Marches, and memos, and directors Oh My!

[french grip foilist]

While competeting in a de bout during summer nationals i lost seven touches on one action that was controversial to say the least. The action was I advanced stopped did a one two then lunged at the kid left my arm out after i finished my lunge he countered into my extended arm and the director called it attack couterattack attack lands and gave it to the kid. I asked the director why he called it that way and he gave me that look that only directors can give the " you just challenged the director now your going to lose the bout for sure. I asked other directors about the call and this is what i got. According to some directors the FIE has released a new memo that states when the foot stops in foil the attack stops. My coached talked to the bout comitee and they said it was still an iffy call. So to compensate for this rule my coach and I worked on marches. Now when I finally started doing marches with small advances and the arm extending, the directors called it a stutter step and gave the right away to the other guy. The director the next day called it exactly the same as the other guy, and the Next director said quote " I technically dont have to listen to that memo becuase i am a director in the USFA and there for not governed by the FIE memos" Then I say what I hoped to never see again in foil fencing, any foilist whose been around for at least a year has probably seen this attack and been frustrated to no end. Fencer A starts advancing down the strip after beating his opponents blade with his hand in the air and his tip pointed at the ceiling or with abscence of the blade. Fencer B attacks into Fencer A and hits. Fencer A sees fencer B's attacks and counterattacks and hits. Fencer A gets the right of way " becuase he made the beat first" (quoted from many incompetent directors at nationals) once again argument against this call and even stating a line from the rule book that says right of way is the hand coming away from the body establishing a valid threat only gets me and my coach a death glance from the director, and possibly an enemy for life. I read one of the articles in the new American Fencer magazine that talked about the age of duck and cover and how we might have to get rid of foil fencing. I at first disagreed but then realeased how true it was. I really dont want to switch to epee but if the directors at nationals are this incompent ( at least some of them, I have seen both sides of the spectrum when It comes to good and bad directing at nationals, and the bad side was pretty bad and inconsistant) then i might have to kiss foil fencing goodbye.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Assuming the director made the wrong call, the first time was his mistake, the SIX OTHER TIMES were your mistake. If the director has called the action the same way 6 times, you're crazy to think it'll be different the seventh. It's harder to win with a director who won't see an action, it's stupid to lose because you're too stubborn to try something that they MIGHT see.

Directing is a mixed bag everywhere, not just national events. Right of Way weapons will ALWAYS have good and bad refs, and you have to learn to deal with that. Ask better questions- "when did i lose right of way", or "was there blade contact" or things like that are always better than "but why??"

It's often nice to make smalltalk with the ref beforehand, figure out what weapon they fence. Sabre fencers who aren't experience foil directors will often notice the foot fall and take it into account because it's part of the rule in sabre, even if they don't notice it. Sabre fencers will often get hung up on parry/beat in sabre. Similarly, foilists reffing sabre will have similar but different ways they're more likely to miscall things.

It's ROW--- part of it is doing the action, part of it is showing the action clearly enough for people to figure it out. That's the game.

Epee refs are, in my experience, much worse on average at the average local tournament than ROW refs, because they'll get people who don't fence epee to ref. They won't know how to test weapons, or what happens at 4-4 when the bout goes to time, or what the hell just happened if two people hit points-- but since they can ref other things, they (obviously) can ref epee...... Just because most of the time it doesn't affect the tournament doesn't mean that a fencer doesn't notice you don't know how to test a weapon!


Also?????

Try paragraph breaks. Otherwise no one has any idea what the hell you're talking about.

[catwood1]

The type of action you described is one you see from many fencers of all skill levels. Some referees will call this as attack for A, some will call this attack in preparation for B. Personally I call it as attack for A, but I can understand both sides. Either way, so long as a referee calls it consistently, I have very little problem with it. If you perform an action once and don't get the call, maybe the ref missed the call and you try it again. However, if you try it a second time and still it gets called against you, you should realize that the ref sees what you are doing, and does not consider that an "attack" so you need to change your action.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

Assuming the director made the wrong call, the first time was his mistake, the SIX OTHER TIMES were your mistake. If the director has called the action the same way 6 times, you're crazy to think it'll be different the seventh. It's harder to win with a director who won't see an action, it's stupid to lose because you're too stubborn to try something that they MIGHT see.

I'd say the first two times are the ref's fault, and the remaining five are FGF's. If a ref makes a call I view as a clear error, I assume he has made a mistake, not that my understanding of RoW is fundamentally in conflict with my director's. If the director does it a second time I probably won't try it again. In pools that can be a problem, because you don't want to give up any touches, but there's no excuse for losing a DE like that.

It's often nice to make smalltalk with the ref beforehand, figure out what weapon they fence. Sabre fencers who aren't experience foil directors will often notice the foot fall and take it into account because it's part of the rule in sabre, even if they don't notice it. Sabre fencers will often get hung up on parry/beat in sabre. Similarly, foilists reffing sabre will have similar but different ways they're more likely to miscall things.

Isn't the foot hitting the ground also applicable to foil? I know it's not written explicitly like saber, but I've had level 3 ref call my attack a remise because my foot hit first (at least I think that's why, I didn't miss).

Also, FGF, if every director you have calls the action opposite how your coach thinks it should be called, I'm going to say common wisdom says your coach is feeding you bull****.

I know some good fencers, and I know a lot of bad fencers. Somehow the good fencers usually have good directors, and the bad fencers usually end up with terrible directors. Maybe you see where I'm going with this.

[jeff]

Paragraph breaks are good advice...

Also: french grip foilist, you might want to consider the possibility that you were wrong (not just on the following 6 touches, as MP says, but on all of them). You said you "advanced stopped did a one two then lunged". At the point you stopped you definitely had no ROW.

After the lunge you say "left my arm out after i finished my lunge". Well, it might make intuitive sense that this is still your ROW, but that's not how it works. It's hard to be precise without seeing it, but based on your description: your attack was over after the lunge, so you had no ROW at that point. The "kid" then attacked and you counter attacked into it. Correct call. See the page at the Fencing Officials Commission "Handbook for Referees" http://www.fencingofficials.org/Info...tml#_Toc976816
Especially see the sentence "Your attack ends when it misses, is parried, or falls short."

Also look at the sentence "is going toward your opponent’s valid target ... It is a very common misconception that, for example, a foil attack requires the point to be "aimed" at the valid target before an attack starts." I personally think this is interpreted too loosely by many referees, but this is a gray area and you shouldn't assume the refs are incompetent. How long have you been at this?

[peet]

FGF:

I have some feedback regarding the issues in your original post, but most of them relate to my perception of the depth of your experience with national competition. My perception may or may not be accurate, so before I post a more complete reply, may I ask:

How much national competition have you done? How many tournaments? How many years?

I'm asking only so I don't reply based on false assumptions.


cheers-
-p

[keith]

Originally Posted by french grip foilist

.... According to some directors the FIE has released a new memo that states when the foot stops in foil the attack stops........So to compensate for this rule my coach and I worked on marches.

of course he could have just told you to parry riposte

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by french grip foilist

...

That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

-m

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

-m

yes, yes it does.

but it'll probably be a while before you convince FGF of that....

[forethought]

FGF, I'll try to help explain some things, but it's going to take a lot of assumption on my part, so bear with me. It sounds like you expected to earn RoW by keeping your arm extended at the end of your lunge, expecting your opponent to beat it (or remove your point some other way) before they attacked, a situation called Point in Line (henceforth, PiL). PiL is a funny thing these days, since it's one of my favorite things to do to people (put up a PiL, wait for them to set and beat at the same time, derobe, they run into my blade), but it is also one of the most inconsistent parts of RoW I've come across.

PiL is covered in definition very briefly in the rules, t.10:

The point in-line position is a specific position in which the fencer’s
sword arm is kept straight and the point of his weapon continually
threatens his opponent’s valid target.

It is also covered in a bit more detail in the Referee Handbook:

The point in line exists as the highest level of priority. If it is established correctly, the opponent must avoid it, remove it, or have the fencer with the point in line to no longer have the point in line.

A point in line exists when a fencer has the following conditions met prior to an opponent’s attack:
- weapon arm fully extended
- a straight line from the point of the weapon to the shoulder
point aimed at valid target
- no movement of the blade except to derobe the opponent’s attempt to find the blade
- is standing still, moving forward, or moving back

Fairly straight-forward. What is not, however, documented in any place that I have been able to find (certainly not on the USFA website, or the Fencing Officials' website), is this strange criteria that pops up amongst most referees in that in order to be properly established, a PiL must be made outside of advance-lunge distance. The reason for this, I don't know. Personally, I think a spacial requirement is a bit ridiculous, the temporal requirement is more than sufficient.

Now, some referees will say that it also takes a single fencing tempo to establish PiL, which is perfectly fine, and it may have been that your arm was not straight for a single fencing tempo and that your opponent started their action before a fencing tempo passed. If that was the case, it would've been nice if the referee had told you that, or simply "The attack fails, PiL not established in time, attack right/left arrives". That would've at least given you some idea as to what part of your action the referee determined lost you RoW.

Like erooMynohtnA said, the first few calls could've been you trying to determine how the referee was calling RoW, but if you really want to win, after that it's pointless to stick to your guns and keep doing the same thing over and over again. The only thing I can offer for advice is that a parry-riposte is something that usually will be a bit more in your favor in a situation like that, or learn to counterattack with opposition

Also, if anyone is privy to alleged FIE memo about the attack stopping with the foot in foil, I know I, and I'm sure others, would be exceptionally grateful to have it shared (in the original French, if at all possible).

[Durando]

The FIE's definition of an attack:

t.7 Définition:
t.7.1 Les différentes actions offensives sont l'attaque, la riposte et la contre-riposte.
- L'attaque est l'action offensive initiale exécutée en allongeant le bras et menaçant continuellement la surface valable de l'adversaire, précédant le déclenchement de la fente ou de la flèche (Cf. t.56 ss,
t.75 ss).

It's the last adverbial which denies the original poster RoW: "précédant le déclenchement de la fente ou de la flèche." Prepare your attack however you want, but if preparation isn't followed by a lunge or a flèche, erm, it isn't an attack. By fgf's own depcition of the action, he made some preparatory footwork , stopped, before making what had, by then, become a counterattack. The referee's call doesn't seem at all mysterious.

Also, fgf, this is an épéeist's question to you: if the action wasn't working, why on earth didn't you adopt different tactics? You seem to want to submit all arbitrage at nationals to question. If this isn't the case, then I apologize. If it is you might want to think a little more about your experiences.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Durando

The FIE's definition of an attack:

t.7 Définition:
t.7.1 Les différentes actions offensives sont l'attaque, la riposte et la contre-riposte.
- L'attaque est l'action offensive initiale exécutée en allongeant le bras et menaçant continuellement la surface valable de l'adversaire, précédant le déclenchement de la fente ou de la flèche (Cf. t.56 ss,
t.75 ss).

It's the last adverbial which denies the original poster RoW: "précédant le déclenchement de la fente ou de la flèche." Prepare your attack however you want, but if preparation isn't followed by a lunge or a flèche, erm, it isn't an attack. By fgf's own depcition of the action, he made some preparatory footwork , stopped, before making what had, by then, become a counterattack. The referee's call doesn't seem at all mysterious.

Also, fgf, this is an épéeist's question to you: if the action wasn't working, why on earth didn't you adopt different tactics? You seem to want to submit all arbitrage at nationals to question. If this isn't the case, then I apologize. If it is you might want to think a little more about your experiences.

You're wrong. So very badly wrong. I guess flunges in sabre certainly arn't attacks then.

Regardless here: http://www.leonpaul.com/download/rules/Refs.htm

is a referee's guide written by 2 senior referees that states: There was a heated debate at a recent FIE Referee’s Seminar (in Rome prior to the Cadet and Junior World Championships held in Hungary) about how you would attack the back shoulder and it was agreed that the point would need to be raised a little to allow this, but that if it was pointing at the ceiling, with the arm in a vertical position, then this was not an attack. It was added that the attack could be delivered with no foot movements, or with a step forward, a lunge, a step and lunge or a fleche (at foil).

[Durando]

Originally Posted by downunder

You're wrong. So very badly wrong. I guess flunges in sabre certainly arn't attacks then.

Regardless here: http://www.leonpaul.com/download/rules/Refs.htm

is a referee's guide written by 2 senior referees that states: There was a heated debate at a recent FIE Referee’s Seminar (in Rome prior to the Cadet and Junior World Championships held in Hungary) about how you would attack the back shoulder and it was agreed that the point would need to be raised a little to allow this, but that if it was pointing at the ceiling, with the arm in a vertical position, then this was not an attack. It was added that the attack could be delivered with no foot movements, or with a step forward, a lunge, a step and lunge or a fleche (at foil).

Congrats on the record time before contradicting my post! So, what you're saying is that there is some disagreement between FIE rules and practice. I'm willing to accept that. However, someone upthread asked about the FIE's definition. What follows is my interpretation of the rule based on fgf's description of his own action. I certainly defer to your experience if not your vitriol.

The fact that a nonofficial 2003 referee's guide seems to contradict 2007 FIE regulations doesn't surprise me. The excerpt that you posted seems to be an effort to explain a subtle and employed action according to existing terminology. Again, as an epeeist, I attack all the time with a simple extension and the FIE's definition doesn't seem to account for this rather common way of attacking.

Good question about the flunge. I don't know that it's yet included in official terminology except as a subset of the lunge. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Oh, you forgot to add the line following from the LP guide:
"The FIE have asked foil referees to be as strict in their interpretation of the attack as sabre referees. This continues to be a difficult area."

[downunder]

Just an observation that attack is dependent on the first extension hand threatening the target. Whilst this often precedes a fleche or lunge it is not a requirement. Why would you penalise an attacking fencer whose opponent closes the distance so that they are unable to lunge?




Anyways I tend to find that french grip foilists in general arn't nearly as good as they think they are. It sounds like he stopped and prepared and then the other kid probably lunged into it. Tough luck.





Fencer A starts advancing down the strip after beating his opponents blade with his hand in the air and his tip pointed at the ceiling or with abscence of the blade. Fencer B attacks into Fencer A and hits. Fencer A sees fencer B's attacks and counterattacks and hits. Fencer A gets the right of way " becuase he made the beat firs


More often than not, Fencer A gets right of way because Fencer B doesn't hit before Fencer A starts extending.

[Durando]

Originally Posted by downunder

Just an observation that attack is dependent on the first extension hand threatening the target. Whilst this often precedes a fleche or lunge it is not a requirement. Why would you penalise an attacking fencer whose opponent closes the distance so that they are unable to lunge?

I have always wondered why. I did hear a nice nonofficial definition of the convention. I translate, perhaps poorly: The adversary's extention has to be deflected before you can extend. Tout bras allongé de la'adversaire doit être écarté avant d'avoir le doit d'allonger le sien.

Originally Posted by downunder

Fencer A starts advancing down the strip after beating his opponents blade with his hand in the air and his tip pointed at the ceiling or with abscence of the blade. Fencer B attacks into Fencer A and hits. Fencer A sees fencer B's attacks and counterattacks and hits. Fencer A gets the right of way " becuase he made the beat firs

More often than not, Fencer A gets right of way because Fencer B doesn't hit before Fencer A starts extending.

Yeah, I've seen this lots and lots of times. It's a whole other, depressing conversation, that despite the changing norms the notion of what constitutes a threatening point seems to vary enormously.

[Redblade]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

... Also?????

Try paragraph breaks. Otherwise no one has any idea what the hell you're talking about.

I was going to suggest punctuation as well. Not just to be a nitpicky grammarian, but to point out that if you want to be fully understood you've got to be clear in how you express yourself (especially on a complicated issue).

I agree with MP on all the other points, too. You're not just competing against your opponent, you're also performing for the ref.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

yes, yes it does.

but it'll probably be a while before you convince FGF of that....

Not necessarily, unless there's some bandana-wearing going on too...

I think we've beaten up enough on what appears to be a noob. Let's see if he or she posts again or if we've frightened FGF off. For those charitably minded, that provides an opportunity to educate; for the non-charitable, it provides more opportunity for humor...

Oh yeah: PiL is probably the most contentious and least consistently refed action - not helped by the poor wording in the rules. Right up there with the poor wording that doesn't help us consistently define the moments an attack begins and ends, and what constitutes a threat. Pin down those 3 little nitpicking details and the rules would be a useful guide to refereeing!