III. Judging Foil Touches - Part 2
Item
-
Title
-
III. Judging Foil Touches - Part 2
-
Date
-
April 9, 1936
-
volume
-
1
-
issue
-
8
-
page start
-
4
-
page end
-
4
-
content
-
en
III - JUDGING FOIL TOUCHES
Part 2
Only last week, our esteemed editor received an inquiry from the leader of the Minnesota League of Fencing Clubs which raised a question of interpretation of the rule concerning “foul” touches. The rule reads as follows: “All hits made on those parts of the body where touches do not count stop the phrase and annul all touches which arrive thereafter.” (III-D-3) The question was whether the word “hits” meant only touches with the point, or also slaps with the point, or with the blade as well. The possibility of confusion had not occurred to us, but it is easy to see how the use of two different words might lead to misunderstanding.
The answer of course is that the rule book uses the words “hit” and “touch” as synonyms, and the only difference between a good touch and a “foul” or invalid touch is that the latter arrives on an invalid part of the target. Such a “foul” has no penalizing effect whatsoever on the fencer who makes it, but it has an important effect on the sequence of play. The phrase is immediately stopped. For this reason, it is your duty as a judge to call a foul when one occurs. Failure to do so will materially affect the score of the contestants in a surprising number of instances.
There is a second sentence to the rule that makes an important exception: “If a thrust is directed toward a valid part of the body, and if the thrust is parried but arrives as a result of the parry on an invalid part, this action shall not be considered cause for stopping the phrase and whatever follows shall not be annulled.”
The most frequent case where this situation occurs is the attack in low quarte, which is met with a quarte parry followed by a straight riposte. If the parry is made with a downward motion, the attack often continues through and touches the leg while the riposte is on its way. The same result follows from a parry of seconde or octave followed by a riposte into the high lines. Watch this carefully, because if the attack is “parried down” into the leg, and an immediate riposte follows, the riposte is good. Even if the point lands squarely upon an invalid part of the target, somewhat ahead in time of the riposte, the rule specifically provides that this is not a “foul” touch within the meaning of the rest of Rule III-D-3.
The practice, however, is that if the attacker definitely insists on his thrust, pushing forward after the parry, and lands “foul,” you should call this foul as being made on the “remise” or continuation of the attack. This would not invalidate the direct riposte, but would invalidate a remise of the riposte if the direct movement failed.
Theoretically, the same rule should apply to touches which arrive on the mask or the arms after a parry, but the number of instances where these situations arise is very small, and seldom, when they do arise, is there any question which a director of average ability cannot solve.
There are, moreover, certain instances (Rule III-D-4) where a foul touch is counted as a good hit. The general principle is that the defending fencer must not substitute an invalid part of the target for a valid part while he is trying to avoid the attack or riposte. If he gets hit then, the touch is good. The specific cases I shall take up with you later, but this rule raises the wider question of the relation of good form to competitive fencing, from the point of view of attack and defense.
First, then, as to good form on the attack: with the few limitations which are defined by the rules, the basic principle is set forth in rule I-D-4: The contestants may fence as they please. Consequently, when a fencer scores a good touch, it is your duty to call it regardless of the particular style of attack or counter-attack (e.g. riposte) which produced it.
At one time the Intercollegiate Championships permitted the judges to pass judgment on the style of the fencers. The rule placed a premium on touches scored according to conventionally correct movements. But, except in special academic tournaments for the specific purpose of rewarding conventional good form, this is no longer the rule. The modern test of excellence in competition is the ability to make touches, and nothing else.
Remember, therefore, that a touch made on an “jab”, or after a turning or ducking movement, is just as good as one made after a classic parry and riposte, even if the action of the successful contestant is sloppy and unconventional from the point of view of orthodox fencing style. The rules under which we run our tournaments are rules of competition, not form.
From the competitor’s angle, therefore, good form must be tested by the pragmatic test of efficiency. A classic style, graceful as a ballet dancer’s, is a beautiful sight to behold. In the Salle d’Armes, it may well be the worthwhile goal of earnest fencers. But a conventionally fine fencer who fails to make touches despite his correct execution is not entitled to win a competition for touches.
As a judge in such a competition you must be impervious to prejudice in favor or against a fencer because of conventional good form. It is your duty to call touches as made.
This is not intended to say that good form is of no value in competition. On the contrary, as I shall explain in my next article, it is a definite asset. But what I want to emphasize is that it is often no more than an alibi for a losing fencer, or his coach, to say: “the other fellow won, but the loser had better form and is a better fencer.” Don’t let them kid you into being unjust to the winner.
M. A. de C.
