Attack in prep (foil)

[seak]

I was fencing at a local tournament this weekend and in the DE's I was going against a fencer who while better then me, but has a tendency to prep. As a result I was often trying to attack into his prep. There were several times where I thought I had it (and the other fencer acknowledged) and the ref still awarded him the point.

After the bout I politely asked the referee what he was seeing. He stated that what I was doing was attack into prep and therefore I had to hit him before he started his attack. I was under the impression that I merely had to start my attack first.

Am I wrong about this? If I am I should really stop attacking into prep as much

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by seak

I was fencing at a local tournament this weekend and in the DE's I was going against a fencer who while better then me, but has a tendency to prep. As a result I was often trying to attack into his prep. There were several times where I thought I had it (and the other fencer acknowledged) and the ref still awarded him the point.

After the bout I politely asked the referee what he was seeing. He stated that what I was doing was attack into prep and therefore I had to hit him before he started his attack. I was under the impression that I merely had to start my attack first.

Am I wrong about this? If I am I should really stop attacking into prep as much

Generally speaking, yes, you have to hit before the attack begins in order to be awarded the point. There are referees who will call it otherwise, but the majority of referees out there will make the call as you have described.

What the rules say, and how they are applied in competition are two different things.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by seak

I was fencing at a local tournament this weekend and in the DE's I was going against a fencer who while better then me, but has a tendency to prep. As a result I was often trying to attack into his prep. There were several times where I thought I had it (and the other fencer acknowledged) and the ref still awarded him the point.

After the bout I politely asked the referee what he was seeing. He stated that what I was doing was attack into prep and therefore I had to hit him before he started his attack. I was under the impression that I merely had to start my attack first.

Am I wrong about this? If I am I should really stop attacking into prep as much

Um...what weapon? Let's assume foil...

Partially, it depends what the action looks like. If your opponent pauses in the attack or is withdrawing his arm during the compound actions, then you can start an attack. Even if your opponent finishes at that point, you'll get the touch. On the other hand, if you're just attacking into a long compound attack, your touch must arrive before the final action from your opponent even starts.

Here's the rule:

t . 59 (d) When compound attacks are made, the opponent has the right to stop hit; but to be valid, the stop hit must precede the conclusion of the attack by an interval of fencing time; that is to say that the stop hit must arrive before the attacker has begun the final movement of the attack.

Or did you mean sabre?

[Larrison]

Originally Posted by seak

I was fencing at a local tournament this weekend and in the DE's I was going against a fencer who while better then me, but has a tendency to prep. As a result I was often trying to attack into his prep. There were several times where I thought I had it (and the other fencer acknowledged) and the ref still awarded him the point.

After the bout I politely asked the referee what he was seeing. He stated that what I was doing was attack into prep and therefore I had to hit him before he started his attack. I was under the impression that I merely had to start my attack first.

Am I wrong about this? If I am I should really stop attacking into prep as much

Hmm.. I thought you had to hit him before his attack landed, and long enough before that the box would lock his attack out.

And I'll say this is something that bugs me too -- A fencer lifts his blade pointing the tip at the ceiling and steps forward. That's not "threatening my target area" -- his point is wayyy out of line, most directly threatening a passing pigeon. In my opinion, that's a poorly performed and sloppy start to an attack, and if I counter into his "prep", then I've taken his right of way since he was not threatening my target area, just moving forwards and waving the blade upwards.

(Now, if he had his blade coming down into line and was starting an extension -- heck yes, it's his attack. But if he's pulling his blade back, bending his elbow more and more to move the point up towards the ceiling he's not moving his weapon to threaten me I'd say it was the exact opposite to an attack; regardless of where his feet are moving him)

But.... this is typically called as the start of an attack by a ref. So I lose out 90+ % of the time... It's something I'm not happy with, but I'm not going to argue with a ref over and over again about it.

Man I hate the folks who **** [1] their arm back at the start of an advance/ attack... *grumble grumble*

Edit note: [1] 4 letter term for pulling your arm back, beginning with "c" and ending with "ock". Word used in the dictionary defintion of "to turn, tip, or stick up" or "to draw or bend back in preparation for throwing or hitting". Don't you love automatic censor routines?

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by seak

There were several times where I thought I had it (and the other fencer acknowledged) and the ref still awarded him the point....Am I wrong about this? If I am I should really stop attacking into prep as much

And, as always, in any particular bout, what you need to get this kind of touch depends on the referee for that bout. So, even if you can get it called for you by every other ref, in that particular bout, you should have really stopped attacking into prep as much.

In two or three exchanges in a DE, you should get a feel for what the referee needs to see to call the touch for you in this type of action. If you're not getting it, you're doing it wrong, or the ref isn't seeing it. In either case, you're not going to fix it in that bout, so move on to another tactic. Or make the action yours by hitting with one light. Then, it doesn't matter whether the ref thinks it's attack into preparation or a counter attack. Either way, it's yours.

[seak]

The weaon is foil.

It is virtually impossible for me to one light someone as I am short (5"3) and on an attack into prep I am not going to get a one light situation unless they completely forget to stick their arm out, or its a womens only competition.

Hence if it really does have to be a one light, why I should really stop using it when fencing men

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by tbryan

Um...what weapon? Let's assume foil...

says me, ignoring the title of the thread.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by seak

It is virtually impossible for me to one light someone as I am short (5"3) and on an attack into prep I am not going to get a one light situation unless they completely forget to stick their arm out, or its a womens only competition.

Hence if it really does have to be a one light, why I should really stop using it when fencing men

You can also get one light by making the distance collapse fast enough that they hit flat. You want those tall people to extend on that action.

But it doesn't require one light. You can hit them before they finish, they can finish and put a second light on the box, and it'll still be your touch. But, generally, your touch must land before they start the final action of a compound attack. What many defenders seem to think is "preparation" in foil is still viewed as part of a compound attack as long as the attacker finishes smoothly. It seems like calling preparation has gotten tighter in the last couple of years (even more so than could be explained by the change in box timings), but that varies from director to director.

If attack in prep is currently not working for you, work on forcing your opponent to prepare bigger. That, of course, requires a pretty sophisticated use of distance and timing (non trivial to learn, IMHO). The more uncertain your opponent is, the more hesitant his action. His preparation may become big and "stuttered." He can't decide whether to finish his compound attack or try counter time. Basically, you'll try to force him to hesitate or pause in his preparation, you start, and then he finishes. In this case, even if there are two lights on the box, it's your attack, his counter. Mix that up with some sneaky counter attacks and good feint in time, and you'll have a good game to use against this type of opponent no matter who's directing.

[OROD]

Originally Posted by Larrison

Hmm.. I thought you had to hit him before his attack landed, and long enough before that the box would lock his attack out.

No, that's called epee.

Originally Posted by Larrison

And I'll say this is something that bugs me too -- A fencer lifts his blade pointing the tip at the ceiling and steps forward. That's not "threatening my target area" -- his point is wayyy out of line...

Threatening valid target doesnt mean "threatening to impale your chest", it means "threatening to score on valid target". This has already been discussed before... a bent/extending arm does threaten valid target.

Originally Posted by Larrison

But.... this is typically called as the start of an attack by a ref. So I lose out 90+ % of the time... It's something I'm not happy with, but I'm not going to argue with a ref over and over again about it.

Good, because the ref is right and you're wrong. Once you understand what an attack is, then you might start getting more than 10% of those touches.

Originally Posted by Larrison

Man I hate the folks who **** [1] their arm back at the start of an advance/ attack... *grumble grumble*

Yes, but I'm sure they love you!

Originally Posted by Larrison

Edit note: [1] 4 letter term for pulling your arm back, beginning with "c" and ending with "ock". Word used in the dictionary defintion of "to turn, tip, or stick up" or "to draw or bend back in preparation for throwing or hitting". Don't you love automatic censor routines?

Hehe, that's funny. Does your dictionary define "scrub"?


.

[seak]

OROD "Threatening valid target doesnt mean "threatening to impale your chest", it means "threatening to score on valid target". This has already been discussed before... a bent/extending arm does threaten valid target."

True my issue is more with the bent non - extending arm. The way I understand (and call) compound attacks is the arm has to be extending. Obviously an attack into this is a counter - attack not an attack into preperation.

For clarification the other fencers arm was not extending or moving forward in any way. It was bent and static.

Thanks to tbryan for the suggestions, now if I could only actually remember to do such things in a bout

[jeff]

I'm with Larrison (See t.56(a), which is explicit on the subject), including on his word gripe about the word that is also a synonym for "rooster"

[KD5MDK]

A stop hit into a compound attack must begin before the final part of the attack begins. An attack into preparation is a different thing, and means your attack has priority over their late one. However, what constitutes preparation in foil is up to the referee, and they'll probably see it a lot less than you do.

[OROD]

Originally Posted by seak

OROD "Threatening valid target doesnt mean "threatening to impale your chest", it means "threatening to score on valid target". This has already been discussed before... a bent/extending arm does threaten valid target."

True my issue is more with the bent non - extending arm. The way I understand (and call) compound attacks is the arm has to be extending. Obviously an attack into this is a counter - attack not an attack into preperation.

For clarification the other fencers arm was not extending or moving forward in any way. It was bent and static.

Thanks to tbryan for the suggestions, now if I could only actually remember to do such things in a bout

Yes, the arm has to be extending... although it can be a very slow extension. Also, when in doubt (was it extending or not) the director will usually give it to the attacker. When someone starts moving towards you it's really your burden to stop their action or do something in defense other than counter-attack. It's action-reaction as far as the director is concerned.

And just as an aside, I do consider forward motion to be "threatening" and "offensive"... so I have very little problem giving an attack to someone who starts moving first and then finishes his action without hesitation. Attack in prep is hard to do, and when you do it right it's obvious.



.

[edew]

According to what was written by seak and what his referee said, either the referee misspoke (works for the Bush administration, I guess), or is wrong.

If fencer J is making a preparation, and seak attacks into it, then seak attacks into it. Which means seak has priority. A preparation does not have priority. Distinctly not.

Now, if the referee meant that fencer J has already started the attack, but that part of his (J's) attack is sorta like a preparation, then the referee is misusing terminology. There is no preparatory portion or a final portion to an attack. An attack can be quick and brief or long and slow (some of my best attacks are done uber-slow, getting my impatient opponent to counter into my already established attack; of course, my attack speeds up when I'm near my opponent: no need to have him lock me out).

So either the referee misspoke or is not understanding right of way.

[IanSerotkin]

Let's not forgot good old reliable t.56 (a)(3):

Originally Posted by CurrentRules

The attack with a advance-lunge or a advance-flèche is
correctly executed when the extending of the arm
precedes the end of the step forward and the initiation
of the lunge or the flèche.

Read it. Learn it. Love it. Live it. A correctly executed attack doesn't start when you start extending. It starts when you began your final advance-lunge, as long as you start extending before you finish the final advance.

Q: When does a counterattack gain the right of way?

A: When it lands.

If your opponent is doing something that COULD turn into a proper attack (basically, moving forward with your weapon arm anywhere other than behind your back), any attack you make is a counterattack. This is because, contrary to sometimes-popular belief, the extending of the arm does not necessarily mark the beginning of an attack.

If I initiate a compound advance-lunge attack, for my attack to be proper according to the rulebook my arm must begin extending (not become extendED, begin extendING) prior to the launch of my lunge. If it did so, then my attack began at the beginning of my advance, NOT at the end of my advance--even though my arm was fully withdrawn until the end of the step. If the attack is proper, than the entire attack is proper and it retroactively held the right-of-way from the moment I started the advance.

Now, a simple attack always has priority over a compound attack that begins at the same time. Counterattacks are almost always simple attacks. Why, then, does a simple counterattack into a long compound attack not always have priority? ("But sir, I extended first!")

Because counterattacks do not--cannot--will not--gain the right-of-way until they land. At the instant it lands, the question to ask yourself as a referee is, "Is the attacker in the process of extendING?" If the answer is YES, then (assuming the extendING began prior to the end of the final advance) the compound attack began prior to the counterattack. If the answer is NO, then the attacker is in preparation, has not correctly executed his compound attack, and the counterattack (more correctly, the stop-thrust) is valid.

To reiterate, the attacker does need to begin extendING until just before the instant his opponent COMPLETES his counterattack.

[Craig]

Refer back to a Fencing.Net "Ask the Expert" article on the Attack in Foil:

http://www.fencing.net/content/view/163/35/

Originally Posted by Ask the Expert

Much has been said about what does and does not constitute an attack in foil. Tradition contends that the attack must have a straight arm, with the tip of the foil constantly pointing towards the opponent’s target, in a line drawn from the top of the shoulder thorough the tip of the blade. Any deviation from this results in a total loss of any priority of the action.

Popular belief has it that any aggressive action (footwork, bladework, bad breath) has priority, and nothing can remove that priority, except a parry.



Reality is, of course somewhere between

Read the full article

Cheers,
Craig

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by IanSerotkin

Now, a simple attack (a lunge, or an advance-lunge with arm extendING prior to the advance) always has priority over a compound attack that begins at the same time.

This is not the definition of a simple attack. Nor is the arm back at the beginning of the step, the definition of compound attack.

The basic idea of you post is right, but these two points are wrong.

[IanSerotkin]

Originally Posted by achilleus

This is not the definition of a simple attack. Nor is the arm back at the beginning of the step, the definition of compound attack.

The basic idea of you post is right, but these two points are wrong.

You're right. I've corrected my previous post.

[leapyear]

Whenever this issue comes up, the bent-arm attackers start with the insults, i.e. implying that you're a "scrub" if you don't like ROW going to fencers threatening the ceiling. (And this is really quite mild compared to what I've seen and heard on this forum.)

It is typical to resort to ad hominem attacks when you have no real arguments. It is important to keep in mind that for hundreds of years, right up to the early 1980s, it was considered improper (or just plain suicidal) to attack with the arm pulled way back. Was everybody confused about proper fencing until 25 years ago?

Before you start insulting people, take a second to look at the context.

And by the way- when I fence at tournaments, I play by the official rules- but that doesn't mean that I (and a lot of other people) am happy with them. The new timings are a step in the right direction, and let's hope things keep going the right way.

And let's discuss this without being rude,