Definition of Attack...

[InFerrumVeritas]

I am currently studying for the Moniteur examination (for foil) through the USFCA. In doing so, I was studying the glossary of terms to verify that nothing comflicted with the vocabulary that I had been taught and thus came upon a rather interesting piece of information: the USFCA defines an attack as:

"The initial offensive action made by extending the weapon arm towards the opponent’s valid target and continuously threatening the opponent’s target, from the fencer’s own critical distance."

Yet, this seems to contradict the way I have seen in interpreted at tournaments (where the attack begins when the fencer begins moving forward).

Is one of these incorrect? If so, which one?

[RITFencing]

There's a whole lot more to it than that... if one fencer moves forward and the other starts to try and defend themselves then it's certainly an attack. If one fencer starts moving forward with no extension and the other just attacks with a straight lunge in that advance, it's a preparation...

The context between the fencers is important; you have to look at their intent, how they react to each other.

It's really ineffable.

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

The context between the fencers is important

RIT should have written this out 100 more times. The definition of an attack is WAY more than one fencer doing an action in a vacumn. I can't tell you how many times a fencer has told me: "I did this, and then this, and finally that and the referee didn't give me the attack!" without telling me what his or her opponent was doing all this time.

For the purposes of your exam, parroting the definition should be fine. But to pursue a career as a coach, you've got to expand your horizon beyond this.

Allen Evans

[InFerrumVeritas]

Thanks to both of you. You confirmed my suspicions, although I must admit that I am still slightly surprised at the simplicity with which the USFCA has defined some of the terms (espeically this one).

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by InFerrumVeritas

Thanks to both of you. You confirmed my suspicions, although I must admit that I am still slightly surprised at the simplicity with which the USFCA has defined some of the terms (espeically this one).

Just like the USFA and the FIE, they have to start somewhere.

I have a very strong suspicion that the rulebook sections on right of way are nothing more than a poor attempt to describe what high level fencers, refs and coaches already know and understand (and what little they can agree on.)

Sadly, the definition of an attack is "I know it when I see it."

[hpfencing]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

Sadly, the definition of an attack is "I know it when I see it."

Most fencing actions are this exactly. To pass the test, study the glossary of terms, for application always remember that the rules are basic guidepost (just like the laws) and they can be seen diffeently by different people but the core of the fencing world generally believes in the same common gound on the basics.....

To pass the test, study the definitions word by word. To pass the practical, work with individual coaches that you know and trust. Watch coaches at tournaments when they are warming up thier students too...