Foil ROW Question

[OROD]

I realize that what has been reported to be coming as far as PIL does not directly address this, but I think the inference will be made. Example: Fencer "A" starts a marching attack. Fencer "B" retreats and creates a PIL. After multiple steps by both fencers, "B" ceases retreating with PIL and both fencers hit. This will become PIL for "B" I think.

It'd be nice if that happened, since that also makes sense. An attack should only have RoW within step-lunge distance of where it begins, not all the way down the strip if your opponent doesnt break distance.

It would have been great if Donald Benge could have seen this come to pass. He bent many an ear, including mine, on the subject of PIL. I said to him many times, "Yeah, I agrre with you, but that is not how the refs have been told to call this, Donald." Maybe he has some pull, wherever he is.

LOL... Donald believed that only a straight arm has RoW, which meant he almost always dived into a counter-attack every time I'd beat his blade and attack. And every time he did it he didnt get a touch. And every time he didnt get a touch he didnt understand why he was wrong.

.

[KD5MDK]

An attack should only have RoW within step-lunge distance of where it begins, not all the way down the strip if your opponent doesnt break distance.

I make an advance, you retreat. How many times do you have to retreat before I lose priority if nothing else happens?

[Goldgar]

An attack should only have RoW within step-lunge distance of where it begins, not all the way down the strip if your opponent doesnt break distance.

I don't see why you would say that. The rules don't support it -- in fact, they specifically state the opposite -- and it doesn't make sense to me. If you don't parry or break distance, how have you nullified the threat of the attack?

[Allen Evans]

I make an advance, you retreat. How many times do you have to retreat before I lose priority if nothing else happens?

The FIE is about to announce that priority, like certain radioactive elements, "decays" after time.

That time has yet to be determined, but once it is, a new chip will be needed for scoring boxes.

AE

[KD5MDK]

I can't rep you at the moment, so wait a bit.

Dang. Now having passed rep around to a lot of people to try and rep you again, I am told I've give too much in the past 24 hours.

[finnfence]

I suspect that this is one of the next in the series of amendments / clarifications to the FIE Technical Rules that will appear - (attempted) clarification of this interpretation.

We'll see

I really wish that the FIE would stop messing with the foil rules. I'm beginning to suspect that either 1) someone wants to make foil indistinguishable from epee, so that foil can eventually be eliminated as a sport, or 2) someone thinks that athleticism in fencing is bad, and is doing their best to take us back to the days of two guys standing relatively still, wiggling their blades around in tiny circles and trying to outsmart their opponent without getting their heartrate over the popcorn-munching level.

It just seems that most of the rule revisions in foil these last few years have been aimed at removing any interpretation of the rules that rewards strength, speed, endurance, and innovation to create a repertoire of unconventional but effective moves.

It's almost enough to make you start wondering if it might be time to start ignoring FIE foil events and instead create some new ones that allow foil to be fenced as (and to evolve as) a highly physcial AND mental sport.

[NSXER]

It's almost enough to make you start wondering if it might be time to start ignoring FIE foil events and instead create some new ones that allow foil to be fenced as (and to evolve as) a highly physcial AND mental sport.

I think the Professional Fencing League (or some name like that) already gave that a try some years ago.....it flew like a lead balloon but maybe you could
try again........

[noodle]

It's almost enough to make you start wondering if it might be time to start ignoring FIE foil events and instead create some new ones that allow foil to be fenced as (and to evolve as) a highly physcial AND mental sport.

HA HA, ALL FOILISTS ARE STUPlD!11

[Joe biebel]

I don't see why you would say that. The rules don't support it -- in fact, they specifically state the opposite -- and it doesn't make sense to me. If you don't parry or break distance, how have you nullified the threat of the attack?

I think somehow, somewhere along the line, the "threat of an attack, and "threatening to attack" became confused. Hopefully any new "clarifications" will spell this out.

If you advance, and start an extension, your opponant retreats and keeps you from "pulling the trigger" on your attack, you advance, advance..., opponant retreats, retreats, how is what your doing an attack or the the "threat of an attack?" It is more like "threatening to attack".

Now insert the condition of PIL into one of the early retreats, and you have a real threat as opposed to an implied threat. I think that if the changes that have been talked about here come to pass, you will see the threat of a threat (marching) being being treated as preparation when it goes against the condition of PIL.

[swordsen]

I make an advance, you retreat. How many times do you have to retreat before I lose priority if nothing else happens?

Assuming you are actually attacking when you advance and all I do is retreat you would never lose right of way. On the other hand if you are advancing with an attack and I am retreating and put out a PIL once you move beyond that magical advance lunge distance then your attack has ended and your are starting another one onto my established PIL. At least that is what GK used to say back in the days of the marching flicks......

[peet]

Prepare to be bummed. If this change is implemented,

I wouldn't count on it. A couple years ago (last year?) The FIE tried to tell the saber refs that a failed cut should end in a PIL, and that didn't fly either, IIRC...


-p

[Joe biebel]

I wouldn't count on it. A couple years ago (last year?) The FIE tried to tell the saber refs that a failed cut should end in a PIL, and that didn't fly either, IIRC...


-p

Like you, I will believe it when I see it. Till then it's just a bunch of what ifs.

[Goldgar]

I think somehow, somewhere along the line, the "threat of an attack, and "threatening to attack" became confused. Hopefully any new "clarifications" will spell this out.

If you advance, and start an extension, your opponant retreats and keeps you from "pulling the trigger" on your attack, you advance, advance..., opponant retreats, retreats, how is what your doing an attack or the the "threat of an attack?" It is more like "threatening to attack".

"Threatening to attack" is no part of what I was talking about, and I'm hurt -- hurt, I tell you -- that you would think me so fuzzy-headed.

I was talking about an actively prosecuted attack, and a defender's attempt to run away from it rather than defend against it. But a discussion like this is better conducted with visual examples. Maybe when your carpal tunnel is all healed up and my knee has been rebuilt.

[hpfencing]

I make an advance, you retreat. How many times do you have to retreat before I lose priority if nothing else happens?

Simple if nothing else changes you keep row until they step off the bck of the strip and the referee awards a touch....

LOL I like the idea of changing the tiing in the box though; we could put buttons in the bell to push so the box would know if the fencer was thinking about attacking and the referee with nothing else better to do will know how to handle the atack timing.. Let see sabre attack have priority for 1/16 of a second right? LOL