Kolombatovich : Rules of Referees

[Allen Evans]

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!

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.

It's a difficult attack to handle if one approaches it only from solving it with blade actions alone. Especially since the distance is carefully controlled by the "aggressor" so that the attacking blade IS going to the target as the attack starts. The attacker -- if left unchecked to control the timing of the attack and the distance -- can present the blade in an "Old Wave" attack at such a time that the defensive fencer is in a very poor position to stop the attack.

Like Dan, I see this sort of attack (and teach it) at the Junior level. It can be broken up by the defender setting distance/tempo breaks to force the attacker to commit too soon or too late...or to fool the attacker into finishing into a line that the defender is prepared to control. If the attacker really likes this action, another solution is to never let that attack start: these attacks ONLY work over multiple steps. I've seen fencers (like Brendan Myers) smother opponents who like this attack by attacking into the hint of a preparation. With the new timings, it's often even one light.

AE

[jeff]

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.

Actually, I like "extra verbiage" because it explains much more than the terse call. I've succumbed to the standards, myself, and make the very brief verbal call plus hand signal, but I liked the longer format because everybody knew what you had seen. Especially for very junior fencers.

Yeah, things have sure changed a lot.

Allen: to your (where did it go?) question: I don't recall the defender's behavior. What stuck in my mind was the "attacker" advancing forward with his elbow cocked back 90+ degrees horizontally, and the weapon pointing directly at the scoring box on the side of the strip, until the last phrase. I agree with your points on how to address this kind of action, and yes, if you nail it in development you can get one lighters with the new timings. With the old timings as you had a big window to finish (IMO "start") the attack and still get a light off.

[Allen Evans]

I removed a previous post because Dan addressed that question much better than I did.

I understand that there is a certain amount of frustration, but I see fewer instances of "La March" than there were 5 years ago. Now the attacking fencer has to keep the defender in a much tighter box than before (the flick was a great way to adjust distance at the last minute). This means that the defender can break out of this box to frustrate the attacker.

The game is much more multi-dimensional.

AE

[jeff]

Okay - just so long as I wasn't hallucinating.

I agree - things are a lot better now than a few years ago, though I think I would characterize it differently

[headcut]

Yeah, things have sure changed a lot.

Wow! Yes! Things have changed and I'm talking about what I knew 35 yrs ago vs today. I don't think that written rules have really changed (definitely could be wrong here) but I'm getting the sense that the interpretation of those rules have "migrated" away from what I knew very well during my years in competition.

Not saying this is right or wrong, but when I was fencing, if you advanced or lunged or fleched with a bent arm, you'd better hit your opponent and not get hit because you had no RoW. My coach strongly stressed having a straight arm when attacking as this was one of the requirements of an attack. Attacking with a bent arm was poor form and done by only inexperienced fencers. Also, back then, the attack, as I knew it, was the continuation of the point moving forward (in time along with a straight arm) towards a valid target and it was consistently called that way when I was on the strip. Today after reading the forum, it seems to be quite different.

[dberke]

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.

If the "retreater" is able to catch the aggressor mid-preparation, it is almost always properly called as an attack on preparation. With the change to the shorter lockout time made a few years ago, it is almost always a single light touch.

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.

I think both ways are valid and I see them both called properly. What may have changed is how much leeway a referee is willing to give the attacker on their preparation.

Also, remember that for the attack on preparation to have the time, it has to arrive before the final action of the attack, not just start before it. (see t.59) I think that with the faster speed of foil fencing these days, that is less common.

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...

I wonder how much of the return to the "old wave" is a result of the timing changes? Counterattacks and attacks on preparation are more likely to be successful now because of the shorter lockout time.

I personally think the game is interesting with elements of both schools, and in my experience, the refs are calling things properly. My game certainly has adapted to how things are being called, and I don't feel that the calls are against the spirit of ROW or anything like that.

I think it all comes down to what the current interpretation of "threatening target" is. That has clearly changed over the years to reflect techniques that fencers are using successfully (such as the flick four+ years ago) .

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?

That is another one of those really grey areas that doesn't have a really clear answer...

[jeff]

If the "retreater" is able to catch the aggressor mid-preparation, it is almost always properly called as an attack on preparation. With the change to the shorter lockout time made a few years ago, it is almost always a single light touch.

Yes (and one-lighters always make things simple ) What I think the timing change does is make it harder to prepare (arm back or bent, etc) wait for the aggressive action from the retreater and finally make an extension. IMO, that is still and always was prep/attack into prep (see the next stanza below), but now harder for people to make long prep and get away with it.

I think both ways are valid and I see them both called properly. What may have changed is how much leeway a referee is willing to give the attacker on their preparation.

Also, remember that for the attack on preparation to have the time, it has to arrive before the final action of the attack, not just start before it. (see t.59) I think that with the faster speed of foil fencing these days, that is less common.

That's not correct. Remember, it's a correctly executed attack only if the conditions in t.56 are met. If the arm is bent, then t.56 is not satisfied, and it was never an attack in the first place. This is a very common misconception.

t.56(a)4: "Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations, laying themselves open to the initiation of the offensive or defensive/offensive action of the opponent"

What t.59 describes (and t.60(e)) is a counter attack in tempo into a correctly made attack, in which the arm has been extending continuously. If you hit somebody arriving on the "1" of a correctly made "1-2", then all is well and good. If the arm is bent, not extending, and the point is not threatening then it is NOT an attack and you do NOT have to land before the final action. I think there should be a large, block-letters poster with t.56's text in every salle.

I think also that it's just self-flattery that today's fencing is sooo much faster. The ballistic motion form of fencing was initiated by the Soviet bloc decades ago, and shortly adopted by everyone. The modern international style was well established by early 1970s. Faster than Pawlowski or Woyda? Than Axelrod or Marx? I don't think so.

I wonder how much of the return to the "old wave" is a result of the timing changes? Counterattacks and attacks on preparation are more likely to be successful now because of the shorter lockout time.

I think so too. I think it converts a bad call into a one lighter in the right direction, for the same reason that epee timing locks out a late hit. If my arm is back and I invite a stop thrust, I have a good chance of landing long after the other guy hit me because my arm and point had further to travel. With the shorter lockout, this is more likely to be a one-lighter against me. Good. (Not as good as people enforcing t.56 and its friends, but...)

According to Bukantz (see his American Fencing articles) there's also an Old Wave trend in international refereeing, so there may be a non-mechanical component also.

I personally think the game is interesting with elements of both schools, and in my experience, the refs are calling things properly. My game certainly has adapted to how things are being called, and I don't feel that the calls are against the spirit of ROW or anything like that.

I think it all comes down to what the current interpretation of "threatening target" is. That has clearly changed over the years to reflect techniques that fencers are using successfully (such as the flick four+ years ago) .

The flick bothered me somewhat ("damn, that hurts") but not anywhere near as much as the withdrawn arm given ROW. Flick-like actions existed forever before they were given that name, but became prevalent when you could hold your arm cocked back and get big acceleration around the parry,but still maintain ROW as long as your feet were moving forward...

"Threatening" became a subjective element based on foot motion instead of the explicit requirements in my favorite rules. I know I sound like a broken record, but the rules are central to this topic.

That is another one of those really grey areas that doesn't have a really clear answer...

How do you determine "intent" other than by the actions physically made on the strip? If there are physical actions on the strip, then what is the purpose of knowing the mental state behind them? I think "intent" is a very bad idea. "Showing the ref by doing something in a way that makes it clear" is okay, but not Karnak the Magician.

[Allen Evans]

Wow! Yes! Things have changed and I'm talking about what I knew 35 yrs ago vs today. I don't think that written rules have really changed (definitely could be wrong here) but I'm getting the sense that the interpretation of those rules have "migrated" away from what I knew very well during my years in competition.

My coach strongly stressed having a straight arm when attacking as this was one of the requirements of an attack. Attacking with a bent arm was poor form and done by only inexperienced fencers. Also, back then, the attack, as I knew it, was the continuation of the point moving forward (in time along with a straight arm) towards a valid target and it was consistently called that way when I was on the strip. Today after reading the forum, it seems to be quite different.

A number of rules HAVE changed, though the essential ones governing right of way are more or less intact as they were thirty five years ago.

However, even thirty five years ago, the coupe was counted as a simple attack, even though the point did not travel forward to the target in a continuous manner. The 1990s simply expanded that idea to fill a very large volume of actions...much more so than probably should have been allowed.

My first coach (now thirty years ago) also stressed a completely straight arm on the start of the attack. Among the fencers with more experience (National and International fencing) in my area that was considered an oddity even then. Depending on where you fenced, the definition of attack could vary quite widely.

Allen Evans

[jeff]

Bear in mind that in the text of the rules a coupe is defined as single tempo, and even in the 1957 rules book you can see text saying that a fully-extended arm was not necessary. Local conventions certainly did vary...

[dberke]

That's not correct. Remember, it's a correctly executed attack only if the conditions in t.56 are met. If the arm is bent, then t.56 is not satisfied, and it was never an attack in the first place. This is a very common misconception.

t.56(a)4: "Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations, laying themselves open to the initiation of the offensive or defensive/offensive action of the opponent"

What t.59 describes (and t.60(e)) is a counter attack in tempo into a correctly made attack, in which the arm has been extending continuously. If you hit somebody arriving on the "1" of a correctly made "1-2", then all is well and good. If the arm is bent, not extending, and the point is not threatening then it is NOT an attack and you do NOT have to land before the final action. I think there should be a large, block-letters poster with t.56's text in every salle.

I don't believe the current application of the rule contradicts the written rule. I just think it's a matter of fine timing.

Consider the following situation:
Fencer X is marching down the strip with his arm back (clearly preparing) and fencer Y is retreating (but not pulling distance.) At some point, fencer Y stops retreating, slows down, or otherwise falls within fencer X's one-tempo distance. Fencer X, recognizing that Y has fallen into one-tempo distance, begins his extension (even if it is from an odd position, his point is now moving towards Y's target). Fencer Y, also seeing the distance collapse, reacts by extending. Both fencers hit valid target.

If I were refereeing this action, I would award X's touch every time. My justification for this is that X recognized that the distance had collapsed first, and his attack then commenced. Y's extension was a late reaction, and thus a counterattack.

If Y had realized the distance had collapsed first and extended, he would have very likely hit X first during the preparation and gotten one light.

If you were to watch this action frame-by-frame on video, I think you would see that in almost every case, X is actually starting an extension before Y's point arrives. That woud meet the criteria of t.56.

Now, is it possible that Y actually started their counter before X started extending? I will grant you that possiblility, but I think it would be incredibly difficult for the referee to see that with any certainty, and they would be totally justified in awarding the touch for X. The justification is that X was controlling the action by setting up the distance and tempo, and Y did nothing to break that. Or, more specifically, they didn't do anything that clearly demonstrated that they took over control of the distance or tempo (such as pulling distance, stepping into the attack, etc.).

According to Bukantz (see his American Fencing articles) there's also an Old Wave trend in international refereeing, so there may be a non-mechanical component also.

I will look up the articles tonight when I get home... I assume you're referring to ones in the last couple issues?

The flick bothered me somewhat ("damn, that hurts") but not anywhere near as much as the withdrawn arm given ROW. Flick-like actions existed forever before they were given that name, but became prevalent when you could hold your arm cocked back and get big acceleration around the parry,but still maintain ROW as long as your feet were moving forward...

"Threatening" became a subjective element based on foot motion instead of the explicit requirements in my favorite rules. I know I sound like a broken record, but the rules are central to this topic.

I actually really liked the flick, despite the fact that I couldn't do it (although I was finally learning how right before they changed the timings.) I think some people relied on it too much, but there were ways to defeat it...

How do you determine "intent" other than by the actions physically made on the strip? If there are physical actions on the strip, then what is the purpose of knowing the mental state behind them? I think "intent" is a very bad idea. "Showing the ref by doing something in a way that makes it clear" is okay, but not Karnak the Magician.

I think intent is different from control. Referees are correct in awarding the touch to the fencer who they feel is in control of the action. In the situation we've been discussing, the attacker is in control, and the defender has to either dramatically change the distance or parry to demonstrate that they have taken control.

As much as I am enjoying this dialogue, I am a bit puzzled - I don't hear many people protesting the calls being made for these kinds of actions.

Dan

[erooMynohtnA]

I don't believe the current application of the rule contradicts the written rule. I just think it's a matter of fine timing.

Consider the following situation:
Fencer X is marching down the strip with his arm back (clearly preparing) and fencer Y is retreating (but not pulling distance.) At some point, fencer Y stops retreating, slows down, or otherwise falls within fencer X's one-tempo distance. Fencer X, recognizing that Y has fallen into one-tempo distance, begins his extension (even if it is from an odd position, his point is now moving towards Y's target). Fencer Y, also seeing the distance collapse, reacts by extending. Both fencers hit valid target.

If I were refereeing this action, I would award X's touch every time. My justification for this is that X recognized that the distance had collapsed first, and his attack then commenced. Y's extension was a late reaction, and thus a counterattack.

If Y had realized the distance had collapsed first and extended, he would have very likely hit X first during the preparation and gotten one light.

If you were to watch this action frame-by-frame on video, I think you would see that in almost every case, X is actually starting an extension before Y's point arrives. That woud meet the criteria of t.56.

Now, is it possible that Y actually started their counter before X started extending? I will grant you that possiblility, but I think it would be incredibly difficult for the referee to see that with any certainty, and they would be totally justified in awarding the touch for X. The justification is that X was controlling the action by setting up the distance and tempo, and Y did nothing to break that. Or, more specifically, they didn't do anything that clearly demonstrated that they took over control of the distance or tempo (such as pulling distance, stepping into the attack, etc.).

I think the bold text reveals a pretty huge bias for the guy charging forward with his arm back.

Preparing doesn't grant your opponent right of way, which some people seem to think. However, it certainly doesn't give you any special attack/counterattack mojo, either. If you are preparing, you are not attacking regardless of forward motion. If someone can stop moving back and start extending into my advance before I can twitch my arm forward, I am an idiot who deserves to lose that touch, not someone controlling the distance and tempo. They don't need to hit me before I start my extension, they already did enough.

Someone who sees the marching aggressor about to finish and throws out a counterattack in desperation certainly doesn't deserve that touch. But the fencer who sticks close enough to a preparing aggressor to attack into a slightly-too-large preparation does deserve the touch.

It's the "I don't know it was close, must have been the guy moving forward" attitude that makes the march so effective. It's lazy refereeing, and it encourages lazy fencing. The referees who call the march are the same ones who can't see a line that's been there for nine tempos. (The ones who aren't watching.)

[tchwojko]

TAs much as I am enjoying this dialogue, I am a bit puzzled - I don't hear many people protesting the calls being made for these kinds of actions.

I think most gave up a decade ago.

[TooLoftheDeviL]

. If someone can stop moving back and start extending into my advance before I can twitch my arm forward, I am an idiot who deserves to lose that touch, not someone controlling the distance and tempo. They don't need to hit me before I start my extension, they already did enough.

incorrect.

The attack in preperation (AIP) is defined in t.59:

"...the stop hit must arrive before the attacker has begun the final
movement of the attack."

[jeff]

Besides agreeing with erooMynohtnA, I'm going to cut to the chase in your text...

Fencer X, recognizing that Y has fallen into one-tempo distance, begins his extension (even if it is from an odd position, his point is now moving towards Y's target). Fencer Y, also seeing the distance collapse, reacts by extending. Both fencers hit valid target.

All that matters here is that X starts his extension first.

If Y had realized the distance had collapsed first and extended, he would have very likely hit X first during the preparation and gotten one light.

Nice to get a one-lighter to keep the referee from screwing up. In foil and sabre who hit first is irrelevant. That's not what ROW deals with. "Who hit first" is epee. All that matters is "who started the extension first".

If you were to watch this action frame-by-frame on video, I think you would see that in almost every case, X is actually starting an extension before Y's point arrives. That woud meet the criteria of t.56.

Two very different things are being incorrectly mixed. X has to start his extension before Y starts his extension. Who arrives first is absolutely NOT the basis for ROW. If X starts his extension first, X has ROW. If Y starts first, then Y does. See also t.60

Now, is it possible that Y actually started their counter before X started extending? I will grant you that possiblility, but I think it would be incredibly difficult for the referee to see that with any certainty, and they would be totally justified in awarding the touch for X.

Nonsense. It is absolutely possible for the referee to see who started the extension first - and well within the ability of a competent referee. That's the crux of ROW, and IMO the essence of "can this referee call ROW competently". If you can't do that you can't ref. Again, IMO.

"Who started the valid attack first". I was trained to do this, as were many others. You watch the two fencers and see whose arm is moving away from their torso. I absolutely deny that this is impossible. I've done it thousands of times, and I'm not extraordinary.

And based on what do you give the touch to X? There is no basis in the rules for doing so. Not unless he initiated a valid attack before Y. Not because he was advancing forward with a bent arm or an arm that had not yet started to extend. As the rules say quite explicitly, that is preparation and entitles the fencer to nothing.

The justification is that X was controlling the action by setting up the distance and tempo, and Y did nothing to break that. Or, more specifically, they didn't do anything that clearly demonstrated that they took over control of the distance or tempo (such as pulling distance, stepping into the attack, etc.).

There is nothing in the rules to suggest somebody gets a touch for "controlling actions". You get a touch for making a valid (eg: with ROW), material touch in accordance with the rules.

I will look up the articles tonight when I get home... I assume you're referring to ones in the last couple issues?

Yes.

I actually really liked the flick, despite the fact that I couldn't do it (although I was finally learning how right before they changed the timings.) I think some people relied on it too much, but there were ways to defeat it...

De gustibus.

I think intent is different from control. Referees are correct in awarding the touch to the fencer who they feel is in control of the action. In the situation we've been discussing, the attacker is in control, and the defender has to either dramatically change the distance or parry to demonstrate that they have taken control.

No, no, no. Referees do not correctly award touches to the person they "feel" is "in control". An undefinable notion that is not mentioned anywhere in the rules. You can be running away like a scared bunny rabbit, but if you put out your attack while the other guy is preparing, it is your attack.

As much as I am enjoying this dialogue, I am a bit puzzled - I don't hear many people protesting the calls being made for these kinds of actions.

Dan

It's like what tchwojko says.

There is less marching going on, the new timings help, and the most vicious arguments on this topic were conducted when this style of officiating became widely used in early 1990s - before you started. I actually switched to epee for several years, despite not really caring for it, purely because people were referring foil without regard to the principles of ROW or the rules, instead basing calls on "who controlled", and "intent". Those of us who were trained to fence and ref by the rules, yet persist in fencing foil just grimly grit our teeth and fence to the referee's way of calling it, and try to get one-lighters. It takes a lot of the fun out of it, let me tell you.

[jeff]

incorrect.

The attack in preperation (AIP) is defined in t.59:

"...the stop hit must arrive before the attacker has begun the final
movement of the attack."

No - the stop must arrive before the final movement only if there is a valid compound attack. If not (t.56 is not satisfied because the arm is bent) then the stop hit can occur any darned time because t.56(4) says so. Please read that. I quoted it in my 5:35pm post.

t.59 applies only to stop hits against an attack. It hs nothing to do with AIP (which is into a preparation...)

[TooLoftheDeviL]

No - the stop must arrive before the final movement only if there is a valid compound attack. If not (t.56 is not satisfied because the arm is bent) then the stop hit can occur any darned time because t.56(4) says so. Please read that. I quoted it in my 5:35pm post.

t.59 applies only to stop hits against an attack. It hs nothing to do with AIP (which is into a preparation...)

It is never a requirement that the extension is the first element which makes up the attack, only that it precede the lunge or fleche, in the advance-lunge or advance-fleche tempo.

If I've begun an advance and some kid sticks out his arm, and then i begin my extension, and then lunge and he also lunges -- that's not his touch just by sticking out his arm real fast.

[jeff]

It's yours if you satisfy t.56(a)3.

And t.59 has nothing to do with AIP. It defines stop hit into a valid attack, not a prep.

[TooLoftheDeviL]

It's yours if you satisfy t.56(a)3.

And t.59 has nothing to do with AIP. It defines stop hit into a valid attack.

Which is not the same as Anthony's implication that someone turning the corner and extending first grants ROW automatically, which is all I'm saying.

[headcut]

All that matters here is that X starts his extension first.

Nice to get a one-lighter to keep the referee from screwing up. In foil and sabre who hit first is irrelevant. That's not what ROW deals with. "Who hit first" is epee. All that matters is "who started the extension first".

Two very different things are being incorrectly mixed. X has to start his extension before Y starts his extension. Who arrives first is absolutely NOT the basis for ROW. If X starts his extension first, X has ROW. If Y starts first, then Y does. See also t.60

Nonsense. It is absolutely possible for the referee to see who started the extension first - and well within the ability of a competent referee. That's the crux of ROW, and IMO the essence of "can this referee call ROW competently". If you can't do that you can't ref. Again, IMO.

"Who started the valid attack first". I was trained to do this, as were many others. You watch the two fencers and see whose arm is moving away from their torso. I absolutely deny that this is impossible. I've done it thousands of times, and I'm not extraordinary.

And based on what do you give the touch to X? There is no basis in the rules for doing so. Not unless he initiated a valid attack before Y. Not because he was advancing forward with a bent arm or an arm that had not yet started to extend. As the rules say quite explicitly, that is preparation and entitles the fencer to nothing.

There is nothing in the rules to suggest somebody gets a touch for "controlling actions". You get a touch for making a valid (eg: with ROW), material touch in accordance with the rules.

No, no, no. Referees do not correctly award touches to the person they "feel" is "in control". An undefinable notion that is not mentioned anywhere in the rules. You can be running away like a scared bunny rabbit, but if you put out your attack while the other guy is preparing, it is your attack.

There is less marching going on, the new timings help, and the most vicious arguments on this topic were conducted when this style of officiating became widely used in early 1990s - before you started. I actually switched to epee for several years, despite not really caring for it, purely because people were referring foil without regard to the principles of ROW or the rules, instead basing calls on "who controlled", and "intent". Those of us who were trained to fence and ref by the rules, yet persist in fencing foil just grimly grit our teeth and fence to the referee's way of calling it, and try to get one-lighters. It takes a lot of the fun out of it, let me tell you.

Very well said. Concise, simple and to the point just like good fencing technique!

[erooMynohtnA]

Which is not the same as Anthony's implication that someone turning the corner and extending first grants ROW automatically, which is all I'm saying.

Perhaps I am succumbing to an ultra-literal interpretation of the rules.

If extending first while moving forward doesn't grant RoW automatically, what does?