Forward movement for ROW

[741]

Fencer A is running forward, Fencer B is running back.
Fencer B shoots his hand forward first, while running back.
Fencer A shoots his hand forward after, while still going forward.

If they both hit each other, does Fencer B get the point because he shot his hand out first or does Fencer A get the point because he was going forward? Because from what it looks like in my club, you never get ROW if you hit while moving back, whether you had your hand foward first or not. I'm confused...

[damianip]

I would think that big factors to consider are:

what is the distance between the fencers

and

how does it collapse as the touches are made?

I'd be inclined to call an attack into preparation for the retreating fencer, but I'd have to see it or know a little bit more about the distance.

Also, if the retreating fencer hits before the advancing fencer begins his extension, then I think it would be a tempo issue because the retreater would be ahead in fencing time. ROW wouldn't matter.

Foilists? Comments?

Paolo

[kalivor]

Originally posted by 741
Fencer A is running forward, Fencer B is running back.
Fencer B shoots his hand forward first, while running back.
Fencer A shoots his hand forward after, while still going forward.

If they both hit each other, does Fencer B get the point because he shot his hand out first or does Fencer A get the point because he was going forward? Because from what it looks like in my club, you never get ROW if you hit while moving back, whether you had your hand foward first or not. I'm confused...

It depends on the timing of the whole thing. Remember that a step-lunge takes priority, technically, so long as (a) the step-lunge was initiated before the retreating fencer's priority, and (b) it is executed properly, meaning that the extension comes before the lunge. So it is possible to have priority without extending first.

In practice, however, you will not be given the attack if you are retreating. Pun not intended. Really, this sounds like B is trying to extend a line (or score a stop hit), and A finishes/makes their attack ... the question is one of timing ... how much time (how many steps) occurred between the extensions and the hits?

Another thing to consider is whether or not A is extending slowly the whole time ... a slow extension will be given priority.

[wflaschka]

To further complicate things -- if Fencer A is truly "running" forward, then that not considered an attack. There's a rule specifically about attacks made while feet are crossing: they're preparations. If there's actual running going on, then Fencer B would have RoW.

[achilleus]

This topic was covered in an earlier thread entitled 'Forward movement as attack'.

Do a search, you'll find a very long thread that includes a response by US FOC member Bill Oliver.

The short version, you won't get ROW while retreating. For a detailed explanation why, read the above mentioned thread.

Extending is not the only consideration for gaining ROW.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by wflaschka
To further complicate things -- if Fencer A is truly "running" forward, then that not considered an attack. There's a rule specifically about attacks made while feet are crossing: they're preparations. If there's actual running going on, then Fencer B would have RoW.

Interesting that running forward is prep, but running backward (as mentioned in the question) is an attack.

[whtouche]

It doesn't have anything to do with 'running backward' being considered an attack.
Think of it this way. A is chasing B down the strip, A is attacking and clearly has right of way. B is defending, and does not. A begins to run, cross over, he loses right of way. By default it transfers to B.
This means B gains right of way because A lost it, not because B is running backwards.

[westcoastsabre]

We're talking about foil here, right?

[achilleus]

Originally posted by whtouche
It doesn't have anything to do with 'running backward' being considered an attack.
Think of it this way. A is chasing B down the strip, A is attacking and clearly has right of way. B is defending, and does not. A begins to run, cross over, he loses right of way. By default it transfers to B.
This means B gains right of way because A lost it, not because B is running backwards.

That's one way of looking at it. More commonly refs will say that A started, B reacts.

Here's the low down:

A starts, then procedes to run
B is running backward

A is in preparation, however B does not initiate an attack. B merely had the opportunity to take ROW, but never acted on it.

[Tireur]

Think of it this way. A is chasing B down the strip, A is attacking and clearly has right of way. B is defending, and does not.

How does A have right of way? By moving forward? No.

Nothing to indicate what was happening prior to running forward.

I agree with those who say it's a timing issue. Need more info.

[Namir]

Originally posted by achilleus
Interesting that running forward is prep, but running backward (as mentioned in the question) is an attack.

Yeah, well try reading the rules. Running forward (meaning feet continuously crossing) is a preparation because the rules SAY SO. The rules do NOT say that you may not attack while retreating.

[Namir]

Originally posted by achilleus
That's one way of looking at it. More commonly refs will say that A started, B reacts.

Here's the low down:

A starts, then procedes to run
B is running backward

A is in preparation, however B does not initiate an attack. B merely had the opportunity to take ROW, but never acted on it.

Achilles is distorting the outcome of that thread. The ruling was that it IS possible to take RoW while retreating, but it is very unlikely. (Achilles stand was that there is NO WAY to take RoW while retreating.)

[Namir]

Originally posted by whtouche
It doesn't have anything to do with 'running backward' being considered an attack.
Think of it this way. A is chasing B down the strip, A is attacking and clearly has right of way. B is defending, and does not. A begins to run, cross over, he loses right of way. By default it transfers to B.
This means B gains right of way because A lost it, not because B is running backwards.

NO...that is NOT acurate. RoW NEVER transfers by default.

If A is contiuously crossing over he is in prep.
B gains RoW with a simple attack. If he does not extend he does not have RoW.

[Namir]

Originally posted by Tireur
How does A have right of way? By moving forward? No.

Nothing to indicate what was happening prior to running forward.

I agree with those who say it's a timing issue. Need more info.

If A is "running," meaning "crossing over," it is not a timing issue. B's simple attack has priority.

If A is just rapidly advancing then timing becomes an issue, but it is not hard to imagine that if B slows his retreat and extends first he has initiated an attack.

[Namir]

Originally posted by achilleus
That's one way of looking at it. More commonly refs will say that A started, B reacts.

Here's the low down:

A starts, then procedes to run
B is running backward

A is in preparation, however B does not initiate an attack. B merely had the opportunity to take ROW, but never acted on it.

Achilles is distorting the outcome of that thread. The ruling was that it IS possible to take RoW while retreating, but it is very unlikely. (Achilles stand was that there is NO WAY to take RoW while retreating.)

[pkt]

Originally posted by 741
Fencer A is running forward, Fencer B is running back.
Fencer B shoots his hand forward first, while running back.
Fencer A shoots his hand forward after, while still going forward.

...

Originally posted by westcoastsabre
We're talking about foil here, right?

741 should clarify
1. if he meant running fwd or stepping fwd;
2. if this is a foil question. If it was a sabre question the answer is a lot simpler...

PK

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Namir
Achilles is distorting the outcome of that thread. The ruling was that it IS possible to take RoW while retreating, but it is very unlikely. (Achilles stand was that there is NO WAY to take RoW while retreating.)

Now, now Namir I think you are guilty of some distortion at the moment.

First my statement was that there is no way to get the 'attack' while retreating.

As for the outcome of the thread, Bill Oliver's comments are located HERE

The important part of his response that you like to pretend doesn't exist is:

Bottom line: in nearly all cases, a retreating fencer
cannot have priority, in any weapon.

If you would like to continue to argue this with me, please just reread the previous thread. It contained all your arguements, all my arguements, and the above mentioned, very clear bottom line of the FOC.

If, after rereading all that, you still wish to believe that you can retreat, extend and gain ROW, all I can do is say good luck.

[Craig]

Originally posted by Namir
Yeah, well try reading the rules. Running forward (meaning feet continuously crossing) is a preparation because the rules SAY SO. The rules do NOT say that you may not attack while retreating.

I'm going to address mainly the theoretical framework here and use the thread's situation in reference, but it won't be my main focus.

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.

Since the rules are not inclusive nor exclusive on it, you have to look at the framing of the rules and also at convention to determine the outcome.

Some basics:
- All actions that can score a point contain an offensive element. (Some counter-attacks are considered offensive-defensive because they include taking the blade with the counter.)
- The only defensive action defined is the parry.
- You cannot score on defense.

Now let's look at footwork.

Definitions from Webster's:
Advance:
a) To go or move forward or onward.
b) To move against another, as when attacking: advance on the enemy's position.

Retreat:
a) The act or process of withdrawing, especially from something hazardous, formidable, or unpleasant.
b) The process of going backward or receding from a position or condition gained.

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.)

Tactically, the retreat is used to expand the distance and provide enough time for the retreating fencer to take advantage of a mistake by the attacking fencer, either by providing enough time for a point in line to come into effect, to catch the attacker in preparation so that the defender can now change direction and launch an attack, or to get the attacker speed up so that a sudden stop by the defender will put the attacker at a tactical disadvantage.

What about the Attack into Preparation? Can't I have priority using an Attack on Prep. while retreating?

You have to look at the often quoted t.56 for this.

t.56.a.8 states:
Continuous steps forward, with the legs crossing one another, constitute a preparation and on this preparation any simple attack has
priority.

This rule states that if one fencer is making preparations then any simple attack has priority.

Go back to the situation, one fencer is coming forward making preparations (advancing or continuous steps forward), the other is retreating.

Let's define an attack:

t.7 states:
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.

t.56.a.1 states:
The simple attack, direct or indirect (cf. t.8), is correctly executed when the extending of the arm, the point threatening the valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge or the flèche.

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.

In the above situation, Fencer B does not execute a proper simple attack, so we throw out any concern with attack on preparation. We then have to move on to the final action (the final step-lunge or step fleche.)

The question becomes whether or not Fencer A executed a simple attack in the final tempo.

t.56.a.3 states:
The attack with a step-forward-lunge or a step-forward-flèche is correctly executed when the extending of the arm precedes the end of
the step forward and the initiation of the lunge or the flèche.

The important question that must be answered is: Did Fencer A extend at the correct time to have a simple attack? The example given is unclear.

Once that is clarified, we can move on to t.60 to determine who was hit and who earned the point.

What about being able to claim right of way with the retreat?

Referring back to our only existing "expert testimony" on the thread Can you get priority with the retreat?, Bill Oliver concludes that while you can get priority with the retreat, it's not done as a general rule.

He says:

That said, however, I've seen (and used) the trick of
retrating to draw the opponent out, then a sudden
change of direction, or even just a sudden slowing
down, can give the retreater a tactical advantage, and
change the tables.

and also states:

In most situations, the beginning of priority in
both foil and saber is created by dominance of
distance. The fencer who collapses the distance (in the
opinion of the referee) has the first indicaiton of
priority.

The key seems to be control of the distance and tactical situation. Bill uses two examples in his first quote: a sudden
change of direction (moving from retreating to a lunge or advance) or a sudden slowing down. The change of direction is consistent with my earlier position, so it doesn't need additional comment.

What does not follow my interpretation is the impact of the sudden slowing down. This requires more follow-up by me to fit it within the framework that I have established. By giving the retreater a tactical advantage, did Bill mean a transfer of Right of Way, or merely the opportunity go force the attacker into making a mistake? I don't know, so I'll have to do some more thinking and come back to that.

The important thing to remember is that even Bill concludes:

Bottom line: in nearly all cases, a retreating fencer
cannot have priority, in any weapon.

What this tells me is that, as a fencer, I am best served finding tactics that both fit within the rules and are easily interpreted to be in my favor rather than playing on the edge of the rules and hoping to have a referee who is in alignment with what I want for interpretation.

Conclusion

Gaining priority by retreating, pulling the distance out, and then changing direction to execute a proper attack on preparation is a highly advanced skill that requires considerable practice on both the footwork and bladework to become a successful option.

In the coaching ranks, one should look at Buckie Leach for a good example of how to drill for making good attack on preparation actions.

From the Summer 2003 edition of The Swordmaster (at www.usfca.org):

Leach has made numerous observations of modern foil fencing over the
years, such as the lunge or fleche into the forward movement of the opponent doesn’t seem dynamic enough to be considered the attack by referees; so Leach advocates a change in direction with the advance-lunge, like the half-retreat advance-lunge drill, even if a fencer might reach with a well-timed lunge. Also, he’s noticed one difference between men’s and women’s foil is that women try to interrupt the action more often, whereas men allow the flow of the action and retake the attack.

I hope that this helps with the ongoing discussion. It's important that one look at the entire tactical situation, frame the interpretation within the rules, and bring in expert opinion (convention and "case law" so to speak) to work out both how the actions are interpreted by high-level referees as well as what tactics are best suited to gaining right of way and the point.

Cheers,
Craig

[Tireur]

This is a very well thought out and constructed analysis. I generally agree with you.

The only comment I might make is, since we're interpreting,

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.

A general rule of thumb in rules, laws, etc. is, if something is not prohibited, it is usually allowed.

[Craig]

Originally posted by Tireur
A general rule of thumb in rules, laws, etc. is, if something is not prohibited, it is usually allowed.

Right, but since these rules are defining both what is prohibited and what is correct, we have to look at both. (The rules say that you can't do X, Y, and Z, but they also say that in order to have an attack, you must do A.) In this case, the fencing rules are different from the general rules/laws in that they are both inclusive and exclusive which is why I wanted to make sure that I set up the discussion by stating that the rules don't actually say anything specific about the retreat and it's impact on priority.

The main purpose of my statement was to provide us with a clean slate in terms of interpreting the rules to convention and what makes sense for right of way.

Thanks,
Craig