Foil ROW Question

[alvin]

Could I get some opinions on this situation?

Fencer A makes a direct attack. Fencer B does not parry, simply steps back a couple of inches and the attack falls short. Fencer A holds the lunge, not bending his arm, keeping the point on target. There is a short pause. Fencer B makes a simple, direct attack (not a beat attack). There are 2 valid lights.

A) The point is awarded to Fencer B - Since Fencer A's attack had failed, the phrase had ended. Fencer B's attack is a new phrase and since he has the Right of Way, by virtue of initiating the attack in the new phrase, he is awarded the point.

-or-

B) The point is awarded to Fencer A because Fencer B ignored the point in line.

[mrbiggs]

B gets the touch.



To establish point in line, A must have it a tempo before B, so B must hesitate for A's line to be valid. (Alternatively, he could search for the blade or something)

[noodle]

answer A
the current standard interpretation of the rules is that there is no residual line.

[ysbadadden]

B gets the touch.



To establish point in line, A must have it a tempo before B, so B must hesitate for A's line to be valid. (Alternatively, he could search for the blade or something)

But in the given example, there was a pause after A's attack failed. So the sequence as described is

A's attack--failed
B: no reaction.
A: point in line -- hits
B: what do we call this -- a counterattack? an attack that lacks priority? In any event, in the actiion as described, A gets the touch because B hesitated.

[mrbiggs]

But in the given example, there was a pause after A's attack failed. So the sequence as described is

A's attack--failed
B: no reaction.
A: point in line -- hits
B: what do we call this -- a counterattack? an attack that lacks priority? In any event, in the actiion as described, A gets the touch because B hesitated.

Maybe.

For me, and I think for most refs, it's got to be quite a pause. Of course, it's up to the ref to decide whether or not it was a tempo and it would be difficult for the OP to describe the pause in enough detail for us to determine the correct answer.

In general, touch B. If there was a truly significant pause, touch A.

[peet]

Fencer B would have to pause for a pretty huge amount of time (in fencing terms anyway) for most refs to award the touch to A.

I say touch for B.

-p

[peet]

B: what do we call this -- a counterattack? an attack that lacks priority? .

Oh, and even though I don't think that's what happened here, if a fencer attacks onto an established line, then I believe the correct thing to call it is your second suggestion: "An attack that lacks priority" (since the PIL has priority over the attack).

cheers!

-p

[OROD]

I'm pretty sure the current interpretation is that if an attack finishes as a line, the other fencer gets a chance to impale him or herself unto it and still get a touch. Sad, but true.

.

[Allen Evans]

You will hear this attack called different ways. I understand that most American Referees will NOT give the PIL in this case, but, for instance, many French referees WILL.

I rarely teach my foil fencers PIL....it's a call that's more often made incorrectly than correctly, even when the PIL is done correctly.

AE

[Joe biebel]

If there is a discernable pause, that is a tempo. The attack is "no" but finishes in line. The defender has avoided the attack with distance (no parry) and there is a pause. A short pause a long pause, it really does not matter, as long as it is a discernable pause. The line is now established provided it meets the requirements of a line, and certainly the defender has had time to see it.

Some referees look at this scenario like this. "A" get a turn then "B" get a turn. This should not be the case, in my opinion. "A" had his turn with the attack that failed, "B" had his turn but delayed, even slightly, "A" has an established line. "B" attacks onto a PIL. Point for "A".

For me the call would be contingent on a discernable pause, which will vary with the speed and intensity of the action. Does the defender, if there is a pause, have time enough to detect the line? If so, they must deflect or in other ways not get hit.

At the tempo break, (which can be very short) the next action, either line or attack that is made, has priority. Since the line already exists, it must have priority. The fencer with the line is not required to pull the arm back or in some way remove the line and then reestablish it for it to have priority after an attack. It only requires a delay (like holding a parry) to have ROW anew. It would seem, based on my personal experience, that it is rarely called this way, at least by most US referees.

[Craig]

This question is covered in one of our "ask the experts" articles on foil refereeing:

Point in Line after the Attack in Foil

Craig

[KD5MDK]

Who was the expert?

Top referees have been calling this action more frequently, probably because top coaches are teaching it.

Which call? The expert described two ways it could be called, and didn't clarify which one they favored.

[Craig]

This was from Bill Oliver.

The key phrase on the second way to make the call is "If there is no such technical error, the action would be:
Attack from left fails. Counter from right arrives. Touch Right."

Technical error = discernable pause from right. The full-tempo pause is what grants ROW to the PIL established after the attack fails.

In terms of being a fencer trying to score points with this action, unless I know exactly how the referee calls these actions, I'm not doing it to score a point.

I'm usually throwing out the line to either slow my opponent down or to get them to "bite" on the line and finish so that I can make 2nd intention parry-riposte off of it.

Craig

[peet]

If there is a discernable pause, that is a tempo. The attack is "no" but finishes in line. The defender has avoided the attack with distance (no parry) and there is a pause. A short pause a long pause, it really does not matter, as long as it is a discernable pause. The line is now established provided it meets the requirements of a line, and certainly the defender has had time to see it.

Some referees look at this scenario like this. "A" get a turn then "B" get a turn. This should not be the case, in my opinion. "A" had his turn with the attack that failed, "B" had his turn but delayed, even slightly, "A" has an established line. "B" attacks onto a PIL. Point for "A".

For me the call would be contingent on a discernable pause, which will vary with the speed and intensity of the action. Does the defender, if there is a pause, have time enough to detect the line? If so, they must deflect or in other ways not get hit.

At the tempo break, (which can be very short) the next action, either line or attack that is made, has priority. Since the line already exists, it must have priority. The fencer with the line is not required to pull the arm back or in some way remove the line and then reestablish it for it to have priority after an attack. It only requires a delay (like holding a parry) to have ROW anew. It would seem, based on my personal experience, that it is rarely called this way, at least by most US referees.

Yeah, the place for subjectivity here is the length of the pause required for PIL to be established, and for most refs the pause has to be pretty blatant.

Funny: I think I made exactly this call against you a long time ago, and we had a difference of opinion as to how long the pause has to be then too. At least we're both consistent!

-p

[peet]

This was from Bill Oliver.

Attack from left fails. Counter from right arrives. Touch Right."

Yeah I remember Bill wording it that way in the article, but then also I believe I remember Derek recommending the wording "Attack from left no. Attack from right yes." in one of the FOC's email newsletters.

IMHO, the advantage of the latter wording is that it makes it clear that you are saying that the second action had ROW, whereas if you call it a counterattack, most fencers will understand that to mean that it did not have ROW. Then they think you are blind and didn't see the attacker's light on if you say "Attack no, counter yes."

It's just clearer (IMHO).

-p

[KD5MDK]

Funny, I've heard an argument for the opposite, which is that calling "Attack no, Counterattack yes" indicates you saw it as a clear part of the same phrase and an intentional action on the part of the "counter-attacker".

[RITFencing]

But in the given example, there was a pause after A's attack failed. So the sequence as described is

A's attack--failed
B: no reaction.
A: point in line -- hits
B: what do we call this -- a counterattack? an attack that lacks priority? In any event, in the actiion as described, A gets the touch because B hesitated.

No. In foil especially, there is enough of a window for making the attack fall short and then starting a new one that I would give it to B, hands down.

[RITFencing]

You will hear this attack called different ways. I understand that most American Referees will NOT give the PIL in this case, but, for instance, many French referees WILL.

I rarely teach my foil fencers PIL....it's a call that's more often made incorrectly than correctly, even when the PIL is done correctly.

AE

Yeah, it's one of the most messed up.

However, I like to teach a little point in line, not so much for a fencer to score with directly, but rather to disrupt an opponents attack by causing them to search for the blade or finish too early.

[Joe biebel]

Yeah, the place for subjectivity here is the length of the pause required for PIL to be established, and for most refs the pause has to be pretty blatant.

Funny: I think I made exactly this call against you a long time ago, and we had a difference of opinion as to how long the pause has to be then too. At least we're both consistent!

-p

I'm in complete agreement with you here. I would add the following opinion: The shorter the pause required, the better the ref
Now, let's assume that it is not me fencing but someone really good. Would you say "Serge, I know there was a pause and you had a PIL, but our FOC says it must be a big, honking (that's a technical term) pause, to be considered"

[KD5MDK]

No, I would say "Attack gauche no. Attack droit, touche".