are interpretted I'll live with it, but it sure doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the game.

[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.

[Craig]

Originally posted by mollusk
I'm confused here, Craig. Are you saying that if A is attacking in the closed line he can get ROW by beating low on the blade? And if I were defending why would I have to move my blade (actively making a parry) if I was already guarding against that attack? If those are the rules and the way they are interpretted I'll live with it, but it sure doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the game.

Read Eric's response and also note PKT's original statement:

B's blade was in a parry position and was moved albeit temporarily

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

Craig

[shmagoogin77]

how can judge it if you cant see it

[edew]

Replying to Mollusk:

Beating the blade in foil is not the same as attacking the target. If I attack (make a thrust in foil) into a closed line and the defender does nothing but hold the blade in the proper position, then the call would be "attack is parried...(then whatever happens after that)..."

However, the claim is that there is a beat involved. If I beat the blade, then I beat the blade. The beat is not to move the point out of line, as it was never in line to begin with (the defender is presumably holding the blade in some on guard defensive position). The beat is to secure right of way for the attacker. There are other ways to gain right of way: extend the arm before the other person, establish a point in line before the other person begins an attack, and so.

A beat is just one way among several to gain right of way. The point here is that the beat doesn't have to be at the upper portion of the blade because in foil, a beat to the blade is clearly understood to be a beat to the blade and not an attempt at hitting the arm or something, especially since the arm is not a target.

If one person is completely stationary and the other makes an attack with or without a beat, the other has right of way. So why make a beat? Well, it could happen that both fencers decide to make an attack. If both are extending, then the one who makes a beat during the attack will have right of way. There is a slight gamble (and unfortunately, I don't often see referees, including myself, always calling it) in that if in attempting to beat the blade, the beater fails to find the blade and continues the attack. If both fencers were attacking, then the point goes to the one who makes the other miss the beat. A failed beat offers the right of way to the opponent. In many cases, coaches work with the student to make sure that beats are followed through with a nice clean attack so that it all looks like one action. It's almost a can't-lose action: if the beat occurs, you get right of way; if the beat fails (and your attack looks seamless), the call would be for simultaneous attacks. In either case, it won't count against you.

Unless you have a sharp-eyed referee.

[mollusk]

Thanks Craig and Eric.

I was thinking about a couple of fencers that I face in foil that often simply flail against a closed line in the hope that either something gets through by pure luck or that they can hit the remise and hope that the riposte is off target. The parry position I was thinking about is pretty deep and the attack would land if the foil wasn't there. I am concerned that once they started flailing against my blade positioned in 4 I then could never get the right to riposte because every blocked attack would also be a beat. When they do this my blade is solid and theirs bounces off so it is a bit different than the first described action. Is this also considered a beat attack and not a parry?

[shmagoogin77]

i think it is

[Delmont]

I"M ready to be told I'm wrong, but if thier blade is the one that is gettig deflected then you are in control and it isn't a beat.

[shmagoogin77]

it matters where you hit the blade
if its in the top 3rd section of the blade its a beat
anywhere below that its conted as a beat

[edew]

If a foilist makes a flick action and it hits the opponent's stationary blade, it will be called a parry and not a beat. Of course, it will be up to the referee to determine whether the action is considered a beat by the attacker or a parry by the defender.

The referee in the case of flick attacks in foil has to decide whether the flicking action is an attempt to get around the blade to go for a score, or an attempt to just hit the blade to secure right of way for the next immediate action.

The subsequent actions of both fencers are usually the telling clues, as well as the depth of the flick, whether it "seems" like an attempt to hit the body versus an attempt to hit the blade.

Since the blade in foil is relatively far from the blade holder's target area (the torso), it's pretty simple for a referee to see whether an action of the blade is a beat as opposed to a failed flick. The main differentiating point is whether the point would hit the target were the defender's blade not in it position. In other words, if the attacker makes a beat attack, it would have to be a beat if the blade were not present there, the action would not have scored a touch.

If you choose to hold your blade close to your body then it makes the referee's life a little harder. The referee would interpret a beat then as an attempt to attack and failed by being parried.