end of the attack (foil)

[druidfoil11]

at a meet this weekend, i made an attack with a lunge ending with my front foot landing before my arm became fully extened. the director, giving way too much information, said "attack from my left ends, counterattack from right, then the continuation. although your arm continues forward all the way, your front foot ends the attack." somewhat surprised, i removed my mask and protested that what he had just said was a saber rule only, as was my understanding of the rules. is this rule indeed aplicable to foil?

[bigdawg2121]

the short answer is Yes...I'm sure you'll hear plenty of discussion later.

[KD5MDK]

An excellent example of a referee given too much information.

[rcmatthews]

Referees should not be able to use the lack of giving information as a way to avoid someone pointing out an error in their directing. (I am not saying that the director was wrong here, as to that I have no opinion.

[OROD]

I've never, ever, seen that called like that in foil. Furthermore, if I was directing I would have given you the attack (assuming you really didnt break your action), I dont care when your foot landed (or what the rulebook says for that matter).


.

[OROD]

Let me paraphrase:

end of attack in foil = when action stops
end of attack in foil ╪ when front foot touches floor


.

[keith]

Originally Posted by OROD

............. I dont care when your foot landed (or what the rulebook says for that matter).

...... it must be a fascinating experience fighting in a bout you ref.

[notalent]

TMI on the ref's part but not an incorrect call. This is one of the grayer calls as it will vary from ref to ref as to what is imediate, and what is a remise

TD

Originally Posted by druidfoil11

at a meet this weekend, i made an attack with a lunge ending with my front foot landing before my arm became fully extened. the director, giving way too much information, said "attack from my left ends, counterattack from right, then the continuation. although your arm continues forward all the way, your front foot ends the attack." somewhat surprised, i removed my mask and protested that what he had just said was a saber rule only, as was my understanding of the rules. is this rule indeed aplicable to foil?

[telkanuru]

The landing of the foot ends the attack, it just normally isn't called that way. I tend to call it tighter on fleches than lunges, personally.

[HDG]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

The landing of the foot ends the attack, it just normally isn't called that way. I tend to call it tighter on fleches than lunges, personally.

Where in the foil rules is that?

[Cerian]

My coach has said that's how you should call the end of the attack in foil. Considering he was directing in Budapest a few weeks ago and Aix-en-Provence the month before that, I'm tempted to trust him.

[HDG]

Originally Posted by Cerian

My coach has said that's how you should call the end of the attack in foil. Considering he was directing in Budapest a few weeks ago and Aix-en-Provence the month before that, I'm tempted to trust him.

I'm not arrogant enough to question anybody's instructor, but I just don't see it anywhere in t.46 - t.60. Compare t.56 in the foil rules to t.75(b) in the sabre rules; there's no mention of the front foot in the former. Should I be looking elsewhere? Just asking.

[achilleus]

If one finishes the lunge then hits, it's a remise. Of course timing is all important, so it's tough to say whether the call was correct or not...

The best explanation I've ever seen of this was a interview from the Italian master that Glaidus (thank you again) translated for the board.

He explained how the different wording of the rules between foil and saber exists only to define the differences between a cutting weapon and a point at the time they were written.

[OROD]

Originally Posted by keith

...... it must be a fascinating experience fighting in a bout you ref.

Why thank you... it's good to know one's work is appreciated.


=)

[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?

[bigdawg2121]

Also as a quick note (mostly b/c it gets rather old to me personally), the way touches judged is not entirely covered in the rulebook proper. There are rules that are open to interpretation and to keep those interpretations as consistent as possible there is also exists a refs manual which has guidelines as to how touches should be called, or rules should be interpreted by the refs. Read both before assuming that you necessarily have a grasp on how something should have been called.


[edit After reading Jay's post] Jay I'm pretty sure you can't take credit for the word continuation. I've been fencing for 6-7yrs now and I've been hearing that word since day one, and I know that I wouldn't give any of the guys I've heard using it credit for it either :: Stick to Irish Car Bombs bro

[keith]

Originally Posted by Mauler

snips

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.

snips

Well I would seem to be infringing on copyright .

When I learned what little refing I know; calling "attack no, counterattack yes, continuation out of time" would have been considered correct. Well at least the words, my opinion of the action on the other hand.........

(not speaking as the individual under discussion)

... wonder's if this is a change in fashion since I learned that usage in the late 80s.

[Mauler]

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

[edit After reading Jay's post] Jay I'm pretty sure you can't take credit for the word continuation. I've been fencing for 6-7yrs now and I've been hearing that word since day one, and I know that I wouldn't give any of the guys I've heard using it credit for it either :: Stick to Irish Car Bombs bro

I'm not so much concerned with originality or credit as I am interested in finding out where/how I've come to use that terminology. I don't ever remember being taught to say that, nor do I remember any of my refereeing mentors using that. I have yet to come across another referee who says, "continuation," among the current crop of working referees.

What really boggles me is that I must have gotten from somewhere else, because it's not a sort of word that I would come up with. But when I started refereeing oh so many years ago, I just started saying, "continuation," without even thinking. And I never grew out of that habit.

I have yet to be screamed at by any of the observing FOC's regarding my failure to use the term, "remise," during my performance. So I continue (pun) to say the magic word in the hope that perhaps someone might shed some light in my fencing past?

If it makes any difference, early years of my fencing education is rooted in Long Island Swordsmen.

I just got done reading the Da Vinci Code. So I have this image of someone coming up to me one day at a tournament: "Young man, I could not help but notice that you say 'continuation' when you referee. There is someone who wishes to talk to you. Go to the hotel bar after the event and order a triple Irish Car Bombs if you wish to find out why it is that you say it."

[Mauler]

Originally Posted by keith

... wonder's if this is a change in fashion since I learned that usage in the late 80s.

That's around the time frame when most profound fencing eduction took place for me. So I wouldn't be surprised if I'm heavily influenced by 80's fencing. Current generation of referees are expected to stick to only what is described in the Rule Book and FOC Guidelines. While there's a provision for "remise," there's no room for "continuation." So I am surprised that I have not been burnt at stake for the use of unapproved word yet....

[KD5MDK]

My coach is from New York City and I picked up "continuation" from him. It would surprise me if it were bouncing around the city for two decades or more.