end of the attack (foil)

[keropie]

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

Yes. Absolutely. That extra inch of lean was in fact a remise.

I'll second that. Attack fail, remise arrives (of course, on this machine, might be yours anyways)

[Dan H]

Originally Posted by muaddib

Have to disagee. If a fencer extends their arm on the first advance, this is a valid attack and has ROW! Now if you wait until your lunge to extend, then of course, advance advance (with no arm) is preparation.

People have now sidetracked this thread into a number of different hypothetical scenarios, but I'll bite and respond to this particular one.

There is no such thing as an "attack all the way" literally in the rules. However, if you believe in an "attack all the way" you will still parse about 99% of real foil actions with the same result as someone applying the rules properly. Here is why:

The longest attack footwork defined in the rules (see rule t.56) is an advance-lunge or equivalent (including advance-fleche). That means that if you take 6 advances and a lunge, with your arm extending and threatening target the whole time, your attack begins the instant your last advance begins. Everything you did before that instant is preparation.

Consider the following scenario:
Fencer A begins a slow extension of his arm, and continues to extend and threaten target while performing 6 advances and a lunge. Fencer B obligingly retreats 5 times, then changes direction and extends and lunges just after Fencer A began his last advance. Both actions hit valid. The correct way to parse the action is "Attack A. Counterattack B. Touch for A." A's attack began the instant his last advance began (it's a simple attack executed with advance-lunge - see rule t.56(a)3); B's counterattack began after this point and is therefore not in time. The "attack all the way" method of parsing the action would also award the touch to A, but for the wrong reason.

Now let's try to concoct a scenario in which the "attack all the way" method would improperly award the touch:
Fencer A begins a slow extension of his arm, and continues to extend and threaten target while performing 4 advances. Fencer B obligingly retreats 4 times, then quickly stop-hits valid and retreats quickly to try to open the distance. After the arrival of B's stop hit, Fencer A continues extending with two lightning-quick advances and a lunge, somehow managing to execute all this and arrive valid within the box's lockout time. There are two valid lights. The correct way to parse the action is "A's action is incorrect. Attack B. Touch for B." The reason for this is that A's attack began the moment his last advance began, at which point B had already hit. The "attack all the way" method would erroneously award the touch to Fencer A.

I will now argue that the second scenario is very rare in foil fencing now that the lockout time on the box has been shortened. In practice, if Fencer A is chasing Fencer B down the strip while extending, and Fencer B changes directions and begins an offensive action, Fencer A will finish his attack right then. The footwork involved will not be longer than an advance-lunge, and Fencer A will finish within one fencing time. If Fencer A is not prepared to finish his attack quickly, then he will not get a light on the box at all, and Fencer B will win a one-light touch. So, the entire argument of if Fencer A had the "attack all the way" is academic in the vast majority of actual fencing actions.

For a competitor, an "attack all the way" mindset could even be beneficial despite the fact that it's technically incorrect. If Fencer A is chasing Fencer B down the strip while extending, he may perhaps be looking to provoke an incorrect action from Fencer B. When he draws this response, he finishes his attack. If Fencer A is skilled, he will be prepared to finish at every moment of his series of advances. If he can hit with a lunge, he has the power to choose when his attack began simply by lunging and hitting: his attack then began the instant his last advance did. His advances are therefore "protected" by the right of way conventions, as though he had the attack all the way. Fencer B must find a way to deal with this reality if he wishes to win the touch. Fortunately for him, there are many ways to deal with this sort of action: take the blade, provoke a search, provoke a lunge that falls short or misses, or establish point in line, to name a few.

[penguin_2000]

guys, please don't debate ROW too seriously with jBirch... next thing you know he'll be telling you that a quadruple-advance lunge is a simple attack
http://www.fencing.net/forums/showpo...3&postcount=46

[penguin_2000]

Originally Posted by Dan H

People have now sidetracked this thread into a number of different hypothetical scenarios, but I'll bite and respond to this particular one.

Dan H is of course right in his explanation... but dang, this thread really drifted about a page back

[i'mnottelling]

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 any sense at all. Are you one of those refs who calls a feint disengage in sabre as attack NO - REMISE?

i'mnt

[FencingKitten]

No. And, you could really try to avoid sounding like you're being rude about it - a simple no would suffice, and maybe a request for clarification.

By, "did that make sense," I was trying to convey that I wasn't sure my description of which plane I meant was clear enough.

A properly executed feint-disengage, which by the way will get me nearly every time, so I'm quite familiar with what it looks like (ask oso97!), gets called an attack. I'm not sure what in my post you're interpreting, and I'll happily attempt to clarify if you'd like to be more specific.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Dan H

Now let's try to concoct a scenario in which the "attack all the way" method would improperly award the touch:
Fencer A begins a slow extension of his arm, and continues to extend and threaten target while performing 4 advances. Fencer B obligingly retreats 4 times, then quickly stop-hits valid and retreats quickly to try to open the distance. After the arrival of B's stop hit, Fencer A continues extending with two lightning-quick advances and a lunge, somehow managing to execute all this and arrive valid within the box's lockout time. There are two valid lights. The correct way to parse the action is "A's action is incorrect. Attack B. Touch for B." The reason for this is that A's attack began the moment his last advance began, at which point B had already hit.

Great post, but just note, it's not B's attack. B made a stop hit, which is a counter-attack.

It's important to note this, lest someone get the wrong idea...

[Joe biebel]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Great post, but just note, it's not B's attack. B made a stop hit, which is a counter-attack.

It's important to note this, lest someone get the wrong idea...

I agree, great post by Dan H. I would disagree with both of you (DanH and Achilleus) though as to the terminology expressed for clarity. The term attack should be reserved for attacks. Actions that are made while moving backward (except for a PIL that exists) are done so without benefit of ROW. They are stop hits. They count as touches, if in time or tempo, or in the event that the attack fails. A counterattack is an attack that is a response to an attack. An attack into an attack. A counterattack, by it's nature, will always start or be delivered in the same tempo as the attack. A stop hit can arrive before, during or after an attack starts. In the case of "before" it is a touch for the stop hit. In the case of "during or after" the attack starts, it is a touch for the attacker. You would not say for instance that a counterattack started before an attack, it would be the attack. Yet, a fencer holding their ground or retreating as described in DanH's post could make a stop hit, in time, before the start of the attack, and yet it is not an attack or a counterattack.

I would never take issue with a referee's terminolgy as long as the essence of the action is preserved. There is ample verbage in the rules book to support Achilleus's wording, but the rule book is weak and vague in this regard and imprecise terminology can lead to incorrect calls or a poor understanding of the action. I think the term counterattack should be reserved for a forward moving action (an actual attack) that would be an attack if an attack were not already underway.

I like the BFA's referee hand signal guide which shows the attack gesture but the description lists three scoring actions Attack/Counterattack/Stop Hit. It is immediately followed underneath by the words: Attack, Stop Hit (counterattack), which would tend to make you think a stop hit is a counterattack. Hmmmm...go figure. I think this is done to keep the hand signals to minimum.

[jBirch]

Agreed. Well put Dan.

Back to the original question though...where does the foot enter into the analysis of whether the lunge fails or not?

James.

[Dan H]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Great post, but just note, it's not B's attack. B made a stop hit, which is a counter-attack.

It's important to note this, lest someone get the wrong idea...

Yes, sorry, this correction to my post is correct. The stop-hit is defined in the rulebook as a counterattack, even if it is in time and carries priority.

The reason I termed it the way I did is that this sort of action (when A is chasing B down the strip, but not ready to finish, B hits A in time, and A finishes late) usually draws "attack on preparation" from me, but referees have been recently instructed to use the phrasing "A's action is incorrect..." instead of the more descriptive "On A's preparation...".

So, then, I suppose a phrasing more accurate to the rules might be "A's action is incorrect. B's stop hit is in time. Touch B."

[Dan H]

Originally Posted by Joe biebel

...Stop Hit (counterattack), which would tend to make you think a stop hit is a counterattack...

According to the rulebook, it is: see rule t.8 (c) 3. I had to look it up after reading Achilleus's post just now, since I tend not to use the word "counterattack" to describe an action that carries priority at the moment it's executed. But, all stop hits, whether out of time, in time, or done with opposition, are classified as counterattacks by the rulebook's somewhat peculiar taxonomy.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Dan H

Yes, sorry, this correction to my post is correct. The stop-hit is defined in the rulebook as a counterattack, even if it is in time and carries priority.

The reason I termed it the way I did is that this sort of action (when A is chasing B down the strip, but not ready to finish, B hits A in time, and A finishes late) usually draws "attack on preparation" from me, but referees have been recently instructed to use the phrasing "A's action is incorrect..." instead of the more descriptive "On A's preparation...".

So, then, I suppose a phrasing more accurate to the rules might be "A's action is incorrect. B's stop hit is in time. Touch B."

It's not just the rulebook (which provides simple definitions to commonly used terms), but all fencing treatises discuss the stop hit as a counter attack.

The other thing to keep in mind, is that one is not given the attack while retreating. That's why the phrasing 'attack on prep' is not favored when someone sticks their arm out and retreats, it's not the initial offensive action...

Yes the call is correct, and in the bout, it's usually a good idea to just let the terminology slide, but here, on a board, it's often important to be precise lest someone start thinking that you can attack while retreating...

[Dan H]

Originally Posted by achilleus

That's why the phrasing 'attack on prep' is not favored when someone sticks their arm out and retreats, it's not the initial offensive action...

We've actually been told (not as a major point of emphasis, though) not to say "preparation" or "attack on preparation" to describe any action now. I'm not certain I remember the justification correctly, but I think it was because if a referee gives a verbose description of the action rather than simply calling the phrase, it may be interpreted as providing advice or help to one of the two fencers. An extreme example would be if the referee said "Fencer A, you're trying to attack, but you're not extending your arm in time, and Fencer B is hitting you in time. His arm is starting first. That's why I'm awarding him the touch." Then Fencer B gets angry because he had just figured out he can get touches by hitting A in preparation, and the referee just took that away from him. Along the same line of reasoning, we're now supposed to say "incorrect action" when we would previously have said "on the preparation," no matter which way the fencers are moving.

Okay, this is an interesting and useful digression, but we've threadjacked a perfectly good thread now. I'm voting with JBirch that we should get back to where the attack ends in foil with respect to the forward motion of the fencer and when the front foot lands.

[edew]

Originally Posted by Joe biebel

I agree, great post by Dan H. I would disagree with both of you (DanH and Achilleus) though as to the terminology expressed for clarity. The term attack should be reserved for attacks. Actions that are made while moving backward (except for a PIL that exists) are done so without benefit of ROW. They are stop hits. They count as touches, if in time or tempo, or in the event that the attack fails. A counterattack is an attack that is a response to an attack. An attack into an attack. A counterattack, by it's nature, will always start or be delivered in the same tempo as the attack. A stop hit can arrive before, during or after an attack starts. In the case of "before" it is a touch for the stop hit. In the case of "during or after" the attack starts, it is a touch for the attacker. You would not say for instance that a counterattack started before an attack, it would be the attack. Yet, a fencer holding their ground or retreating as described in DanH's post could make a stop hit, in time, before the start of the attack, and yet it is not an attack or a counterattack.

I would never take issue with a referee's terminolgy as long as the essence of the action is preserved. There is ample verbage in the rules book to support Achilleus's wording, but the rule book is weak and vague in this regard and imprecise terminology can lead to incorrect calls or a poor understanding of the action. I think the term counterattack should be reserved for a forward moving action (an actual attack) that would be an attack if an attack were not already underway.

I like the BFA's referee hand signal guide which shows the attack gesture but the description lists three scoring actions Attack/Counterattack/Stop Hit. It is immediately followed underneath by the words: Attack, Stop Hit (counterattack), which would tend to make you think a stop hit is a counterattack. Hmmmm...go figure. I think this is done to keep the hand signals to minimum.

Quite right, Joe. As a referee, I would never say, "counter-attack, touch," unless it was meant to be prefaced with, "attack, no (as in missed)..." If I said, "counter-attack, touch, attack late," I would get grief from everyone and their grandmothers. I could, however, say, "stop-hit arrives, attack is late." Here, I might preface the call with, "preparation (by fencer K), stop-hit (by fencer Z) arrives, attack (by fencer K) is late."

You cannot make a counter-attack if there's no attack occurring. Such an action called as such must be in the context of the opponent's attack. The same body movement done without having the opponent attacking would be called either an attack or a stop-hit.

For example, fencer Z is slow today (too much morphine over the weekend) and fencer K is hyped up (crystal meth). On the word, "fence!" K is out of the blocks with a fast jump-lunge, weapon arm extending immediately. Fencer Z takes time to let the words sink in and also makes the same jump-lunge with arm extending, but moments after K starts. Both hit. Call would be attack by K, counter-attack by Z, even though both made the same action. It's just that K started before Z.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

I say "counter attack, touche" when I dunno what happened, and that there was only one light, but to inform the person who got the touch that what they did wasn't correct.

[edew]

Still, your call presumes that the opponent made an attack and it failed. If the opponent didn't attack, calling the one-light action as a counter-attack makes no sense. What was the person counter-attacking into (other than an attack)?

[KD5MDK]

Well, it might have been a remise, or a redoublement, or something. I suppose "touch without priority from the right" is the most neutral thing you could say.

[Boo Boo]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I suppose "touch without priority from the right" is the most neutral thing you could say.

If someone made that call on me, I would say "what on earth do you mean?"...

If you really can't follow the action , phrase what you did see, then "the final action was unclear, but one light to the left/right". But it is always better to try and phrase it...

Boo