Is there a point to ROW?

[Hauptman]

Pardon the pun, but what is the point? There is a very reasonable argument that fencing has evolved away from it's "sharp points" origins, but what has it evolved into? Are the rules for ROW completely arbitrary, like the rules of say football or baseball, or is there still some basic premise behind them that would allow us to makes sense of it all?

One approach might be that we want to try and avoid double-touches. We are to strive for one-light results to an action and the person whose action causes the double-touch is penalized and the other person gets the point.

This is just one look at it. What are some other ideas? I don't have a current copy of the rules so if there is a good explanation in there, please forgive my ignorance.

[Peach]

I think it's the same point as having a "strike zone" in baseball.

[piste off]

I always heard the concept of right-of-way was to teach defense, meaning that you had to ensure that you were OK (i.e. parry) before you countered.

If this is true, it is ironic in that it acutally leads to a game that is more offensive focused. What I mean by that is that there is an inherent advantage with the attacker in sabre and (to a lesser extent) foil.

Rick

[stu]

There seem to be two basic explanations.

There's the historical one; that it evolved out of a desire on the part of teachers to teach their students to do something about sharp objects heading their way.

Then there's the observation that all sports are governed by rules that don't necessarily have a real world rationale, and which probably relate more to game balance than anything. Often the most complex rules in a sport, such as soccer's offside rule or cricket's LBW law, are the ones that do most to preserve that balance. They also give the referees something to do.

Besides can you imagine how many double hits there would be in sabre without the ROW rules?

[fencerbill]

To explain right of way to non-fencers I have used the following example:

Imagine 2 tennis players who are each holding a ball. The one who serves first obliges the opponent to return serve, not just serve their own ball. Then the action continues in turn until someone scores (opponent does not return the ball). You can't continue this very far but it does give some idea of having to react defensively instead of just making their own attack.

[peet]

Kudos for starting a separate thread on this topic, it having been raised in a thread about a more specific question!


On the subject of the purpose of the ROW rules (as opposed to their origin):
In my mind, the ROW rules are there to make the game fair and fun. They do this by providing a way for control of the action to pass from one fencer to the other and back again, thereby facilitating an interesting back and forth interplay between the fencers.

Originally Posted by Hauptman

One approach might be that we want to try and avoid double-touches. We are to strive for one-light results to an action and the person whose action causes the double-touch is penalized and the other person gets the point.

This (IMHO) is definitely not the point of ROW. To fence in a ROW weapon, one must accept (nay, enthusiastically embrace!), the double-hit. You have to have confidence in the correctness of your action and run right onto the opponent's point on the way to earning your "point".

My $0.02.
-p

[finnfence]

I think that people are right who say the point of foil was to teach people not to do things that were dumb, such as having a strategy of aiming for little stuff like toes instead of big stuff like chests, or a strategy of trying for double hits.

That said, I think ROW exists, because without ROW we wouldn't know when someone was being dumb.

We wouldn't know when we should be attacking and when we should be defending. We wouldn't recognize the difference between an in-time attack and a counterattack that would not be smart.

At least that's how I look at it. I think having adopted the concept of ROW, we then have to force-fit every action and every situation into some kind of ROW mold, even when it's hard to do or results in calls that are...um...somewhat far from the world of duelling with sharps. But that's ok - it's still fun!

[finnfence]

Which reminds me, now that singlestick has bitten the dust as an Olympic sport, and foil is becoming ever harder to distinguish from epee, maybe it's time to introduce a new version of foil in which there is no ROW, there is only the ref's personal opinion about whether each action was appropriate and smart in the context, "smart and appropriate" being defined as actions which would have, with sharps, inflicted maximum damage on the opponent while incurring minimum damage oneself. If we further remove rules about not being allowed to parry with the back arm and such, we could get a really interesting sport that might even be televisable, especially if we also let the fencers swear and throw things (not at each other, just for human interest).

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by finnfence

Which reminds me, now that singlestick has bitten the dust as an Olympic sport, and foil is becoming ever harder to distinguish from epee, maybe it's time to introduce a new version of foil in which there is no ROW, there is only the ref's personal opinion about whether each action was appropriate and smart in the context, "smart and appropriate" being defined as actions which would have, with sharps, inflicted maximum damage on the opponent while incurring minimum damage oneself. If we further remove rules about not being allowed to parry with the back arm and such, we could get a really interesting sport that might even be televisable, especially if we also let the fencers swear and throw things (not at each other, just for human interest).

I never knew the SCA was so active in Finland...

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by finnfence

I think having adopted the concept of ROW, we then have to force-fit every action and every situation into some kind of ROW mold

I admit that I'm taking your quote out of context, but I'd like to disagree with this statement as it stands (though maybe not as you meant it). It is a popular misconception that, in order to score in foil, you must have right of way. So people will say that "the stop hit in time has right of way", or that "the remise had right of way because the riposte missed." But that's a misapplication of the rules and the concept of right of way.

Not all scoring actions in foil and sabre have right of way. Right of way only applies when both fencers hit within the same tempo. If there is a tempo between the hits, right of way doesn't apply. One doesn't interpret such phrases according to right of way, because they aren't considered double touches at all. Rather, the first hit is a single touch, plain and simple.

This is the basis of the concept of a counterattack "in time". If one fencer is making a compound attack -- that is, one composed of multiple fencing actions -- then it is possible for a counterattack to score before the start of the final action of the attack. The counterattack must actually land before the attacker's final action *starts* -- it's not enough to land before the final action arrives. But if it does, the counterattack scores even though it did not have right of way!

Traditionally, one would call this a counterattack in time or a stop hit in time, but I don't think those terms are in the current official referee terminology. So I guess it would have to be called an attack in preparation. But that disguises the fact that the counterattack did not have right of way.

[Peach]

I've had it explained to me that an attack in preparation, at least in sabre, is an attack, pure and simple, and that while referees often call it "attack in preparation" and show the pumping action, it's not (by the book) a real call. If someone is preparing, it isn't an attack. Yes, if the person attacking in prep had not timed the action properly, the person preparing would have the attack when they finished, but that doesn't make a preparation an attack.

With the current timing, however, we often have occasion to say "Attack no, counter-attack is good" because there's only one light.

[finnfence]

Ok, I'm going to disagree with you a bit (but I could always be wrong)

Not all scoring actions in foil and sabre have right of way.

True

Right of way only applies when both fencers hit within the same tempo. If there is a tempo between the hits, right of way doesn't apply. One doesn't interpret such phrases according to right of way, because they aren't considered double touches at all. Rather, the first hit is a single touch, plain and simple.

Ah, no, I would disagree with this. It's not that ROW doesn't apply. It's that the fencer that had ROW didn't get his tip on the target, and the fencer without ROW did. ROW does apply - we say, for example, attack-no, counterattack- yes. Because we recognize who had the right of way, but also recognize that he failed to hit, and therefore the person who did not have ROW is allowed to score.

This is the basis of the concept of a counterattack "in time". If one fencer is making a compound attack -- that is, one composed of multiple fencing actions -- then it is possible for a counterattack to score before the start of the final action of the attack. The counterattack must actually land before the attacker's final action *starts* -- it's not enough to land before the final action arrives. But if it does, the counterattack scores even though it did not have right of way!

In my opinion, if the so-called counterattack started before the start of the final action in the attack, then it is an attack in preparation, by definition (prep being what comes before the final action), and it does indeed have ROW.

A stop hit is a type of attack in prep in which the attacking fencer had almost but not quite started the final attack. You raise up the blade and let the attacker run onto it as he launches his attack, almost like a PIL but with a different tempo context. You can see that in fact the attacker was still in prep when the stop-hit was launched, because his attack is stopped cold, with a characteristic running-up-against-a-brick-wall jerk, as the defender's blade hits his chest.

Sometimes you see counterattacks, especially by people who are tall against people who are short and timid, that also seem to cause the attack to taper off, but there is a different dynamic to them from what you see in a stop hit. Instead of starting an instant before the attack, they start afterwards, and the result is that the attacker is left either flailing around on the end of the defender's tip, still trying to reach him, or else voluntarily giving up part-way through the attack because he thinks he can't reach, or he thinks the machine will time out. It's a very different sort of action from the "oof-ran onto the already-extended point" of a stop hit.

A counterattack is an attack into an attack, and never has right of way. That doesn't mean it can't score, if the other person misses or it lands early enough to make the machine time out or whatever, but I think it's important to *always* call it as a counter, even when there is one light, so that the fencers can see what you as a ref think ROW was. It matters because the next time, it might not be one light, and they have to know how you see prep vs attack-counterattack.

I remember having Mr Cotton tell me once that he called things "prep attacks" instead of "attack no , counter yes" when there was only one light, because if it hadn't been prep then the attacker wouldn't have failed to hit something, even if it was off target. I have to respectfully disagree. Maybe at his level of fencing that's true, but at mine - well, I sometimes miss the target that's sitting on the wall, never mind real opponents that are wiggling around and trying to hit me.

[finnfence]

Originally Posted by Peach

I've had it explained to me that an attack in preparation, at least in sabre, is an attack, pure and simple, and that while referees often call it "attack in preparation" and show the pumping action, it's not (by the book) a real call.

Probably not, but making the call that way stops arguing about "didn't you see me starting the attack, dammit", and keeps the bout shorter, cleaner and more cordial. Especially important for me as a less-than-Olympic-level ref.

For the same reason, if there's a beat and a parry at the same time, I will acknowledge that there was a parry but explain that I thought the beat was stronger, so that the defender will know what I can and can't see, and what I want to see, and instead of arguing with me will go quietly back to the on guard line and give me a parry I can call next time.

[Redblade]

Originally Posted by Peach

I think it's the same point as having a "strike zone" in baseball.

Excellent example!
Everyone knows that baseball was crafted as practice for defensively wacking at carnivorous flying animals with a stick. As we drove those critters to extinction, however -- and I can't even remember what they were called now, it's been so long ago! -- the stick took on a more bat-like shape and the "strike zone" signifying a life-saving kill shot no longer served a purpose. In other words, a very meaningful practice action became nothing but sport. The rule as we know it now is merely a vestige of what it used to represent.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Redblade

Excellent example!
Everyone knows that baseball was crafted as practice for defensively wacking at carnivorous flying animals with a stick. As we drove those critters to extinction, however -- and I can't even remember what they were called now, it's been so long ago! -- the stick took on a more bat-like shape and the "strike zone" signifying a life-saving kill shot no longer served a purpose. In other words, a very meaningful practice action became nothing but sport. The rule as we know it now is merely a vestige of what it used to represent.

consider it equivalent to the points system in boxing.

[the doc]

i think the deeper philosophical question is, if a foilist is alone a forest, will he still start a tedious argument about ROW?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Goldgar

\So people will say that "the stop hit in time has right of way", or that "the remise had right of way because the riposte missed." But that's a misapplication of the rules and the concept of right of way.\

I disagree entirely.

If a stop hit is in time, then it has RoW by definition.


If a riposte misses, then RoW does pass to the attacker, so the remise has RoW.


Both of these can be two light situations, and often are with the new timings, so RoW does become a factor.

Originally Posted by Goldgar

The counterattack must actually land before the attacker's final action *starts* -- it's not enough to land before the final action arrives. But if it does, the counterattack scores even though it did not have right of way!

The first part is true.

I don't see how it follows that it doesn't have right of way. The attacker does not have RoW, the defender makes a correct action that does, so he gets the touch.

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I disagree entirely.

If a stop hit is in time, then it has RoW by definition.

If a riposte misses, then RoW does pass to the attacker, so the remise has RoW.

Both of these can be two light situations, and often are with the new timings, so RoW does become a factor.

I think your answers imply that you use "right of way" simply to mean "gets the touch in a two-light situation." It's more complex than that. Let's talk about the second example first: the one light situation where you attack me, I parry and riposte (but miss), and you remise. I'm specifically talking about the case when your remise begins while my riposte is underway, not after my riposte has already missed -- I miss and you hit in the same tempo. So as I'm making my riposte, you're remising, right? Does your riposte have right of way? No, of course not. However, I miss and you hit, so you get the touch. Does that fact somehow magically transform your remise into an action that has right of way? No it doesn't. I had right of way, but I missed. You didn't have right of way, but you hit. One light, your touch, you lucky bum.

So, obviously, right of way only governs when there's a touch on either side.

The first example I gave was of a stop hit (counterattack) in time ... or counterattack in time, or remise in time -- the same principle of being "in time" or not applies to them all. Mrbiggs wrote (with regard to the counterattack in time):

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I don't see how it follows that it doesn't have right of way. The attacker does not have RoW, the defender makes a correct action that does, so he gets the touch.

But being "in time" does not mean that the opponent didn't have right of way. We have to talk about what being "in time" means. The most relevant rule is t.59:

Originally Posted by 2006 USFA Rules

t.59 (d) When compound attacks are made, the opponent has the right to stop hit; but to be valid, the stop hit must precede the conclusion of the attack by an interval of fencing time; that is to say that the stop hit must arrive before the attacker has begun the final movement of the attack.

To clarify that a compound attack does have right of way, see rule t.56:

Originally Posted by 2006 USFA Rules

t.56 (a) 2. The compound attack (cf. t.8) is correctly executed when the arm is extending in the presentation of the first feint, with the point threatening the valid target, and the arm is not bent between the successive actions of the attack and the initiation of the lunge or the flèche.
[...]
5. If the attack is initiated when the opponent is not ‘point in line’ (cf. t.10), it may be executed either with a direct thrust, or by a disengage, or by a cut-over, or may even be preceded by a beat or successful feints obliging the opponent to parry.

So an attack may certainly be correctly formed which contains multiple actions, and does not lose right of way thereby. However, t.59 tells us that a stop hit is valid so long as it arrives before the final movement of the attack.

Now let's set an example that demonstrates this. Having lost the last point on that pesky remise of yours, and having lost confidence in my riposte since I missed last time, I want to even the score by attacking you. You've been retreating with a barrage of parries, so I decide that I'm going to make two advances and a lunge to get to you, and I'll start with a soft, straight feint on the first advance, disengage your anticipated parry with a deeper feint on the second, accelerating advance, and disengage again as I deliver the touch with a lunge. [Yes, reader, I've set up a somewhat contrived situation.]

So, here goes my attack. I find a moment when you're in distance and not attacking or in line, and I initiate with a straight feint on my advance. I now have the right of way, agreed? You, being way ahead of me tactically, do a half retreat and make a false parry to encourage me in my plans. I step forward again and begin my second disengage as I continue to extend. All's going well, I'm thinking ... but suddenly I find you're a lot closer than I expected and you're counterattacking into the line I opened with my disengage! Unfortunately, I made my disengage too big and too slow, and you hit me while I'm still making that first disengage. Having pre-programmed my attack in my head, I go ahead and make the second disengage and hit you with it, but you have already hit me before I even begin that action. So the referee quite properly awards you the touch. (If you don't think the referee was right to do so, read t.59(d) again.)

Now tell me, at the moment when the counterattack began --while I was starting, or about to start, the first disengage of my attack -- who had right of way? I did, of course. I initiated, didn't withdraw my arm, continuously threatened target ... all correctly formed according to the rules. You counterattacked at that point, and your counterattack didn't have right of way. If I had actually hit you with that first disengage, it would have been my touch, wouldn't it?

However, I did not hit you in that tempo, and unfortunately for me, you did hit me in that tempo. I had to make whole new tempo to hit you, so your counterattack was "in time". Rule t.59 (d) says you get the touch. But you did not have right of way! You get the touch because the two hits did not occur in the same tempo. You hit me in one tempo, I hit you in another. Right of way doesn't come into it. As a final rule citation, read t.60, which lays out the whole priority schmeer: how the conventions of foil fencing are applied to deterimine who gets the touch. In particular, read the last line of the introductory remarks before it gets into the nitty gritty of priority:

Originally Posted by 2006 USFA Rules

t.60 ... Therefore, when there is not a period of fencing time between the touches:
1. Only the fencer who is attacked is counted as touched:
[...]

That conditional preface governs everything that follows, and yet it is often overlooked.