I think that anyone interested in fencing, athlete, referee, teacher or officer of a federation, cannot remain indifferent to the question raised in this web site by Maestro Vincenzo Castrucci http://www.accademiadellascherma.it/non-mi-piace/the-third-fencer.html, which has bounced over other web sites, including Fencing.net http://www.fencing.net/forums/thread54875.html. Thanks to gladius patient translation work and contacts we are able to know the opinions and comments of the visitors to the American web site.

Opinions are opinions and rules are rules, but reality is always a different thing. The true rules of the game are not the written ones but those which are effectively enforced, and they depend on those who enforce them, the referees, and those who select/appoint them. I dare say that one of the necessary conditions for advancement in society is when the gap between what is written and what is enforced is getting smaller and smaller.

It seems that in fencing many feel that the gap between the written and applied rules is still too big. I agree with this opinion and I also believe I know the reasons why this is so.

The FIE Règlement Technique (RT) dates back to the birth of the FIE in 1914. In its first version which for the most part has not changed, the technical part was the fruit of a compromise from the beginning between the dominant national schools of that time, French for épée, Italian for foil, and Hungarian for saber. Like any compromise it had many defects and the years since have accentuated them. Then as today the RT made reference to “treatises” without naming them. However, the definitions, few and inconsistent, on which it was and is still based, appear to be taken from French texts. Let me give you two examples from the latest version of the FIE RT (in French) with the English translation on the BFA web site.

Example 1:         The infamous “temps d’escrime” (fencing time)

From the FIE RT

t.6          Le temps d'escrime est la durée d'exécution d'une action simple.

t.6.         Fencing time is the time required to perform one simple fencing action.

• For the French, the “action simple” (simple fencing action) is that which is executed in a single movement.
• For the Italians, the “action simple” (simple fencing action) is that which does not elude a parry.

Therefore,

• for the French a “beat and straight thrust” is not simple, but it is simple for the Italians.
• for the French the action of coupé is simple—i.e., executed in a single movement—even though the blade, for example in a riposte, moves in front of the opponent’s point with an obvious movement back of the weapon—RT calls this Riposte Simple indirecte (Riposte Simple, indirect).

Furthermore there is no reference to legs movement which can accompany the armed arm movement. Consequently, the “temps d’escrime” (fencing time) is the same for a straight thrust executed from different measures, without moving the foot, as well as with a step forward and lunge.

Example 2:         “Actions offensives” (Offensive actions)

From the FIE RT

t.7          Définition: 

t.7.1      Les différentes actions offensives sont l'attaque, la riposte et la contre-riposte.

t.7. 1.    The offensive actions are the attack, the riposte and the counter-riposte.

Aside from the fact that the counter-riposte is a riposte (otherwise we should include the counter-counter-riposte, and so on…), i.e., the offensive action which follows immediately the parry, few lines further down the RT “explains” and lists among the offensive actions the contre-attaque (counter-attack) which was not mentioned in the definition t.7 above. And further down we discover there are others; in the same family we find the remise, the redoublement, the reprise d’attaque (reprise of attack)—which is nothing else than a new attack from the fencer who finished his first attack—and the contre-temps (counter-time) (!), a complex action of second intention, which in the most common case includes a simulation of attack, a parry, and a riposte.

Let me pause here: if these are the “definitions” and “explanations” on which the rest of the RT is based, nothing should surprise us. And it really does not mean much that the editors of the RT—almost by way of a justification—add in Note 1, i.e.,

It states that this RT chapter with the “definitions” does not replace a fencing treatise but is only intended to facilitate the understanding of the RT (for some reason this note is not printed on the English version of the RT).

With such shaky foundations the entire building cannot stand. Paradoxically though this is also its strength. Since no one is capable to change it or feels the desire to tackle the monumental task of changing the building’s foundations, things remain as they are and interpretations replace the rules, and they do so rather heavily.

The most glaring example is in one of the cardinal definitions—that concerning the attaque (attack).

From the FIE RT

t.7 Définition: 

t.7.1 -  L'attaque est l'action offensive initiale exécutée en allongeant le bras et menaçant continuellement la surface valable de l'adversaire, précédant le déclenchement de la fente ou de la flèche (Cf. t.56 ss, t.75 ss).

t.7. 1. — The attack is the initial offensive action made by extending the arm and continuously threatening the opponent’s target, preceding the launching of the lunge or flèche (cf. t.56ss, t.75ss).

This is something we have not seen on the strip for decades, except in épée. The forward motion of the legs has become in the current interpretation of the referees by far the most important factor.

It is not my intention here to crucify the referees. It is not their fault if fencing has become too quick to follow from a distance of 1 to 2 meters (3 to 6 feet) the contemporaneous development of two very rapid actions. The reality is that fencing with conventional weapons has changed profoundly around the fifties and more specifically since the adoption of electric foil, something which happened thanks to great Italian pressure on the FIE. The RT on the other hand remained the same and it turns out to be now totally inadequate.

How and why did fencing change?

Let me talk for now about foil only. When one had to “see” the hit to assign the point the fencer’s major concern was directed towards the visibility of his hit. Aesthetics mattered. The chest was the main target, if not the only one. Each hit (said the treatises) must be carried with the required opposition (an evident affinity with the duel); the weapon had to be well in line and hits to the body with an angle almost did not exist.

When electric foil took over, hits with an angle, touches to the edges of the target, including the back became common. All one needed was for the signaling apparatus to register the touch. Angled hits require the arm to be more or less bent. Consequently, parries had to be wider. With the new blades, more flexible and lighter for safety reasons, angled hits soon became flicks which require an arm even more bent and parries wider still.

This is when what Italians call “chiusure” (contractions together with chiusura di misura—closing of the distance—almost always with a bent arm which was the only way to contrast an attack with a bent arm!) came to be, together with a more driven distance game, with bigger displacements on the strip. The poor referee, to see both fencers and the scoring apparatus at the same time should move faster than the fencers. He can’t do that. His peripheral vision can catch changes in direction but not the precedence of both weapons’ movements.

Under these circumstances to judge the correctness of an attack, better of two attacks, is a really difficult. What looks at regular speed is then quite different from what becomes evident watching in slow motion.

I find natural, but not at all just, that referees interpret according to their own personal perception—which unfortunately too often varies too much from one referee to another. The fact that one may know perfectly by heart the Règlement technique which per se is so imperfect, does not improve things for sure. We could discuss on any minor or major point ad infinitum. This was the case of the attaque composée and the many discussions that followed.

True, the Règlement says that in saber the touch must land at the latest when the forward foot touches the ground in the lunge. However, in foil, if the thrust were not parried, and the attacker keeps the line, the priority remains his.

In saber, God knows why, even if continuing to threaten the target, the attack is considered concluded if the opponent does not parry but throws his hit together with the final hit—that which follows the feint and arrived together or after the contact of the forward foot with the strip.

This is incomprehensible since the other does not parry and does not touch with a “fencing time” of advantage. The RT states clearly that only a parry (with the blade) gives the “right” to a riposte.

If we wanted to be consistent we should call this action simultaneous, a common fencing time, and give no point to anyone. However, if we really wanted to call this action the way we do now, i.e., giving the point to the fencer who was subject to the first attack, it would be good that this rule were written somewhere. We could think that this rule is stupid or wrong—as in other cases—but at least we would have a sure point of reference. Instead, we must learn that things are so from a certain point in time onwards, because this was decided at some meeting before a competition. But other than the referees present at the meeting and those who found out via verbal communication, everybody else is in the dark.

This is a shameful and disgraceful situation but we have ended up accepting it nonetheless. The more clever ones, those who found out or understood this first will be able to teach the “new” action to their students and get an advantage. The others will be left to protest in vain and get a sick feeling in their stomach.

What should/could we do?

I believe this is the right time for a change. Internet, in my opinion, is the right instrument—news propagates very fast and reaches those who run the business of fencing. As is always the case, at first those on top are annoyed by this “interference.” But if the case is reasonable, properly presented (which means that those who complain understand the difficulty to manage such a complex problem), and most importantly if put forward by many, can get the result of moving mountains.

Giancarlo Toràn



Translated by Gram