--- John P Sullins <j_sullins@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Yes that is good news. We will have to see if the equipment changes work.
> Along with those changes there also has to be a change in the way actions
> are called as I am sure that motion forward, rather then extended arm, will
> still count as the attack.
>
Note that the rules recognize the "extending" arm, not just the "extended" arm,
for the various reasons that I pointed out several months ago. While an
"extended" arm may be "better" for any number of reasons, the "extending" arm
should still be considered a threat and dealt with accordingly. Since
Right-of-Way exists to preserve (or enforce) the idea (among others) of
"Defense first, then attack when appropriate", recognizing the "extending" arm
is far more appropriate.
Of course, you then get into the problem of referees recognizing when the body
(not the arm) moves first and ignores the fact that the arm is withdrawing
rather than extending... such is the problem with a convention that flies in
the face of what is actually written in the rules and also defies common sense.
I've seen numerous fencing actions called this way, which actually impairs
fencers who try to follow the rules; not to mention actually impacting their
safety on the strip. Numerous fencers step in with the arm either withdrawing
or not extending (let alone extended) and then extend at the last second...
raising the potential for serious harm to either fencer. This is a disturbing
trend that, unfortunately, has been propagated by fencing official both inside
and outside the US (where the practice most certainly didn't originate).
As for the box changes... this does not stop that "flick" as has already been
noted. While it does impact the number of "flicks" that hit and are counted,
this is a result of a change that was done more to discourage very light,
glancing hits (the typical "flick"). Whether a direct attack with the extended
arm, or the "flick", the apparatus simply will not (and should not) recognize
touches that merely depress slightly and glance off the fencer. This ensures
that all hits are actually solid hits upon the valid target. Of course, this
means that hits are more forceful and are more prone to injury. Especially
complicated from the convention I noted above. Not exactly healthy practice
IMO.
What is more disturbing to me however is the lockout time on the box... while
it is not extremely high, it does mean that the fast counterattack could
potentially win over the slow attack. This is especially true and sabre, and
makes the "stop-hit" a much more valid action than a normal attack. In some
respects, this may mean that the "flick" will have to fall by the wayside, as
they can take more time to develop the attack and execute, which makes them
vulnerable to straight counterattacks that will simply cause the "flick" not to
register (whether it hits and maintains contact like it should).
Time will tell if this causes Right-of-Way and fencing actions to adopt more
traditional approaches, or change into something wholly different.
-Brian
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20...LSAA/VRUolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets.
http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/classicalfencing/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
classicalfencing-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
Linear Mode
