Rules & Referees - American Fencing

[lindajdunn]

On page 19 o the Fall 2007/Winter 2008 American Fencing Magazine, there is an article by Jeff Bukantz titled, Just When We Thought We Knew All the Answers.

Interpetation #1: In foil and saber, a fencer will not have the right-of-way when commencing an action (notice I didn't say attack) with the blade pointed downward.

[Wasn't this just reversed?]

Interpretation #2: There is no "parry with distance".

[Is this still valid? If so, I didn't see this interpetation at the NAC C.]

One of the disadvantages of printed material is the possibility that the article you write today is no longer valid by the time it goes to press and/or is distributed to the readership.

[mrbiggs]

I didn't know that it was ever applicable to foil (the last thing anyone wants to do is weaken foil attacks right now).

Also, the "parry with distance" thing is, as I understood it, that a parry with distance is not a parry and should not be called as such. This was widely done correctly already.

[lindajdunn]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I didn't know that it was ever applicable to foil (the last thing anyone wants to do is weaken foil attacks right now).

Also, the "parry with distance" thing is, as I understood it, that a parry with distance is not a parry and should not be called as such. This was widely done correctly already.

I've not seen distance parry called a parry, but I have seen (and expect to see) the opponent gain the ROW after making an attack fall short even when the attacking fencer continues forward. After all, his attack has ended.

The article indicates that "the initial fencer whose attack failed has equal rights to commence a new action as the opponent who caused the attack to fall short."

I am not seeing it called that way. [And I note that I'm glad I'm not seeing it called that way as I find it rather confusing.]

[edew]

Yeah, don't call parry with distance a "parry". Just say, "Attack (from left, say), no. Attack (from right) yes." Do the finger from the ear thing to indicate left's attack as failed and the straight-arm thing to indicate right's attack as succeeding.

The thing is, don't call the subsequent actions by both fencers after left's failed attack as simultaneous.

[Rick Shellhouse]

Originally Posted by edew

The thing is, don't call the subsequent actions by both fencers after left's failed attack as simultaneous.

But this is where it gets confusing....the infamous video claims that just because the attack from left fails...doesnt mean that the ROW AUTOMATICALLY goes to fencer on right so if fencer A attacks fencer B moves back making Fencer A fall short Fencer A establishes a PIL immediately before Fencer B starts his attack then priority remains with Fencer A and Fencer B must deal with the PIL instead of just attacking ....another example fencer a attacks misses fencer a retreats all the way back down the strip removing himself from correct "attack distance" fencer b takes his/her sweet time coming down the strip when fencer a starts advancing toward fencer b they reach correct attack distance togather both advancing when in correct attack distance both fencers launch streight attacks...would this not be a simultaneous? (by the video)

Now I expect that the whole video will be seriously modified if not thrown out completly but this one thing would change sabre greatly...


R

[KD5MDK]

I think that entire article is outdated, but would need specific instructions on the 2nd half.

[peet]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I think that entire article is outdated, but would need specific instructions on the 2nd half.

I concur. Jeff's articles in the magazine are normally full of good info and interesting perspectives, but this time it looks like he may have jumped the gun a bit. More & more it seems like playing "wait & see" with the FIE is the way to go. Kind of like how the USFA decided not to follow the FIE down that "black card for passivity" road, and luckily, the FIE saw the light and reeled in the penalty to something more appropriate.

[tdwg83]

I would agree. After seeing the video and reading Jeff's article I know what he is talking about. But from what I know of the video came about, it doesn't strick me as FIE Canon. It seems to have been an attempt to influence rules through referee training. And Jeff jumped the gun by responding to the video without waiting on official ruling. I know some that don't frequent to forum saw the article and were a little confused about what Jeff had written cause it was a column and not in notice from USFA.

As far as parrying with distance. I have to heartily agree with Rick. If Jeff at any point truly believed that an failed attack due to distance was a parry and allowed for a reposite, he was seriously mistaken. The point is "attack from Fencer A failed". What happens next is anyones game. I think that its less inertia than Jeff said. It takes my guess is almost the same amount of time for each fencer to change the intent of their next action. And a good referee can see that change of intent and call the following action appropriately.

[Damon Scaggs]

I'm sure the article was written before the recent Arbitrage meeting which clarified the low line attack in sabre issues. Low line attacks have been determined to be attacks and not preparations.

The distance parry thing is no change. Referees have been instructed to call it "Attack from the left no, Attack from the right..." for a number of years now. It was historicaly called a parry, but that convention is wrong. A parry requires a meeting of the blades.

It is also true that once the first attack is short, the other fencer doesn't automaticaly get right of way. Right of way is determined by who starts an action first. The turns approach is lazy refereeing.

[edew]

The way I explain it to my students is thus: if fencer A attacks and falls short, fencer B gets a coupon to have right of way. But that coupon expires immediately so fencer B has to use it or lose it, immediately. If fencer B doesn't use it, then it's anybody's game to go first.

Here are all the possible outcomes:

1. A short, B takes over immediately. B has ROW
2. A short, B hesitates, A re-starts attack. A has ROW
3. A short, B hesitates, A hesitates, A re-starts before B starts. A has ROW
4. A short, B hesitates, A hesitates, B starts before A re-starts. B has ROW
5. A short, B hesitates, A hesitates, A and B starts at same time. No ROW

Generally, the convention is to give B some amount of time to take out that coupon from his wallet to get the ROW. It's up to the ref to determine whether there's some laziosity in taking over.

Note that slow (movement) is not the same as hesitating.

[yowsers]

I'm more confused than ever.

With all due respect to Mr. Scaggs, I've been commended by a member of our last Olympic team for using the "turns" approach to refereeing saber because "that's how they referee in Europe" (not a direct quote).

Bukantz makes a good point in the article that if an attacker falls short, her forward momentum makes it easier for her to continue with an immediate remise before the defender can recover and begin an immediate attack in reply.

As mentioned in the article, using slow-motion instant reply (as in the famous FIE tape) accentuates the priority of the remise (because it would appear to come before the defenders attack. After all, a remise is a subsequent attack made without withdrawing the arm (even though remises almost always involve withdrawing the arm). So, it would seem that an attacker just has to leave her arm out and keep remising. If the referee is not being "lazy", and there are two lights on the machine, how can the referee call either for the remise (as it would be before the defender's attack) or, at worst for the remiser, simultaneous attack?

The FOC's newletter states that nothing has really changed, but I'm not sure I'm convinced.

[blackbeard]

Something that has always confused me about this, and already touched on earlier, is the resultant PIL of the failed attack. I understand that the attack has failed once it has fallen short, but don't understand why the parameters required for establishing and maintaining PIL have failed. Anyone care to address this?

[Hauptman]

Well, there was a long discussion already about PIL if the attacker keeps their arm extended, and I'm not going to go there again!

I have another question though, how do you know when an attack has ended? IF there is an obvious pause by the initial attacker, well, then it's obvious.... but what if there is no pause? For example, the initial footwork ending in a lunge is short, but the fencer immediately recovers forward for a second lunge or continues with a fleche?

Does it matter whether the point was in line through next footwork? Was the attack continuously moving forward? How do you determine that the attack has stopped if there is no clear pause? And aren't the high level fencers fast enough to make that even more difficult to determine?

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by blackbeard

Something that has always confused me about this, and already touched on earlier, is the resultant PIL of the failed attack. I understand that the attack has failed once it has fallen short, but don't understand why the parameters required for establishing and maintaining PIL have failed. Anyone care to address this?

That's very simple.

It is rare that an attack has a fully extended arm with a straight line between the point and the shoulder both before that attack falls short and is maintained after it falls short.

No low line or flank attacks need apply. No attacks where the attacker lands slightly off balance and flails the slightest bit will meet the criteria. Practically speaking neither will any attack that involved any taking of the blade either.

Then upon that rare occasion that an attack would actually qualify, the referee has to realize it.

It just doesn't happen in high speed foil bouts like those at an NAC (if there are any high speed foil bouts with the broken debounce timings), though I did once see Joe Biebel do it at an NAC bout in the late 80's. And yes, he did get the touch.

gary hayenga

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

I have another question though, how do you know when an attack has ended? IF there is an obvious pause by the initial attacker, well, then it's obvious.... but what if there is no pause? For example, the initial footwork ending in a lunge is short, but the fencer immediately recovers forward for a second lunge or continues with a fleche?

If the lunge is short, the attack is over. A forward recovery can be the start of another attack, but the first one failed. There may possibly be a point-in-line left that maintains right-of-way, and therefore you could lunge with point-in-line and if you maintained the point-in-line you could make a forward recovery and still maintain right-of-way. But as I said in an earlier post this happens very rarely.

gary hayenga

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by garyhayenga

If the lunge is short, the attack is over. A forward recovery can be the start of another attack, but the first one failed. There may possibly be a point-in-line left that maintains right-of-way, and therefore you could lunge with point-in-line and if you maintained the point-in-line you could make a forward recovery and still maintain right-of-way. But as I said in an earlier post this happens very rarely.

gary hayenga

I could only see that happening if the attackee retreated WAAAYY out of distance to avoid the lunge....at that point, the extended arm of the attacker could be termed to have established PIL so long as the arm was straight rom the shoulder to the tip....

but if the attacker falls short by a small distace and the is hisself attacked...it's te other guy's touch.

[AndrewH]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

but if the attacker falls short by a small distace and the is hisself attacked...it's te other guy's touch.

It all depends on what "the other guy" does after making the attack fall short.

If he immediately launches a counterattack into the attacker's still extended arm, then yes, his touch.

If he stops, waits, collects himself, and then comes forward before starting an attack (while the opponent has fallen short and immediately attempted to establish PIL), well then it's doubtful. A good referee would recognize that while the initial attack was short, the other fencer did nothing to take the RoW while the PIL was established.

[tdwg83]

Originally Posted by AndrewH

If he immediately launches a counterattack into the attacker's still extended arm, then yes, his touch.

If he counter attacks into an extended arm he's just attacked into a PIL.

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by tdwg83

If he counter attacks into an extended arm he's just attacked into a PIL.

You are making a joke yes?

[CvilleFencer]

I would like to propose a rule change to the FIE. How about we freaking get rid of point in line since there seems to be maybe 4 people on the planet that really understand it. I can't count the number of PIL calls I see blown even by good refs and this latest crap from the FIE is only going to muddy the waters, at the C and under level especially. So yeah, why don't we just nix the PIL altogether. Okay, end of rant...