Vezzali vs Lamanova YouTube ROW question

[CvilleFencer]

Touch right. Why are all the good fencing clips in Italian? Just not fair...

[edew]

Touch for Lamanova. There was a touch given to Lamanova (I think Lamanova's 11th point) where Vezzali was shaking her fist at the referee and was pissed at the call, that I think could have gone to Vezzali. It looked like Lamanova attempted a beat, but there was no beat. Vezzali attacked at the moment of the beat, so technically, it was Vezzali's point. I think what happened was that the referee saw the beat movement by Lamanova and inferred that she did indeed make the beat. At normal speed, that's what it looked like. In the slo-mo that the showed afterwards, it appeared that Vezzali's blade was never contacted upon. I didn't rewind and go slo-mo separately so it could all be a matter of my perspective.

[Baldric]

So where is the rule that says you can withdraw your arm during an attack and still retain priority?

You can't.

The comparison with a parry-reposte is not a valid one. In the case of a parry, the hand and arm are often legitimately moving backwards, and sometimes continue to do so after blade contact, but as part of the parry. But once the forward movement of the reposte starts, it must be continuous - otherwise its not the reposte, its a remise of the reposte.

I would have made the same call as the ref in real time. But in slow-mo its "Attack right, incorrect. Attack left, touche. Point left."

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Baldric

The comparison with a parry-reposte is not a valid one. In the case of a parry, the hand and arm are often legitimately moving backwards, and sometimes continue to do so after blade contact, but as part of the parry. But once the forward movement of the reposte starts, it must be continuous - otherwise its not the reposte, its a remise of the reposte.

You're saying that it would only have been her touch if it was a parry, not a beat?

In other words, had she been attacking less (so the blade contact was defensive), she would have had right of way?

[forethought]

Originally Posted by Baldric

So where is the rule that says you can withdraw your arm during an attack and still retain priority?

t.56 section 'a', point 4:

Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are
executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks
but as preparations, laying themselves open to the
initiation of the offensive or defensive/offensive action
of the opponent (cf. t.8).

Oh wait, that actually says the opposite...

But then again, I'm a guy who likes the Italian grip, so my opinion is less than worthless

[Baldric]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

You're saying that it would only have been her touch if it was a parry, not a beat?

In other words, had she been attacking less (so the blade contact was defensive), she would have had right of way?

No, I am not saying that. Another poster made the comparison, I was just highlighting the fact that a parry reposte is constructed differently from an attack.

It would have been point right if a) she had not withdrawn her arm and therefore would have executed a correct beat attack, or if b) her final action had commenced before Vezzalis attack.

Since she didn't do either, then right has executed an incorrect attack. Her opponent has attacked her properly, with ROW and therefore gets the point.

[Gav]

I am a bit confused by all of the to and froing in this thread. Which point is being discussed? I thought it was sequence at 10-10 that gives right a 10-11 lead.

So I am going to cut to the chase.

Right clearly beats. Without a doubt.

But then she withdraws her hand...

At which point left attacks in.

Priority is with the straightening arm...

So why did right get the hit?

Is this the hit that is being debated?

As usual (with these sorts of threads) people have stared talking about completely irrelevent things that makes the discussion hard to follow.

And that makes me grumpy.

[IanSerotkin]

Originally Posted by Gav

I am a bit confused by all of the to and froing in this thread.

So why did right get the hit?

Because the FIE referee in the video knows what he's doing!

This thread has killed twelve kittens. I give up.

[formerfencer]

I watched the video and actually went back to the original post to make sure that the touch that was being questioned was the one I just watched.

Really? This is a question?
Beat-attack for Lamanova. All day, all night.

Thanks for the link... I really enjoyed the bout!

[Gav]

Originally Posted by IanSerotkin

Because the nice FIE referee in the video knows what he's doing! Seriously, this thread has killed twelve kittens. I give up.

Yeah but Ian what hit is being discussed????

[Dev]

I'm confused, but in the other direction. Lamanova clearly takes the beat; why should Vezzali be awarded right-of-way for throwing herself at somebody who obviously took priority with a blade action?

I understand why she might do it--it's a gamble that Lamanova might not be prepared to finish, especially if the latter was thinking in terms of a longer attack. But in this case, Vezzali gambled and lost: Lamanova was still in position to finish the attack regardless of the collapsed distance. Touch right.

But I'm a nobody. I imagine all of our UK visitors arguing the other way are "somebodies"?

[IanSerotkin]

Originally Posted by Gav

Yeah but Ian what hit is being discussed????

The touch at 10-10 that made it 11-10 for Lamanova.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Gav

I am a bit confused by all of the to and froing in this thread.

So I am going to cut to the chase.

Right clearly beats. Without a doubt.

But then she withdraws her hand...

At which point left attacks in.

Priority is with the straightening arm...

So why did right get the hit?

....because Vezzali did not close distance on the withdrawal but on the beat.

If you make the call the other way and give Vezzali the point you are saying that if the opponent does not give you space to extend your arm after the beat you cannot make a beat attack.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by keith

....because Vezzali did not close distance on the withdrawal but on the beat.

EDIT: I've watched the clip loads of times now and I am not convinced. It looks 50-50 (for Vezzali attacking into the beat) but that is just my interpretation.
The most important interpretation in this is the ref's - and his interpretation gives the hit; and given his better experience I would have to concede... Quite tellingly (for me) Vezzali doesn't contest or complain at all.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Dev

I'm confused, but in the other direction. Lamanova clearly takes the beat; why should Vezzali be awarded right-of-way for throwing herself at somebody who obviously took priority with a blade action?

I think that this describes my opinion best.

You can quote the rules all you want, but it doesn't make sense if a fencer always has right of way as long as they collapse distance fast enough so that their opponent can't extend.

[Baldric]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I think that this describes my opinion best.

You can quote the rules all you want, but it doesn't make sense if a fencer always has right of way as long as they collapse distance fast enough so that their opponent can't extend.

So your opinion outranks the rules?

[Mauler]

Originally Posted by Dev

I'm confused, but in the other direction. Lamanova clearly takes the beat; why should Vezzali be awarded right-of-way for throwing herself at somebody who obviously took priority with a blade action?

I understand why she might do it--it's a gamble that Lamanova might not be prepared to finish, especially if the latter was thinking in terms of a longer attack. But in this case, Vezzali gambled and lost: Lamanova was still in position to finish the attack regardless of the collapsed distance. Touch right.

But I'm a nobody. I imagine all of our UK visitors arguing the other way are "somebodies"?

Rep.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Baldric

So your opinion outranks the rules?

as a general observation; the rules are interpreted through the oracle we mere mortals lack the the intellectual rigour to divulge their true meaning on our own.

The only catch is that the oracle tends to change its mind every now and then...........

[Demitrios]

Good call by the ref. Following the beat, the point goes directly to the target without pause or hesitation. The arm stops extending only to adjust for the change in distance. Clear case of action, and reaction. Attack, counter-attack. Vezzali is the one taking the chance. Lamanova never hesitates or wiavers. She only adjusts her original plan to accommodate the change.

[the ancient one]

Originally Posted by Foilling Around

What a load of "twaddle" how can extending mean moving backwards! The direction the body is moving has to be divorced from wha the arm is doing.

Of course targets move, they move to disrupt the attack and that is what Vezalli did.

t56d: Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed
with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations,
laying themselves open to the initiation of the offensive or
defensive/offensive action of the opponent

I appreciate your comment, but please note that (famously) t7, t56 do not even say which arm must be extended.

Seriously, on the surface it seem obvious what "extending" means, and clearly a great many people sensibly think "straightening" is an exactly equivalent term; but is it appropriate to do so? Perhaps a better choice in light of current FIE practice would be "advancing the point towards the opponents valid surface".

Another note: the 10-9 point shows Lamanova make the identical beat attack and score with the difference that Vezzali does not close distance (as much) to avoid the hit. Vezzali's intentions are clear, but unfortunately she gets hit yet again by effectively the same action on the 10-10 point.

If Vezzali instead of closing distance ducked at the beat and Lamanova directed her point downward and hit directly, how would you call the action? And if she jumped up, and Lamanova bent the elbow to stay on target and hit? Displacing left, right etc... but not forward?