Dumb right of way question

[XBallardite]

This question came up during practice last night, and unfortunately, being five years removed from the sport, I have the most current knowledge of the rules of people in my club. (It's very small, so if you're in Easton, PA and you want to fence, drop me a line.)

Anyway, here's the situation, which came up during a foil bout:

Fencer A attacks with a lunge. Fencer B retreats, so A's attack falls short. A stays in the lunge, with arm extended. Fencer B launches an attack that hits, but in the process, impales self on A's still-extended arm. (Yes, a simple beat would have taken care of this, but Fencer B is a bit daft.)

Whose touch?

[Frater_Frag]

The touch goes to fencer B since fencer A:s attack was ended the moment he did his lunge and fencer B managed to retreat in time. If however fencer A had managed to do a re-doublement it might have been different.

[keropie]

This is a commonly asked question, and answers vary from person to person. Of course, it really depends on timing AND your opinions on Point-In-Line. For many of us (myself included) if fencer B's attack is [I]relatively[\I] immediate, we'll give fencer B the touch (the 'distance riposte,' though most people don't like that word, as there is no parry per se). If fencer B waits, basically none of us will give him the touch (Attack fails... line is established... attack onto line. Line arrives).

Some people firmly believe that since the extension was never broken, the line is maintained. I've been taught that since it was not made as a line originally, but as an attack, that the attack failed and there must be a delay of 1 unit of fencing time afterwards to establish that line. So, that's my answer. HTH

[kalivor]

This question came up during practice last night, and unfortunately, being five years removed from the sport, I have the most current knowledge of the rules of people in my club. (It's very small, so if you're in Easton, PA and you want to fence, drop me a line.)

Anyway, here's the situation, which came up during a foil bout:

Fencer A attacks with a lunge. Fencer B retreats, so A's attack falls short. A stays in the lunge, with arm extended. Fencer B launches an attack that hits, but in the process, impales self on A's still-extended arm. (Yes, a simple beat would have taken care of this, but Fencer B is a bit daft.)

Whose touch?

Attack from A misses. Counterattack from B hits. Point for B.

Unless there was a lot of footwork from B between making the attack fall short and launching their counterattack, there is no time to establish a line from A. Hence, A's final action is a remise.

[XBallardite]

thank you. That makes perfect sense to me. The person who refereed gave the touch to Fencer A, explaining that Fencer B didn't remove the threat. I saw it more as a timing issue, aruging that once Fencer A completed his lunge, his attack was over, and B had right of way.

[Craig]

This was answered in one of the Fencing.Net "Ask the Expert" articles:

Full link here:
http://www.fencing.net/content/view/43/35/

The answer comes from FOC member Bill Oliver:

A line is a line is a line. It exists irrespective of footwork. It can go forward or back, but it must be an essentially passive action. If a line becomes active, it turns into an attack. If the line is executed with unnessary movements (i.e. wiggling around) it loses it's cohesion as a line, and merely becomes an invitation.

As to the attack that ends in an extended arm, the arm is, indeed, a line. However, the principles of right of way indicate that once the attack has ended, the right of way passes to the opponent. It would be up to the opponent to make some technical blunder (searching for the blade, closing the distance without any threat, etc) for the line to take priority.

Left attacks short and leaves the arm extended in a point in line, right momentarily pauses before beginning the responsive attack. Both fencers hit.

Such an action could be called this way:
Attack from left fails. There is no response from right. Line from left arrives. Touch Left.

If there is no such technical error, the action would be:
Attack from left fails. Counter from right arrives. Touch Right.

The same goes for the "distance parry", where a fencer "causes the attack to miss" because they time their retreat perfectly. It's not really a parry, since the rules define a parry as contact with the blade, but it is an evasion, exactly the same as an esquive or a passada soto.

Top referees have been calling this action more frequently, probably because top coaches are teaching it.

In the "Ask the Expert" section: http://www.fencing.net/content/category/4/84/35/ , there is also discussion of the "distance parry" - what it is and how to call it in terms of "real" fencing actions.

Craig

[Craig]

Attack from A misses. Counterattack from B hits. Point for B.

Unless there was a lot of footwork from B between making the attack fall short and launching their counterattack, there is no time to establish a line from A. Hence, A's final action is a remise.

I believe that the part that I put in bold is incorrect. According to the commentary from Bill Oliver when he answered about point in line post-attack, any hesitation by fencer B results in a PIL from fencer A.

Fencer B needs to respond immediately to earn the point.

[keropie]

I believe that the part that I put in bold is incorrect. According to the commentary from Bill Oliver when he answered about point in line post-attack, any hesitation by fencer B results in a PIL from fencer A.

Fencer B needs to respond immediately to earn the point.

Immediately, of course, being the same immediately involved in making a riposte after a successful parry.

[GGK]

Fencer B needs to respond immediately to earn the point.

Yes. But to clarify, immediate does not mean fast or rushed.

G

[Craig]

Yes. But to clarify, immediate does not mean fast or rushed.

G

Yes. That is correct.

[edew]

And which is why my fencer was awfully pissed at the refereeing this past Saturday when after she MAKES A PARRY (blade to blade contact) and makes a gentle, clean, albeit slow and not-at-all-rushed riposte, the immediate remise was given the right of way. Looks of exasperation came on both our faces while the ignoramous referee just stared on with no clue as to what occurred. Oh well.

[KD5MDK]

Did they call it "Attack, parry, riposte not in time, remise arrives"? Or did the just say "duhh... touch {right, left}"?

[leapyear]

I understand the rule, and I would never dispute it in a tournament... however, deliberately running onto your opponent's point to earn a touch seems counter to the basic idea of ROW.

Unlike a riposte or an evasion to the side, you have to move forward onto a threatening point to score after the other guy has fallen short. Again, I understand that the Powers That Be (i.e. top directors) have made their declaration. But I think a better case can be made for the other side.

For what it's worth...

[downunder]

leapyear - but the attack has failed. Missed. Over. Done. Finished. Surely an immediately counterattack, and the footwork and timing that it requires be rewarded?

[peet]

leapyear - but the attack has failed. Missed. Over. Done. Finished. Surely an immediately counterattack, and the footwork and timing that it requires be rewarded?

In fact, lots of people don't call it a counterattack, since that would imply it doesn't have ROW, which it does. I usually say "First attack from right, no. Attack from left arrives."

-p

[edew]

Did they call it "Attack, parry, riposte not in time, remise arrives"? Or did the just say "duhh... touch {right, left}"?

"Simultaneous" or "I don't know" or "uh...er...attack"

[edew]

I understand the rule, and I would never dispute it in a tournament... however, deliberately running onto your opponent's point to earn a touch seems counter to the basic idea of ROW.

Unlike a riposte or an evasion to the side, you have to move forward onto a threatening point to score after the other guy has fallen short. Again, I understand that the Powers That Be (i.e. top directors) have made their declaration. But I think a better case can be made for the other side.

For what it's worth...

If that's the philosophy to learn fencing, then you will never get good in the sport. Once you have right of way, you MUST be willing to run into an opponent's point to get your touch. If you don't have right of way, of course you don't attack into a threat. But once you do, you must ignore the threat and hit. You earned it. That's the basic idea of ROW. You have the RIGHT OF WAY so that if the opponent sticks the blade out, the opponent is in error, not you. You're not obliged to deflect it. He is obliged to deflect yours. Let him yield. If he doesn't yield, he is penalized by having you earn a touch.

In your boldface above, the issue is that the point is NOT threatening. YOUR point is threatening. YOUR opponent has to defend, not you. If you don't like this philosophy and the basis of ROW, take up epee. In that case, you do go forward knocking the opponent's point out of the way, if you choose to attack.

The "threat" by the opponent's lingering blade is only a threat in the corporeal sense. It's not a threat in the rules sense. And it's not very hard to grasp this concept. In my classes, by the second day, everyone understands the concept. (Of course, it helps that I tell them that once you make your opponent miss you, you must be willing to impale yourself on your opponent's blade to earn your point. You deserve it, it's your turn, not your opponent's turn. And then, I demonstrate what happens if the fencer chooses to try to parry again: invariably in both foil and saber, the guy gets hit anyway.)

[leapyear]

Thanks for the clarifications and arguments. But while I understand the concept, I still don't quite agree.

I think about why the attack failed: The attack wasn't evaded with a move to the side, where the point is no longer aimed at you, and it wasn't knocked aside either. At all times the point is aimed at the opponent, it's just that now you're out of distance. You don't have to do anything other than sit there in order to threaten the opponent, whereas if you were parried or they ducked, you have to take the action of putting your point back into a threatening position.

If I'm threatening, why should it matter what I've done with my feet?

Imagine I'm standing PIL, and the opponent retreats to the other end of the strip, and then comes charging at me. Just because we were out of distance and then in distance doesn't mean it's not my ROW.

I get the bit about taking turns, and making offensive actions and those actions finishing; I'm just not convinced that that is all there is to ROW.

At any rate, I understand and accept the official ruling. I just think there are good reasons for questioning it.

[keropie]

It is a good question, particularly when you look at where it came from. The original 'distance riposte' was popularized in saber, where, when the attack finishes, it's not in any sort of line position most of the time (i.e., it's the end of a cut, not a thrust). When this happens, there's no question... do I give it to the second attack, or the blade-in-line? No... And then when it was first moved into foil, the training exercises always waited for the agressor/original attacker to relax his/her weapon before the 'defender' made their attack. Again, whatever line may or may not be there is broken, so it's an easy call. But as this action became more and more accepted, it was felt that the original attack was over whether it broke the position or just ended, and that's how we got to where we are now. I think it's the best call, because I really feel like any action made by a fencer can only be one thing in the mind of the official. So, an action could be either an attack or the setting of a line, but not both. So at the end of an action the official judges as an attack, in order to establish the line a new 'action' (well, really a tempo where we maintain the extention) would be required, and if while we are attempting to do this our opponent is attacking us, clearly we cannot set the line into a correctly executed attack.

So while I see where you are coming from, I don't like the idea that the adv.-lunge (for example) could be both attack and setting of line. So I like 'attack fails - attack from {other side} takes over and arrives.'

[edew]

Thanks for the clarifications and arguments. But while I understand the concept, I still don't quite agree.

I think about why the attack failed: The attack wasn't evaded with a move to the side, where the point is no longer aimed at you, and it wasn't knocked aside either. At all times the point is aimed at the opponent, it's just that now you're out of distance. You don't have to do anything other than sit there in order to threaten the opponent, whereas if you were parried or they ducked, you have to take the action of putting your point back into a threatening position.

If I'm threatening, why should it matter what I've done with my feet?

Imagine I'm standing PIL, and the opponent retreats to the other end of the strip, and then comes charging at me. Just because we were out of distance and then in distance doesn't mean it's not my ROW.

I get the bit about taking turns, and making offensive actions and those actions finishing; I'm just not convinced that that is all there is to ROW.

At any rate, I understand and accept the official ruling. I just think there are good reasons for questioning it.

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.

One example that occurs a lot in saber is when fencer X attacks and fencer Y jumps back. Because of poor footwork or tiredness or whatever, Y can't make the transition to go forward fast enough. On the other hand, X is still moving forward because of forward momentum, or X may have shortened the attack, seeing that Y ran away, and then immediately renewed a second attack. If Y isn't quick enough, and both hit, X will get the touch. Foil gives Y a bit more lee-way than saber, which I don't particularly like, since saber requires more movement, which means Y has to be given more benefit of the doubt in making the transition. (On the other hand, with the quick lock-out time, the remise by X may be done quick enough to lock out any possible hit by Y, so the whole point becomes moot. Which is also another reason I'm not too happy with the new saber timing either.)