Athletes' Handbook Changes for the 2006-2007 Season

[downunder]

oso,

the attack does not require footwork.

[oso97]

Downunder,

Do actually read the rulebook, instead of going by memory.

Given that all discussions of the attack in the rulebook include a mention of a lunge, advance lunge, fleche or advance fleche, and there is no mention of an attack by extension only that I can find (I could be mistaken, in which case please do show me the rule!), the attack should include one of these components. Counterattacks, ripostes and various types of stop hits don't include mention of footwork, and therefore, may be made with extension only.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by oso97

Downunder,

Do actually read the rulebook, instead of going by memory.

Given that all discussions of the attack in the rulebook include a mention of a lunge, advance lunge, fleche or advance fleche, and there is no mention of an attack by extension only that I can find (I could be mistaken, in which case please do show me the rule!), the attack should include one of these components. Counterattacks, ripostes and various types of stop hits don't include mention of footwork, and therefore, may be made with extension only.

I frequently make an attack on a preperation with no footwork. that is to say, by doing false temps, I get my opponent to add a preparatory step at the wrong time and hit them with an extension during that step. I'm going backward right up until I extend (at which point I'm standing still), and frequently finish without any forward footwork.

every referee I've ever had calls this an "Attack in Preparation," not a counter-Attack, not a stop-hit.

Regardless, I agree with the general point that footwork is integral to an attack. If at the fence command, I do an advance lunge attack and my opponent stands still and slowly extends and we both hit, I will get the touch. I'll take it a step further: even if I do double advance lunge and he does simple extension, I'm going to get the touch. and I should, IMO.

-m

[oso97]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

I frequently make an attack on a preperation with no footwork. that is to say, by doing false temps, I get my opponent to add a preparatory step at the wrong time and hit them with an extension during that step. I'm going backward right up until I extend (at which point I'm standing still), and frequently finish without any forward footwork.

every referee I've ever had calls this an "Attack in Preparation," not a counter-Attack, not a stop-hit.

-m

Excellent maneuver. One I utilize myself, teach my students and call all the time. Still though, Mike, its an "Attack in Preparation" ... not an outright "Attack". See the difference? We all get a bit lazy, and the referee handbook and English translation thereof assist in this, and we call it an "Attack in Preparation" when in reality, its a "Stop hit in Preparation" (read t.76(f) what you describe is a textbook example of this). I say this not to be overly semantic, and focused too much on verbage, but as an outgrowth of the discussion with Inq about what it means to be offensive. What you're doing in this action, if you take a moment to think about it is not doing an initial offensive action, you're doing an action that takes advantage of a mistake in the opponents initial offensive action. Doesn't make it any less valid, doesn't make it any less proper, doesn't make it any less having ROW, but its NOT the initial action. Your opponent did that. And then he screwed up.

Is perhaps a bit more clarity called for in our words? Perhaps. Charlie W. had a discussion with me in Atlanta about not just saying "remise" for a continuation, but utilizing "reprise and redoublement" as appropriate. This was concerning foil, but the idea transfers over, I would surmise.

[KD5MDK]

Ahh, now I see your point. Quite so indeed. Probably something for the referee development committee to address - Greg? Damon? Bill? Is the referenced instruction meant only to apply to situations where one is determining if the offensive action was a beat attack or should be interpreted as the defenders parry by virtue of where it arrived on the blade (and thus, all parry ripostes are valid irregardless of where the contact initiated) OR should the referenced instructions apply to ALL meetings of the blade that are not incidental contact?

I believe it was at Rocky Mountain Sectionals, but it was somewhere I heard Bill explain that this only applied to beats. Parries can occur on any part of the blade, by any part of the blade.

[oso97]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I believe it was at Rocky Mountain Sectionals, but it was somewhere I heard Bill explain that this only applied to beats. Parries can occur on any part of the blade, by any part of the blade.

Right, I know the "correct" answer. But, (as much as it galls me) Inq is correct, the referee handbook seems to give a different idea.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by oso97

Numerous restatements of the same point over and over again, as if their sheer repetition will overwhelm the other side (a useful rhetorical technique, if the other side is not paying attention).

Rather, an attempt to be clear. You seemed to misunderstand a number of points I was trying to make in my first post, so I am trying to be painstaking in my explanations from now on, by phrasing the points several different ways...

The crux of the matter seems to be this question - can one be offensive if the entirety of one's body and all the component parts are directed in the direction away from the opponent? The consensus of this among the referee community is no, you can't.

Och! I now perceive that the problem isn't that I'm not being clear, but that you aren't bothering to read carefully enough!

I said nothing about "away from the opponent". Not anywhere. You are refuting an argument that exists only in your imagination!

I have said, umpteen times, only that "you must be moving forward" is a condition added by the Handbook to those laid out in the rules. As such it is a conflict with the rules, and has no force beyond referees' willingness to give it force. It is extraneous, and if an appeal were made on that basis only what is in the rule itself would pertain. A call made and justified on the grounds that a fencer was not "moving toward his opponent" and thus was not attacking is clearly wrong, according to the rules.

I never said that because moving toward the opponent was not required the opposite was permissible...

But, you seem to be arguing that the hand only should be considered in judging the attack.

Absolutely. Because that is all the rules explicitly say. All the rest has come from people reading extra things into them.

footwork is clearly assume to be happening.

When we are talking about rules, there is no place for assuming. I refer you to the old cliché about what happens when you assume.

Again, the flunge is nowhere mentioned in the rules regarding sabre attacks. It's "preceding the lunge", not "preceding the lunge or flunge". But you will see a score by flunge called as an attack. You will call it so yourself. How can that be justified, if it's not mentioned in the rule?

I think it is safe to conclude that an attack must be composed of both footwork and bladework.

Then I will ask you again: What do you call a scoring cut made by a fencer without performing any footwork?

I have watched Ed Korfanty assume a guard of quinte and stand quite still as his opponent advances into distance and hesitates---either confused by the guard or intinidated by Ed's reputation---whereupon Ed just cuts. Without stepping forward. Without lunging. Standing still. Eg, no footwork.

I would call that an attack, and so would you. Where has your conclusion about "must be composed of both footwork and bladework" gone now?

Note: Discussions of ripostes do not include the phrase "proceeding the initiation of the lunge" or any other mention of footwork, therefore a riposte may be made without footwork. Not so for an attack.

Actually not so.

t.7 The offensive actions are the attack, the riposte and the counterriposte.
— The attack is the initial offensive action made by extending the arm and continuously threatening the opponent’s target, preceding the launching of the lunge or flèche (cf. t.56ss, t.75ss).
— The riposte is the offensive action made by the fencer who has parried the attack.

The riposte is merely a subset of the attack. It's an attack made after a parry. As such it requires all of the conditions of the attack to exist, and must follow all its conditions. Otherwise a referee could not justify applying those conditions, as is currently done. Ie if no extension is specified, a riposte can be correctly made with a bent arm. Etc.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

footwork is integral to an attack.

Certainly, especially in sabre.

It is however not an invariable condition.

If at the fence command, I do an advance lunge attack and my opponent stands still and slowly extends and we both hit, I will get the touch. I'll take it a step further: even if I do double advance lunge and he does simple extension, I'm going to get the touch. and I should, IMO.

In both cases you have started first, and should get the attack...because you have started first.

Assuming you haven't come into A-L distance without extending, you cannot but have started first.

But if you are in A-L distance and have NOT started to extend before your motionless opponent, that is a double.

[contre-Sixte]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Assuming you haven't come into A-L distance without extending, you cannot but have started first.

Congratulations, not quite a triple negative, but more than a double.

Simplification: Assuming you have come into A-L distance while extending, you must have started first.

[Inquartata]

Now look, you, I go to a great deal of trouble filling these rooms with smoke and mirrors...

[notalent]

As soon as you find me a dicription of a lunge in the rules so i can see that a flunge isnt a lunge I we can talk.

[Inquartata]

I'm not sure which point you're talking about specifically there, but the footnote to the Glossary saith "It is stressed that this section in no way replaces a treatise on fencing and is only included in order to help the reader to understand the Rules". Check any "treatise on fencing". Any one at all. It will answer your question.

Of course, I have yet to see a fencing book which mentions the flunge, inasmuch as the last sabre manual that came out predates the advent of the electric system. But anyway.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by notalent

As soon as you find me a dicription of a lunge in the rules so i can see that a flunge isnt a lunge I we can talk.

As soon as you find me a definition of an arm in the rules so i can see that a leg isn't an arm I we can talk.