Vezzali vs Lamanova YouTube ROW question

[jeff]

The call seems clearly correct to me as well, for all the reasons cited above. Takes and hits without losing tempo, arm position consistent with distance.

[Baldric]

Originally Posted by 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.

Are we watching the same bout? We are talking about the point that takes the score from 10:10 to 10:11 with 1:02 on the clock. After the beat, Lamanova's arm comes back so far that most of her arm disappears behind her body, and the point goes about 45 degrees up from the plane in which she made the beat.

I can understand why the ref called it right, I would have made the same call in real time. But with slo-mo its clearly not correct. However you interpret the word "extend" it couldn't possibly cover what Lamanova does.

Goodnight from England, its nearly midnight here.

Baldric.

[edew]

Also, if one were to call preparation by Lamanova, then Vezzali's stop-hit has to ARRIVE before the final action, which is the forward movement of the arm. At best, Vezzali's (let's say) attack into preparation arrives just as Lamanova is extending. In reviewing, I'm tempted to say Vezzali's hit land slightly ahead of Lamanova's, chronologically, but certainly not while Lamanova's arm is held back.

Look, there has been plenty of cases where fencer L makes a beat, pulls the arm back and fencer V attacks immediately after having the blade beat. Then, V hits and L tries her best to hit something to hope for a call. Those are clearly points for V.

In this situation, Lamanova clearly took right of way, by making the beat. One could argue that she then immediately loses it by pulling the arm back. But two reasons why this isn't so:

(1) She is clearly pulling the arm in order to get the point in front of the incoming opponent: she is actively trying to make her right-of-way-approved attack land by accommodating an incoming target.

(2) She's no so much pulling the arm as she is making her arm take the scenic route to get to the target.

If one had to criticize Lamanova on her technique, I would say that she shouldn't have lunged before making the beat. If she had slowed down, her beat and then the subsequent extension would have occurred with room. However, if she didn't do what she did, perhaps Vezzali won't have closed distance. In other words, Lamanova had to take the big step in to induce Vezzali's attempt to close distance. Lamanova then had to just make sure she put that point on.

Can anyone now explain how the reeless system works for foil? It seems like they're fencing on carpet instead of metal strips. Do they have to wear the special t-shirts? How is off-target detected? And how is it not detected on the ground?

[jeff]

Also, people can be so darned literal minded, and inappropriately. For example: a beat-coupe involves bending the arm and lifting the point enough to clear the opponents blade (deviating it from target), but it's still a correct attack as long as done without hesitation or delay. If it's a coupe riposte we're discussing, then it's simple and indirect despite the bent arm and the momentary deviating the point from target, as per t.8. A very classical (!) action is the "coupe underneath" in which the blade taking is followed by a circular rotation of the weapon initially in the direction opposite to the opponent. Done without hesitation it is still a correctly executed prise de fer or riposte, even though the arm is bent, and point briefly facing away from target - and it's been called that way for a century. t.60(c) helps.

So it is in this video clip as well. Context of the rules counts.

[edew]

Originally Posted by Baldric

Goodnight from England, its nearly midnight here.

Baldric.

So the sun finally sets on the empire?

[downunder]

It's a beat attack.

[edew]

By whom?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Baldric

So your opinion outranks the rules?

No, the logic of fencing outranks the rules.

As has been pointed out numerous times, the rules do not specify what arm must extend to constitute an attack. Therefore, your camp could interpret it as the attack is correctly executed when the fencer is extending any arm.

However, we don't do that because it would make no sense while actually fencing. In the same way, calling a beat attack against a fencer simply because their opponent closed the distance for a poorly executed remise would not make any sense in terms of actual fencing actions. I'd go as far as to say that it would ruin foil if called consistently the way you're suggesting.

Also, it's not the Bible. We can change the rules. The rules are a reflection of how fencing is done, and not the other way around. People tend to forget that way too much--and more often then not, it's because they have their own version of how things "should" be called.

[OROD]

This is very clearly Lamanova's touch. You must be smoking some good stuff if you dont see it.

.

[rocky]

Adding to the chorus, I agree with the ref. Beat attack from Lamanova. End of story. Vezzali's action arrives much too late for it to be anything other than a counter attack.

[Joe biebel]

The beat attack by Lamanova was just that, a beat attack. Just like with a parry-riposte, sometimes, due to the distance closing, the hit must be made while withdrawing the arm to get the point on the target. This does not lose priority unless there is more than 1 tempo involved. Clearly Lamanova managed to finish in a single action.

Vezzali tries to "get inside" the attack. I did not see Vezzali as trying to steal priority, but rather as trying to avoid the hit by closing the distance. I can not see how this could be rewarded. If you are going to close or counterattack you must not get hit. You can quote specifics from the rules book regarding priority, but the rules book is a poor referee.

Or as "Downunder" would say, "It's a beat attack".

[downunder]

Originally Posted by edew

By whom?

By the fencer that beats the blade










(Lamanova)

[TooLoftheDeviL]

There is no question in my mind that the referee made the correct call.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by OROD

This is very clearly Lamanova's touch. You must be smoking some good stuff if you dont see it.

.

Quoted for truth.

(Also, Watchmen quotes FTW)

[Durando]

Originally Posted by Foilling Around

But the arm doesn't keep extending, in fact it withdraws, so how is it one continuous attack!!

I thought the FIE were trying to get away from this point going towards the target because the feet were taking it there business!!

At 10-10, if you don't have some idea of how the ref is going to call a beat attack you should probably be fencing another weapon.

[Joe biebel]

Perhaps this analogy will help. If your opponant retreats while you make an attack, do you not adjust footwork and arm extension to compensate? If your opponant ducks to avoid your attack, do you not "follow" the target or change targets to adjust? In the case at hand, Vezzali steps in (with a counterattack) to avoid the hit. She fails. Lamanova makes an excellent adjustment off of the beat to put the light on.

If the target changes direction during your attack and you have to bend your arm or stop extending in order to find the target, it should not deprive you of priority. If 2 fencers are very close, say 2 feet away (chest to chest) from each other and 1 fencer withdraws thier arm enough to hit their opponant, would you say the "preparation" hit because they withdrew their arm? I think it would be called an attack.

[Don Badowski]

Originally Posted by Gav

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?

Could it be that the ref, who has become used to Vezzali stepping into every real attack by her opponents, automatically assumes that she is counterattacking?

And could it be that Lamonova, seeing her own attacks miss because Vezzali steps in, consciously or unconsciously starts withdrawing the arm in anticipation of close distance?

I still think it's Lamonova's touche.

[Craig]

http://www.fencing.net/content/view/545/36/

Instead of putting up my opinion as an out of practice referee, I went to the FOC and received a response from Derek Cotton. Here's what he had to say:

On replay I can tell you that that was 100% the correct call and is a call which all referees could hope to make under pressure.

Life happens at full speed, fencing even faster than that and when you break it down, and look at it at half speed, things can appear differently than they do in the moment. That does not mean that things will appear in a more clear form and therefore, there will be no more bad calls, just things appear differently.

This action is a classic example. Look at all the touches before and after the one in question. Valentina is counter attacking on every action and the Russian is pressing the attack. Never multiple steps, always a slide (or check)or quick, little advances. So on the action in question she takes the blade and starts forward as before and Valentina counter attacks, as before.

Only with the benefit of slow mo and replay the refs decision is a controversial one.

Even the Italians think it was the right call. It is no different than a parry riposte where the remise is so aggressive and fast that the riposter does not get to extend her arm; still the riposte.

Derek is a "1" in all three weapons in the US and has refereed in the past two Olympic Games.

Cheers,
Craig

[swordsen]

Boy, citing real authority to spoil a good argument. What's the fun in that?

[TooLoftheDeviL]

Originally Posted by swordsen

Boy, citing real authority to spoil a good argument. What's the fun in that?

One can only hope that the people arguing against the Russian for this touch will actually accept Mr. Cotton as an authority since they didn't take the referee's word for it.

I venture to say that dealing with the people who either can't or won't accept that this touch is blatantly a beat attack from the right is part of what holds fencing back in local and perhaps sectional areas of competition.