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

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by jeff

Yes, it would be cool to hear what George K says - when/where is this ref clinic?

The clinic is in Fredericksburg VA and is a two day affair. The first day is the full seminar and the written tests. The next day is a real tourney held just for the clinic (probably a B/C event for everything but the epee, which will likely be an A2). If they wish the would be referees can even fence in the tourney. As a matter of fact, if they are at least a C they are actively encouraged to do so. It should be a really good clinic. You can find more details here and here or anyone can just PM me with any questions they may have.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

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).

Kinda, but pointing the stick isn't the only real threat. And this is why I used the term "intent" before because it directly interprets the word "threat". The rules do not define a threat (unfortunately) but do require it. As such, a reasonable interpretation of the spirit of the rules would imply that a threat is something that is likely to score if an action isn't taken to prevent it. In the case of the bent arm, the threat is the flick.

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!

No, it isn't. But each threat that is acknowledged constitutes RoW. In foil, once the threat is established, so long as the following motions are continuous, RoW is maintained precisely because there is no "end of attack" stipulation in the foil section as there is in the sabre section.

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".

And the very worst thing in that manual is the section that stipulates that Convention is both what is written in the rules *and what is practiced at the highest levels of the sport*. Ergo, because high level ref's call the action that way, it's de facto in the rules.

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

I'm with you, but no one seems interested in clarifying the rules for some reason. Few people realise that a flick is a specific type of coupe.

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!

Yup. *grin* Ah back to the days when fencing made sense in a martial context. Explanations were SOOOOOO much easier, eh?

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

Hey now! Stop cross-pollinating threads from the Politics Ghetto. No one else was taking the pro position and that thread was too interesting to let die.

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.

No, because in foil there are no intermediate parts of a developing attack. There are attacks and preparations. The debate is whether pulling the arm back is a preparation, and that may be. The problem with that is that preparations are pretty much semantics only in foil and have no real meaning.

RoW in foil is like a stick. Once one fencer has it, the other fencer has to take it away. In Sabre, there are times when no-one has RoW (essentially, when the attack is over). This isn't really true in foil and is what makes it so nuanced and counter-intuitive.

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!

Agreed, though I'm interested to hear your opinion on what's wrong with the current interpretation. The real thing missing, in my mind, is criteria for ending an attack in foil and a precise definition of what constitutes a threat.

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

You're welcome. Now, if I can just get you back commenting on the ID thread in the Ghetto, things will be all good. *grin*

James.

[keith]

okay so our trusted friend fencer A extends his arm and advances towards his nemisis fencer B who retreats.

A is attacking B.

A performs a coupe on the step of a step/lunge and hits fencer B. Fencer B cannot get an AiP on this action.

Now the next time fencer A repeats this action fencer B steps back sharply on the step of A's step/lunge and A follows before lunging (the coupe was performed as before). Repeat as desired until B cannot go back any further and A gets to lunge and hit B.

Now A has performed the infamous 'pumping arm attack' but has never given B any opportunity to attack in prep. There is nothing outside of the rules about keeping the attack while presenting and withdrawing the blade.

So as if the blade is re-extended after each coupe priority is regained seamlessly by fencer A as they advance. Of course A lives in an imperfect world and sometimes advances while keeping the blade withdrawn and simply threatens the completion of the coupe - A is now in prepartion.

Fencer B now has their chance, but they have to take it correctly. Since they are retreating any extension of the arm as they go backwards isn't an attack its an attempt to establish PiL. Which is why nine times out of ten when you stick your arm out while retreating from an opponent the phrase is simply;

A advances B steps back and extends to establish PiL, as B extends line A lunges and since A does not allow B the tempo to establish PiL A scores the point.

If B stops or breaks distance on the advancing A and establishes an attack by extending and lunging then the action is no different from (on the command fence);

A advances, B steps/extends and lunges. Point B.

So the pumping arm is a bit of a read herring. It doesn't actually alter the final phrase where the hit is (or isn't) scored.

[mrbiggs]

Well, the call everyone's arguing about seems pretty straightforward to me, which probably means I don't understand it.

If fencer A is attacking, his arm must be extending. If it's not, he is not attacking, and any correct attack fencer B makes will have Right of Way. Therefore, a pumping attack has right of way half the time. If B is trying to parry as A is pumping, neither really has right of way, but neither can really hit, either, so it doesn't matter. If B hits as A is pulling back, touch B. If B counterattacks after A starts extending, touch A.

[downunder]

guys it simple stuff.

You talk about losing right of way if you pull your arm back. Thats crap. You only lose right of way if your arm is back, not extending and you are hit - assuming that you're "advancing/attacking".

This means that you'll have to hit them (not extend first, actually hit them!) one period of fencing time before they start their lunge. If you are too slow or you don't pick up the timing, they'll finish the step lunge and its attack-counterattack.

[keith]

Originally Posted by downunder

This means that you'll have to hit them (not extend first, actually hit them!) one period of fencing time before they start their lunge. If you are too slow or you don't pick up the timing, they'll finish the step lunge and its attack-counterattack.

which means that anyone just stepping forward has right of way? Assuming at some point in the near past they had extended the arm......................

[jeff]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Well, the call everyone's arguing about seems pretty straightforward to me, which probably means I don't understand it. (snip)

It's straightforward to me too, which is why I'm mystified when I see fencers, and even rated directors, claim that advancing with a bent arm - let alone extending and withdrawing it - retains ROW - that's why I started this topic.

downunder, keith: I agree with keith's point. The rules I've been quoting state clearly that withdrawing/bending loses ROW (whether or not the other guy grabs it at the right time is another question entirely). The 'hit before the final action in the phrase' downunder refers to applies to straight-armed attacks; it has nothing to do with the question of losing ROW from bending the arm. See t.59(d) and t.60.2(e)

[forethought]

The way RoW for foil was explained to me by my fencing coach was a heirarchy: Movement, Extention, Parry-Riposte

Attacker A made an incorrect attack (should have extended BEFORE they lunged), thus giving them only movement.

Attacker B sees this, and counter-attacks as soon as they see Attacker A's foot hit the ground (a courtesy, so as to make sure they're not still in forward motion as they lunge forward, possibly causing injury). Attacker B has extention and forward movement (since a lunge is considered forward movement).

Moral of the story: extend before you move if you want to attack.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by keith

okay so our trusted friend fencer A extends his arm and advances towards his nemisis fencer B who retreats.

A is attacking B.

A performs a coupe on the step of a step/lunge and hits fencer B. Fencer B cannot get an AiP on this action.

Now the next time fencer A repeats this action fencer B steps back sharply on the step of A's step/lunge and A follows before lunging (the coupe was performed as before). Repeat as desired until B cannot go back any further and A gets to lunge and hit B.

Now A has performed the infamous 'pumping arm attack' but has never given B any opportunity to attack in prep. There is nothing outside of the rules about keeping the attack while presenting and withdrawing the blade.

So as if the blade is re-extended after each coupe priority is regained seamlessly by fencer A as they advance. Of course A lives in an imperfect world and sometimes advances while keeping the blade withdrawn and simply threatens the completion of the coupe - A is now in prepartion.

Fencer B now has their chance, but they have to take it correctly. Since they are retreating any extension of the arm as they go backwards isn't an attack its an attempt to establish PiL. Which is why nine times out of ten when you stick your arm out while retreating from an opponent the phrase is simply;

A advances B steps back and extends to establish PiL, as B extends line A lunges and since A does not allow B the tempo to establish PiL A scores the point.

If B stops or breaks distance on the advancing A and establishes an attack by extending and lunging then the action is no different from (on the command fence);

A advances, B steps/extends and lunges. Point B.

So the pumping arm is a bit of a read herring. It doesn't actually alter the final phrase where the hit is (or isn't) scored.

Ah, but evil fencer B isn't quite so gullible!

Fencer A advances with their tip at the ceiling. Shortly after, Fencer B advances with their tip engarde. Both perform a lunge with Fencer A executing a flick and Fencer B executing a straight lunge with extension. Both hit valid. Two lights fire up.

Who's point and why?

James.

[KD5MDK]

It's very simple. If Fencer A makes a threatening action at any point, they have ROW until they score.

[jeff]

Gotta smack fencers A and B upside the head for causing such trouble, or switch 'em to epee where they can do no harm

James, when do A and B actually start their extensions? First sentence (A advances, B advances) neither is extending, neither has ROW, both need a spanking. Second sentence, they both make simple, single-tempo actions: if at same time, put them both on guard and throw each of them a smelly fish.

Sorry to answer you out of order - your previous post requires a longer response I haven't had a chance to put together yet... cheers, Jeff

[jBirch]

Sorry, pushed the send button too fast.

Point Fencer A, right? Simple coupe executed with a step-lunge. So we establish that a flick extension counts as an extension of the arm, as threatening and as continuous. Since it's initial, it wins.

Now...Fencer A starts with their tip pointed at the ceiling and again performs the same action. This time though, wily B decides to execute a straight attack. A changes the line to avoid the oncoming blade and hits B. Two lights. Who's attack?

Fencer A. Why? Because a coupe is a simple attack AND the action is indirect (we simply change the line of execution).

Again the two nemesis come en garde. This time A executes a feint/disengage. B, falls for the feint with a search and A hits. Point A. Clearly. Simple compound attack.

Next, A attacks with a feint/straight-attack and B responds with a straight counter-attack. Two lights. Who's point?

Point A again. Why? Because A had priority and B's attack didn't hit before the start of A's final extension. A hesitated in the execution of the attack (a condition which loses RoW, right?) creating a preparation that was not exploited by B. Since B's extension arrives late, it's A's attack all the way.

Now, 4-0, B is getting frustrated. A executes a feint of thrust/coupe and B responds with a straight lunge. Both hit. Two lights. Who's point?

James.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

Gotta smack fencers A and B upside the head for causing such trouble, or switch 'em to epee where they can do no harm

James, when do A and B actually start their extensions? First sentence (A advances, B advances) neither is extending, neither has ROW, both need a spanking. Second sentence, they both make simple, single-tempo actions: if at same time, put them both on guard and throw each of them a smelly fish.

It doesn't matter!

James.

[dramamine]

Jbirch, are you saying advancing with your tip at the ceiling is performing a coupé?

If the tip is pointing at the ceiling then it means the blade isn't moving. If the blade isn't moving you aren't doing a coupé, right?

Jeff is right about the "hit them before they start" thing. That is not in any way supported by the rules, unless you are talking about STOP HITTING (not attacking) into someone else's compound action.

An attack in preparation does NOT have to arrive before the other person "starts" their attack. That makes no sense. This is why I stated in the "Rule Thread" that attack in preparation can be a misleading call. If one fencer is advancing with a bent arm, they are NOT attacking. In fact, there is a specific section of the FOC handbook that repeats this (it goes something like: "actions executed with a bent arm are not to be considered as attacks but as preparations...etc). Therefore, an attack into an advance with a bent arm is NOT an attempt to steal time. It is just a friggin attack.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those guys who gets pushed, takes 5 steps back and then arbitrarily lunges and looks at the ref with my hands on my hips when the judge says attack counter attack. I try to make my actions in preparation at the beginning of the action if at all and very clear (1 light).


Here's an idea: what is everyone's take on the first clip of the Golubitsky vs Gregory bout in 98?

http://www.fencingfootage.com/catalo...6e5be2eefcd18d

We know what Golubitsky thinks, but the first couple times I watched that action I just said "Attack no counter attack". Lately my calls have been getting way more tight though so I'm starting to think that's an "attack in prep" now.

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by dramamine

We know what Golubitsky thinks, but the first couple times I watched that action I just said "Attack no counter attack". Lately my calls have been getting way more tight though so I'm starting to think that's an "attack in prep" now.

To me that is pretty much a text book AIP. Gregory's arm is actually moving backwards when GB begins his AIP. About as easy as it gets for that kind of thing. If eveyone made their actions as clear as this example, it would be a lot easier...

[jeff]

Late and out of order, but finally have some loose time in which to catch up.

Originally Posted by jBirch

Kinda, but pointing the stick isn't the only real threat. And this is why I used the term "intent" before because it directly interprets the word "threat". The rules do not define a threat (unfortunately) but do require it. As such, a reasonable interpretation of the spirit of the rules would imply that a threat is something that is likely to score if an action isn't taken to prevent it. In the case of the bent arm, the threat is the flick.

Well - interpretations vary, don't they! For starts: I think the rules come right up to (but not quite) say what a threat is, eg: at t.7 and t.8. Note how "extended" or "extending" are part of both definitions. If the rules say so explicitly, we can't validly ignore that. The bent arm is not the extending/extended arm. Aint a threat.

The rules are silent on "intent" - that word does not come up in the rules regarding ROW (it only comes up in things like intentially causing an offense like corps-a-corps or modifying equipment). It aint in the rules - we shouldn't be using it as the basis of ROW.

The flick (or thrust, for that matter) is something you do subsequently: the arm is bent and then you flick or thrust. Fine and dandy, I say - that moment is the moment when ROW is obtained.

Originally Posted by jBirch

No, it isn't. But each threat that is acknowledged constitutes RoW. In foil, once the threat is established, so long as the following motions are continuous, RoW is maintained precisely because there is no "end of attack" stipulation in the foil section as there is in the sabre section.

"End of attack" is another subject entirely: eg "when does a valid attack end". It has nothing to do with this question, which is "what distinguishes a valid attack from something that isn't". Read again t.7 and the FOC Handbook material I've quoted. It says explicitly "If you "break" your attack--stop moving forward or hold back your arm--you are no longer attacking and, if your opponent starts an attack of her own, your continuation may become a counter attack." We don't have to speculate - the rules and official commentary tells us in black and white!

Originally Posted by jBirch

And the very worst thing in that manual is the section that stipulates that Convention is both what is written in the rules *and what is practiced at the highest levels of the sport*. Ergo, because high level ref's call the action that way, it's de facto in the rules.

Not in my version - I'm looking at April 2005 USFA edition. Besides: (1) it doesn't help for the cases where practice and rules contradict one another and (2) I acknowledge that practice doesn't match the rules!

Originally Posted by jBirch

I'm with you, but no one seems interested in clarifying the rules for some reason. Few people realise that a flick is a specific type of coupe.

Cynical me says clarified rules would remove "plausible deniability" (if you recall that Nixon-era expression). I think a lot of the players like the ambiguity and contradiction since it gives them room to game the system

Originally Posted by jBirch

Yup. *grin* Ah back to the days when fencing made sense in a martial context. Explanations were SOOOOOO much easier, eh?

I'm certain people *****ed about it then as well, but at least there was more of a rationale to choose X instead of Y

Originally Posted by jBirch

Hey now! Stop cross-pollinating threads from the Politics Ghetto. No one else was taking the pro position and that thread was too interesting to let die.

Moi? Hah, I thought that was your motivation!

Originally Posted by jBirch

No, because in foil there are no intermediate parts of a developing attack. There are attacks and preparations. The debate is whether pulling the arm back is a preparation, and that may be. The problem with that is that preparations are pretty much semantics only in foil and have no real meaning.

By "intermediate parts of a developing attack" I merely meant "all but the final action of a compound attack", which is well defined in the rules. I agree with you about the nature of the debate. The rules say so - funny how the observance of the rules has become the exception! Not funny, actually... Again from the Handbook "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 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."

It's pretty clear what it's saying, at least to me it is.

The language gremlin says "Hey! 'Semantics' is meaning!". You can's say "it's semantics... no real meaning" - that's a contradition in terms!

Originally Posted by jBirch

RoW in foil is like a stick. Once one fencer has it, the other fencer has to take it away. In Sabre, there are times when no-one has RoW (essentially, when the attack is over). This isn't really true in foil and is what makes it so nuanced and counter-intuitive.

Oooh, I can't agree with that at all. In foil there are plenty of times when nobody has ROW, and as these rules excerpts show, there are plenty of opportunities to drop ROW on the floor.

What I think happens in practice (when correctly adjudicated) is that the AIP stop-thrust comes out too late, and the initial aggressor has already started extending again.

Originally Posted by jBirch

Agreed, though I'm interested to hear your opinion on what's wrong with the current interpretation. The real thing missing, in my mind, is criteria for ending an attack in foil and a precise definition of what constitutes a threat.

I agree with what you state is missing. I think it's there, but some stronger, explicit wording is obviously needed. I'll see if I can express my opinion (clearly labeled as such) on what is wrong with current interpretation. Pardon the long ramble...

First (and weakest part, so hang on a minute), current practice detracts from what foil's conventions have long meant for "hit without being hit." The attacker had to make a threat that pointed the weapon at his opponent's target, and had to continuously advance the point towards the target. To do otherwise was to bring your precious skin - your belly - closer to the other guy's point without compelling the other guy to defend himself first before puncturing you. If at any moment the aggressor stopped having a threat in progress (not a potential threat!) the other guy had the right to make his own attack. This was, and to me, still is, the basis of foil's conventions. ROW models this (imperfectly, but you can't be perfect in this with blunt weapons!), and I think modeled it better as interpreted before better than now. Foil used to look more like epee in hand position and tactics, which made sense because it was closer to the martial background that relates them. Now foil looks more like sabre, since the point is less important and especially since attack and riposte is now dominated by drawing AIP (see Kellner vs. Ganeev, 2004 Olympics team foil, almost the entire bout is AIP or attempt at one)

Next, and on a more esthetic basis (and I recognise that esthetics are personal), the technical or tactical issue was that the attacker had to reach all the looong way to the other guy's target area, and since the convention required extending your weapon towards the other guy, there was this time period when your blade was penetrating towards the target and thus at risk to being picked up in parry or prise de fer.

Consequently you had the evolution of the attackers kit for penetrating towards the target while not getting your blade picked up: disenages, one-twos, etc, by the attacker, and the corresponding defensive game to pick up the blade. Attack with or without blade taking based on deceiving parries. Attackers attacked with a penetrating point imminently approaching the torso, defenders protected themselves against that imminent threat. To me this is the core, and beauty, of foil fencing.

Permitting the bent arm retain ROW removes this dynamic. It is such a tactical advantage to traverse that looong distance without exposing your blade to danger of being parried while ROW protects you against a stop-thrust, that it makes great sense to contract distance while your weapon is pointed elsewhere, and then finish with an attack at the last moment. Previously, AIP was a symptom of somebody having made a severe mistake in their attack, bending the arm likewise - as a result, to my eyes conditioned to the older way, a lot of (not all, of course) fencing now looks like a series of mistakes converted to deliberate practice.

Finally (for now), I think current practice is rooted in quicksand. It was hard enough to direct before, but at least the ideal framework was understandable: "Guy aims the pointy thing at you and comes at you, you gotta knock it aside instead of just stabbing him, because if he hits you it was you who commited suicide". Now, its fuzzy: We're supposed to factor in "intent" even though it's not even mentioned in the rules, let alone how the ref is supposed to read minds (Personally, I think intent of an attack is shown by extending). We have rules that require continuous, offensive, extending, threatening target, but those rules are arbitrarily disregarded. We have time-travel ROW: we're supposed to give ROW to somebody starting at time t0 when his arm is raised, because at time t1 slightly in the future he might start to flick or extend, a possibility or potential threat rather than a real one.

End of ramble. Thanks for your patience if you've gotten this far.

Originally Posted by jBirch

You're welcome. Now, if I can just get you back commenting on the ID thread in the Ghetto, things will be all good. *grin*

James.

Naughtly fellow, just trying to stir up controversy, huh? Not like me, huh?

cheers, Jeff