Dumb right of way question

[edew]

A marching attack does not allow the marcher to make continuous multiple attacks. A marching attack is one attack, not multiple pumps of the arm where each forward movement of the arm is an attack. Of course, if fencer B defers to the marching, multiple pumps, then rightly so, fencer A maintains (or continually regains) right of way, since B never wanted to take over.

As I wrote above, if A, during his attack, changes the tone of the attack from an all-out lunge to a shorter, more controlled extension, and then fencer B turns the corner and attacks A and runs into A's point in line, the correct call is indeed PIL, touch for A.

But in most real-life cases, A makes a hardy attack that one can very clearly see ending. B jumps away from that attack and when the end of A's attack occurs (which jBirch does not mention when quoting from USFA scripture), turns the corner to make his attack (not a counter-attack, as A is no longer attacking). Here, B has the right of way and IS NOT counter-attacking. B is attacking. A's attack has been exhausted. A, being in that position, may choose to do the following: initiate defensive actions, such as retreating, flailing to attempt to parry, or take evasive movements such as ducking or squirming. Or, A may initiate a new offensive action: reprising, remise, or redouble. Or, A may stay still and attempt a point in line.

If B was quick without hesitation, then B's offensive action will have right of way and unless A chose to do the defensive actions, any simple action hit by B will count with right of way. That's the whole point of the right of way: encourages through enforcement the back-and-forth role of offense and defense. Once your offensive action has failed, you're obliged to play defense. You're not required to, but the trump card is with the opponent now, so if both fencers hit, the one with the ROW trump card wins.

[leapyear]

There is a difference in your PIL analogy to the attack that misses by distance: the attack that misses by distance is NOT a PIL. You may consider it as the attempt to establish a PIL. But the establishment, apparently, (in the context of the originally described action) of the PIL is not completed until AFTER the initiation of the attack by the person who pulled distance.

Here's a different scenario that may be closer analogously: suppose you extend your arm to establish a point in line. Very slowly. During your extension, your opponent jumps back and starts an advance-lunge. The advance-lunge begins AFTER you start your extension, but BEFORE you finish your extension. He runs into your now firmly extended blade just as he hits you with an extending arm and lunge. Who gets the point? He does.

The attack that turns into a PIL is nothing more than a slow, long-winded attempt to make a PIL. The opponent jumps back to avoid the attacking portion of this action. Then starts forward prior to the completed establishment of the PIL. Both hit, so the opponent gets the touch. If the opponent hesitates or somehow becomes indecisive or immobile, the PIL (or even a redoubled or remise or reprise attack) can and will re-take right of way.

OK. I think I see the source of disagreement. If the attack is done with a fully extended arm (or winds up fully extended well before the end of the attack), then the line is established nice and early. But few post-classical attacks look that way. This also helps explain why they used to call it the way I've been advocating, but they don't call it that way any more.

[keropie]

OK. I think I see the source of disagreement. If the attack is done with a fully extended arm (or winds up fully extended well before the end of the attack), then the line is established nice and early. But few post-classical attacks look that way. This also helps explain why they used to call it the way I've been advocating, but they don't call it that way any more.

Even if it were the case that the fencer makes a pre-initiative attack (full extension before lunge), if that action were, in the mind of the official, an attack and not a line, followed by an advancement of the line, I'd expect that if the first attack failed, there would be an opportunity for immediate 'riposte.' I do on occasion make preinitiative attacks (no one thinks they can possibly land, so they're fun ), but if I miss with the lunge, I neither feel nor try to claim them as lines afterwards. My (not-so-humble) 2 cents

[leapyear]

I don't try to claim them as lines afterwards either; I know better than to argue with the ref!

I think it's interesting, however, how views on this seem to have changed over the years. Until the discussion on this thread, it had never occurred to me that the (relatively new) notion that a line can be "broken" by footwork is a very direct result of how the definition of the attack has changed. Now that an attack has more to do with forward motion that where the point is aimed (and note that I said 'more' and not 'everything'), people decided that when you've stopped charging forward in your attack, you lose ROW no matter what you do with the point. (Now that I type it, it seems to obvious, too...)

Believe it or not, they didn't call it this way in the olden days... but now that Jeff Bukantz (of all people!) is talking about the "death" of bent-arm attacks, we may see a change in how PIL is called. Maybe. (I'm still not sure what to think of this "death of a mind-set" business, and whether it's really going to happen... but that's another thread.)

[edew]

As a point of reference, I actually do make this action where I advance against my opponent, who retreats quickly. I make an attack with a lunge, but sensing that I'm not ever going to get close enough to actually hit the guy (I'm in my 40's, he's in his teens, I ain't got the leg speed), I abort the lunge and end up with a large-stance PiL. My opponent invariably starts off his forward movement with some attempt to take the blade. If not and we both hit, he acknowledges attacking into a PiL.

Those who are even quicker can make the transition from retreat to offense and do not attempt to search my blade. In those cases, when we both hit, we both agree that his attack had RoW.

The less experienced fencers who don't fully understand the right of way rules will ***** and moan and argue everytime this occurs. Of course, against them, I don't do this particular action mainly because I don't have to.

Note that against the more experienced fencers, I don't put out the PiL because I expect them to impale themselves on them, but because it does slow them down. Otherwise, they'd be all over me like white on rice.

[Inquartata]

The attack must be initial, threatening, continuous and offensive. Any action executed into an offensive action (attack, remise, reprise, redoublement, riposte) is a counter-attack. t.8. It's the essense of the phrase d'armes principal and the concept of tempo as it relates to ROW.

Yes. And an attack that has failed is no longer an offensive action ( and neither is PIL, for that matter ).

Counter case to the attack no principal, new action you guys are talking about further. Attack from A w/ short lunges results in B retreating. This continues down the strip. B "turns the corner" and extends into A. A performs another lunge and hits B. Invariably, this is attack A and is termed a "marching attack". Under your principal B is continually getting priority because A's attack is falling short.

This is incorrect in foil.

James.

I dunno how it's called in foil. I only know how it's called in sabre. There is no "marching attack" in sabre, because the true attack ( in distance to hit, continuously extending, threatening valid target, etc ) ends at the latest with the fall of the front foot of an advance-lunge.