Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

HerrKleinerFencer · 11-07-2006, 05:07 PM

Hey all,

Got a question on a call I made at a local tournament a little while back. I realize this is one of those calls where you'd have to be there to really understand it, but I'd appreciate some clarification on judging an attack. These were both A-level fencers, so they knew what they were doing.

Fencer X and Fencer Y are at advance-lunge distance. Fencer X makes a small jump forward and immediately begins VERY slowly and continuously extending. A moment after Fencer X begins extending, when his hand is roughly where it would be if he were on guard, Fencer Y makes a simple direct attack. Fencer X finishes at the same tempo he started. Both hit valid.

My question is this: Fencer X's action is defined to be an attack, via the continuous extending motion. However, I judged that Fencer X's intent was to draw some sort of action from Fencer Y, in this case a counter-attack, and score a touch because he started first. I determined this 1) because of the slowness, Fencer Y could have easily parried it at any time and 2) if Fencer X had finished his extension without Fencer Y moving the tip would not have reached Fencer Y. Because Fencer X's action, the motion of an attack, was intended to draw action from his opponent and not to attack, is it still an attack?

Thanks =)

And in case you're curious, I awarded the touch to Fencer Y.

-Andrew

noodle · 11-07-2006, 05:12 PM

attacks aren't defined by intent, although intent does sometimes help us determine who's attacking.

touch X, imo.

counter riposte · 11-07-2006, 05:19 PM

From what you have written, Touch X.

X is attacking. Y is counterattacking (reacting to X's attack) and did nothing to make X's attack no longer an attack.

If you awarded the touch to Y, X must be in preparation of attack.

Fechter1 · 11-07-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noodle

attacks aren't defined by intent, although intent does sometimes help us determine who's attacking.

touch X, imo.

2nd.

2 attacks, X starts first => attack - counterattack, touch X.

FencingKitten · 11-07-2006, 05:23 PM

This peanut gallery member agrees with noodle - touch X.

Basically, I remember a seminar (sabre, not foil) where they addressed the intent issue, and it made the brain of a referee whom I highly respect totally explode. Basically, the objection is that you're not there to judge the intention of the fencer, but to judge the action that happened. What happened (per you) is that X started a continuous valid attack that landed without being deflected.

epeemike81 · 11-07-2006, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HerrKleinerFencer

...because of the slowness, Fencer Y could have easily parried it at any time...

but instead, he chose to counter-attack. dumb choice.

touch x.

a slow attack is still an attack.

-m

annacattiva · 11-07-2006, 05:49 PM

Touch X.

You can be anticipating a counter-attack or a parry, and yet still be attacking. Sure, we'd all like to be able to make a beautiful, clean compound attack in response to an opponent's search, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't get the touch for simply hitting them if the search never comes.

Anna

CvilleFencer · 11-07-2006, 05:56 PM

If as said, touch for X.

rcmatthews · 11-07-2006, 06:18 PM

Yup, fencer Xs intent was to draw an out-of-time counterattack.

keropie · 11-07-2006, 06:20 PM

The only questions I have are:

1) Did fencer X keep moving forward (with his/her feet) or stop? I think that many of us if we saw someone jump forward and begin extending (which clearly won't hit the opponent, mind you) while standing still, we'd think they were trying to establish a line, or something like that, and we'd award the touch to fencer Y. I know I would. However, if fencer X were moving his/her feet forward the whole time, I think just about everyone would give fencer X the touch. So, the question is, did he/she keep moving forward?

2) How did fencers X and Y respond to the call? If fencer X didn't complain, he/she either agreed or knew it was a borderline action. If they went nuts, then who knows.

jBirch · 11-07-2006, 06:32 PM

In foil, this situation is generally attack X, counter-attack Y, touche X. It can also be interpreted as PIL X, attack Y, touche X.

In sabre, this situation is generally, attack X, counter-attack Y, remise X, touche Y. Or PIL X, attack Y, touche X (depending on the distance).

In foil, we also say that the attack must start at a distance that it is possible to hit with a simple action. If the extension starts out of distance, it is PIL, not an attack (and still scores).

Regardless of the intent of the action, fencer X started first and fencer Y responded to that action (with a counter-attack, in this case). Because fencer Y did nothing to stop fencer X from scoring, fencer X wins. Thus is the principal of priority.

Hope this helps.

James.

noodle · 11-07-2006, 06:35 PM

here's a supplemental question -- if fencer X made a lunge with their extension (in distance, which would've allowed for a clean hit on Y), and the lunge started after the extension, would that change the situation? would it be suddenly a clear action?

keropie · 11-08-2006, 12:58 AM

For me, if fencer X completed the extension, then lunged, I'd be tempted to call it the attack for Y, thinking that fencer X was attempting to set a line, and then improved it. However, if fencer X had not completed the extension, I'd almost certainly just call attack from X, as X is making an attack via advance (or jump) lunge.

And of course all of this is why there's always the caveat (as mentioned above) that 'I'd have to see the action to be sure.'

Damon Scaggs · 11-08-2006, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keropie

For me, if fencer X completed the extension, then lunged, I'd be tempted to call it the attack for Y, thinking that fencer X was attempting to set a line, and then improved it. However, if fencer X had not completed the extension, I'd almost certainly just call attack from X, as X is making an attack via advance (or jump) lunge.

And of course all of this is why there's always the caveat (as mentioned above) that 'I'd have to see the action to be sure.'

You can, as you say, "improve" a line and not lose right of way.

KD5MDK · 11-08-2006, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcmatthews

Yup, fencer Xs intent was to draw an out-of-time counterattack.

And he did, which is why he should get the touch.

mrbiggs · 11-08-2006, 01:26 AM

jBirch, I disagree that it could be called point in line. With the tempo in the original question, I don't think the line would have been established. (Y attacked before X finished extending). Y would have to be very slow to attack for such a long time to allow X to continue extending, finish extending fully, and then lunge without hitting.

It was not out of distance by definition because both fencers made simple attacks.

It's just a classic attack-counterattack.

edew · 11-08-2006, 04:32 AM

I would just like to add that it takes lots of practice and training and fencing to be able to do exactly what X did: make a movement that is technically an attack, yet induces the opponent to make the wrong move.

I live to make such actions. For me, the sweetest touch is one where I'm impaled on my opponent's blade; but I also hit, only that I have the right of way. I dare say that it's even more satisfying than hitting a one-lighter. (Of course, the referee better know his stuff and not do what the starter of this thread did and award the touch the wrong way.)

The reason I like it better is because it showed to everyone, especially the opponent (if he realizes it), that I am the one who's pulling the strings. I have the control of the bout. I managed to get him to completely NOT defend his body to allow me free access to the target. You could say that I trojan horsed him.

noodle · 11-08-2006, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keropie

For me, if fencer X completed the extension, then lunged, I'd be tempted to call it the attack for Y, thinking that fencer X was attempting to set a line, and then improved it. However, if fencer X had not completed the extension, I'd almost certainly just call attack from X, as X is making an attack via advance (or jump) lunge.

And of course all of this is why there's always the caveat (as mentioned above) that 'I'd have to see the action to be sure.'

no, no, not completed the extension. while extending, saw that distance wasn't close enough and lunged during the extension.

KD5MDK · 11-08-2006, 09:42 AM

In other words, finished his attack with a lunge? How untraditional...

noodle · 11-08-2006, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

In other words, finished his attack with a lunge? How untraditional...

my point is that if he noticed the distance needed a lunge, and lunged, it would've been more obvious. but if he noticed he didn't need a lunge and so he didn't, why is it any less obvious?