-
Title
-
VIII. Directing : The Conduct of the Bout
-
Date
-
November 12, 1936
-
volume
-
1
-
issue
-
18
-
page start
-
4
-
page end
-
4
-
content
-
en
VIII. DIRECTING
The Conduct of the Bout
In my last article (THE RIPOSTE No. 12), I left you standing about 4 meters away from the strip, with the fencers ready to start. Your commands, clearly and simply given, should be: 1. On Guard! 2. Ready? 3. Play! (or Fence!)
From the moment the bout begins, you must concentrate all your attention on the play of both contestants. They are carrying on a debate; their swords are their arguments; there are rebuttals and sur-rebuttals—and you must be able to follow every move so that you may understand the language which they are speaking. You are the judge of the validity of their points. You must decide, when both have scored, which of the two, if either, is correct. Therefore, you must know the intentions of the fencers and test their execution by the establishment of the rules on the point.
Now, for simple cases. In the following diagram, A and B are the fencers; W and X are the judges watching B, and Y and Z are the judges watching A. You are D.
Case 1.
A attacks. W and X, both or either of them, raise their hand in accordance with the procedure outlined in a previous article. Or you (D) believe a touch has been made. IMMEDIATELY you call “Halt!”
Then, quickly and decisively, you turn to W and X, and ask each of them: “Touch?” If both say Yes, you say “Touch for A.” Then you give the commands: On guard—ready—play, at once, so that the bout may not be unnecessarily delayed.
If W says Yes and X abstains, you must rule a touch for A, unless you have a positive opinion that there was no touch.
If W says Yes and X says No, the touch is doubtful, as there are two positive but contrary opinions. Should you have no positive opinion, you must rule that there is No touch, and proceed with the bout.
Of course, if you have a positive opinion that agrees with either W or X, you rule Yes or No accordingly.
Now, if W says Yes, and X says Foul, the result is the same as if X had said No. There is no touch unless you have a positive opinion that it landed fair.
One more situation: W and X hesitate and start to explain. Immediately you must cut short their explanations. If the judge is not sure, he must abstain; if he has an opinion, he must make up his mind at once: Yes, No, or Foul.
Long conversations between director and judge are a waste of time. They bore the audience, cause anxiety to the fencers, and more often than not lead to technically incorrect results. Your jury should be wide awake and snappy, and it is your job as director, not only to keep the judges on their toes, but also to give the fencers and the audience the impression of efficiency in the conduct of the bout.
Case 2.
Now A attacks, B parries and ripostes. Y and Z raise their hands. You call Halt!
You turn to W and X, and ask each: Attack? Suppose they both answer No. Then you ask in turn Y and Z: Riposte? And both answer Yes. You call Touch for B.
As long as both W and X agree that there is no touch against B, the award of a hit on the riposte follows the same rules outlined in Case 1 for the attack.
Now suppose that both W and X say Foul. You immediately put the fencers back on guard and proceed with the bout. There is no need to ask the opinions of Y and Z because even if the riposte lands, it is invalidated by the foul. Consequently, you should not waste time.
If W says Foul, and X says Good, and you have no positive opinion, the result is the same as in the immediately preceding case. Even if you have a positive opinion that there is No Touch at all on A’s attack, you cannot allow B’s riposte. W and X have agreed that A’s point has reached B—their votes outweigh yours. The only disagreement is as to the location of the hit. Therefore, you must rule that B’s riposte is invalid.
Of course, if your positive opinion agrees with W, there is no problem. And if it agrees with X, A’s attack is good.
Now W says Yes, X says No. You have no positive opinion. If A has made only one action, you put the fencers back on guard without consulting Y and Z. A’s attack is "doubtful," and B’s riposte, even if good, must be thrown out.
However, if A has made 2 or more actions, such as counter-riposte, remise, etc., then you must ask Y and Z, because if the riposte should fail, and A’s subsequent action should land, the latter would be valid. In other words, the doubtful touch on the attack invalidates B’s action, but not a subsequent score by A. In this respect, it differs from a foul, which annuls all subsequent actions by either contestant, A or B.
If W and X disagree, as above, and you agree with X (no touch), then there is no touch on the attack, by 2 votes to 1. Then you ask Y and Z whether B’s riposte is good, and rule accordingly.
Make your decisions quickly and authoritatively, thus: D (turns to W): Attack? W: Yes. D (turns to X): Attack? X: No. D: For me, No! (Then turns to Y): Riposte? Y: Yes. D (turns to Z): Riposte? Z: No. D: Touch for B.
Get it? No arguments or explanations. If complicated actions take place, and you have to reconstruct them, the process may be more difficult. But try to avoid needless conferences of officials. The chief argument is between the fencers.
M. A. de C.
