Vezzali vs Lamanova YouTube ROW question

[pigeonmeister]

This is an interesting fight (vezzali vs Lamonova) that has provoked some discussion on the uk forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1KY0...elated&search=

At 10-10, Lamonova takes a sweeping beat, Vezzali steps in forcing Lamonova to withdraw her arm in order to finish her beat attack. Basically, has Vezzali broken time and, in which case, was the referee wrong to award Lamonova the hit?

I am undecided but, if forced, would defend the ref's decision made at full speed.

[erooMynohtnA]

Your link wouldn't work for me, so I went to fencingforum.com and got it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1KY0...elated&search=

Edit: I would call it Lamanova's, but I'm nobody.

[keith]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

This is an interesting fight (vezzali vs Lamonova) that has provoked some discussion on the uk forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1KY0...elated&search=

At 10-10, Lamonova takes a sweeping beat, Vezzali steps in forcing Lamonova to withdraw her arm in order to finish her beat attack. Basically, has Vezzali broken time and, in which case, was the referee wrong to award Lamonova the hit?

I am undecided but, if forced, would defend the ref's decision made at full speed.

I'd go with the ref - given that the arm is only withdrawn to allow the hit. It is beat/withdraw-hit rather than beat/withdraw/extend-hit.

[pigeonmeister]

Thanks for mending the link eroo, and I agree with both of your assessments- I was in the minority on the uk forum though.

[IanSerotkin]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

I was in the minority on the uk forum though.

It's a very clear beat attack; the ref was absolutely correct. I can't believe anyone would have a problem with that call. How could it possibly be broken-time when the attack comes in the same tempo as the beat?

[pigeonmeister]

I think some people have a problem with a beat attack that involves the withdrawing of the arm after the beat...I personally don't see how else that attack could have finished. But others claim Vezzali purposefully and legitimately closed distance in order to cause the attack to fail (by forcing the arm to withdraw)

Post 5 and the 'How can you be so stupid' insinuation comes out on a ROW threat..is that a record for Fnet?

[Insipiens]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Post 5 and the 'How can you be so stupid' insinuation comes out on a ROW threat..is that a record for Fnet?

yeah, it is a bit slow

[Durando]

I always feel like I'm about to fall through the ice whenever I venture an opinion about ROW. But, yeah, it's a beat attack, touch right. The point doesn't stop advancing toward the target.

[the ancient one]

Sometimes extending towards the target means that the arm is moving back.
Targets move too.
Compare this to a riposte against a passing fleche.
I think the call was correct

[noodle]

Originally Posted by IanSerotkin

It's a very clear beat attack; the ref was absolutely correct. I can't believe anyone would have a problem with that call. How could it possibly be broken-time when the attack comes in the same tempo as the beat?

this ^

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

Your link wouldn't work for me, so I went to fencingforum.com and got it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1KY0...elated&search=

Edit: I would call it Lamanova's, but I'm nobody.

I would say it's a textbook beat attack, but I'm nobody too.

[Foilling Around]

Originally Posted by the ancient one

Sometimes extending towards the target means that the arm is moving back.
Targets move too.
Compare this to a riposte against a passing fleche.
I think the call was correct

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

Lamonova extended her arm and attempted a beat attack. Vezalli straightened her arm directly off the beat. Lamonova wihdrew her arm directly off the beat.

If we start saying that her body is moving forwards so it must be her hit, she made the agressive action then we lose the point of foil.

The action off the beat must be progessive with an extending arm of you lose the right of way.

Likening it to a riposte after parrying a fleche is just plain silly.

At full speed I can see why the hit went to Lamonova, but in Slo-mo I give it to Vezalli

[Foilling Around]

Originally Posted by Durando

I always feel like I'm about to fall through the ice whenever I venture an opinion about ROW. But, yeah, it's a beat attack, touch right. The point doesn't stop advancing toward the target.

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!!

[keith]

Originally Posted by Foilling Around

Lamonova extended her arm and attempted a beat attack. Vezalli straightened her arm directly off the beat. Lamonova wihdrew her arm directly off the beat.

of course if Lamonova had not withdrawn she would have missed Vezzali - Vezzali's action is not an extension it is a collapse of distance.

Even in slow motion the action is

L: beat
V: collapse
L: withdrawal

Then both hit.

Lamanova does not beat-withdraw-extend. The sequence of actions that would be needed for Vezzali to hit her in preparation.

[Allen Evans]

A clear beat attack for Lamonova.

AE

[RkfdFencer]

Another nobody for Lamanova.

I have seen beat, withdraw, extend at the local level that I did not think would retain right of way. Those looked much different, overall, than this action.

[erooMynohtnA]

You know, I guarantee if Vezzali had been extending prior to the beat attack instead of preparing, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Everyone would see Lamanova's action as a riposte regardless of moving her arm to find target.

[keith]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

You know, I guarantee if Vezzali had been extending prior to the beat attack instead of preparing, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Everyone would see Lamanova's action as a riposte regardless of moving her arm to find target.

Agreed. This action happened in several phrases - both fencers were waiting for it again. The speed of Vezzali's response to the beat makes it almost look like a parry riposte.

[mrbiggs]

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!!

I actually could see it as beat-coupé-extension. A coupé-extension is defined as a simple attack in the rulebook, and the action was executed immediately after the beat.

But from a more logical standpoint, using your rules, it would be impossible to riposte if a fencer simply ran as fast as they could at you because you'd always have to withdraw your arm in order to hit. In my high school days, there were several referees who called parries as you would have them do (only takes right of way if you never withdraw your arm), and it led to some very silly situations.

[keith]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

But from a more logical standpoint, using your rules, it would be impossible to riposte if a fencer simply ran as fast as they could at you because you'd always have to withdraw your arm in order to hit. In my high school days, there were several referees who called parries as you would have them do (only takes right of way if you never withdraw your arm), and it led to some very silly situations.

there's a nice example of this in the clip - look at the action at 3:08. Lamanova takes the parry, then withdraws the arm in order to make space for the riposte.

.... at least the ref was consistent.