PDA

View Full Version : redoublement



jon mason
-17th May 2005, 14:14
please could someone explain a redoublement, i think i roughly know but just need to be sure many thanks

pinkelephant
-17th May 2005, 15:39
A renewal of the attack in a different line (as opposed to a remise, which is a replacement in the SAME line).

John Rohde
-19th May 2005, 14:21
Hello Jon!
The glossary in the rules states:
1. The remise
A simple and immediate offensive action which follows the original attack, without withdrawing the arm, after the opponent has parried or retreated, when the latter has either quitten contact with the blade without riposting or has made a riposte which is delayed, indirect or compound.
2. The redoublement
A new action, either simple or compound, made against an opponent who has parried without riposting or who has merely avoided the first action by retreating or displacing the target.
3. The reprise of the attack
A new attack executed immediately after a return to the on-guard position

So, a remise is a simple and immediate continuation of the preceding offensive action; A reprise follows a return to on-guard; a redoublement is anything in between.
BTW a good crop of epeeists were at BFC on Tuesday.

fencingmaster
-19th May 2005, 21:19
jon, extract from my glossary....

Redouble a renewal of attack or riposte in a new line (e.g by disengage or cut-over) the first having been parried (usually an opposition parry) performed at riposting distance, in the lunge or during the recovery
Referee formerly President, also Directeur du combat; assisted by judges
Remise a renewal of attack or riposte in the same line the first having been parried (usually the parry has been followed by a detachment) performed at riposting distance, in the lunge or during the recovery; usually an act of second intention
Renewed attack an further attack following the failure of the first; see remise, reprise and redouble
Replacement a misnomer - see remise and redouble
Reprise the renewal of attack or riposte (the first having been parried) and requiring a further forward action by lunge or flèche, the blade action may be simple, compound, with or without an attack on the blade.

fencingmaster
-20th May 2005, 10:50
I've now posted my full glossary at www.fencingmaster.co.uk

John Rohde
-20th May 2005, 12:48
With the very greatest respect IMHO the definition we should use is the one in the rules.
The requirement for a remise is to be simple and immediate; A simple attack can be either direct or indirect:

"t.8 Offensive actions
(a) The attack
The action is simple when it is executed in one movement and is
— either direct (in the same line)
— or indirect (in another line).
The action is compound when it is executed in several movements."

So, changing line per se, is irrelevant to whether it's a remise or a redoublement.
Also, a remise need not necessarilly follow a parry from the opponent, see the official definition I quoted in my previous point.
The definition in the rules is simple and clear and IMHO other interprestations do more harm than good.

Ulrika
-20th May 2005, 16:56
I was taught that the redoublement is a renewal of a lunge... :confused: :shrug:

allthree
-20th May 2005, 21:54
I always thought the definitions of renewals were as follows:-

Remise - a renewed offensive action in the same line as the original without aditional blade arm or body movement.

Redouble - Renewnal of an offensive action (attack, reposte or countre attack) with an additional arm blade or body movement. It can be simple or compound

Reprise - renewal passing through or returning to the on guard position.

I am confused by the rule book if it allows a remise and redouble to be the same thing should it not be direct instead of simple when talking about a remise?

Don't forget countre attacks can be renewed as well as attacks and ripostes.

The tactics of why they are used may vary depending on the weapon being discussed!

John Rohde
-21st May 2005, 12:22
Originally posted by allthree
I am confused by the rule book if it allows a remise and redouble to be the same thing should it not be direct instead of simple when talking about a remise?
I'm a bit confused by your confusion ;-) The rule book doesn't allow them to be the same thing. It gives a definition pretty much the same as yours.

allthree
-21st May 2005, 13:10
Simple can be indirect

John Rohde
-21st May 2005, 22:11
Originally posted by allthree
Simple can be indirect
Yes, and as a remise can be made by a simple offensive action, and a simple offensive action can include a change of line, it is not a change of line that differentiates a remise from a redouble. That's the point I'm making.
%-)

John Rohde
-21st May 2005, 22:19
The light dawns! You are reading from accepted practice back into the rules. Many people assume that the rule means that a change of line differentiates a remise from a redouble. You wonder why the rule doesn't say so. The rule doesn't say so, because the rule doesn't mean what most people think it means: It means what it says.
The people who wrote that rule knew the difference between indirect and compound; those who gave us the anecdotal interpretation, evidently did not.

fencingmaster
-21st May 2005, 23:27
First I notice that the new FIE rules dated May 2005 are available for download here....

http://www.fie.ch/download/rules/fr/RTECHN.pdf

Problems arise with historical adaptation of language/words across cultures/nationalities, and also with the translation of rules and methodologies from one language to another. As an example, I believe that 'time hit' and 'stop hit' translate between French and Italian in the exact opposite of each other.

I see John's point in that the current BFA rules state
"Remise: A simple and immediate offensive action which follows the original attack, without ....."
and the only definitions which include the word simple also includes indirect actions.

However if we look at the FFE rules we find
"Remise- Seconde action offensive qui consiste à replacer sa pointe dans la même ligne"

Which accords with the definition given by myself and 'allthree' and yet both BFA & FFE rules will have derived from the FIE rules.

Historically the difference between 'remise' 'redoublement' 'reprise' have overlapped and with the new FIE rules they still do...

Remise – Action offensive simple immediate qui suit une premiere action, sans retrait de bras, après une parade ou une retraite de l’adversaire, soit que celui-ci ait abobandonne le fer sans riposter, soit qu’il riposte tardivement, ou indirectement ou en composant.
Redoublement – Nouvelle action, simple ou composee, sur un adversaire qui a pare sans riposter, ou qui a simplement evite la premiere action par un retrait ou esquive.
Reprise d’attaque – Nouvelle attaque execute immediatement après retour en garde.

These definitions still contain a degree of ambiguity as both the 'remise' and 'redoublement' allow for a pursuit of a retreating opponent and the 'reprise' for an attack after a return to guard.

I have found that on the continent the 'redoublement' is generally regarded as a forward renewal of the lunge - which point is borne out by Ulrika, whereas here it is an action on the lunge or recovery, and we refer only to the forward renewal as a 'reprise'

As far as I am aware the definitions given by 'allthree' equate with those adapted here since the time of Crosnier, and have been used continually by both the BFA National Coaches and the BAF in their coaching programmes.

References:-
http://www.fencing.net/drills/glossary.html
http://www.synec-doc.be/escrime/dico/dico_escrime.html
http://www.busybwebdesign.com/saskfencing/fencing_glossary.htm
http://www.fencing.ca/glossary_fr.htm

sabre_ferret
-22nd May 2005, 01:19
oh my poor brain :dizzy:

Australian
-22nd May 2005, 08:08
why does it matter?

Remise is the term used for all subsequent actions whilst refereeing.

fencingmaster
-22nd May 2005, 11:57
"What's in a name?" - Shakespeare
"Being able to give proper names to things is the first step toward wisdom" - Confucius
"We perceive...only what we know, understand well and can give a name to." - Czajkowski

Australian
-22nd May 2005, 12:36
Originally posted by fencingmaster
"What's in a name?" - Shakespeare
"Being able to give proper names to things is the first step toward wisdom" - Confucius
"We perceive...only what we know, understand well and can give a name to." - Czajkowski


:rolleyes: you have not answered my question.

fencingmaster
-22nd May 2005, 16:15
you have not answered my question.

I have.
Unless we give clear names/labels to actions/concepts then we are unable to communicate, teach, understand and achieve knowledge and ability.

Without using language clearly and unambiguously you cannot correctly describe a fencing phrase.

John Rohde
-22nd May 2005, 22:19
Though - evidently - I prefer the British Rules' version, I think the French version of the rules is regarded as the standard - and the recent FIE Congress voted to retain French as the official language of fencing IIRC. :-(

gbm
-22nd May 2005, 22:39
Originally posted by Australian
why does it matter?

Remise is the term used for all subsequent actions whilst refereeing.

The bit under the picture of the hand signals in the rules says:


2) Following a phase of fencing, the referee also uses the following words, without gestures: "Riposte", "Counter-Riposte", "Remise" and "Redoublement"

So the rules tell you to use both...
I find myself saying 'redouble' quite often (as in attack, parry, redouble (without a riposte)), but less often remise, since this is usually out of time (as in attack, parry, riposte good, remise out of time).

(PS the 'phase' bit is probably a typo!)

For my next trick, I will show China how to make tea, and tell Switzerland how to make cuckoo clocks. ;) :tongue:

Australian
-23rd May 2005, 01:00
Originally posted by goodbadandme
The bit under the picture of the hand signals in the rules says:



So the rules tell you to use both...


thats not the point. The FIE interpretation is to only use remise.


Coaching is a different matter i guess, however surely the relvance should be placed on doing the action, rather than fussing about the name of it. If you didn't know any better, there is no harm calling apples oranges, and oranges apples - you know what it is by the look and feel of it.

I don't need to be able to tell you what a remise, redoublement, or reprise is in epee, but i'm happy to hit you with one.

Australian
-23rd May 2005, 01:02
Originally posted by goodbadandme
I find myself saying 'redouble' quite often (as in attack, parry, redouble (without a riposte)), but less often remise, since this is usually out of time (as in attack, parry, riposte good, remise out of time).



You should use remise for all subsequent direct or indirect actions after an attack.

If the remise is out of time, do not call it in your phrasing - its as if it didn't exist.

John Rohde
-23rd May 2005, 07:57
Originally posted by goodbadandme
For my next trick, I will show China how to make tea, and tell Switzerland how to make cuckoo clocks. ;)

Don't get me started on cuckoo clocks ;-)
I think getting the phrasing right is important: Fencing, like dance, needs its own notation and that notation should be univrersally intelligible, for coaching and critical purposes. Having to express what one has seen also IMHO makes one concentrate and observe more closely; think in fencing terms while refereeing.
Exactly what is direct or indirect; simple or compound is important to know.
In terms of whose hit it is at epee, it isn't in the least important, of course.
"Now for a good cup of British tea!" (Kaiser Wilhelm II, on crossing the border into Dutch exile in 1918).

gbm
-23rd May 2005, 09:06
Originally posted by Australian
thats not the point. The FIE interpretation is to only use remise.

Well you learn something new every day! :tongue:

This goes back to the old 'how are we supposed to know how the FIE want us to referee if they don't write it down in the rules but instead don't distribute their "interpretations on the rules", relying only on Chinese whispers?'

PS that's why I don't say remise much - because I dont say things that are out of time.

Australian
-23rd May 2005, 09:53
Originally posted by goodbadandme
Well you learn something new every day! :tongue:

This goes back to the old 'how are we supposed to know how the FIE want us to referee if they don't write it down in the rules but instead don't distribute their "interpretations on the rules", relying only on Chinese whispers?'

PS that's why I don't say remise much - because I dont say things that are out of time.


chat to your referees... i shared many a pint with Mssrs Thornton and Hunter last year, and am a much more learned referee because of it.

John Rohde
-23rd May 2005, 10:02
Originally posted by Australian
chat to your referees...

IMHO this anecdotal way of acquiring a familiarity with the rules is a poor substitute for having the rules implemented as they are written: Fencing is a creative art; refereeing should not be.
Chinese whispers are what has taken foil to its present state of disrepute. It's not what the FIE wants - though it does add a certain frison to networking and can give an edge to those who have, "paid their dues" as the Americans say - neither of which should have any place in sport, again IMHO.

Australian
-23rd May 2005, 10:31
Originally posted by John Rohde
IMHO this anecdotal way of acquiring a familiarity with the rules is a poor substitute for having the rules implemented as they are written: Fencing is a creative art; refereeing should not be.
Chinese whispers are what has taken foil to its present state of disrepute. It's not what the FIE wants - though it does add a certain frison to networking and can give an edge to those who have, "paid their dues" as the Americans say - neither of which should have any place in sport, again IMHO.

but the nature of fencing is such that the rules cannot fully express what goes on on the piste and by having "official" interpretation at the highest level it removes the rules lawyers at the lower level.

The rules are not important, its how they are enforced that is.

You are right that the reason why foil turned into a flicking game was due to the referees accepting it as a form of attack - hey, i liked the old timings, and could referee it very well. The difference between and attack and a preparation was very very clear to me, the new timings have made foil refereeing a joke - you should not be making mistakes.

gbm
-23rd May 2005, 10:59
Originally posted by Australian
but the nature of fencing is such that the rules cannot fully express what goes on on the piste and by having "official" interpretation at the highest level it removes the rules lawyers at the lower level.

On the other hand, the fact that you can tell me that the official interpretation is that the use of the word 'redouble' in the rules is redundant (and instead 'remise' should be used) on this forum means that it is possible to communicate at least that by written communication...

I agree that the rules cannot cover every eventuality as it occurs, but if the FIE were to publish monthly guidelines...

plus not every referee in the country can share pints with our refereeing commitee!
they'd have to be attacked every night to get through the number of people refereeing in this country... :rolleyes:

Australian
-23rd May 2005, 12:01
Originally posted by goodbadandme
I agree that the rules cannot cover every eventuality as it occurs, but if the FIE were to publish monthly guidelines...

i understand where you coming from, but the very nature of the interpretations is that they are best shown in practice, and by releasing guidelines the same problem would occur...

fencingmaster
-23rd May 2005, 12:39
relying only on Chinese whispers?'
Well, if we are back to the discussion of interpretation and chinese whispers, how can we be sure what chinese whisper Australian has heard? Especially as one of the sources he quotes has already posted:
"A renewal of the attack in a different line (as opposed to a remise, which is a replacement in the SAME line)."

the relevance should be placed on doing the action, rather than fussing about the name of it.
How do you clearly communicate that action in order that it may be done or analysed if it doesn't have a name?

Although the FIE/National rules give explanation of some fencing terms, they are not an authorative manual on fencing, otherwise they might like to include some rather important facts such as it the forte that is used for parrying and that it is the sword arm that is extended for an attack!

Although lacking. I do find re-assuring the May 2005 FIE definition of a parry:-
La parade est l'action defensive faite avec l'arme....
as I especially dislike the term (mis)used by some of 'parry by distance' - but that's for another thread.

Dave The Bastar
-23rd May 2005, 20:08
Originally posted by goodbadandme
On the other hand, the fact that you can tell me that the official interpretation is that the use of the word 'redouble' in the rules is redundant (and instead 'remise' should be used) on this forum means that it is possible to communicate at least that by written communication...Verb. Sap.

Originally posted by fencingmaster
Well, if we are back to the discussion of interpretation and chinese whispers, how can we be sure what chinese whisper Australian has heard? Especially as one of the sources he quotes has already posted: "A renewal of the attack in a different line (as opposed to a remise, which is a replacement in the SAME line)."
How do you clearly communicate that action in order that it may be done or analysed if it doesn't have a name?And without a common interpretation, as far as possible, that is transparent and accessible to everyone and not just those that booze avec les gros fromages?

I do find re-assuring the May 2005 FIE definition of a parry:-
La parade est l'action defensive faite avec l'arme....
as I especially dislike the term (mis)used by some of 'parry by distance' [/B] Shudder!

Australian
-23rd May 2005, 22:35
Originally posted by fencingmaster
Although the FIE/National rules give explanation of some fencing terms, they are not an authorative manual on fencing, otherwise they might like to include some rather important facts such as it the forte that is used for parrying and that it is the sword arm that is extended for an attack!


arm is extending for an attack...

the requirement to parry with the forte is only relevant in sabre.

John Rohde
-23rd May 2005, 22:48
Originally posted by Australian
arm is extending for an attack...

the requirement to parry with the forte is only relevant in sabre.

The rules actually say that an action executed with a bent arm is a preparation - bent "raccourci", so an attack should end with a straight arm. That was how the rules used to be applied, though no one now has the courage to do so - including myself :-(

Threestain
-23rd May 2005, 23:06
but since this is the epee part of the forum, where attacks are attacks no matter what the aesthetics surely such (in this weapon at least) small matter could be laid to rest?

John Rohde
-23rd May 2005, 23:14
Originally posted by John Rohde
The rules actually say that an action executed with a bent arm is a preparation - bent "raccourci", so an attack should end with a straight arm. That was how the rules used to be applied, though no one now has the courage to do so - including myself :-(

Gladly :-)

jon mason
-24th May 2005, 14:38
thanks for the replies:)

jon mason
-24th May 2005, 14:43
cheers

Gav
-24th May 2005, 16:44
Originally posted by Threestain
but since this is the epee part of the forum, where attacks are attacks no matter what the aesthetics surely such (in this weapon at least) small matter could be laid to rest?

Here here - fully agree.