Frantic Foil Follies (Technicalities)

Hello,

A few technicalities in foil have been causing me a lot of confusion.
I fence each week with a few friends and as we have progressed beyond
novice level, rules and technicalities are beginning to play a larger
part in our presiding. I was hoping somebody could enlighten me. I'm
sorry its a bit longwinded but I'd be grateful for some help.


Point in line:

The fencing FAQ 1.16 states that the priority of point in line is not
interrupted by footwork including the lunge or fleche. The FAQ 1.13
states that with a failed attack, such as one that falls short,
priority passes to the other player. How does one discern between a
point in line and a failed attack? If I were to establish point in
line and lunge short of my opponent, am I maintaining point in line
or have I executed a failed attack? If the latter, does this mean
that the opponent (the recipient of the attack that fell short) is
permitted to attack into the threatening blade without
beating/parrying as they now have a window of opportunity? This seems
odd as in a real duel it would be suicide.


Crossing legs:

T56a8 states: continuous steps forward with the legs crossing one
another constitutes a preparation. What happened to footwork not
affecting point in line? I assume this override that? Its the only
rule I've found covering footwork and point in line.


Withdrawing the arm:

During a compound attack, withdrawing the arm requires one to extend
the blade in the final movement in order for the attack to have
priority over a stop hit. What exactly constitutes withdrawing the
arm? I've seen coupes retain priority where the sword is almost flung
entirely back over the head. The scenario I often lose to is as
follows: I've initiated a compound attack and my opponent prepares to
lateral parry. My intention is to cut over their blade causing their
parry to miss. While mid-cut-over, my opponent makes a stop hit
before my arm begins lowering into the final thrust/lunge and is
awarded the point as I have withdrawn my arm.


Finding the blade:

T58c states: When a compound attack is made, if the opponent finds the
blade during one of the feints, he has the right to riposte. I just
want to clarify what finding the blade is and how it differs to a
beat/parry.


Concept of the compound attack:

If the arm must be extended only by the final move after being
withdrawn after initiation the compound attack (which is what would
be required for a simple attack anyway) and if the defender gets
right of way on a stop hit landing before the initiation of the final
move of the compound attack (the simple attack) rendering all
movements of the compound attack useless, why is so much attention
paid to the concept of a compound attack when the final movement must
satisfy all criteria of a simple attack and all preceding actions
have no effect?


Thank you very much to anyone who actually gets through all this. If
its any consolation, I probably got as much of a headache writing it
as you did reading it

--
We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.

in article 408bc973$0$27651$61ce578d@news.syd.swiftdsl.com.au , VoidRoamer at
voidroamer@hotmail.com wrote on 4/25/04 10:30 AM:

> Withdrawing the arm:
>
> During a compound attack, withdrawing the arm requires one to extend
> the blade in the final movement in order for the attack to have
> priority over a stop hit. What exactly constitutes withdrawing the
> arm? I've seen coupes retain priority where the sword is almost flung
> entirely back over the head. The scenario I often lose to is as
> follows: I've initiated a compound attack and my opponent prepares to
> lateral parry. My intention is to cut over their blade causing their
> parry to miss. While mid-cut-over, my opponent makes a stop hit
> before my arm begins lowering into the final thrust/lunge and is
> awarded the point as I have withdrawn my arm.
>

Just to answer one of the questions:
This is unfortunately a very subjective decision by the referee as to when
an attacker has withdrawn their arm and thereby is subject to being hit by
the stophit.
In your situation, as a referee, I would also call the stophit valid since
it arrived "before my arm begins lowering into the final thrust."
Many referees will call any forward action of the body an attack (usually
these are fencers who are not rated refs, but ref during self-directed
pools). But even a properly executed coupe has a small amount of withdraw
associated with it. How much withdraw is allowed by the ref is up to that
particular ref!

There is also a timing issue involved: If the compound attack is withdrawn
so that the "sword is almost flung entirely over back of the head", but the
stophit is not started prior to the "arm begins lowering into the final
thrust", then the stophit is NOT in time and is actually a counterattack
into the final attack. (this might be what is actually happening in the
first scenario you mention above?)

So, bottom line, what exactly constitutes withdrawing the arm? Your
Referee.


Bruce J. Heidebrecht

In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 26 Apr 2004 00:30:36 +1000
VoidRoamer <voidroamer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The fencing FAQ 1.16 states that the priority of point in line is not
> interrupted by footwork including the lunge or fleche. The FAQ 1.13
> states that with a failed attack, such as one that falls short,
> priority passes to the other player. How does one discern between a
> point in line and a failed attack? If I were to establish point in

I'm not a foilist, but as I understand it, there comes a point where
your attack is exhausted, that is you can't do anything more without
recovering and starting again.

The end of a lunge is one such time. If you lunge and fall short, now
what? You aren't a threat really because you can't go forward anymore,
you can stay there with your arm extended, but your opponent can just
walk past you and keep going You can't do any more attacking, you've
shot your bolt.

So once the attack is exhausted, once you can't do any more attacking,
then that's it. You can't attack, you can only defend in place or
recover.

You can, I suppose, recover forward, but that's still not attacking,
your arm is fully extended, if you bring your back leg forward you are
just resettling ready to go again, not continuing the attack.

I think the lunge is the usual point an attack is exhausted, but a
passata sotto or inquartata would be the same, where you end up in a
place where you can't do any more attacking.

In a real duel, if the opponent's attack was exhausted and they couldn't
do anything more, the blade might be waving about but as I say you'd
just walk past them and there's bugger all they can do.

Zebee

On 2004-04-25 10:30:36 -0400, VoidRoamer <voidroamer@hotmail.com> said:

> Hello,
>
> A few technicalities in foil have been causing me a lot of confusion.
> I fence each week with a few friends and as we have progressed beyond
> novice level, rules and technicalities are beginning to play a larger
> part in our presiding. I was hoping somebody could enlighten me. I'm
> sorry its a bit longwinded but I'd be grateful for some help.
>
>
> Point in line:
>
> The fencing FAQ 1.16 states that the priority of point in line is not
> interrupted by footwork including the lunge or fleche. The FAQ 1.13
> states that with a failed attack, such as one that falls short,
> priority passes to the other player. How does one discern between a
> point in line and a failed attack? If I were to establish point in
> line and lunge short of my opponent, am I maintaining point in line
> or have I executed a failed attack? If the latter, does this mean
> that the opponent (the recipient of the attack that fell short) is
> permitted to attack into the threatening blade without
> beating/parrying as they now have a window of opportunity? This seems
> odd as in a real duel it would be suicide.

According to the latest ruling/official interpretation of the rules the
lunge will not break the priority of a point-in-line, but the *end* of
the lunge will still be the end of an attack and thus priority will
then pass tot he other player. This means that if you have a
point-in-line and your opponent begins an attack onto your line that
lunging and hitting your opponent is not a *counter*-attack, i.e. you
would retain the priority you had with the line unlees your attack (by
lunging) misses or falls short.

> Crossing legs:
>
> T56a8 states: continuous steps forward with the legs crossing one
> another constitutes a preparation. What happened to footwork not
> affecting point in line? I assume this override that? Its the only
> rule I've found covering footwork and point in line.

If you have a point-in-line you may cross-step forward without losing
priority. This only applies to attacks while extending the arm and
cross-stepping.

> Withdrawing the arm:
>
> During a compound attack, withdrawing the arm requires one to extend
> the blade in the final movement in order for the attack to have
> priority over a stop hit. What exactly constitutes withdrawing the
> arm? I've seen coupes retain priority where the sword is almost flung
> entirely back over the head. The scenario I often lose to is as
> follows: I've initiated a compound attack and my opponent prepares to
> lateral parry. My intention is to cut over their blade causing their
> parry to miss. While mid-cut-over, my opponent makes a stop hit
> before my arm begins lowering into the final thrust/lunge and is
> awarded the point as I have withdrawn my arm.

Well, that sounds correct to me. A proper cut-over is executed without
withdrawing the arm. Two scenarios are possible; the referee
mistakenly believes that the body moving forward while the arm
withdraws constitutes a continuous attack, of which there are a goodly
number, or the attackers arm has *started* forward again *before* the
stop-hit.

A common tactic is to suddenly withdraw the arm while the opponent is
attempting to parry or retreat and then immediately begin extending
again while the withdrawal is still registering on the opponents
consciousness, who then counter-attacks firm in the belief, even after
repeated losses with varying referees, that there was no interval
between the time they saw the withdrawal and the time they started
their "attack".

Even good fencers will do this. I recall one evening of practice with
two highly rated fencers, who were also good referees, who when fencing
me with the other one refereeing would argue vociferously and
repeatedly that they had attacked into my preparation. Yet every time
they were the referee and the other one was my opponent they would see
my action as the attack because I would begin extending again before my
opponent started.

> Finding the blade:
>
> T58c states: When a compound attack is made, if the opponent finds the
> blade during one of the feints, he has the right to riposte. I just
> want to clarify what finding the blade is and how it differs to a
> beat/parry.

"Finding the blade" *is* a beat or parry.

> Concept of the compound attack:
>
> If the arm must be extended only by the final move after being
> withdrawn after initiation the compound attack (which is what would
> be required for a simple attack anyway) and if the defender gets
> right of way on a stop hit landing before the initiation of the final
> move of the compound attack (the simple attack) rendering all
> movements of the compound attack useless, why is so much attention
> paid to the concept of a compound attack when the final movement must
> satisfy all criteria of a simple attack and all preceding actions
> have no effect?

I begin extending my arm while I advance and make a feint threatening
your belly-button, thus beginning an attack and gaining priority, you
duck and lunge, since the belly-button is no longer available I
complete my advance, change targets, lunge and hit you in the back and
we land simultaneously. I have executed a valid compound attack and
maintained priority throughout, and I score the point.

I begin extending my arm while I advance and make a feint threatening
your belly-button, thus beginning an attack and gaining priority, you,
with either greater reach or lightning quickness, stop-hit me on the
shoulder and jump backwards, I complete my advance and lunge hitting
your belly button. I have executed a valid compound attack and would
have maintained priority throughout, but I lost *tempo* when the action
I was in the middle of when the stop-hit arrived before I completed my
advance and my action did not land until after I started my lunge.

The possibility of a stop-hit/counter-attack stealing the *tempo* is
what makes the concept of a compound attack so important in
distinguishing it from a simple attack, which is executed all in one
tempo.

I can make a continous
advance-advance-advance-advance-advance-advance-advance-lunge attack
and maintain priority throughout, as long as my opponent never gets out
of distance, but if it goes advance-advance-*stop-hit by
opponent*-advance-advance-advance-advance-lunge then I would have
clearly lost tempo since the scoring machine would have locked out any
possible light I could have gotten anyway

Ideally if your stop-hit arrives before I start my lunge you have
stolen the tempo. In practice you won't get this called very often and
have to land your stop-hit before the completion of my prior action.

In practical terms if you hit me before my front foot lands then I have
to hit you before picking it up again or I have unquestionably been hit
in tempo and lost the touch.

There are other debates about foot landing and the end of the tempo, or
the referee might judge that the attacker's next action had already
started if you landed your stop-hit after their front foot hit the
ground, but if you land it before my front foot hits the ground and I
don't hit you with *that* action but with a subsequent one, then I've
lost tempo and your stop-hit is valid.

> Thank you very much to anyone who actually gets through all this. If
> its any consolation, I probably got as much of a headache writing it
> as you did reading it

I hope it helps.

gary hayenga

>> Thank you very much to anyone who actually gets through all this.
>> If its any consolation, I probably got as much of a headache
>> writing it as you did reading it
>
> I hope it helps.

That was very helpful. Thanks.

>> Concept of the compound attack:
>>
>> If the arm must be extended only by the final move after being
>> withdrawn after initiation the compound attack (which is what would
>> be required for a simple attack anyway) and if the defender gets
>> right of way on a stop hit landing before the initiation of the
>> final move of the compound attack (the simple attack) rendering all
>> movements of the compound attack useless, why is so much attention
>> paid to the concept of a compound attack when the final movement
>> must satisfy all criteria of a simple attack and all preceding
>> actions have no effect?
<snip>
> The possibility of a stop-hit/counter-attack stealing the *tempo* is
> what makes the concept of a compound attack so important in
> distinguishing it from a simple attack, which is executed all in one
> tempo.
<snip>
> Ideally if your stop-hit arrives before I start my lunge you have
> stolen the tempo. In practice you won't get this called very often
> and have to land your stop-hit before the completion of my prior
> action.
>
> In practical terms if you hit me before my front foot lands then I
> have to hit you before picking it up again or I have unquestionably
> been hit in tempo and lost the touch.

I understand your point about 'stealing the tempo' which I believe is
explained in the rules as a stop hit in time. My confusion about the
concept of the compound attack comes as follows:

I think there are two major technical branches for a compound attack
to take. First is where the arm is extended at the beginning of the
attack and remains extended throughout the compound attack. In this
case, the opponent must take the blade (beat/parry) in order to
obtain priority otherwise they are simply attacking into an already
established attack. The only way the defender would be able to score
without taking the blade is to somehow land their hit one unit of
fencing time before the attacker did. This case seems fairly black
and white.

t.56.2 states: The compound attack (cf. t.8) is correctly executed
when the arm is extending in the presentation of the first feint,
with the point threatening the valid target, and the arm is not bent
between the successive actions of the attack and the initiation of
the lunge or the flèche.

In the second scenario, the attacker withdraws their arm during the
series of actions in the compound attack which they are permitted to
do in t.56.2. In this case, if simultaneous hits occurred, the
attacker is required to have re-extend the arm in the final move or
priority is awarded to the defender's stop-hit. It sounds like
bending the arm completely negates the compound attack. What happens
if I initiate a compound attack, withdraw my arm while still
advancing (during the compound attack), opponent establishes point in
line while my arm is withdrawn, I extend my arm once again, then we
both hit within one unit of fencing time? I understand if the
opponent hits outside one unit of fencing time then they have hit me
in tempo but what about the case just illustrated?


Thanks again.

--
We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.

>> Withdrawing the arm:
>>
> Just to answer one of the questions:
> This is unfortunately a very subjective decision by the referee as
> to when an attacker has withdrawn their arm and thereby is subject
> to being hit by the stophit.
> In your situation, as a referee, I would also call the stophit valid
> since it arrived "before my arm begins lowering into the final
> thrust."

This I understand. It is a stop hit in time as the stop hit was
initiated before the final movement was begun.

> There is also a timing issue involved: If the compound attack is
> withdrawn so that the "sword is almost flung entirely over back of
> the head", but the stophit is not started prior to the "arm begins
> lowering into the final thrust", then the stophit is NOT in time and
> is actually a counterattack
> into the final attack. (this might be what is actually happening in
> the first scenario you mention above?)

In this case, I can only guess as I am not yet skilled enough to time
my actions that acutely. I would have to watch a video reply.

> But even a properly executed coupe has a small amount of
> withdraw
> associated with it. How much withdraw is allowed by the ref is up
> to that particular ref!
<snip>
> So, bottom line, what exactly constitutes withdrawing the arm? Your
> Referee.

This is the point of contention unfortunately. I have been told
various things about withdrawing the arm from specific angles to
movements elbow and shoulder.

I think withdrawing the arm has two components (ignoring the movement
of the wrist). First is bending the elbow and the other is bending
the shoulder (or lowering the upper arm). Are there any guidelines
here? I can understand the frustrations associated with the rules of
foil.

The scenarios that gets me most are either the attempt at coupe as
mentioned earlier or when I attack, the opponent lateral parries so I
withdraw my arm a little (keeping the tip trained on the target) then
re-extend after the parry passes. I think the difficulty comes from
determining whether the opponent's stop hit began before or after my
re-extension, if before they would be awarded the point. Yes?

Thanks for your response.

--
We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.

VoidRoamer wrote:
>
> The scenarios that gets me most are either the attempt at coupe as
> mentioned earlier or when I attack, the opponent lateral parries so I
> withdraw my arm a little (keeping the tip trained on the target) then
> re-extend after the parry passes. I think the difficulty comes from
> determining whether the opponent's stop hit began before or after my
> re-extension, if before they would be awarded the point. Yes?

No. The moment your opponent tries to parry you, they have no rights
whatsoever (unless the parry succeeds of course). If you manage to
evade the parry, you have right of way as long as your attack starts
before your opponent *clearly* established right of way (by either
having a fully extended arm or has actually hit you). The stop-hit
would not be in time simply because it starts first as your opponent
has used their fencing action trying to parry, so it is your "turn"
and you have an entire fencing phrase to do it. Of course, if you
pause, you lose your right to attack, so your action still has to
be immediate.
Simon.
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion
groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----

In article <408c9bd7$0$27644$61ce578d@news.syd.swiftdsl.com.a u>,
VoidRoamer <voidroamer@hotmail.com> wrote:

> It sounds like
> bending the arm completely negates the compound attack. What happens
> if I initiate a compound attack, withdraw my arm while still
> advancing (during the compound attack), opponent establishes point in
> line while my arm is withdrawn, I extend my arm once again, then we
> both hit within one unit of fencing time? I understand if the
> opponent hits outside one unit of fencing time then they have hit me
> in tempo but what about the case just illustrated?


It doesn't sound like there is time to establish a point-in-line in this
scenario. For a point in line to be established, the arm must be
extendED (not extendING) before the opponent BEGINS the final
advance-lunge of the attack.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

On 2004-04-26 01:28:17 -0400, VoidRoamer <voidroamer@hotmail.com> said:

<snip>
>
> t.56.2 states: The compound attack (cf. t.8) is correctly executed
> when the arm is extending in the presentation of the first feint,
> with the point threatening the valid target, and the arm is not bent
> between the successive actions of the attack and the initiation of
> the lunge or the flèche.
>
> In the second scenario, the attacker withdraws their arm during the
> series of actions in the compound attack which they are permitted to
> do in t.56.2. In this case, if simultaneous hits occurred, the
> attacker is required to have re-extend the arm in the final move or
> priority is awarded to the defender's stop-hit. It sounds like
> bending the arm completely negates the compound attack. What happens
> if I initiate a compound attack, withdraw my arm while still
> advancing (during the compound attack), opponent establishes point in
> line while my arm is withdrawn, I extend my arm once again, then we
> both hit within one unit of fencing time? I understand if the
> opponent hits outside one unit of fencing time then they have hit me
> in tempo but what about the case just illustrated?
>
>
> Thanks again.

In theory you are correct and the line is valid, however in practical
terms, since the line must be completely established before that attack
it is highly unlikely that the attacker will not be able to begin
extending again before that. It is also (unfortunately) very common
for some referees to not acknowledge the withdrawal of the arm and
subsequent advances with it still withdrawn as preparation. The only
way to guarantee that a good referee will award the point in line is if
the arm is still in the act of withdrawing *after* the point-in-line
has been fully established. If the attacker is smart it won't matter,
and they will re-establish the attack before the line is completely
extended.

gary hayenga

Thanks everyone. I guess ultimately, it is best to avoid such
situations to begin with due to the inevitable reliance upon human
factors.

As an aside, What I would like to see is the rapid adoption of the
300ms (250ms even better) lock-out time. Personally although I
generally think highly of the concept of right-of-way as a means to
penalise reckless or irresponsible attacking, I think that with
modern fencing it brings too much confusion. I'd like to see
something closer to Epee in the case of a simultaneous attack but
with a double penalty rather than a double point in order to make
such a reckless scenario very undesirable. After all, no real duelist
would consider a draw to be an acceptable outcome. One lives, one
dies. The attacker would be reluctant to commit suicide, and the
defender would not be willing to forfeit his/her life in order to win
by technicality.

My 2 cents.


--
We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.

In article <408dd029$0$27645$61ce578d@news.syd.swiftdsl.com.a u>,
VoidRoamer <voidroamer@hotmail.com> wrote:

> no real duelist
> would consider a draw to be an acceptable outcome. One lives, one
> dies. The attacker would be reluctant to commit suicide, and the
> defender would not be willing to forfeit his/her life in order to win
> by technicality.


GET THIS OUT OF YOUR HEAD. Foil has nothing to do with a real duel. It
was designed as a training tool, and now it's a sport.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

VoidRoamer wrote:
>
> Thanks everyone. I guess ultimately, it is best to avoid such
> situations to begin with due to the inevitable reliance upon human
> factors.

Actually, the real problem is that you're making
things too hard. You can get 95% of foil calls
right if you just award right of way to the one
who parried last.

(yes, a russian coach told me that)

Joe

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In a real duel, if the opponent's attack was exhausted and they couldn't
> do anything more, the blade might be waving about but as I say you'd
> just walk past them and there's bugger all they can do.

ZB, you've just about convinced me that
"bugger all" should be an official term
in the rule book.

Joe

VoidRoamer wrote:

>Thanks everyone. I guess ultimately, it is best to avoid such
>situations to begin with due to the inevitable reliance upon human
>factors.
>
>

As Harold said, Foil is a training weapon for combat. Foil is not a
combat simulation. Epee could be considered a combat simulation.
Thinking out-loud, as it where, what would the ramification be if Epee
used the colored lights for hits within the time-out period and the
white-lights for hits outside the time-out period. If you got a white
light, it was a point against. Constructive flames only please.

--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

> GET THIS OUT OF YOUR HEAD. Foil has nothing to do with a real duel.
> It was designed as a training tool, and now it's a sport.

Thats true. As a matter of bad habit I do tend to think of it as a
duel. More accurate would be to consider it in terms of obtaining and
regaining priority rather than attack and defence.

In article <408bc973$0$27651$61ce578d@news.syd.swiftdsl.com.a u>,
VoidRoamer <voidroamer@hotmail.com> writes
>Hello,
>
>A few technicalities in foil have been causing me a lot of confusion.
>I fence each week with a few friends and as we have progressed beyond
>novice level, rules and technicalities are beginning to play a larger
>part in our presiding. I was hoping somebody could enlighten me. I'm
>sorry its a bit longwinded but I'd be grateful for some help.
>
>
>Point in line:
>
>The fencing FAQ 1.16 states that the priority of point in line is not
>interrupted by footwork including the lunge or fleche. The FAQ 1.13
>states that with a failed attack, such as one that falls short,
>priority passes to the other player. How does one discern between a
>point in line and a failed attack?

Perhaps the FAQ is misleading when it tries, in para 1.13, to combine
"point in line" and "attack" into one concept, "threat", and equate
that with "right of way".

I don't think that the rules ever say that point in line gives you right
of way. What they effectively say, eg at t.56(a)(6), is that point in
line prevents your opponent getting right of way.

The contradiction you note is the result of this. The FAQ shouldn't
say, in 1.13, that a threat ends when it falls short, just that an
attack ends when it falls short. The position with a point in line is
then as covered in 1.16 - "wildly differing opinions".

>If I were to establish point in
>line and lunge short of my opponent, am I maintaining point in line
>or have I executed a failed attack? If the latter, does this mean
>that the opponent (the recipient of the attack that fell short) is
>permitted to attack into the threatening blade without
>beating/parrying as they now have a window of opportunity?

If your opponent starts his lunge after your attack has started, he's
most unwise. The referee is probably going to give it as your attack,
because he won't have seen it falling short - he'll have seen the
distance between your point and your opponent's target continually
closing.

If your opponent waits a while and then attacks, and if there's a period
in between during which you ostentatiously have your arm straight, I
think many referees would give you point in line. In that case you will
score, by virtue of t.60(2)(a).

>This seems
>odd as in a real duel it would be suicide.
>
>
>Crossing legs:
>
>T56a8 states: continuous steps forward with the legs crossing one
>another constitutes a preparation. What happened to footwork not
>affecting point in line? I assume this override that? Its the only
>rule I've found covering footwork and point in line.

I've never seen this rule applied, rather the opposite: if A fleches at
B, and B sticks his arm out, the B's hit will be called a "stop hit" and
A's hit will score. I've seen this happen in junior nationals with an
experienced referee, and the mutterings from the spectators were about
whether the stop hit might have been in time[t.59], not whether rule
t.56(a)(8) should be applied.

>
>
>Withdrawing the arm:
>
>During a compound attack, withdrawing the arm requires one to extend
>the blade in the final movement in order for the attack to have
>priority over a stop hit.

? Not sure what you're quoting here. t56(a)(2) says that you must not
bend your arm during a compound attack. Therefore, if you bend your
arm, your attack has ended.

>What exactly constitutes withdrawing the
>arm? I've seen coupes retain priority where the sword is almost flung
>entirely back over the head. The scenario I often lose to is as
>follows: I've initiated a compound attack and my opponent prepares to
>lateral parry. My intention is to cut over their blade causing their
>parry to miss. While mid-cut-over, my opponent makes a stop hit
>before my arm begins lowering into the final thrust/lunge and is
>awarded the point as I have withdrawn my arm.

I take "bend" to be the opposite of "extend"; the angle at the elbow is
decreasing. So a retraction at the elbow ends the attack, whereas a
wrist or shoulder movement doesn't.

My coach in the 60's in fact taught that an attack could never include a
cut-over. This has changed, and most referees will allow a cut-over
with a small amount of elbow movement; it's a question of the amount.

>
>
>Finding the blade:
>
>T58c states: When a compound attack is made, if the opponent finds the
>blade during one of the feints, he has the right to riposte. I just
>want to clarify what finding the blade is and how it differs to a
>beat/parry.

What it says. Any meeting of blades is sufficient if it's a feint. On
the final part of the compound attack, it has to be a good parry.

It would be impossible to referee otherwise. On the final move, the
referee can in principle distinguish between a parry that failed and one
that succeeded: if the attack arrived, and the referee can se it was not
replaced, then the parry failed. But who can tell if a feint has been
deflected from the target or not?
>
>
>Concept of the compound attack:
>
>If the arm must be extended only by the final move after being
>withdrawn after initiation the compound attack (which is what would
>be required for a simple attack anyway)

? Not right I think. The arm must start to extend at the start of the
attack, and must continue to extend (or at least the extension must not
decrease) throughout the attack.

[snip]
--
Tim S.