Forward movement for ROW

[Tireur]

Right, but since these rules are defining both what is prohibited and what is correct, we have to look at both.

Right. That would appear to present us with a poser.

What I meant was, that in the absence of a clear rule prohibiting it, it is hard to say it can't be done. Even tho there is no clear rule stating it can be done.

[Rolls]

Of course, there is an obvious way to have right of way on the retreat... Make it a one light action.

I just got the Golubitsky Golden Bouts DVD, and I noticed he scored numerous points while he was retreating and his opponent was attacking. But then again they were one light points.

If the ref is giving right of way to your opponent, ask yourself, "What could I have done to make that a one light action?"

The answer is most likely the reason the ref didn't give you right of way.

Rolls.

[DanInMI]

Very well thought out. I think that you have made some leaps of logic, but mostly well said.

[quote]Originally posted by Craig

While the rules don't say that you can't attack while retreating, the rules also do not say that you can attack while retreating. The rules are mute on the exact wording.
I agree.

The purpose of a retreat is to get away from something. This implies that the retreat is defensive. You can interpret this to be that if you are retreating, you are on defense, therefore you cannot score. (You have to move from defense to offense to score.)
That is kind of a stretch. The purpose of a retreat might be to just move backward. The purpose of a retreat might be to simply maintain distance. Often two fencers will be moving forward and back together simply maintaining distance, looking for the other to make an error, and provide an opening. Moving backward can be used to draw the advancer in too close.


The simple attack contains a lunge or flèche. (This gives further credence to the interpretation that if one is retreating, one is by default on defense and cannot score.) If the fencer is retreating and simply extends their arm, they have not executed an attack on preparation, they are attempting to establish a point in line. In order to have the attack on preparation, the retreating fencer must (per the rules) turn the corner and execute a simple attack by lunge or flèche.
I don't think that the intent of the rule, or the current interpretation is, that all attacks must contain a lunge or fleche. Many, many attacks do not include a lunge, but they are given RoW. The rules are interpretted to mean that the attack begins with the extension (or the advance in the case of an properly executed advance-lunge.) and ends with the touch OR the completion of the lunge or fleche'. I am sure that you would agree that if I advance and extend and you don't retreat at all, so I find myself too close to execute a lunge before I score a touch, that I don't lose my RoW because I did not lunge. That would make counter attacking way too easy, step in and counter attack.

Therefore, the retreating fencer MAY be attacking if he simply extends his arm and touches, since it is not nescessary to lunge to execute a simple attack.

As Bill Oliver says what is important which fencer caused the distance to collapse between the two fencers. He specifically says that "slowing down" can cause the distance to collapse. That implies that a lunge is not nescessary. Simply slowing and extending the arm can cause the distance to collapse between two fencers.

The rules say that the attacker must be going toward the defender. By retreating and extending your arm toward someone that is advancing and not extending, you are going toward the opponent. Think of it the same as walking toward the back of a plane. Are you really moving toward the back of the plane? No. you are moving in the same direction that it is, but at a slightly slower pace. However, you are definitely collapsing the distance between you and the rear of the plane.


I have a hypothetical scenario:
Fencer A is retreating
Fencer B is advancing
Fencer A extends and touches while stil retreating.
Fencer B does not extend, and does not touch.

Did A execute and attack? He scored a touch didn't he?
It is not a counter attack, is it? since B never attacked.

If A executed an attack, at what point did the attack begin?

I know that this is an overly simplistic scenario, fencing phrases are much more complicated than this. I am using it to say that if you accept that Fencer A scored a touch, then 1) a lunge is not required to execute a simple attack and 2) it is possible (if not likely) to attack while retreating.

I think that it is really more likely to take priority while retreating at lower levels than at higher levels. You are correct that you would have to be very skilled to score while retreating against an advanced fencer. However, with lower level fencers it is not unusual for them to find themselves fencing too close, or advancing rapidly without extending.

I didn't mean to get so long winded here, I thought that your analysis was very compelling and I got carried away.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by Rolls
Of course, there is an obvious way to have right of way on the retreat... Make it a one light action.

I just got the Golubitsky Golden Bouts DVD, and I noticed he scored numerous points while he was retreating and his opponent was attacking. But then again they were one light points.

If the ref is giving right of way to your opponent, ask yourself, "What could I have done to make that a one light action?"

The answer is most likely the reason the ref didn't give you right of way.

Rolls.

Well that is true Rolls, but that is a counterattack. A counterattack does not have RoW.

[Rolls]

Originally posted by DanInMI
Well that is true Rolls, but that is a counterattack. A counterattack does not have RoW.

Well, it doesn't really matter much.

But I would argue that if there is only one attack that lands (hence the one light), then you HAD to have right of way... Regardless. After all, if you didn't have right of way at that point, your opponent could remise and score, which is certainly not the case.

So, to say that you don't have RoW, I believe is a fallacy. Also, there are other ways to ensure that only one light goes off. For instance, a parry riposte which definitely has RoW (another prominent move on the Golubitsky Golden Bouts DVD).

Anyway, I think the problem is not "Can I have RoW while retreating" (techniacally yes, probably not). The REAL problem is "Is my opponent attacking". and the answer is, Yes. If you are retreating and your opponent is advancing, then there is a REAL good chance that he/she is attacking. If are unsure, then act as if they are attacking. If you think that they are NOT attacking, and you attack, both lights go off, and the ref awards the point to your opponent, then you were wrong. You got hit because your opponent was attacking.

Finally, if you really want to succeed competively, you need to get clear one light actions. Otherwise, you're at the mercy of the referee.

Rolls.

[GGK]

If it is confusing to everyone in your club, and you are not confident in the division’s reffing clinics than:
Contact the FOC and get a refereeing workshop.
This is obviously a call that requires allot more info than initially presented. Partially, because refereeing entails several features that are had to describe in writing, which is why most people here say “depends on yada-yada-yada.” Than there are interpretations, which become confused by tempo, control of distance, maintaining an attack, preparation or lack thereof of any of the previous. So you do not get caught into a misinterpretation, or misunderstand someone’s call you really should get a refereeing workshop.

[741]

I'm very sorry. I meant stepping foward, not running forward. I fence sabre, and well, we can't really run forward in sabre. Anyways, why is it easier to call this in sabre than in foil?

[Namir]

741,
In saber you can't attack while retreating. period.

I would still say "B" he took ROW by extending first.
"A" is just counter...

[pkt]

Originally posted by DanInMI
Well that is true Rolls, but that is a counterattack. A counterattack does not have RoW.

Dan,

You're only 2/3 right.

CAs can be a simple attack into an attack, opposition, stop-hit with time. So if the CA is a stop-hit with time it'd have the RoW. See t.8(c)3.

PK

[damianip]

PK,

I don't believe that a counter attack would ever have ROW. The only reason that the third case (arrives in time) gets the point is that the fencer is now ahead in tempo.

Applying ROW implies that they are in the same tempo which they are not. If they were in the same tempo (CA arrives after the commencement of the final action), then the attack has priority and gets the point.

The point I'm trying to make is that ROW is the criteria used to determine who gets the point in the case of touches in the same tempo. If one fencer is ahead in fencing time, they get the touch, period.

I agree with your call, just not the wording, and with ROW, it's all about the semantics.

Paolo

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Namir
741,
In saber you can't attack while retreating. period.

Cannot agree. There's nothing inherent in sabre that vitiates Bill Oliver's judgement ( which BTW, achilleus, is a clearly qualified one, qualified by that word "nearly", which YOU seem determined not to see---"in nearly all cases" is not synonymous with "in all cases" ).

As to the "it's a counterattack" point, that is only the case if there is an attack for it to be counter TO. If the opponent is not attacking, even though he's moving forward, it cannot by definition be a "counterattack". And before someone says it, it's not a stop into prep, either, if the opponent isn't preparing.

I'm getting the strangest sense of deja vu...haven't we done this all before?

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Cannot agree. There's nothing inherent in sabre that vitiates Bill Oliver's judgement ( which BTW, achilleus, is a clearly qualified one, qualified by that word "nearly", which YOU seem determined not to see---"in nearly all cases" is not synonymous with "in all cases" ).

Can't argue about sabre, but yeah I know what nearly means. I also know how actions are called on strip vs. the theoretical discussions that take place here.

In over 10 years of fencing at club, local, sectional, national, and international tournaments, I have never seen a competent ref award the 'attack' to a fencer, in foil, who is retreating. This goes for the 70's russian coach to the Olympic champs.

In the past several years of watching the World Champs and Olympics, I've never seen a single fencer on the tapes simply extend (while retreating) into a advancing fencer and claim that they had the attack.

I've seen stop thrusts, and PIL claims, but never have I seen one try to claim the attack.

I have seen a couple of people call it that way at locals. They are usually recreational fencers who don't compete much and have no ref's rating.

So, yeah, nearly is a qualifier, but I wouldn't train for those refs, or that one time in over 10 years where you may actually get the call your looking for.

Originally posted by Inquartata
I'm getting the strangest sense of deja vu...haven't we done this all before?

Too true, however it's clear no one has changed their opinion.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by DanInMI
The rules say that the attacker must be going toward the defender. By retreating and extending your arm toward someone that is advancing and not extending, you are going toward the opponent. Think of it the same as walking toward the back of a plane. Are you really moving toward the back of the plane? No. you are moving in the same direction that it is, but at a slightly slower pace. However, you are definitely collapsing the distance between you and the rear of the plane.


I have a hypothetical scenario:
Fencer A is retreating
Fencer B is advancing
Fencer A extends and touches while stil retreating.
Fencer B does not extend, and does not touch.

Did A execute and attack? He scored a touch didn't he?
It is not a counter attack, is it? since B never attacked.

If A executed an attack, at what point did the attack begin?

I know that this is an overly simplistic scenario, fencing phrases are much more complicated than this. I am using it to say that if you accept that Fencer A scored a touch, then 1) a lunge is not required to execute a simple attack and 2) it is possible (if not likely) to attack while retreating.

I think that it is really more likely to take priority while retreating at lower levels than at higher levels. You are correct that you would have to be very skilled to score while retreating against an advanced fencer. However, with lower level fencers it is not unusual for them to find themselves fencing too close, or advancing rapidly without extending.

These hypothetical questions really can confuse the issue. Here's why:

Fencer A starts advancing
Fencer B, on guard in 8, is retreating, then stops afraid of going off the stip
Fencer A hit on target

1 light touch.

Did fencer A attack? A never extended, never lunged, but he must have attacked at some point, right? When did the attack begin?

Does this mean that it's possible to get ROW with only an advance and never extend the arm?

If it is possible, then in your scenario, B hit's a tempo ahead of A's attack, but it was still A's attack.

It really is all in the interpretation of the rules, although, to me, it's fairly obvious that an attack require moving towards the target. The rules defining a correctly executed attack mention all the forward moving actions (lunge, fleche, step forward lunge, step forward fleche, running forward) but don't once mention a correctly executed attack using or incorporation retreating, ducking, running backward, reverse lunges, etc...

[Txakurra]

Originally posted by achilleus
These hypothetical questions really can confuse the issue. Here's why:

Fencer A starts advancing
Fencer B, on guard in 8, is retreating, then stops afraid of going off the stip
Fencer A hit on target

1 light touch.

Did fencer A attack? A never extended, never lunged, but he must have attacked at some point, right? When did the attack begin?

Does this mean that it's possible to get ROW with only an advance and never extend the arm?

If it is possible, then in your scenario, B hit's a tempo ahead of A's attack, but it was still A's attack.

It really is all in the interpretation of the rules, although, to me, it's fairly obvious that an attack require moving towards the target. The rules defining a correctly executed attack mention all the forward moving actions (lunge, fleche, step forward lunge, step forward fleche, running forward) but don't once mention a correctly executed attack using or incorporation retreating, ducking, running backward, reverse lunges, etc...

Fencer A is retreating
Fencer B is advancing
Fencer A extends and touches while stil retreating.
Fencer B does not extend, and does not touch.

Of course it is A's attack. Closing distance between the fencers is relative to the blade work NOT the foot work. Feet do not initiate an attack, the movement of the blade does. You going to stab em or kick em.


T

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by achilleus
Can't argue about sabre, but yeah I know what nearly means. I also know how actions are called on strip vs. the theoretical discussions that take place here.

In over 10 years of fencing at club, local, sectional, national, and international tournaments, I have never seen a competent ref award the 'attack' to a fencer, in foil, who is retreating.

But this is another discussion entirely. The question at hand is not "How likely is X ever to happen?" but rather "Is X possible under the rules?" The answer to the first may be "Vanishingly unlikely", but the answer to the second is still "Yes"...

In the past several years of watching the World Champs and Olympics, I've never seen a single fencer on the tapes simply extend (while retreating) into a advancing fencer and claim that they had the attack.

Heh, well, I've never seen a supernova, but I'm quite convinced that they can occur under the rules of physics...

So, yeah, nearly is a qualifier, but I wouldn't train for those refs, or that one time in over 10 years where you may actually get the call your looking for.

Agreed; this is almost entirely a theoretical discussion. ( Often those are the most vexatious ones, I've noticed. )

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Inquartata
But this is another discussion entirely. The question at hand is not "How likely is X ever to happen?" but rather "Is X possible under the rules?" The answer to the first may be "Vanishingly unlikely", but the answer to the second is still "Yes"...
...
Agreed; this is almost entirely a theoretical discussion. ( Often those are the most vexatious ones, I've noticed. )

One of the great things about fencing is the immediate resolution of conflict. You can be fencing someone, have a great theory on how to win, and test your theory.

So for those of you that honestly believe it's possible to 'attack' (not just have ROW, but attack) while retreating, please test it out at the next national event. After the bout, win or lose, talk to the ref about the touches that are relevant. Find out if you actually had the 'attack' as opposed to a action in prep, or if it really was your attack. And if it wasn't your touch, find out why the ref saw the action that way.

Then post your results on the forum.

I would be very interested to know if the theory has any basis in reality.