Foil: This call is often pretty ambiguous, can someone shed some light?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Dan H

Probably better not to bother arguing. Just card the coach if he gets in your face. Many coaches feel it's their job to pressure the ref into giving questionable calls to their fencers. This sounds like a good example.

Yeah, and I knew it. It wasn't really a problem of not knowing what to call, I was confident that it was simultaneous (especially since this was a very low level tournament.) I was just curious of whether or not the rules allow for an attack with an extended arm. Thank you for the advice, though.

[penguin_2000]

t.7 "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 fleche."

Thats some interesting wording for the definition of attack. I don't think a "lunge" is ever defined in the rule book. Does it necessarily imply that the arm is, or stays, extended? What if a fencer retracts his arm (fully even) once in the lunge? I would think he'd lose ROW, but the wording doesn't say so...

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Dan H

Probably better not to bother arguing. Just card the coach if he gets in your face. Many coaches feel it's their job to pressure the ref into giving questionable calls to their fencers. This sounds like a good example.

I've sure seen that a lot. Last year directing high school events, one coach who's seen me direct many times was carrying on (from the sidelines, and well under my threshold for giving a card); I asked him why the hell he was doing that, when he knows I'm not going to change the call, and even on actions that were blatantly against his fencer, and he said "the kids are upset with me if I don't argue the calls".

[jeff]

Originally Posted by penguin_2000

Does it necessarily imply that the arm is, or stays, extended? What if a fencer retracts his arm (fully even) once in the lunge? I would think he'd lose ROW, but the wording doesn't say so...

See above where I quote t.7 and the FOC explanation of it. If you retract your arm, you should lose ROW, however as jBirch and I have been discussing, that's not always the case.

[keith]

Originally Posted by jeff

See above where I quote t.7 and the FOC explanation of it. If you retract your arm, you should lose ROW, however as jBirch and I have been discussing, that's not always the case.

... actually the statement that ROW way is 'lost' is in my mind the problem. The general convention of refing seems to be that once right of way is taken by a fencer their opponent must take it back either by;

breaking distance and establishing their attack

or,

parrying the attack

or,

unambiguosly hitting the attacker in prepartion.

Its the last one thats tricksy of course. Trouble is if you are moving backwards down the piste sticking out your arm can only be an attempt to establish line (can't lunge or fleche while moving backwards). So in reality the first and last options are really the same.

Oh and for the attacking fencer to take RoW they have to do more than step forward - the classic is of course beat-straighten and then pull back as your opponent retreats and follow with a withdrawn hand.

[jeff]

keith, perhaps you've hit on the crux of the issue. I'm completely with the position that the attacker breaking the arm (etcetera) loses ROW. At that moment in time neither party has ROW, and it can taken by either party. This is how it used to be called until about 13-15 years ago. Pumping your arm lost your ROW, however you could regain ROW if you resumed the attack before the other guy took advantage of it.

Here's what the Handbook for Referees says, just a little bit below the part I quoted earlier:

If a fencer starts a correctly executed attack and her opponent starts retreating while trying to make a parry, the aggressor may very well pull her arm back so that the defensive fencer has no blade to parry. If the parries continue, the aggressor will wait until she is close enough and then restart her attack. If the parrier were to start her own attack while the former aggressor had her arm back, then this attack would have right of way; it would be an attack into a preparation.

So, the FOC explicitly says ROW is lost when the arm is pulled back. Seems clear to me, and is entirely consistent with traditional calls.

[keith]

Originally Posted by jeff

So, the FOC explicitly says ROW is lost when the arm is pulled back. Seems clear to me, and is entirely consistent with traditional calls.

I think this comes down to what the relative movements of the fencers are (ye olde foil cop out). Successful attacks in preparation are normally premeditated; the defending fencer makes a false back step (just the rear foot) drawing the arm withdrawal of the attacker but also allowing a forward movement during the attack in preparation - this action rarely gets miscalled.

Where, IMHO, people get into trouble is when they are moving backwards and then extend the arm - and stop with the intention of lunging, but run out of distance. They get hit standing still with a straight arm; this looks like, and is, a failed attempt to make line or feint in time. Of course if they had continued to take two more steps back before stopping then line would have been established.

This has pretty much always been called this way (I also remember back 15 years in foil) and occasionally miscalled, but I think its almost always more of a problem with the defender getting the tempo wrong than with the ref getting the call wrong.

[jeff]

James, I started yours last because longest!

Originally Posted by jBirch

It's tough to put into words what "intent" translates into on the piste. (snipped for brevity)

I agree, and since the ref isn't a mind reader, why does intent figure into it all. Hey - many times I had full intention to hit McCahey or Longenbach, but that wasn't enough to get my touch! I don't see where "intent" is mentioned in the rules, and don't understand why anyone should consider it a valid basis for deciding ROW.

Originally Posted by jBirch

1) The attack is present and then a feint of flick is shown (often multiple times), which causes a reaction which is then exploited. Thus the RoW rests with the fencer who is continually threatening with the flick and not with the poor sap who is reacting to it. Unless...the stop hit arrives before the start of the finish. (odd phrasing, eh?)

I think your phrasing is fine as is: the sap has to hit before the final action starts. The question is (again) what does "continuously threatening" mean. Again I cite the FOC Handbook (quoted above) "If you "break" your attack--stop moving forward or hold back your arm--you are no longer attacking" and "point (for foil) or your blade (for sabre) is going toward your opponent’s valid target". When you pull your point back, you're not doing those things.

Originally Posted by jBirch

2) The attack is present, there is an attempt to engage by the defender, the arm is withdrawn (derobe) and a flick threat established. If the defender continues with the counter-attack, the flick threat is confirmed with an extension to target. RoW rests with the attack/derobe/flick and not with the search/counter.

No problem: If I sweep for the blade and don't get it, I'm wrong. Fencer is hit if t.60(2) "(b) If he attempts to find the blade, does not succeed (is the object of a dérobement) and continues the attack." The other guy does not (and did not have to, pre-flick) already be extending.

Originally Posted by jBirch

3) The attack is present, the defender counter-attacks and the attacker changes the line for a flick attack which scores. This is a tricky one that relies on the timing for the counter-attack. It is essentially a compound attack. If the counter-attack starts before the flick then the counter wins. If not, then it loses.

I think you'd actually have to _land_ before the final starts. t.60.2(c) "stop hit in time before he begins his final movement"

Originally Posted by jBirch

I'm having trouble picturing the case you originally posted without the use of a flick finish to justify it. Can you clarify it a bit? Sounds like you were dealing with a clueless newb elsewise and your call was correct and uncontentious.

James.

That's my opinion too. However, there seems to be so much disagreement - shown once again in this thread, as well as elsewheres on the strip - about ROW requiring an extending arm without bending it, that it's worth going to first principles, so that's what I'm trying to get us to do.

More recommended reading t.56(a).4 "Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations, laying themselves open to the initiation of the offensive or defensive/offensive action of the opponent (cf. t.8)."

[jBirch]

Jeff,

Originally Posted by jeff

I think your phrasing is fine as is: the sap has to hit before the final action starts. The question is (again) what does "continuously threatening" mean. Again I cite the FOC Handbook (quoted above) "If you "break" your attack--stop moving forward or hold back your arm--you are no longer attacking" and "point (for foil) or your blade (for sabre) is going toward your opponent’s valid target". When you pull your point back, you're not doing those things.

Ah ha! I've found the issue! When you pull your point back in foil, you are still threatening a flick.

That's my opinion too. However, there seems to be so much disagreement - shown once again in this thread, as well as elsewheres on the strip - about ROW requiring an extending arm without bending it, that it's worth going to first principles, so that's what I'm trying to get us to do.

First thing I got taught on my ref's course was that "extending" doesn't just mean arm going from bent to straight but that the threat is moving closer to the target. In fact, a flick (which has the blade and tip move away from target first before whipping back) is still extending because the whip back is the first step of its proper execution. It's the same as a half advance of the arm in a thrust. Weird, eh?

More recommended reading t.56(a).4 "Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations, laying themselves open to the initiation of the offensive or defensive/offensive action of the opponent (cf. t.8)."

Oh ho! This has been nearly thrown out as a valid rule and is really the source of contention. It has been totally reinterpreted in light of the flick and the t.7 definition as applying only to the case of thrust attacks and only in the case of the AIP finishing before the "bent arm" starts to extend.

Where this gets really hairy in practice is the situation where two fencers start an attack at roughly the same time. Fencer A has the foot starting and a bent arm, Fencer B has the arm starting and then the foot. Current interpretation is that the fencer who started moving first has RoW faster then the one who started the tip first and then moved later. The rationale is that the threat is more offensive from the forward movement then the extending arm (which still needs the footwork to be truly threatening) and the tip is extending by virtue of the forward movement. Thus fencer A wins the "initial" race and gets RoW. Fencer B is executing a counter-attack.

Further, the concept of "executed with a bent arm" only applies to the final touch and not the intermediate execution (or else your arm would have to be fully extended before you had RoW). It's a bit of a historical left-over from the days when the arm did indeed need to be fully extended before the attack could take place. *grin* It's the "male nipple" of fencing.

James.

[Cerian]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Jeff,
Ah ha! I've found the issue! When you pull your point back in foil, you are still threatening a flick.

I find this rather ridiculous. Lots of motions 'threaten' the approach of a certain action, that doesn't mean you have right of way. If I make an advance, am I 'threatening' the initiation of an advance lunge and do I thus have right of way? If I change my hand position from 6 to 8, moving from a closed to an open line on my opponent, have I now intimated the possible approach of an attack in that line and, thusly, do I now have right of way? If I **** my wrist and fingers upward so as to raise my point and allow for the eventual snap downward necessary for a flick, am I now threatening that action? There are thousands of positions my body can be in that allow me to proceed with an attack. But those positions are not an attack and they don't confer right of way. The way I understand the coupe, and, transitively, the flick, as explained to me by a someone who directs at the international level, is that during the backward motion of the arm, right of way does not exist for the attacker. As soon as the arm re-establishes forward motion, the defender is out of luck and has missed his chance to take the initiative. But during the window when the arm goes back, the defender has the opportunity to take right of way.

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by jeff

I think your phrasing is fine as is: the sap has to hit before the final action starts. The question is (again) what does "continuously threatening" mean. Again I cite the FOC Handbook (quoted above) "If you "break" your attack--stop moving forward or hold back your arm--you are no longer attacking" and "point (for foil) or your blade (for sabre) is going toward your opponent’s valid target". When you pull your point back, you're not doing those things.

Urgh... I hate ROW so very much! Okay, I don't pretend to be as eloquent or knowledgeable about the details and exact wording of the rules as either you or James, but here is my take on it.

You seem to be saying that once the arm stops going forward, the attack is over and the former attacking fencer is now vulnerable to AIP, even if he is still moving towards the fencer with the intention to complete his attack.

I will forgo cute little things like, well then he could start extending his sword arm (the rules don't say the arm that extends towards target has to have a weapon in it...) and try to stay on topic, although I think that the quirk I just mentioned, along with many others (that may have been cleared up in the latest revision, I have not studied it closely) are why we should not hinge out entire fencing/refereeing philosophy on one phrase in the rule book. There is a good chance it is wrong, infers unspecified circumstances to be happening or is just plain incomplete. But anyway, I digress.

Okay, so fence A begins an attack by extending his arm and moving towards the opponent, threatening target area. Fencer B begins a retreat waiting for an AIP opening or a chance for parry or PIL. As Fencer A marches down the strip he is slowly and continuously extending his arm while threatening target. When his arm becomes fully extended he finishes his attack with a lunge. At the same time Fencer A's arm become completely extended (IE it is no longer moving towards the target) Fencer B stops his retreat, begins extending and finishes with a small hoping thing that could be a lunge or a fleche depending on how generous you were feeling. It seems to me that you are saying that it would be touch for B since fencer A looses his action as soon as his arm stops coming forward, but maybe I am mistaken.

As you may guess I am with Fencer A on this one. His point is still moving forward, cause his feet are attached to his arm via the torso and they are all moving towards the target, and by definition the arm is extending toward the opponent. Furthermore, ROW has been taken by A and has not been released. He is still threatening, his attack in this example is a textbook straight lunge, and he was never parried, or allowed the opponent to establish a line.

But what do I know, I am an epeeist who occasionally gets talked into refereeing/fencing foil. I would be a lot happier if all the ROW wording got boiled down to something like this:

Once a fencer has began the attack, he has ROW until he voids it (via a search for the opponents blade, a full tempo break in forward movement, a complete withdraw of the attack or a failed attack) or until it is taken away from him or nullified by either a PIL, a successful parry or a counter attack delivered in such a way that the Counter Attacking fencer is not scored upon.

I would probably go on further to define some of the terms in a glossary type deal and under attack (for foil) it would say something like this:

"An attack is the initial offensive action which begins with the extending of the point towards the opponents target area, continues to threaten the target in a reasonable way and finishes with a lunge or a fleche. It should be noted that if you are going backwards you will never have the attack."

Of course that is sort of how I do ROW anyway... This has turned out to be a really interesting thread that has me thinking about stuff I never really considered before. I am going to be at a seminar with George Kolombotavich in October and I look forward to getting his take on all this. If you want I will try to remember to post his responses if anyone is interested.

[Cerian]

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

You seem to be saying that once the arm stops going forward, the attack is over and the former attacking fencer is now vulnerable to AIP, even if he is still moving towards the fencer with the intention to complete his attack.

Not to put words in anyones mouth, but I think what Jeff is saying is that when the arm starts going backwards, the attack is over (not really over, but vulnerable to having right of way taken) and the former attacking fencer is now vulnerable to AIP. The arm can be extending or extended during an attack, it can't be retracting or retracted. An extension can't go on forever and I don't think anyone would say that your attack has to arrive before your arm has fully extended. In fact, that would be rather contradictory if it's true that classically it had to be fully extended to be an attack at all.

[penguin_2000]

Originally Posted by jeff

See above where I quote t.7 and the FOC explanation of it. If you retract your arm, you should lose ROW, however as jBirch and I have been discussing, that's not always the case.

But there is no wording that states a fencer cannot retract the arm DURING the lunge, only in the action PRECEDING the lunge or fleche.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Cerian

Not to put words in anyones mouth, but I think what Jeff is saying is that when the arm starts going backwards, the attack is over (not really over, but vulnerable to having right of way taken) and the former attacking fencer is now vulnerable to AIP.

pretty sure we all agree on that, I think the disagreement is over whether any and all extensions by the retreating fencer would immediately take priority on the withdrawal of the arm by the formerly attacking fencer.

...IMHO the simple act of the retreating fencer straightening their arm does not immediately give them RoW. It depends on a couple of other things as well.

[Cerian]

Originally Posted by keith

pretty sure we all agree on that, I think the disagreement is over whether any and all extensions by the retreating fencer would immediately take priority on the withdrawal of the arm by the formerly attacking fencer.

...IMHO the simple act of the retreating fencer straightening their arm does not immediately give them RoW. It depends on a couple of other things as well.

I'm not so sure we all agree on the issue though (jbirch: "When you pull your point back in foil, you are still threatening a flick. ") But yes, just sticking your arm out doesn't make an attack in preparation.

[redcoat]

Ahhh.... double touch!

[jeff]

Sorry for the late response, but I've been away from keyboard and have a backlog...

I appreciate your trying to synthesize this - though as you probably expect there are places I don't think it holds together. I'll try to discuss.

Originally Posted by jBirch

Ah ha! I've found the issue! When you pull your point back in foil, you are still threatening a flick.

I think this is an unfortunate consequence of overloading the word "threaten". One sort of threat, and the type (IMO) the rules I cite refer to, is a "current threat": that is "Fencer A is pointing his shiny metal stick at Fencer B RIGHT NOW" (and hence Fencer B has to do something about it before he points his shiny metal stick a Fencer A).

The other threat is only a "potential threat": At some unknown point of time in the future, Fencer A who has pulled his arm back MIGHT aim his pointy stick at Fencer B, at which point that guy has something he better respond to. On the other hand, Fencer A may not. But, that's in the future: at the moment the guy pulls his point back there is no current RIGHT NOW threat - a pointy sharp thing imminently threatening one's skin.

Originally Posted by jBirch

First thing I got taught on my ref's course was that "extending" doesn't just mean arm going from bent to straight but that the threat is moving closer to the target. In fact, a flick (which has the blade and tip move away from target first before whipping back) is still extending because the whip back is the first step of its proper execution. It's the same as a half advance of the arm in a thrust. Weird, eh?

This isn't a problem for me since the question is settled by fiat in the rules: this is the same as a coupe, which is defined as being a simple attack. However, multiple cut-overs (eg: pumping) is not. So, I don't see this as complicated by the flick. I'm trying real hard to keep this from being yet another debate over the flick!

Originally Posted by jBirch

Oh ho! This has been nearly thrown out as a valid rule and is really the source of contention. It has been totally reinterpreted in light of the flick and the t.7 definition as applying only to the case of thrust attacks and only in the case of the AIP finishing before the "bent arm" starts to extend.

I don't think this really can be the case, with the FOC Handbook saying things like "If you "break" your attack--stop moving forward or hold back your arm--you are no longer attacking".

If this rule really has been discarded, the annual (?) review of the rules should amend the text to remove the articles in question.

Originally Posted by jBirch

Where this gets really hairy in practice is the situation where two fencers start an attack at roughly the same time. Fencer A has the foot starting and a bent arm, Fencer B has the arm starting and then the foot. Current interpretation is that the fencer who started moving first has RoW faster then the one who started the tip first and then moved later. The rationale is that the threat is more offensive from the forward movement then the extending arm (which still needs the footwork to be truly threatening) and the tip is extending by virtue of the forward movement. Thus fencer A wins the "initial" race and gets RoW. Fencer B is executing a counter-attack.

This would be counter to traditional interpretation which was based on arm motion - but we know that, and that's kind of why we're having this discussion in the first place!

Originally Posted by jBirch

Further, the concept of "executed with a bent arm" only applies to the final touch and not the intermediate execution (or else your arm would have to be fully extended before you had RoW). It's a bit of a historical left-over from the days when the arm did indeed need to be fully extended before the attack could take place. *grin* It's the "male nipple" of fencing.

Ooh, do I hear an Intelligent Design rebuttal in here?

The rule in question, t.56(a).4, specifically says this applies to both simple and compound actions, so it clearly does not apply only to the final action - it DOES apply to intermediate parts of the developing attack.

What I continue to see is places where "current interpretation" selectively ignores rules. I don't think that's good. For personal preferences of esthetics and what I think foil is all about, I think the current interpretation is wrong (I'll expand on that later if needed), but regardless of that - interpretation should interpret the rules, not pick and choose between them!

Thanks for the good discussion (even where we don't necessarily agree!) - Jeff