Missed Attack?

[Fencer987]

One of my strategies during a bout is lunging to the side of my opponet making him/her think that I will strike them there, but instead I quickly retreating avoiding sword contact then lunging back at them on the other side very quickly. The judges always count that as a missed attack halting the bout to explain their judgements of a successful/unsuccessful/none attack, counter attack, ect. Of course, the judges in my certain group are of the ages between 9 and 11. Is it really necessary to count that as a missed attack even though I did not aim for him/her and missed it on purpose?

[seven6ty]

Well, it certainly sounds like an attack. And it doesn't sound like it was successful... What else would you call it?

[peet]

-


Yes.




But in more words:

It sounds like your intent is to deceive your opponent into thinking you will attack in one place, and then actually attack in another. Unfortunately, the way you are doing it is considered by the rules to be two attacks, not one. A better way to do it would be to feint and disengage, all in one advance-lunge attack, instead of doing two separate lunges. Talk to your coach about feint-disengage.

HTH,


-p

[oiuyt]

Here's the issue I have with the OP description:

"halting the bout"

The referee calls halt without a hit being scored?

-B

[peet]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Here's the issue I have with the OP description:

"halting the bout"

The referee calls halt without a hit being scored?

-B

Uhh... I guess I just assumed that a touch was scored in there somewhere (by the OP's opponent) that we weren't told about explicitly.

Fencer987, was that not right?

-p

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Here's the issue I have with the OP description:

"halting the bout"

The referee calls halt without a hit being scored?

-B

Possibly, at FASF. They do things funny there, from viewing their fencers.

That said, I suspect he's getting hit by his opponent's counter-attack {before, during, after} his reprise.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by Fencer987

Is it really necessary to count that as a missed attack even though I missed it on purpose?

It is still a miss if you miss on purpose. It is still a preparation if you prepare on purpose. It is still covering if you cover on purpose. It is still a _____ if you _____ on purpose.

The director cannot be expected to see your intent.

[larkmaj]

Originally Posted by Fencer987

One of my strategies during a bout is lunging to the side of my opponet making him/her think that I will strike them there, but instead I quickly retreating avoiding sword contact then lunging back at them on the other side very quickly.

What you are describing is basically a redoublement, which is like a remise except you return to en guarde first. It is a "missed" attack and you need to be prepared to either avoid, or parry your opponents blade.

By 987's description, it sounds like they're halting the bout without a touch, this isn't dry by any chance?

[HDG]

Originally Posted by Fencer987

Is it really necessary to count that as a missed attack even though I did not aim for him/her and missed it on purpose?

By what means is the referee to determine your intent?

[edew]

Originally Posted by larkmaj

What you are describing is basically a redoublement, which is like a remise except you return to en guarde first. It is a "missed" attack and you need to be prepared to either avoid, or parry your opponents blade.

By 987's description, it sounds like they're halting the bout without a touch, this isn't dry by any chance?

A redoublement is recovering forward to make another offensive action. A reprise is recovering backward to make another offensive action. A remise is continuation of the original offensive action after it has lost its right of way (because of being parried, usually).

[KD5MDK]

USFA Rulebook, t.8 (d)

(d) Other offensive actions
1. The remise
A simple and immediate offensive action which follows the
original attack, without withdrawing the arm, after the opponent
has parried or retreated, when the latter has either quitted contact
with the blade without riposting or has made a riposte which is
delayed, indirect or compound.
2. The redoublement
A new action, either simple or compound, made against an
opponent who has parried without riposting or who has merely
avoided the first action by retreating or displacing the target.
3. The reprise of the attack
A new attack executed immediately after a return to the on-guard
position.

[ysbadadden]

In the Italian school, a radoppio, I believe, is a recover forward--lunge. The problem comes from the fact that "radoppio" means "redoublement." So Italian school coaches, and their lineage, which includes a lot of Hungarians, and their lineage, explain that a redouble is a recover-forward lunge. In other words, the Italians and their numerous progeny call a redouble what the rulebook calls a reprise.

[larkmaj]

Originally Posted by edew

A redoublement is recovering forward to make another offensive action. A reprise is recovering backward to make another offensive action. A remise is continuation of the original offensive action after it has lost its right of way (because of being parried, usually).

My bad. I get those two confused, though I never forget the remise.

[parrythis]

Originally Posted by seven6ty

Well, it certainly sounds like an attack. And it doesn't sound like it was successful... What else would you call it?

I would call it a "second intention attack". The idea is to make your opponent believe you are attacking but your real intention is to draw a response. Once your opponent responds, you do something with that response (beat, bind, etc.) and finish the attack.

If neither fencer is landing a touche, the bout should not be halted, even if the attack is perceived as a "miss".