Foil Questions

[DarkTransient]

I wonder what are the answers to these questions.
201. Fencer “X” makes a simple attack with advance-lunge while fencer “Y”, who has been waiting to time “X”’s action, immediately extends the arm before the start of “X”’s lunge. Both fencers hit valid, within the
same tempo.
a. award a touch for “X”
b. award a touch for “Y”
c. no touch awarded
202. Fencer “X” is at double advance plus lunge distance and makes a double advance plus lunge attack while fencer “Y”, who has been waiting to time “X”’s action, immediately extends the arm before the start of “X”’s advance-lunge. Both fencers hit valid.
a. award a touch for “X”
b. award a touch for “Y”
c. no touch awarded

Is there an official solution to the 1999 Director's Exam Study Guide?

[Peach]

The "official solution" is to look in the rule book and study like crazy <grin> and preferably take the seminars they're going to be offering at the local level, though the quality of those is uneven. For the answers to both of your questions, you need to find the definition of an attack.

Speaking as someone who has an extensively annotated copy of the study guide . . . the answers are not always great but this forces you to be more familiar with the rules.

[Shadow Fencer]

I too had questions on these questions and here are my answers and rationale:

201. "b" because X was attacking with an advance lunge and the stop hit was in fencing time??

202. "b"- similar rationale as above.

I am curious about the answers to the above questions as well!

Are you going to the Ref class in June?

------------------
I live to fence and fence to live!!

[Mergs]

As an exercise to combat extreme boredom in Bosnia, I went through the entire study guide and developed a Powerpoint presentation for the whole thing (shows the question and possible answers and then highlights the correct one). I also put the appropriate rule(s) with each question. For these two questions, the first one I called the answere a. because of the same tempo portion of the question (see rules t.57 and t.59). In the next question, the answer is b. (see rule t.69).

FYI, this was submitted to George K and others of the FOC for comment and corrections last year, with no response to date. I will be happy to send it to anyone who wants a copy, contact me by PM. And feel free to give me input (or corrections, I already found two!).

[This message has been edited by Mergs (edited 04-24-2001).]

[DarkTransient]

The rule says
t.56 (a) Every attack, that is every initial offensive action, which is correctly executed MUST BE PARRIED OR COMPLETELY AVOIDED and the phrase must be followed through — that is to say, coordinated (cf. t.7). In order to judge the correctness of an attack the following points must be considered:
3.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.

So it seems that step-forward-lunge is a valid attack and must be completely avoided or parried, as long as the arm of the attacker is extending continuously. so both answers are a. It's my guess.

btw t69 seems to be a rule for epee?

[d8m2k]

Dark,
You know the answer, why are you asking?

In reality, in foil fencing, there is no one solution to right of way, only interpretation.

For example, if fencer Y does not move his feet, it's touch for fencer X, both times. If fencer X's arm isn't extending, it is touch for fencer Y.

Also, in the US, if fencer X is Iris Zimmerman and fencer Y is a nobody, fencer X gets the touch.

Whether the ref sees it that way or not is a different matter.

People worry so much about the written rule, never understanding that the current interpretation of the rule is the most important aspect of foil. Specifically the current ref's interpretation.

[This message has been edited by d8m2k (edited 04-24-2001).]

[DarkTransient]

No I don't know if that is the correct answer.
And I am trying to find out what is the interpretation for the situation described in the rulebook.

[d8m2k]

Dark,

That's just it, there is no "correct" answer.
Only interpretation, which changes often. The interpretation changed recently at the Jr. Worlds. Foil is not black and white, neither is sabre.

[This message has been edited by d8m2k (edited 04-24-2001).]

[DarkTransient]

well, yeah, but in this case there has to be a correct answer since they are from the director's exam study guide. When they made up these questions I am sure they had a particulare answer in mind for each of them.

[Stryder]

There is a correct answer and it is "A" for the first question and "B" for the second question. In both cases the defending fencer establishes a point in line.
In question one, The line is established before the beginning of the lunge, but an attack has precedence through an advance and a lunge. So the line is late, point for the attack.

In question two, the defending fencer establishes his line before the beginning of the advance-lunge. Therefore the line has precedence.

D8m2k, I hear you, Man. I feel your pain. But I think this question was more aimed at "actual rules" or "Official interpretation" in which case the answer is clear.

I would say that all ref's would make the same response to this question even now, years after they took the test.
The question is: Do they all see the same things? Do they see a fencer making a double adv-lunge, or do they see a fencer making an attack? Do they see a fencer establishing a line, or do they see a fencer extending his arm and not making and action of his own?

Bad ref's make bad calls. And good ref's seem to favor the attack. They don't really, but they seem to. That's just my opinion.

------------------
www.geocities.com/strydermike

[d8m2k]

Dark,
I was unaware that the questions were for a test. Under strict rules, the answers are a,b.
However the reality of it is very different. Rarely do you see line called, unless it is established WAY before the attack.

Stryder,
No pain here. I understand and agree with current interpretations. And I also agree with reputation touches; protecting the stars happens in every sport. It just seems that many people on this board don't. And sometimes, many US refs don't, especially at the smaller tournaments. That's what upsets me.

[Stryder]

Reputation touches are a myth. It is arrogance to think that in the years it took to earn that reputation, the fencers recieving the touches haven't earned anything else. Like skill. There are bad calls all the time. But the reason so many bad calls favor the more experienced fencer, is that he is more experienced at making them fall his way. He knows when to flop, when to scream in triumph and when to strut as if it was his touch. The ref's do give these fencers touches, but it isn't because of their names.

------------------
www.geocities.com/strydermike

[darius]

Stryder,
You ever see the '99 World Championship Team Men's Foil event, China vs. France?

[DarkTransient]

I have. Yes the director did robbed the last point away from China. Nevertheless there were 1 or 2 bad calls earlier in favor of China, so it is hard to tell who really deserves the 1st place. Interstingly, in the 2000 Olympic final, France and China met again and the score was again 45 - 44 France.
By the way Darius, who is your favorite guy in the team match? I think Dong was awesome, especially in the bout where he slaughtered Ferrari the number 3 foil fencer in the world. And Ferrari was so pissed, he elbowed Dong in the last touch and received a red card for that.

[d8m2k]

Originally posted by Stryder:
Reputation touches are a myth. It is arrogance to think that in the years it took to earn that reputation, the fencers recieving the touches haven't earned anything else. Like skill. There are bad calls all the time. But the reason so many bad calls favor the more experienced fencer, is that he is more experienced at making them fall his way. He knows when to flop, when to scream in triumph and when to strut as if it was his touch. The ref's do give these fencers touches, but it isn't because of their names.

I have no problem with rep touches, but they exist. It is naive of you to think that a ref can be influenced by such things as posturing, but not a name. He/she is only human.

You must have heard that story of the dry sabre bout...
Fencer A, who is well known and accomplished fencer, is awarded a touch that never landed (as can happen with standard fencing), his opponent yells at the ref and the fencer saying that he only scored because of his reputation.
To which he replies, "So go earn a reputation."

When I heard the story names were used, but I don't remeber them, just the moral.
Maybe it's an urban legend, I don't know...

[Stryder]

Re: "go earn a reputation"

Most sabre ref's are drunk.

Just kidding.
Screaming instead of scoring diminished only somewhat with the advent of electric scoring. The ref in question should have said: "go learn how to act" or better yet "go learn how to riposte"

All I meant was that the fault that produces so called reputation touches lies not in the referee, but in the skill of the more experienced fencer. Learning how to manipulate the ref's is part of any sport.
When people talk about earning a reputation, I think they are also talking about all the other things you earn to get a reputation.

How do you get a reputation in the first place? You learn how to win without one.


------------------
www.geocities.com/strydermike

[edew]

In our recent Jr Pacific Coast Championships, I refereed the gold medal bout in the U-19 age group. Fencer A made an advance-lunge, and Fencer B put a point in line during the advance. Touch for A. Parent of Fencer B yelled out a scream and claimed that the video will show A didn't finish the attack until AFTER the point was out.

I didn't bother the look at the tape.

Then, the very next action, Fencer A starts the attack, Fencer B puts the point out but retreats. Fencer A chases with several advances and then eventually lunges. I gave Fencer B the touch, point in line, Fencer A made more than one advance before the final advance-lunge into an establishe point.

Fencer B's coach screamed and claimed I was bullied into making the call by Fencer A's parent from the previous touch. But the situation is exactly as described in the questions stated at the start of this thread: in the first case, the point was out AFTER the last (and only) advance-lunge. In the second case, the point was out BEFORE the last advance-lunge.

Oh, and both fencers hit valid in both cases. Of course.

[Mergs]

Mango, point in line or stop thrust, probably difficult to differentiate, but Eric was the director, all depends on what he saw.

Eric, what did you do about the parent/coaches? Were they carded or warned about disrupting?

[mango fever]

yes, i know it all depends on what he saw, but what if he didn't really see the whole thing? {opps, i just realized, you wanted to know if eric spanked the parents, sorry, but it's too late for me to delete this message, opps again]

[This message has been edited by mango fever (edited 04-26-2001).]

[d8m2k]

Originally posted by edew:


Then, the very next action, Fencer A starts the attack, Fencer B puts the point out but retreats. Fencer A chases with several advances and then eventually lunges. I gave Fencer B the touch, point in line, Fencer A made more than one advance before the final advance-lunge into an establishe point.

Many refs won't give the line unless the distance is broken significantly, or there is a long, long period of chasing. Unless they enforce a classical interpretation of right of way.

In the case you mention it sounds like there was a long chase.