Kolombatovich : Rules of Referees

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by forethought

Please enlighten us as to why you think this is the case.

Because the way it is called is that a slight grazing of the blade counts as enough to invalidate the line.

An example of another rule that completely contradicts reality:

t.70(b)
Point touches which slip over the valid target, or cuts which merely brush the opponent’s target (passé touches) do not count

You're telling me you wouldn't call a touch in sabre because someone didn't hit hard enough??

[ysbadadden]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I think that this is an example of where the rules explicitly contradict reality.

Actually, even a pretty light beat or take on the opponent's foible will deflect his point from actually threatening the target, if only for a moment.

And the rules of the "conventional" weapons aren't based on what would actually happen in a duel -- they're based on how you would train a random person for a duel -- you'd defuse the natural reflex (in some people) of automatically extending into an attack. You have to train people to judge when they can safely extend into an attack (when they can make their opponent miss by ducking or turning, when they can successfully oppose the attacking blade, and so on. These are all part of foil, but they used to be taught later than parrying.) In an actual duel, as in a competitive foil match, the best move may be a counterattack with a bent arm. But you want to train people to be able to attack with a straight arm, to begin with extension, to parry attacks, and so on. To be able to, not to do so under every circumstance.
The rule interpretation regarding PIL that's now being promulgated is logical, consistent, and clear. The example we're discussing is confusing only because of the long pause in the middle of the "action." Speed it up, and it's clear again. (I'm talking about foil here.) Fencer A extends into PIL, then lunges. Fencer B starts his extension into PIL after fencer A, but completes his position before fencer A lunges. Touch for Fencer A -- except if Fencer A is working in extreme slow motion and Fencer B isn't, and hits far enough ahead to time Fencer A out.

In sabre, if Fencer A takes PIL and makes a point thrust with lunge, the situation is the same, right? Point for A. Now, if A cuts and falls short because B has retreated, the situation is different. A doesn't have PIL at the end of his failed cut, so he doesn't have priority. But B doesn't have priority either: why should he? Priority goes to the fencer who establishes PIL (because PIL has priority over an attack) or -- if no one first establishes PIL -- the fencer who makes the first attacking move. If there's PIL, it has to be removed by the would-be attacker.

B could very well establish PIL against a renewed attack with point from A.

[ChiliPepper]

Yes, I hate it too when people say "in a real duel." Heck, in a REAL duel I think I'd drop to my knees and surrender.

Also, if it were a "real duel"... why are there 3 weapons?? Which weapon or weapon style would you use in a REAL duel? In a REAL duel you wouldn't need rules!! No penalty chart, no refs... I guess that's what's going to happen when the USFA goes bankrupt anyways. *lol*

Another PIL scenario... Fencer A makes an attack, Fencer B retreats and makes the attack falls short, Fencer A keeps arm extended at the end of the lunge (PIL) and recovers back to en garde with PIL (properly maintaining PIL); Fencer B makes an attack without blade contact. Both hit. Is Fencer A's PIL still valid? PIL is valid advancing, retreating, lunging--I understand--how about recovering from a lunge?

Last, a funny story about PIL. At my salle I have an octagenarian fencer and it took me a while to realize that he had PIL established because his elbow does not fully straighten out and his arm always looks like there's a bend in it!! And he uses PIL quite a bit because of his restricted mobility... :-)

[Stormbringer]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I think that this is an example of where the rules explicitly contradict reality.

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

Because the way it is called is that a slight grazing of the blade counts as enough to invalidate the line.

Is it that the rule came to contradict reality, or that reality, over time, came to contradict the rule?

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by Stormbringer

Is it that the rule came to contradict reality, or that reality, over time, came to contradict the rule?

ummm...why does it matter?

[Stormbringer]

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

ummm...why does it matter?

It matters because it could lead to the passing of resolutions that may significantly impact on how the sport is officiated.

In this case, we seem to have (at least) two differing, and seemingly mutually-exclusive views:
1.) The way that decisions regarding the priority of one fencing action over another should always be well-grounded in, and always made in accordance with, the written, officially-mandated rules of the sport.
2.) The way that decisions regarding the priority of one fencing action over another should be based solely on what is the accepted norm within the higher echelons of the sport (the Olympic Games, the World Championships, etc.), even if such norms explicitly contradict the written, officially-mandated rules of the sport.

Which brings us to this George Kolombatovich’s letter…
Here, we have evidence of a document, supposedly from the president of the FIE Refereeing Commission, whose purpose, it seems, is to reconcile the differences between the two previously-mentioned views – at least, in regard to certain, specific issues. In this letter, the author gives examples of situations, and explains – while also citing the relevant rules - why certain conclusions may be made.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the first view is more correct than the second, that the rules and corollary guidelines (as outlined in publically-available documents that are officially endorsed by those bodies whose mandates grant them the authority to do so) should be the basis of decisions regarding officiating, and that the norms of officiating at all levels should be brought to a point where they are always reflective of both the letter and the spirit of the written rules – or, alternatively, that the written rules be both further clarified and brought in line with the current norms of the game. If the two – the written rules and the practiced norm - can be made to mirror one another, I think that would resolve A LOT of the arguments, and perhaps even the issues that lead to those arguments…

Then again, I’m just a low-level épéeist who occasionally dabbles in sabre, and less often in foil… what do I know…

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Stormbringer

Is it that the rule came to contradict reality, or that reality, over time, came to contradict the rule?

"Only a light taking is necessary, and in fact moves the point off target" is far from being a recent position. In the first referee clinic I attended, approx 1970, this was demonstrated by Giorgio Santelli. Light "tic au tac" takings have been recognized as sufficient to deviate the blade from target since at least the beginning of the 20th century.

I am grateful to George K for sending out the letter, which to a large extent reaffirms long standing practice that a lot of people have forgotten in just the last few years. I'm very glad to see him specifically state the incorrectness of saying "Distance Parry" and "Mal Parré". They are perhaps useful for explanation ("defender retreated out of distance", "defender tried to parry but didn't") but the negatives outweigh the positive because too many people came to think that a retreat actually was a parry, or that "Mal Parré" exists (an attack is either parried or it isn't).

[ysbadadden]

Originally Posted by ChiliPepper

Yes, I hate it too when people say "in a real duel." Heck, in a REAL duel I think I'd drop to my knees and surrender.

Also, if it were a "real duel"... why are there 3 weapons?? Which weapon or weapon style would you use in a REAL duel? In a REAL duel you wouldn't need rules!! No penalty chart, no refs... I guess that's what's going to happen when the USFA goes bankrupt anyways. *lol*

A duel isn't a street fight; it's a formal encounter with agreed-on rules worked out in advance by the seconds. One of them is normally that the duellists use identical weapons, except that an Italian facing a Frenchman is free to use the national form of his weapon.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

De gustibus, Inq.

Yes. However, this is a shared sport. I've always been a bit uncomfortable with the rules being written by a tiny number of "experts", no matter what the vast majority of fencers thinks. *cough* stupid Lexan *cough*

Ideally, there'd be some sort of consensus not only on the rules themselves but on the philosophy behind them... preferably one founded in logic. And logically, without the real threat of pain, injury or death, there is no way IMO to translate the exigencies of "if they were sharp" to modern fencing. Given that, there is always going to be a certain artificiality to rules.

I'm traditional enough to believe that the sport of fencing, which reasonably enough has conventions and rules, derives those conventions and rules on the activities from which the sport originated.

Originated, sure. That doesn't mean that as the dawn beheld it, it must still be, does it?

Dammit, there goes the time again. Switching computers...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

As far as "where does it end?" goes - it ends wherever the rules say they end.

Wait---you're just advocating that they end in a different place than they do now? So why? If a rule is going to end the adherence to the "if they were sharp" philosophy, why here instead of there? Why is it more realistic to end the threat of a line at point B instead of point A? Both are equally artificial, are they not?

ROW gives simple answers to the examples you raise: in each case a threat is made and removed by a blade taking,

That might be fine, if there were only one way to remove a threat. But there isn't. Getting out of range is another. Voiding is another. Why discount these in favor of the beat alone?

and the person who takes the blade immediately makes a threat before his opponent - who now has the responsibility of clearing that threat before making his new offensive reaction.

But in duels, "when they were sharp", this didn't happen about as often as it did. Mutual killings were commonplace. A combatant was very likely to do something stupidly inconvenient in the middle of one's beautifully crafted skilled action---like replace that point in desperation. And you wouldn't just run onto it.

So again, if the logic is to be "if they were sharp", why locate the rule-based break point at the first PIL, and ignore the replacement which, in a duel, would have been every bit as much a deadly threat as the first?

Originally Posted by headcut

I don't believe that an attack stops at the end of an arm extension unless that is the only action of your attack. It ends at the end of your fleche or lunge or advance or other forward motion (when combined with an extension in single tempo) whatever that may be.

So, you don't believe the simple wording of the rules
?

It defines the attack, and establishes several conditions. One of these is that the arm is extending. If it is not extending, it fails to meet one of the conditions of the definition. "Blade continuing toward the opponent by being borne by a foot action" is not one of the conditions...

So how do we ignore the plain wording of the rule?

It also ends if your attack is parried (when your blade is taken off target).

Or your front foot lands before your final cut. Etc. Sure. I didn't say there was only the one way for an attack to end, just that an arm which is no longer extending is one such way. With regard to distinguishing why a PIL is not an attack, it's the most salient way, IMO.

As for contact with the blade that is PiL, I have always understood that if you beat or find the blade but do NOT take the point off target, that point is still valid to hit and you are attacking into a PiL.

Yes. But here, unfortunately, we run up against the problem of human perceptual inadequacy. I'm not sure that a referee, from the side, can tell when a PIL has been deflected from target area or not, for the same reason he often cannot see a lateral search...

When a fencer beats on the forte part of a blade, s/he is essentially parrying his/her own attack. The quote "If there is any blade contact on the line it is no longer valid." needs to be qualified imho. I think it needs to include taking the point off target. From my own experience, just touching the blade was not enough to gain RoW.

Well, I have certainly beaten blades out of line by striking them on the forte...and still had the touch go against me, as the rule specifies.

Withal, I agree with you philosophically on this point. However, we both know that we are only going to be told that since the opinion came from an "Olympic ref", it must be correct and cannot be questioned.

I can see the reason behind his view, of course. A hard-and-fast shortcut like that makes refereeing ever so much more easy. The word "any" is usually a dead giveaway that this is occurring...

Anyway, that's why I asked Downunder how the statement he quoted jibes with the rule about beating on the opponent's forte. I'm curious how he resolves the conflict between rule and "Olympic ref must be right".

Originally Posted by 'KShan5

You're telling me you wouldn't call a touch in sabre because someone didn't hit hard enough??

I wouldn't...if I were actually able to see a passe point attack. I almost certainly couldn't, though. Especially if it went past on the fencer's far side. This sort of thing just transcends most humans' ability to perceive it, in most cases.

Originally Posted by ChiliPepper

Another PIL scenario... Fencer A makes an attack, Fencer B retreats and makes the attack falls short, Fencer A keeps arm extended at the end of the lunge (PIL) and recovers back to en garde with PIL (properly maintaining PIL); Fencer B makes an attack without blade contact. Both hit. Is Fencer A's PIL still valid? PIL is valid advancing, retreating, lunging--I understand--how about recovering from a lunge?

By the rules, sure. The footwork doesn't matter. He can dance a little jig as long as he keeps the line properly.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Yes. However, this is a shared sport. I've always been a bit uncomfortable with the rules being written by a tiny number of "experts", no matter what the vast majority of fencers thinks. *cough* stupid Lexan *cough*

I don't know how you would best assign the rights to write a sport's rules besides some experts (does the NFL ask every ticket holder?) We need better experts, I think is the problem. The Lexan being just one example. How about the genius move of first requiring it in the one weapon where it can make a difference in the materiality of a touch? Sheesh.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Ideally, there'd be some sort of consensus not only on the rules themselves but on the philosophy behind them... preferably one founded in logic. And logically, without the real threat of pain, injury or death, there is no way IMO to translate the exigencies of "if they were sharp" to modern fencing. Given that, there is always going to be a certain artificiality to rules.

I absolutely agree with both portions of this paragraph.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Originated, sure. That doesn't mean that as the dawn beheld it, it must still be, does it?

Of course, but that the sole alternative isn't to change things for the sake of change (eg: Lexan!). The rationale and affect of a rule or a change to a rule is what matters.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Dammit, there goes the time again. Switching computers...

Try to get one that doesn't have the slowly revolving key in the back. They tend to run down too quickly.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Wait---you're just advocating that they end in a different place than they do now? So why? If a rule is going to end the adherence to the "if they were sharp" philosophy, why here instead of there? Why is it more realistic to end the threat of a line at point B instead of point A? Both are equally artificial, are they not?

I don't know if they are equally artificial - I think the foundation for each rule should be "is this a good idea or a dumb one". If a proposed rule or change to a rule is defensible, then that establishes whether it is less, more, or equally artificial.

I think we agree that many rules are artificial. Heck, lots of them are obviously artificial: those pertaining to equipment and the boundaries of the piste. Or in ROW: Foil's t.56(a)8 where continuous steps forward with crossover are a preparation which can be attacked into. Why? That's an artifact. Or in sabre, t.78 the bottom 1/3 rule for beats, or t.77 the "about 135" degree angle for feints. Or the removal of the fleche altogether in sabre (a threat is a threat even if I'm running at you). So there's a lot of it around...

For me, the issue isn't "artificial, therefore stupid", it's "does this rule make sense for fencing as a sport" (because without the sport, there's no need for the rulebook at all), and "does this rule make sense for what fencing is" - does it at least have a plausible rationale. Does it help or hinder fencing.

The last, I'm afraid, will never work for everyone. Different people want different things from fencing: some want it to be purely a sport activity with little connection to real swords of the past, while others would like it to be a sport that acknowledges and models "if it were sharp" reasonably well, given that it's done with safe, blunt weapons. I'm in the latter camp.

So, we have some rules that nod towards martial reality, despite the fact you can never fully model "if it were sharp" (I'm much more willing to take a risk if the penalty is to have a touch scored, rather than a lethal wound, and am willing to do things I would never do facing a sharp blade), some that seem due to tradition (which may have been based on carefully thought out reasoning, but maybe not...), some that are purely for the nature of sport (penalties, strip boundaries), some that just seem made up for the hell of it (Lexan. Oh well - I know there's a rationale for it, awful as it may be)

Originally Posted by Inquartata

That might be fine, if there were only one way to remove a threat. But there isn't. Getting out of range is another. Voiding is another. Why discount these in favor of the beat alone?

I personally have no philosophical difficulty with this or almost any other proposed change, so long as (a) the rationale is discussed and plausible, and (b) the thing is put in the damned rules book instead of being a de-facto rule that people use in violation of what's in black and white. Those are the only two things I ask: provide a rational reason for a rule (if I don't agree with it, too bad for me, but at least I can hear why it's there), and PUT IT IN THE BOOK. Do those two things and I'll be much more satisfied than with the current state of affairs.

As it is, I think I can give a reason why a blade taking should be recognized differently in the rules than distance: for at least a moment the threat is deflected and can NOT be in PiL state. Give me a case that void and parry should be treated the same and I'll listen. And, if we go that way, fine, but let's change t.7 and t.9 for crying out loud, instead of reffing with a different set of rules than what's written.

EDIT: PiL isn't the biggest bee in my bonnet. The rules, as written, are inconclusive with respect to to many cases that can occur, and the application involves rules that don't appear in the rule book (like, PiL requiring extension straight from the shoulder) that need to be there. What really burns my toast is the "ramble forward without an extending arm, yet be given ROW" marching attack with the arm withdrawn to the elbow, or point facing the ceiling. I think that goes against the entire spirit of what ROW is supposed to force, as well as any martial sense. It makes no sense to bring your easily punctured abdomen forward while your arm is held back. Some Big Wigs apparently agree with me, as I've seen in FIE documents, and supposedly this rubbish is on the wane. We'll see. But, if this is truly what "makes sense" for some people, get it in the front door via the rules book, rather than the back door of "oh, that's the way top referees call it". In which case, I think we need better top referees.

[dberke]

Originally Posted by jeff

EDIT: PiL isn't the biggest bee in my bonnet. The rules, as written, are inconclusive with respect to to many cases that can occur, and the application involves rules that don't appear in the rule book (like, PiL requiring extension straight from the shoulder) that need to be there. What really burns my toast is the "ramble forward without an extending arm, yet be given ROW" marching attack with the arm withdrawn to the elbow, or point facing the ceiling. I think that goes against the entire spirit of what ROW is supposed to force, as well as any martial sense. It makes no sense to bring your easily punctured abdomen forward while your arm is held back. Some Big Wigs apparently agree with me, as I've seen in FIE documents, and supposedly this rubbish is on the wane. We'll see. But, if this is truly what "makes sense" for some people, get it in the front door via the rules book, rather than the back door of "oh, that's the way top referees call it". In which case, I think we need better top referees.

The action that you describe as a "ramble forward without an extending arm" does NOT have ROW. It is all preparation, and it has its vulnerabilities. Only the final action of the "ramble forward" has ROW, and it's usually executed when the attacker sees the defender stop retreating or make some action that opens a reachable line.

If you were to videotape a long developing attack as you describe, then edit the video so that you cut out all of the preparation and only view the final action (and the reaction of the defender), I think you will agree that in 95% of the cases, the action would correctly be called as an attack (and a counterattack by the defender).

Dan

[jeff]

Perhaps, Dan, but not in all cases.

In one instance, I went up to a highly-rated referee after the last touch of a bout (not one of mine) to ask him about a call he made. In this case, the "attacker" had his elbow near his chest until the last moment, and had his point directed to the scoring machine - again, until the last minute, and after the opponent initiated an attack into it.

I asked (very politely) "was that an attack all the way, from the beginning", and the answer was "yes". So, at least in some cases, attacks are called for what I would call a preparation. I've seen other examples of this. I've been reffing since about 1971 and I understand what you refer to, but very frequently I see actions that I consider preparations called as attacks, with a "final" launched after the other person launched a simple attack.

[dberke]

Originally Posted by jeff

Perhaps, Dan, but not in all cases.

In one instance, I went up to a highly-rated referee after the last touch of a bout (not one of mine) to ask him about a call he made. In this case, the "attacker" had his elbow near his chest until the last moment, and had his point directed to the scoring machine - again, until the last minute, and after the opponent initiated an attack into it.

I asked (very politely) "was that an attack all the way, from the beginning", and the answer was "yes". So, at least in some cases, attacks are called for what I would call a preparation. I've seen other examples of this. I've been reffing since about 1971 and I understand what you refer to, but very frequently I see actions that I consider preparations called as attacks, with a "final" launched after the other person launched a simple attack.

It sounds like the ref you are talking about may have been a bit loose with the terminology. If the attacker was the aggressor the whole time, I could see how the ref would call it an attack from the beginning - in that sense, using the word "attack" as more of a general term rather than the more technically precise meaning of just the final action. Of course, I can't say for certain since I didn't see the action, and it's entirely possible the ref was wrong.

In the ref clinic I attended yesterady, we discussed this sort of thing in a general sense. It was pointed out that in most cases, the attacker is given the benefit of the doubt and that it is incumbent on the defender to make it clear that they have defeated the attack, whether by parrying, pulling distance, etc.

Since I've only been fencing for 8 or so years, this is pretty much the only interpretation I've known and so it meshes with what I've been taught and experience. Have you been seeing the interpretation of that kind of long "developing attack" evolve over the years in how it's been called?

Dan

[jeff]

To say that the person who is coming forward with the arm bent is the "attacker" is to beg the question, isn't it? As you said previously, that "ramble forward" does NOT yet have ROW. Why give this individual the benefit of the doubt? The attack does not begin until the conditions required by t.8 and t.56 have been established. Until then, there is no attack "to be defeated". I wonder what was the intention of the people teaching the clinic. Someone rambling forward with the arm back is preparing, not attacking.

For your question: until the early 1990s, the action you describe would be called "preparation", and somebody calling that an "attack" would be described as somebody who "directs by the feet". That wasn't a compliment. The people I fenced among were the members of the US team. The tendency to call this an attack was the worst (in my opinion) in the mid 1990s through early 2000s. It seems to be somewhat less prominent now. According to Bukantz's articles, this kind of call is now being considered a mistake in international levels, and they're trying to reverse the damage done. At least, that's the way I read his articles.

I well understand that you can slowly move forward in invitation, and when closing THEN start a valid attack, and that if you do this properly the counter-attack is initiated after the attack has actually been started. I think that's actually pretty rare.

[dberke]

Originally Posted by jeff

To say that the person who is coming forward with the arm bent is the "attacker" is to beg the question, isn't it? As you said previously, that "ramble forward" does NOT yet have ROW. Why give this individual the benefit of the doubt? The attack does not begin until the conditions required by t.8 and t.56 have been established. Until then, there is no attack "to be defeated". I wonder what was the intention of the people teaching the clinic. Someone rambling forward with the arm back is preparing, not attacking.

Perhaps "attacker" isn't the best word here (although it is frequently used)... I think a better term would be "aggressor". The fencer coming forward with his arm back is clearly making an aggressive preparation. What makes that a valid claim is how the opponent reacts - if they're backpedalling to get away from the aggressor, they too must see it as a threat (or at least a potential one.)

If they don't see it as an aggressive action and attack into it, then it's very likely they'll get the touch as it was an attack on preparation.

Originally Posted by jeff

For your question: until the early 1990s, the action you describe would be called "preparation", and somebody calling that an "attack" would be described as somebody who "directs by the feet". That wasn't a compliment. The people I fenced among were the members of the US team. The tendency to call this an attack was the worst (in my opinion) in the mid 1990s through early 2000s. It seems to be somewhat less prominent now. According to Bukantz's articles, this kind of call is now being considered a mistake in international levels, and they're trying to reverse the damage done. At least, that's the way I read his articles.

If they aren't calling it an attack at the international levels, what are they callling this kind of action? Or more specifically, what actions by the "defender" do they award touches for?

Originally Posted by jeff

I well understand that you can slowly move forward in invitation, and when closing THEN start a valid attack, and that if you do this properly the counter-attack is initiated after the attack has actually been started. I think that's actually pretty rare.

In my experience, this is a fairly common attack, especially at the junior/cadet levels. Or at least, all of the junior A's and B's at my club seem to be pretty effective executing those kinds of attacks against me!

Dan

[jeff]

Originally Posted by dberke

Perhaps "attacker" isn't the best word here (although it is frequently used)... I think a better term would be "aggressor". The fencer coming forward with his arm back is clearly making an aggressive preparation. What makes that a valid claim is how the opponent reacts - if they're backpedalling to get away from the aggressor, they too must see it as a threat (or at least a potential one.)

If they don't see it as an aggressive action and attack into it, then it's very likely they'll get the touch as it was an attack on preparation.

Very common to see the "retreater" (ugly word, let's think of a better), fish franticly for the blade, and then go "oh crap!" and stick out a point or make a counter at the last moment, when the "aggressor" has already started a valid attack. In which case, too bad, so sad... the aggressor had the attack. If the retreater counter attacks into the bent arm prep he should get the action - if that's how people actually call it, then I have nothing to complain about whatsoever. If that's happening more now, then the tide may be turning.

Originally Posted by dberke

If they aren't calling it an attack at the international levels, what are they callling this kind of action? Or more specifically, what actions by the "defender" do they award touches for?

New Wave: draw the final attack and make it miss or go short (this is accepted by all, including the people most fond of the marching actions)

Old Wave: counter attack in tempo to the preparation with arm bent or held back. Brief call by ref: "Attack.". Loquacious call which we really shouldn't do (but in Old Days was typical): "Preparation from my right (assuming that's the marcher), attack from my left". Sometimes "counter attack into preparation", though that's not technically correct.

To what extent things are changing from one status quo to another on the international scene, I bow to the first hand experiences of those who attend. My info is from Bukantz's columns, where he says things are reverting to the Old Wave, and from watching Olympic and World Championships DVDs. There's an AMAZING difference between the actions in 2004 Olympics and 2007 World Championships. This is very encouraging (for my set of opinions of course. Others, I am sure, are appalled)

Originally Posted by dberke

In my experience, this is a fairly common attack, especially at the junior/cadet levels. Or at least, all of the junior A's and B's at my club seem to be pretty effective executing those kinds of attacks against me!

Dan

It's very difficult to handle if the only tool available is the "New Wave" I mentioned.. It gives a great deal of advantage to the person who is advancing. The "Old Wave", in my view, has better balance: for something to be considered an attack it has to involve the weapon progressing towards the target, and therefore at risk of being found in a parry or beat. No extending arm towards target == "no attack". That this is what the rules say is merely a coincidence...

Another peeve of mine, now that you have me started (I was trying to be good, but I've had these in my head for a long time), is referring based on "intent". Sure, there's a bit of selling you have to do to make sure the ref sees your action for what it is ("Here, dammit - do you SEE my attack?!?"), but "intent" means the referee is a mind reader and makes calls based on what somebody wanted to do, rather than what he/she actually did? I intended to hit Ballinger, Marx, and McCahey more than I actually did - should I have gotten those touches?

[NSXER]

Originally Posted by jeff

Very common to see the "retreater" (ugly word, let's think of a better), fish franticly for the blade, and then go "oh crap!" and stick out a point or make a counter at the last moment, when the "aggressor" has already started a valid attack. In which case, too bad, so sad... the aggressor had the attack. If the retreater counter attacks into the bent arm prep he should get the action - if that's how people actually call it, then I have nothing to complain about whatsoever. If that's happening more now, then the tide may be turning.




New Wave: draw the final attack and make it miss or go short (this is accepted by all, including the people most fond of the marching actions)

Old Wave: counter attack in tempo to the preparation with arm bent or held back. Brief call by ref: "Attack.". Loquacious call which we really shouldn't do (but in Old Days was typical): "Preparation from my right (assuming that's the marcher), attack from my left". Sometimes "counter attack into preparation", though that's not technically correct.

To what extent things are changing from one status quo to another on the international scene, I bow to the first hand experiences of those who attend. My info is from Bukantz's columns, where he says things are reverting to the Old Wave, and from watching Olympic and World Championships DVDs. There's an AMAZING difference between the actions in 2004 Olympics and 2007 World Championships. This is very encouraging (for my set of opinions of course. Others, I am sure, are appalled)



It's very difficult to handle if the only tool available is the "New Wave" I mentioned.. It gives a great deal of advantage to the person who is advancing. The "Old Wave", in my view, has better balance: for something to be considered an attack it has to involve the weapon progressing towards the target, and therefore at risk of being found in a parry or beat. No extending arm towards target == "no attack". That this is what the rules say is merely a coincidence...

Another peeve of mine, now that you have me started (I was trying to be good, but I've had these in my head for a long time), is referring based on "intent". Sure, there's a bit of selling you have to do to make sure the ref sees your action for what it is ("Here, dammit - do you SEE my attack?!?"), but "intent" means the referee is a mind reader and makes calls based on what somebody wanted to do, rather than what he/she actually did? I intended to hit Ballinger, Marx, and McCahey more than I actually did - should I have gotten those touches?

Excellent analysis!

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by jeff

Old Wave: counter attack in tempo to the preparation with arm bent or held back. Brief call by ref: "Attack.". Loquacious call which we really shouldn't do (but in Old Days was typical): "Preparation from my right (assuming that's the marcher), attack from my left". Sometimes "counter attack into preparation", though that's not technically correct.

In college I generally heard this called as "Attack in to preparation." The extra verbiage was to let the preparer know that the ref wasn't just accidentally pointing in the wrong direction.

I didn't fence or watch foil between the late 80s/early 90s and mid to late 90s, so it was odd for me to see such a dramatically different game had developed in the interim.