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

[dramamine]

I have lately been having a lot of trouble calling this action in foil. I used to call it attack and counter attack but after reviewing some high level foil footage I have found that there is not much of a consensus in regards to this action.

Fencer A begins a valid attack

Fencer B backs up but doesn't parry

Fencer A's arm is not fully extended, and not even really close either, and his foot hits the ground (there may or may not have been a "pump" but it seems irrelevant because fencer B hasn't tried to get time yet)

Fencer B lunges when fencer A's foot lands. A's arm is the only part still going forward.

I've noticed especially with the new timing a trend of calling this action attack no, counter attack remise. I was under the impression previously that this was only true in saber. What are your thoughts on this action and how is it generally called in your area? What if fencer A's arm stops moving completely, but B parries, and then they both go?

[Agent_V]

Remember that the foil rules say nothing about when the front foot lands, or that the touch must occur at the end of the lunge (subtle differences holding true in sabre depending on lunge - indirect or direct - or advance lunge).
What does matter is whether A is starting a new attack after the front foot hits, or whether his was an offensive action all the way -without hesitation, even though executed slowly. Tough, but if it doesn't land with the end of A's lunge, I'd highly suspect the former.

In fewer words:
If A's extension is the finishing of A's last action - his touch.

If it's a new attack - it's B's touch.

In any case, this is something that would be much more amenable to video examples...

Alexander

[mrbiggs]

I have a somewhat related question, that came up when I was (gasp) directing.

On nearly every action, right after "fence", Fencers A and B would both attack. A would extend his arm slowly, but B would extend his arm all the way, then lunge.

Since an attack is defined as an "extending" arm, is it A's touch? (A's coach argued this.) That seems to be the rule, but it doesn't really make sense to me to not allow fencers to have their arms extended when attacking.

[dramamine]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I have a somewhat related question, that came up when I was (gasp) directing.

On nearly every action, right after "fence", Fencers A and B would both attack. A would extend his arm slowly, but B would extend his arm all the way, then lunge.

Since an attack is defined as an "extending" arm, is it A's touch? (A's coach argued this.) That seems to be the rule, but it doesn't really make sense to me to not allow fencers to have their arms extended when attacking.

oooo, tricky. Well every ref on the face of the earth would probably call it simultaneous, but you might have a technicality there. Actually, you could probably argue (pointlessly, probably) that the fencer doing the attack with a straight arm first established point in line, and then turned it in to his attack, and lost tempo changing between the actions.

But seriously, attacks together.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by dramamine

oooo, tricky. Well every ref on the face of the earth would probably call it simultaneous, but you might have a technicality there. Actually, you could probably argue (pointlessly, probably) that the fencer doing the attack with a straight arm first established point in line, and then turned it in to his attack, and lost tempo changing between the actions.

But seriously, attacks together.

So the correct call is simultaneous, even though the rulebook says it should not be?

[jeff]

With the usual caveats (proper distance instead of 20 miles apart, moon in correct phase, etc) it looks simoultaneous to me as written above. I'm interpreting the above test to say that both A and B start their offensive actions at the same time, but one reaches full extension sooner. Since "extending" is what they need to establish the attack, they've both done that at the same time, regardless of who reaches full extension first. So, I don't think there's a contradiction with the rules. mrbiggs, is this a correct rendition of your scenario?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by jeff

With the usual caveats (proper distance instead of 20 miles apart, moon in correct phase, etc) it looks simoultaneous to me as written above. I'm interpreting the above test to say that both A and B start their offensive actions at the same time, but one reaches full extension sooner. Since "extending" is what they need to establish the attack, they've both done that at the same time, regardless of who reaches full extension first. So, I don't think there's a contradiction with the rules. mrbiggs, is this a correct rendition of your scenario?

Yes, but it was argued that since fencer A was no longer "extending," he was no longer attacking, and lost right of way.

[Araznal]

Let's just put it this way: it's simultaneous, and who ever says otherwise is just wrong. Look at dramamine's post. You can say a whole lot about that one action and make it ridiculously complicated... or you can call it right. Also, jeff definitely has the right idea here: it's not about who finishes the extension first, but who starts the extension first.

So, this is just a case of coach's goggles changing perception from the obvious to the ridiculous.

[jeff]

mrbiggs, it looked pretty straightforward to me: both fencers made a single offensive action that lands, and they both started to extend at the same time. Sounds like a simultaneous to me.

Changing gears....

In a way this conversation is reassuring to me. Recently I've been unhappy about foil directing that doesn't bother considering the niceties of "who extended first" or even "who extended" at all. I don't want to start yet another tiresome ROW war, but let me explain what I mean.

Some weeks ago I was fencing away from home. I called an action against one person who had been advancing with her hand in a guard position (that is: the hand was exactly where it was when she got on guard, without any straightening), and then "finished" at the last moment - subsequent to the other person attacking, she said "Oh, you're using the old timing". I've seen the same situation elsewheres in clubs and competition. I've seen people advancing with their arms in 6 position, wave the point, pull back, wave the point, pull back - and get a call of "continuous attack" from the get-go. I'm not talking about the other guy madly parrying and then putting out a too-late point at the end of the phrase after the advancer has finally started to extend - I'm talking about people given ROW from the outset while their elbows were firmly and continuously bent.

I've even seen this while watching the excellent Olympic DVDs Edew has been vending (I "direct" while watching, doesn't everybody?). Most of the time I come to the same call as the referee (or I say "thank God for slo-mo") in both foil and sabre. But, watching the 2004 team foil (I was happier with the individual foil), there were actions where the "attacker" _clearly_ had his arm back till the last moment, or pulled his arm back till the elbow touched his flank, yet was given the attack. Sometimes the audience booed, sometimes the fencers just got on guard without surprise, and I'm thinking "WTF?". I know I'm not an Olympic level referee, but I'm not a newbie either, and slo-mo is a big equalizer for seeing who did what, and when.

I like the FOC description of "elbow moving away from the body" - it's absolutely consistent with what I was taught 30+ years ago. I'm also watching carefully for a stop-thrust being drawn by a preparation, but coming out after the "aggressor" has started to extend. I'm talking about ROW being given without extending. I know the distinction still is recognised by some people: look at yesterday's conversation between dramamine and Inq about AIP: "A pushes forward with a bent arm / B Attacks / A "finishes", as most people would put it. In actuality A starts an attack (late). Therefore a counter attack." - dramamine. I couldn't put it any better. But it's obvious that not everybody sees things this way.

So, are these simply mistakes anyone could make, and don't worry about it, or are they "correct" according to a revised standard of "what constitutes an attack"? Comments, please?

[HDG]

Originally Posted by jeff

she said "Oh, you're using the old timing".

I'd have to say that this person doesn't know what she's talking about. Timing is not the same as ROW; the fundamental rules of ROW (about which I believe you are correct here) haven't changed b/c of the timing changes.

[jeff]

Agreed - you're quite right. I didn't want to correct the wording she used ("no young lady, the new timing has to do with machine lockout and debounce, not ROW") nor mis-quote. Sorry to mislead.

[Genjuro]

Originally Posted by jeff

Some weeks ago I was fencing away from home. I called an action against one person who had been advancing with her hand in a guard position (that is: the hand was exactly where it was when she got on guard, without any straightening), and then "finished" at the last moment - subsequent to the other person attacking, she said "Oh, you're using the old timing". I've seen the same situation elsewheres in clubs and competition. I've seen people advancing with their arms in 6 position, wave the point, pull back, wave the point, pull back - and get a call of "continuous attack" from the get-go. I'm not talking about the other guy madly parrying and then putting out a too-late point at the end of the phrase after the advancer has finally started to extend - I'm talking about people given ROW from the outset while their elbows were firmly and continuously bent.

How was the other person 'attacking'? Was it an attack with a lunge strait into the preperation, did he/she retreated/standing still while extending the arm? If it's the first case, then the call is a clear attack in preperation, if it's the second, things become a bit tricker, as the one who's extending first might not get the priority.
It's important in these situations to seperate intention from actual actions. The concept of ROW is not really helping either, because the job of the ref is to give Priority after the show is over, not during.

Typical of these 'pumping' attacks are that the 'initiative taker' starts with a threat, good enough to make the other fencer retreat, (and maybe attempts to parry) then the 'initiative taker' pulls the arm back, while still going foward (this is the moment for the other fencer to reverse direction and attack into prep) let's say the other fencer still retreats, (actually acknowledging a treat)
and in desperation throws out an arm, while the first fencer try's the ability of the ref and lunges.
In this case the interpretation of 'what is a treat' becomes important, because the body of the retreating fencer says something different than his arm. Is it a attack in prep? or a to late attempt to establish a point in line? or is it a plain old badly timed counter attack out of panic?
In practice one will see very seldom refs giving a retreating fencer priority, while it could be possible in theory.

[CvilleFencer]

***Edit*** The poster right above me, who posted while I was typing, gives a really good situational example of some of what I am trying to say.***

What I have heard from ref's more highly rated/qualified than myself is that any extending of the arm towards the opponent, however subtle, constitutes the beginning of the attack. Of course the attack must still finish with a lunge or a fleche. The logic is that depending on the orientation of the fencers on the strip and the vantage point of the referee he may not see the initial beginnings of the extension and should therefore be given the benefit of the doubt. After all, you know when a fencer is coming forward and when he is attacking, at least at decent levels of fencing skill.

I am not explaining it all very well, certainly not as well as it was explained to me, but the difficulty in explaining ROW is well known. One of the biggest problems for me explaining ROW in writing is that what a fencer is "doing" can change depending on what the opponent is "doing", even if you "doing" something as simple as "attacking". If fencing rules were clear cut and simple things that did not require skilled interpritation we would not need referee's after all... Hopefully someone comes along and explains what I am trying to say above better.

[jeff]

All interesting and germane to the point

In the real examples, the "defender" did not put out a point while retreating. For now, let's assume the "defender" lunged towards somebody advancing with a bent arm. Maybe he retreated first and then lunged, but at the time of the lunge the other person had not yet started to extend. Otherwise it's a no brainer: counter-attack into a valid attack. No controversy by any standard.

Let's consider USFA rule 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.". Let's add context for this rule from the FOC's Handbook for Referees:

INITIAL --you must start your action before your opponent. This does not at all mean who started moving first.

OFFENSIVE --you must be going toward your opponent. Attempting a parry is not offensive.

EXTENDING --for those of you who know grammar, this is a gerund; it connotes action. The arm never has to become extended to have a correctly executed attack. To have an extending arm, your hand must be going away from your body.

CONTINUOUSLY --non-stop. You must keep attacking. 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. Your attack ends when it misses, is parried, or falls short. In Sabre, the attack also ends when the front foot lands in the lunge.

THREATENING --you must present a danger to your opponent. This word really has two parts to its definition. One is the relationship of distance between the fencers in determining whether one is threatening. If your opponent is within advance lunge distance, you can be threatening; you can start an attack. If your opponent is beyond advance lunge distance, you cannot be threatening; you cannot start an attack - even if your opponent were to remain completely immobile, your attack would not start until you were at advance lunge distance. The other part that is important in defining this word is that your point (for foil) or your blade (for sabre) is going toward your opponent’s valid target. It is a very common misconception that, for example, a foil attack requires the point to be "aimed" at the valid target before an attack starts.

The rule and explanation say the attacker must be extending and must not break the attack by stopping or holding back the arm. They say nothing about whether the other guy is advancing or retreating. This tells me that at the moment the arm is pulled back, or for the entire time the "aggressor" is advancing without beginning to extend there is NO ROW for either party, and it remains to be grabbed by the first person to fulfill the above conditions set in the rules and FOC explanation. That's consistent with the directing I've seen and done for the last 30+ years.

Genjuro: you said "the one who's extending first might not get the priority". Yes, I see that a lot, and that's what makes me unhappy. The rules tell me that advancing with a bent arm should not have priority over an extending arm. Nor have I found a rule that says anything about "intention" - only actions. And if somebody breaks their attack, then I don't think they have a right to retain ROW they had before they broke.

CvilleFencer - no argument: if somebody is beginning to extend, even if with a subtle motion they should have ROW. (Actually I don't think seeing extension is that hard - just watch the elbow begin to unbend. The tricky ones are when they're extending while attempting to take the blade so they can claim beat if they catch the blade, and direct attack if that don't.) I'm not really talking about cases in which it is hard to read initial motions: it can be very hard, especially because fencers are trying to be sneaky! Either the referee sees it or he doesn't. It's risky, an you're taking a chance that maybe the ref doesn't see what you're doing. That's part of fencing.

Both guys: I'm not trying to be argumentative (for once). I'm just trying to get into people's heads about their rationale, and how that can be made consistent with the rules.

So, while I'm well aware that much directing today is based on who is retreating and who is advancing, neither the rules nor the explanation tell me that advancing without an extending arm give you ROW. I repeat: I know that people direct this way. I think what they're doing is contrary to the spirit and rules of foil. What I'm looking for is a justification for this type of call consistent with the rules and FOC description, and trying to get a feeling for how popular this basis of directing is. It seems very popular to me, to my dismay, Sorry for not being any more clear - the words aint flowing today.

[jBirch]

My understanding is that in foil, the attack is initiated, then the touch is scored. So the way to read the rules is that the attack is initial (meaning first) and starts as soon as the arm starts extending. So long as the threat is maintained, the attack is not lost once it has been acquired.

Ie// Extended is not a break in continuous so long as the motion continues towards target.

In the specific case, if both fencers established attacks at the same time and kept them continuous, then the call is simultaneous. If one beat the other on the establishment of the attack, then the question is whether the attack is continuous. Continuous, in foil, is irrespective of footwork. If the extended arm noticibly preceded the launch of the lunge and there was a pause before the lunge, then it could be argued that there was a hesitation and no attack. It can't be PIL because the actions started at roughly the same moment.

Hope this helps.

James.

[jBirch]

Jeff,

In foil, extending is in relation to the point and the opponent. If I walk forward in 6, I'm extending.

I know, I know, the rules say "the arm". The argument is that the point and arm is advancing by virtue of my body and in relation to my opponent.

The odd case that throws a loop into the problem in the present game is the flick. The flick is obviously threatening and continuous but often extending in the wrong direction and done with a bent arm because the execution requires it. That means that an attack that ends in a flick can have a bent arm and the tip moving away from the target during its execution. If you recognise a flick as a valid attack (as most ref's do) then you have to accept that a properly executed one retains RoW if RoW has been acquired.

The other argument that is germane is that an adv/lunge retains priority with the fencer who started moving forward first on the step portion prior to the lunge.

All taken together it means that in the modern game, the fencer who first collapses the distance by moving forward with the intent of scoring a point has RoW unless and until they either screw up the execution or the defender does something to change the game. A bent arm is not necessarily a technical fault specifically as it relates to the execution of a flick attack. If an attack ends in a flick, then the arm extending and bent arm rules don't apply. If it ends in a thrust, then they do.

Hope this helps.

James.

[jeff]

Hi James - thanks for the excellent post.

Mid-'70s there was briefly a faddisb notion that "motion relative to the ground" was all that was necessary for ROW, that is, you could pull your arm all the way back to your body, as long as you were moving torso forward enough that in net terms the point was moving forward. I knew some Cornell fencers that came back from a visit to Racers Club in Paris with that notion, but it didn't fly at the time.

I deliberately didn't bring up the flick before, because it's one more controversial topic that can provoke argument. I take your point that it's an exception, but it doesn't really bother me, just as a coupe always required bending the arm (well.... some people taught it as bending the wrist only, but bear with me) and moving the weapon so it didn't point at target. Under the same criteria used then, that a properly executed coupe in "single tempo" didn't lose ROW, because a coupe was defined in the rules as a simple action (see t.8) when executed properly. In this sense, I don't see the flick as a problem. See t.56(5) for another example.

Long-winded way of saying "gee, it seems that this is how it's adjudicated now", based on what you have in your post. I almost (well, almost) wouldn't mind if they amended the rules to say when bent arm lost ROW and when not. At least we would have consistency: you could like the rule, or dislike the rule, but it would be there in front of everybody. As it stands, some of us stick to the t.7 (and FOC explanation), and others apparently disregard it (IMHO). Having a rule set that's widely disregarded can't be a good thing, I think.

I'm also not convinced by this business of "intent". Gee, any time I rush forward and close distance I intend to hit the other guy, aren't I? Since when does the ref have to be a mind reader, huh? What makes it an attack rather than an invitation for a stop, unless I'm actually putting out an extending weapon to make a threat. But that brings me back to t.8

Again, thanks for the succinct, on-target post. -- Jeff

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

Hi James - thanks for the excellent post.

Long-winded way of saying "gee, it seems that this is how it's adjudicated now", based on what you have in your post. I almost (well, almost) wouldn't mind if they amended the rules to say when bent arm lost ROW and when not. At least we would have consistency: you could like the rule, or dislike the rule, but it would be there in front of everybody. As it stands, some of us stick to the t.7 (and FOC explanation), and others apparently disregard it (IMHO). Having a rule set that's widely disregarded can't be a good thing, I think.

I'm also not convinced by this business of "intent". Gee, any time I rush forward and close distance I intend to hit the other guy, aren't I? Since when does the ref have to be a mind reader, huh? What makes it an attack rather than an invitation for a stop, unless I'm actually putting out an extending weapon to make a threat. But that brings me back to t.8

Again, thanks for the succinct, on-target post. -- Jeff

It's tough to put into words what "intent" translates into on the piste. There's a series of motions that show the fencer is committed to the action and intends to score with their action, rather then reacting to the motions of the opponent or throwing garbage out on the fluke that something will happen. In foil, the fencer who causes an action to transpire is generally the one who holds RoW as they are the ones initially threatening (which caused the response). I initiate an action which causes you to do something. If I "finish" my action and score, then it's my point. That's the principal of convention. It's germane (in my mind) to determining the difference between a march and a series of advances.

To take the case of "pumping the arm", one of three things happen:

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?)

2) The attack is present, there is an attempt to engage by the defender, the arm is withdrawn (derobe) and a