end of the attack (foil)

[notalent]

Greetings,
You should listen to me ref then
I still use "continuation" . Prolly a residual of effects of having reffed in the 80s.
Terry Dix
P.S. you going to Reno?

Originally Posted by Mauler

Part of a skill every ROW referee needs to develop is ability to see the beginning as well as the end of an action. Having some familiarity with the state of refereeing in the area myself, I congratulate the particular referee in obviously attempting to increase his/her knowledge and skills.

Interestingly enough, this thread caught my interest because of a terminology used, "continuation." As far as I know, I'm the only referee who uses that word. And I don't even remember ever getting that from someone else. Most certainly not a terminology prescribed in refereeing education. It somehow stuck as my signature, however. So I would be interested to find out down the line who adapted that, presumably from watching me in the occasions when I refereed in NJ.

While not necessarily in disagreement with the content of the "additional explanation," I am somewhat disburbed by the fact that the explanation was added in the first place.

If you don't mind, would you please PM me a description of the referee?

[Mauler]

Originally Posted by notalent

I still use "continuation" . Prolly a residual of effects of having reffed in the 80s.

Ah-hah! The mystery of the secret word is finally resolved! Thank you, Fencing.Net! And, yep. I'll be at Reno. Mini-party at my room on Sunday and whatever-goes-party on Monday!

[canthidefromme]

Raleigh refs also use "continuation". Although... it was definitely my riposte and his continuation.

Originally Posted by Mauler

Interestingly enough, this thread caught my interest because of a terminology used, "continuation." As far as I know, I'm the only referee who uses that word. And I don't even remember ever getting that from someone else. Most certainly not a terminology prescribed in refereeing education. It somehow stuck as my signature, however. So I would be interested to find out down the line who adapted that, presumably from watching me in the occasions when I refereed in NJ.

[notalent]

Greetings,
I take no credit for it. It was in common parlance then, thus I picked it up.
I'm not sure if I will be at the host hotel, the GF is making the trip aswell. I need to ask Christine if I can get a single, or a roomate that doesn't mind my GF ;-)

Originally Posted by Mauler

Ah-hah! The mystery of the secret word is finally resolved! Thank you, Fencing.Net! And, yep. I'll be at Reno. Mini-party at my room on Sunday and whatever-goes-party on Monday!

[FencingKitten]

As I think about it, picturing it and all...

To me, a continuation is exactly that - an attack that continues, past a fencing time. It takes too long, basically. The current timing locks that out, as far as I've noticed. A remise, on the other hand, is an attack that actively misses its target and is tried for again. It's most obvious in sabre, because a lot of remises happen with a change in direcition in the vertical plane that's parallell to the referee (did that make sense?).

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by FencingKitten

As I think about it, picturing it and all...

To me, a continuation is exactly that - an attack that continues, past a fencing time. It takes too long, basically. The current timing locks that out, as far as I've noticed. A remise, on the other hand, is an attack that actively misses its target and is tried for again. It's most obvious in sabre, because a lot of remises happen with a change in direcition in the vertical plane that's parallell to the referee (did that make sense?).

No, not at all.

A remise is a replacement of the point. In the simplified glossary section of the rule book it's defined as 'a simple and immediate offensive action which follows the original attack, without withdrawing the arm.' For all intensive purposes, it's the same thing as when refs say 'continuation.'

In addition, if the timing locks out the touch, it's not a 'continuation' or 'remise', it's called 'preparation', or 'attack, no', or it's not mentioned as it doesn't exist.

[KD5MDK]

To me, continuation means "a remise, redoublement or reprise, and I'm too tired/uninterested/am unable to decide which, since it doesn't matter".

[rsy]

The difference between sabre and foil rules on the end of the attack is that in foil the attack may end when the front foot lands in the lunge, but in sabre the attack always ends when the front foot land in the lunge.

The lunge is a simple attack, t.56(a), therefore the action of foot and arm are deemed one movement, t.8(a), and must be a unitary part of that simple attack. The attack does not end until both have been completed. If the arm is fully extended and the foot lands, the attack is over. If the foot lands and the arm is still extending, the attack ends when the arm reaches full extension. The sabre rule is modified to end the attack on the landing of the front foot regardless of continued extension of the arm.

The question I would like answered is why was the sabre rule modified in this way? Knowing the reasons sometimes helps with the refereing.

-r

[keropie]

Regardless of the interpretation of whether or not the lunge must hit before the front foot reaches the ground to be valid initially (I vote yes), if, in the opinion of the official, the 'offensive' fencer has made his attempt to hit and failed, the attack is over. Additionally, and perhaps more relevantly, if the official feels that the attack began with footwork before the final lunge (advance, for instance), then the end of the lunge MUST be the end of the simple attack (the only variety of attack that maintains ROW for the entire execution), as two pieces of footwork have been completed during the action, and it is over. If the official feels the attack has only begun with the lunge, then it is in his/her discretion to call the immediate 'continuation' of the arm or the redoublement as part of the original attack, but I have never seen an official use that as justification. If the lunge fell short and the remise hit, the only explanation I've seen from an official is 'attack arrives,' indicating to me that either they did not see the lunge fall short or they just don't care, not that they feel like it might have ended the attack and decided that in this case it didn't. As an official if I feel the lunge does not hit originally, I will allow the 'defender' the right to an immediate 'riposte' (yeah fine, attack, or whatever you want to call it since there wasn't a parry). If the 'defender' sits on this immediate riposte and doesn't bother to make it, then I may well call 'attack short; redoublement, counterattack; redoublement arrives, touch <left/right>.'

So yeah, from the description, I'd say that was the correct call, and not WAY too much information. Just the second sentence was superfluous.

[jBirch]

Hey There,

I've been taught that there is, indeed, a difference between the end of the attack in sabre and the end of the attack in foil. In foil, the attack ends after the tip stops moving towards the target. In sabre, it ends after the front foot hits the ground (in a lunge) regardless of any continuation of the extension.

In foil you can then have a lunge started with the tip pointed at the ceiling and finished with a flick after the front foot lands (as is often the case) and still be considered a valid attack. In sabre, the attack is over the moment that foot hits the ground regardless of whether the edge has hit the target or not. This is different from the case of lunge, then re-lunge (which is obviously attack, continuation).

So while you may have indeed finished your attack, it was not because your front foot had hit the ground before your tip hit the target.

Hope this helps.

James.

[druidfoil11]

i feel like the responses ive gotten so far on this thread have been either irrelevent, or misinformed. while reading the rules, i noted the way the saber rules describing the priority of the attack make it clear, in no less than four places, that once the front foot lands, the attack is over. in foil, there are no such concessions made in the applicable section. for clarification, the presiding referee told me that at no point did my arm stop moving forward, or my tip stop threatening valid target area, only that my front foot landed, and thus my attack was over. for those familiar with collegate fencing, this is an attack used very often in womens foil. The thompson sisters, metta and hana, both use it, and ive seen top officials (washburn, kolobatovitch, ect.) call it as attack all the way. the idea is that several quick steps forward ending in a long lunge with the arm moving continuously forward yet fairly slowly will force the opponent to make a paniced(sp?) parry, when the prospect of a distance parry is out of the question.
i still am curious to see how the big dogs on this forum feel about the call.

[KD5MDK]

Mauler and notalent are sufficiently big dogs that I'll accept their reasoning, to me (although there are a few bigger ones).

[rcmatthews]

Originally Posted by druidfoil11

i feel like the responses ive gotten so far on this thread have been either irrelevent, or misinformed. while reading the rules, i noted the way the saber rules describing the priority of the attack make it clear, in no less than four places, that once the front foot lands, the attack is over. in foil, there are no such concessions made in the applicable section. for clarification, the presiding referee told me that at no point did my arm stop moving forward, or my tip stop threatening valid target area, only that my front foot landed, and thus my attack was over. for those familiar with collegate fencing, this is an attack used very often in womens foil. The thompson sisters, metta and hana, both use it, and ive seen top officials (washburn, kolobatovitch, ect.) call it as attack all the way. the idea is that several quick steps forward ending in a long lunge with the arm moving continuously forward yet fairly slowly will force the opponent to make a paniced(sp?) parry, when the prospect of a distance parry is out of the question.
i still am curious to see how the big dogs on this forum feel about the call.

Well, more properly, you feel upset that no one has comiserated with you.

[keropie]

Originally Posted by rcmatthews

Well, more properly, you feel upset that no one has comiserated with you.

Touche rcmatthews

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by druidfoil11

i feel like the responses ive gotten so far on this thread have been either irrelevent, or misinformed. while reading the rules, i noted the way the saber rules describing the priority of the attack make it clear, in no less than four places, that once the front foot lands, the attack is over. in foil, there are no such concessions made in the applicable section.

If you feel you know the correct way to call this action, why did you ask? Why didn't you just state that you got cheated?

Well, you didn't. You asked, and now you're getting answers you don't like. Sorry to disappoint you, but that's how the action is called.

Originally Posted by druidfoil11

for those familiar with collegate fencing, this is an attack used very often in womens foil. The thompson sisters, metta and hana, both use it, and ive seen top officials (washburn, kolobatovitch, ect.) call it as attack all the way. the idea is that several quick steps forward ending in a long lunge with the arm moving continuously forward yet fairly slowly will force the opponent to make a paniced(sp?) parry, when the prospect of a distance parry is out of the question.
i still am curious to see how the big dogs on this forum feel about the call.

Having seen the fencers, and refs you mention I agree with what you write above. Notice however, that when the fencers you mention do the action, the opponent parries, then they hit. In other words, it's a different action from what you presented in your initial post.

Timing is key to this type of action, and if you're timing is off, the touch will go against you.

[bigdawg2121]

I think that people have put their fingers right on the pulse of the issue, you'd like someone to tell you you're right. Someone might but I gather that they will be in the general minority and that most of the "big dogs" will echo what's already been said. You also seem to ignore the fact that Mauler at least has viewed the thread and felt the question to be answered thoroughly enough. You should also probably consider that given the fact that almost no one feels this call was wrong and that this thread is chock full of varying fencing-walks of life (good, bad, out-of-date, other) you've probably gotten as close to a "right" answer as you'll get. A lot of the folks around here on this thread are big enough dogs, and a lot are relative pups and yet they're all barkin' the same thing....

[Mr Epee]

I thought the box timing change was the end of the attack in foil. :-)

Yep, I'll be here all week.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Notice however, that when the fencers you mention do the action, the opponent parries, then they hit. In other words, it's a different action from what you presented in your initial post.

Timing is key to this type of action, and if you're timing is off, the touch will go against you.

A+ response.

The action that you are describing (complete lunge, then finish the extension) is referred to as a lost tempo action.

When performed correctly (as in correct timing), the opponent keys off of the end of the lunge to make their parry. Since the arm and point are held back, the parry whiffs by and leaves the target area nice and open for the final extension.

If, however, you end the lunge and your opponent hasn't started flailing but instead extends into you, you are more than likely going to lose the phrase.

You should also refer to Bukantz's article in American Fencing about how the FIE started to get foil referees to tighten up their calls - they used sabre referees to call foil bouts. That means that a lot of the theory on timing and what ends an attack in foil is trending to how it's called in sabre.

I have an article that covers the different timings of attacks in the General Training section: Simple Attack Drills.

Craig

[keropie]

Just as a furthering of the 'lost tempo' idea, if your opponent is parrying, and you hit them, no matter how crappy, distorted, late, and uncoordinated your action is, it's the action in the phrase with priority, usually called 'the attack' in this case (assuming the parry fails, of course: otherwise we'd have that nifty 'attack, riposte (maybe), remise scenario). So lost tempo succeeds with flying colors when the opponent is nice enough to fail a parry. When they decide, however, to hit us, it works out not so well.

As for your lack of 'a rule' to justify this call, you really are still only allowed two pieces of footwork in your simple attack, so if the official feels your attack is advance-lungue or what not, and doesn't land by the end of your lunge, your original simple attack has failed. Now, while this won't cover EVERY scenario, it covers a bunch of them. Many/most of us make many/most of our attacks with advance (jump forward/whatever) lunge (fleche/whatever). It's also completely reasonable for the official's definition of a tempo to have included your advance lunge (or just your lunge) and not include the extension after it, in which case your hit may be 'out of time.'

Sorry that you don't agree with the call, but the great majority of us seem to. Including the 'big dogs.' Which puts you into the retail employees least favorite category: the guy who asks advice, but doesn't want it ><