Kolombatovich : Rules of Referees

[TooLoftheDeviL]

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?

Attacking first

[forethought]

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."

Stop hits are counter attacks made against compound attacks, attacks into preparation are when someone makes an attack against someone who is in preparation (usually, within advance-lunge distance and attempting to further close distance without extending the arm, while searching for the blade, etc.). Stop hits, by definition, cannot be made (successfully) against a simple attack.

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.

If you didn't begin extending before your front foot hits on the advance, then technically you're still preparing to attack. The arm is what defines the attack, not the feet; just because you advance and then lunge does not mean you executed an advance-lunge, you have to start extending during the advance.

It's in the rules, why people call it to the contrary baffles me.

[TooLoftheDeviL]

Stop hits are counter attacks made against compound attacks, attacks into preparation are when someone makes an attack against someone who is in preparation (usually, within advance-lunge distance and attempting to further close distance without extending the arm, while searching for the blade, etc.). Stop hits, by definition, cannot be made (successfully) against a simple attack.



If you didn't begin extending before your front foot hits on the advance, then technically you're still preparing to attack. The arm is what defines the attack, not the feet; just because you advance and then lunge does not mean you executed an advance-lunge, you have to start extending during the advance.

It's in the rules, why people call it to the contrary baffles me.

And still, if I'm advancing and you start extending, and I start extending before I finish the advance, it's still my advance-lunge and my attack even though you began extending first.

The hand defines the attack, but it is not the requisite FIRST component of the attack.

[catwood1]

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.

If you aren't extending when you advance, then you aren't attacking. If he extends into that, yes, it his is attack.

There is a big difference between attack in prep, and stop hit. Stop hit must arrive before the final action of the attack begins. This is made against an actual attack. Attack in prep is not made against an attack, its made against a prep. If you charge down the strip with your hand touching your lame, your opponent attacks into your obvious prep, and then you extend, its his attack your counter attack.

[catwood1]

And still, if I'm advancing and you start extending, and I start extending before I finish the advance, it's still my advance-lunge and my attack even though you began extending first.

The hand defines the attack, but it is not the requisite FIRST component of the attack.

Yes. Yes it is. Its not an attack until you extend.

And forethought, we are seeing it called as a prep more and more at NACs. Its still being often given a wide window, but you will see the call of attack in prep.

[TooLoftheDeviL]

If you aren't extending when you advance, then you aren't attacking. If he extends into that, yes, it his is attack.

There is a big difference between attack in prep, and stop hit. Stop hit must arrive before the final action of the attack begins. This is made against an actual attack. Attack in prep is not made against an attack, its made against a prep. If you charge down the strip with your hand touching your lame, your opponent attacks into your obvious prep, and then you extend, its his attack your counter attack.

The hand touching your lame doesn't make your opponent's action an attack in preperation by necessity. Someone stated earlier a correct note, that just because you make a preperation doesn't mean your opponent made an attack in preperation. Just because the hand is "far back" or "so low" or "so high" or anywhere else doesn't mean that anything the opponent throws out must have been an attack in preperation. ROW is determined by what both fencers are doing and WHEN they do it.

If you wish to advance with your hand touching your lame, go for it. As long as you begin extending before the start of your lunge or fleche and have not made subsequent advances after being hit, you have satisfied the requirements of a correctly executed attack (+ the continuously threatening, didn't withdraw business).

[catwood1]

Yes you have made an attack, but if they extend first, they made an attack too. And theirs started first. You made a counter attack.

[dberke]

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".

I never claimed that ROW goes to who hits first. My point was that when you have a fencer aggressively advancing as a preparation, and another retreating, the one who makes a distancer error is usually the one who is scored against. The attacker can either get into advance-lunge distance before the defender realizes (and then the attacker starts extending, advance-lunges and hits) or the attacker can not realize he's in that distance, continue to make a preparation, and get hit by the defender who sees the opening presented by the preparation.

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

This is not true in the case that we're discussing, where Y is attempting to attack into X's preparation.

t.59 states:

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.

So, if fencer Y begins an extension into X's preparation, and X then begins his "final movement of the attack" (which is the advance lunge with extension, by definition a one-tempo action) Y is still out of time because t.59 says he has to arrive before X's final action starts. This is clearly a case where X's extension could start after Y's, yet still retain priority.

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.

As we all know, the rules are vague and subject to interpretation. You are taking a rather strict and literal interpretation, but the current interpretation has evolved well beyond that. What you describe may be have been the interpretation 20 years ago, but that has changed.

If you have recently been competing at national events, how do you reconcile the calls being made with what you believe to be correct? Every national-level referee that I know and have been reffed by would call things as I have described.

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.

I guess this partially answers my question. I do think it is a bit disingenuous to suggest that current foil fencers aren't following the principles of ROW. They are following the current interpretation, which is likely the only flavor of ROW they know.

Dan

[Jason]

So, if fencer Y begins an extension into X's preparation, and X then begins his "final movement of the attack" (which is the advance lunge with extension, by definition a one-tempo action) Y is still out of time because t.59 says he has to arrive before X's final action starts. This is clearly a case where X's extension could start after Y's, yet still retain priority.

Dan, this reasoning is absurd.
I absolutely agree that this is the way fencing is currently officiated, and I certainly coach my students to fence accordingly, but to say that t.59 justifies this thinking is ludicrous.

The language "final movement" would suggest a compound attack not a simple attack. Advance-lunge with extension is not the final movement of the attack--it is the only movement of the attack. "Final" suggests that the attack has multiple movements--meaning multiple movements of the hand, not feet.

This idea that referees "interpret" the rules in a new way is generally a bit of a euphemism. The "interpretations" are almost always new (unwritten) rules.

Of course, as a coach, none of this means anything to me. If referees start saying that attacks start with the butt, then I'll be teaching that. The best source of ROW rules is not (unfortunately) the rule book.

[Stormbringer]

What is the popular version of the difference between an attempted attack-into-preparation and an attempted stop-hit?

Looking at the rules, the preparation is defined as/by:

t.56, part 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 (cf. t.8).

t.56, part 5
Continuous steps forward, with the legs crossing one
another, constitute a preparation and on this
preparation any simple attack has priority.

And the stop-hit is defined as/by:

t.8, part c
(c) Counter-attacks
Counter-attacks are offensive or offensive–defensive actions made
during the offensive action of the opponent.
1. The stop hit
A counter-attack made into an attack.
2. The stop hit made with opposition
A counter-attack made while closing the line in which the
opponent’s attack will be completed (cf. t.56ss, t.64ss and t.76ss).
3. The stop hit made within a period of fencing time, i.e. ‘in time’
(cf. t.59, t.79).

In relation to the stop-hit, we also have:

t.59 (and t.77)
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.

t.60, part 1
Only the fencer who is attacked is counted as touched:
(a) If he makes a stop hit on his opponent’s simple attack.
(d) If, during a compound attack, he makes a stop hit
without being in time.

t.60, part 2
Only the fencer who attacks is counted as touched:
(d) If, during a compound attack, he makes a momentary
pause, during which time the opponent makes a stop
hit, after which the attacker continues his attack.
(e) If, during a compound attack, he is stop-hit in time
before he begins his final movement.

Finally, and perhaps interestingly, we have this:

t.60, part 3
One of the most difficult cases to judge arises when a stop
hit is made and there is doubt as to whether it was made
sufficiently in time in relation to the final movement of a
compound attack. Generally, in such cases, the double
touch occurs through the fault of both fencers concerned,
which justifies the Referee replacing them on guard. (The
fault of the attacker consists of indecision, slowness of
execution or the making of feints which are not sufficiently
effective. The fault of the defender lies in delay or
slowness in making the stop hit.)

It would seem, to me, that the AIP and the stop-hit are two separate and different entities; the attack-into-preparation is exactly that - a (simple) attack, just like any other, made on an opponent who meets the criteria for being in preparation (who, by definition of being in preparation, cannot be attacking; see above), while the stop-hit is defined as an element of a counter-attack against an attacking opponent (who, then, cannot be in preparation, as they have, in fact, initiated an offensive action).

So, what is the popular interpretation of all this, and the logic/rationale behind it?

[downunder]

This is getting a bit ridiculous.

How about if your hand isn't extending you're not attacking? If you are not moving your hand forward and your opponent starts an attack then that is the attack in time. This is made very obvious by the slow-mo video replay. I know the rules are not always clear about this but this is the way it is.

[tbryan]

It would seem, to me, that the AIP and the stop-hit are two separate and different entities; the attack-into-preparation is exactly that - a (simple) attack, just like any other, made on an opponent who meets the criteria for being in preparation (who, by definition of being in preparation, cannot be attacking; see above), while the stop-hit is defined as an element of a counter-attack against an attacking opponent (who, then, cannot be in preparation, as they have, in fact, initiated an offensive action).

This is a correct and good summary. I have noticed some confusion among fencers in the past between a stop-hit in time and an attack in preparation.

The stop hit (counter attack) into a compound attack must arrive before the final movement of the attack. The counter attacker's light must register before the attacker starts that final movement.

An attack in preparation is just the first attack. So, the attack in preparation must start while the opponent is still in preparation. It does not need to arrive before the preparation stops and turns into an attack. It just needs to start before the preparation stops and turns into an attack.

The reason we say "attack in preparation" instead of just "attack" is to communicate that while it seemed like fencer A started first, he made an error (preparation), and fencer B started his attack during that preparation. So fencer B has the real first attack. The best example is probably a sabre "attack" where the the fencer is moving forward carrying the blade at a 90 degree angle to his forearm and not attempting to make a cut until his opponent starts an attack.

I like the way the FIE has gone with its terminology: "non correct" instead of "preparation." Basically, you tried to attack, but you made a error. It was not a correct attack. Of course, just because fencer A prepared does not mean that fencer B started in time. "Didn't my opponent prepare?" "Yes. He prepared. Then he attacked. Then you counter attacked."

The interesting question is still what constitutes a preparation or an incorrect attack. The rules are clear, but the calls still vary from referee to referee. Since I have been in a ref seminar where George K screamed at everyone about how they were incorrectly giving the attack to actions that were really preparations, I have to assume that the FOC is making an attempt to tighten up the preparation calls (making them closer to what downunder is saying now vs. what he used to say two years ago). As a fencer, the best thing to do is to watch your refs, learn what they call, and adjust quickly.

[forethought]

And forethought, we are seeing it called as a prep more and more at NACs. Its still being often given a wide window, but you will see the call of attack in prep.

Brilliant!

[bigdawg2121]

What is the popular version of the difference between an attempted attack-into-preparation and an attempted stop-hit?

Looking at the rules, the preparation is defined as/by:



And the stop-hit is defined as/by:



In relation to the stop-hit, we also have:



Finally, and perhaps interestingly, we have this:


It would seem, to me, that the AIP and the stop-hit are two separate and different entities; the attack-into-preparation is exactly that - a (simple) attack, just like any other, made on an opponent who meets the criteria for being in preparation (who, by definition of being in preparation, cannot be attacking; see above), while the stop-hit is defined as an element of a counter-attack against an attacking opponent (who, then, cannot be in preparation, as they have, in fact, initiated an offensive action).

So, what is the popular interpretation of all this, and the logic/rationale behind it?

[Editorial]

To the best of my knowledge, as well as based on how I see/call it and how I feel it should be distinguished a stop hit is counter offensive action primarily (i.e. you are going backward, stopping to close distance, or going forward to close distance against what is clearly a correct attack). The "sky hook" in saber and similar counterattacks in which one continues retreating, esquives, etc, fall under this category.

An attack in preparation must be just that an attack. If the fencer recognizes the preparation (although most often they must create or anticipate the preparation b/c if 90% of the time if a fencer is trying to react to the preparation they actually start the action just a bit too late) and makes an attack into it it's an AiP. Lunge, advance, fleche, etc. Generally something going forward and actually taking control of the tempo/action.

In practice, you'd be surprised how many people fail to get AiP calls mostly b/c they fail to look they're attacking. Often they'll duck, flinch, try to find the blade to close it out (after the fact, not as a function of the line chosen for the attack) or do something else that they wouldn't likely do when attacking. I practically lived off AiP as my primary defense when I switched to foil this year. I got a lot of those calls, in really tight situations; I'm fairl sure that more than a couple were in thanks to the fact that I made active assertive attacks as much as they were to how I timed it.

[/Editorial]

[Allen Evans]

...and that, ladies and gentlemen, is as good of an example of showing the referee your "intent" as any.

[SenorEquis]

From what I've read here, it appears people are saying:

Stop-hit: made against a compound attack
Attack-in-prep: made against a preparing attack

Can someone please make clear what you believe the differences are between a compounding attack and a preparing attack? Thank you.

[noodle]

Yes. Yes it is. Its not an attack until you extend.

And forethought, we are seeing it called as a prep more and more at NACs. Its still being often given a wide window, but you will see the call of attack in prep.

Yes you have made an attack, but if they extend first, they made an attack too. And theirs started first. You made a counter attack.

false.

t.56.a.3 - The attack with a advance-lunge or a advance-flèche is
correctly executed when the extending of the arm
precedes the end of the step forward and the initiation
of the lunge or the flèche.

extend before the end of the advance. not before the start of the advance. notice that this is a foil only rule, and that in saber, it is defined differently, so it is specific to foil and stated as it is on purpose.


it is not the case that you can steal ROW if you extend faster/harder.

[forethought]

From what I've read here, it appears people are saying:

Stop-hit: made against a compound attack
Attack-in-prep: made against a preparing attack

Can someone please make clear what you believe the differences are between a compounding attack and a preparing attack? Thank you.

For a compound attack, the arm has to be continuously extending, or if it is straight, must not be broken. Per the rulebook (for foil):

The 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.

A "preparing attack" is a bit of a misnomer, in that it's not an attack; a better phrase would be "preparing to attack", indicating you have not yet started the attack. Some people are of the opinion that you can do whatever you want with your feet, no matter how close you are, but unless your arm is extending towards your opponent's target, you're not attacking.

Then again, some people think differently.

[edew]

From what I've read here, it appears people are saying:

Stop-hit: made against a compound attack
Attack-in-prep: made against a preparing attack

Can someone please make clear what you believe the differences are between a compounding attack and a preparing attack? Thank you.

Really, there's not much difference. The difference is in the movement and action of the stop-hitter/attack-in-prepper. An attack in prep is a forward movement while a stop hit is a backward movement of the body.

An AIPer makes a lunge going forward. A stop-hitter makes a jab and runs the heck away.


Why do one versus the other? If the attacker makes a compound action with the blade pointing at the ceiling or some such direction, it's better to make an AIP so that closing the distance will prevent the tip (in foil) from hitting. Running away might still allow some sort of a flickish action to succeed.

If the attacker is making a compound action by pulling the arm back (with the point still towards the "defender"), it might work better to do a stop-hit and run fast from the extending arm. Closing distance with an AIP only gets the AIPer skewered.

In saber, the same description works: stop-cut (or stop-hit) is performed while running away. Attack in prep is a forward lunging action. Here, the stop-hit is done even to a simple attack, only because that simple attack is going after the head or body, while the stop cut is to the forearm. The distance differential plus the running away may get the stop-hitter to not get hit by the 120ms elapse time or even not at all.

An AIP in saber is done because the AIPer genuinely thinks he now has RoW when the attacker loses RoW (blade dips down in a short-attack look) or attacker pulls the arm back. First, it's hard to do a stop-hit because the "attacker" may have the arm pulled so far back that it's almost easier to stop-hit the body than the arm and the "attacker"'s arm is actually extending since it's cocked so far back that it can't be but move forward, so if the "attacker" scores, the referee could give the touch to the attacker. So, better do an AIP and hit the person while that arm is way back there. It also helps that the "attacker" is moving very fast forward. The additional net speed forward helps the AIP get there sooner. A slowly advancing attacker is probably making a second-intention or counter-time, drawing the attack and making a parry-riposte.

[Stormbringer]

Yes. Yes it is. Its not an attack until you extend.

And forethought, we are seeing it called as a prep more and more at NACs. Its still being often given a wide window, but you will see the call of attack in prep.

Yes you have made an attack, but if they extend first, they made an attack too. And theirs started first. You made a counter attack.

false.

t.56.a.3 - The attack with a advance-lunge or a advance-flèche is
correctly executed when the extending of the arm
precedes the end of the step forward and the initiation
of the lunge or the flèche.

extend before the end of the advance. not before the start of the advance. notice that this is a foil only rule, and that in saber, it is defined differently, so it is specific to foil and stated as it is on purpose.


it is not the case that you can steal ROW if you extend faster/harder.

Consider the following scenario:
Two foil fencers (lets say, the tireless, eternally-battling "X" and "Y") are at their starting lines, and the referee gives the command to fence. Each advances toward the center of the strip while more-or-less maintaining a traditional guard-in-six. While "Y" is in the middle of an advance and *not perceptibly extending*, "X" begins to extend their weapon-arm toward "Y", and initiates a lunge. Perceptibly following "X's" extension - but before the end of the advance - "Y" begins to extend their weapon-arm toward "X" and initiates an advance-lunge.

Neither attempts to parry or avoid the other's action, and both strike the valid targets...

Who (if anyone) gets the point?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What I think:

In order to decide who's action has priority, A number of rules take effect:

t.7: "The attack is the initial offensive action made by extending the
arm and continuously threatening the opponent’s target, preceding
the launching of the lunge or flèche (cf. t.56ss, t.75ss)."

t.8: "Counter-attacks are offensive or offensive–defensive actions made
during the offensive action of the opponent."

t.56: "Every attack, that is every initial offensive action, which is
correctly executed must be parried or completely avoided
and the phrase must be followed through — that is to say,
coordinated (cf. t.7).
In order to judge the correctness of an attack the following
points must be considered:
(1.) The simple attack, direct or indirect (cf. t.8), is correctly
executed when the extending of the arm, the point
threatening the valid target, precedes the initiation of
the lunge or the flèche.
(3.) The attack with a advance-lunge or a advance-flèche is
correctly executed when the extending of the arm
precedes the end of the step forward and the initiation
of the lunge or the flèche."

t.60: "The Referee should apply the following basic conventions of
foil fencing.
When during a phrase, both fencers touch at the same time,
there is either a simultaneous action or a double touch.
The first of these conditions is due to simultaneous conception
and execution of an attack by both fencers; in this case the
touches exchanged are annulled for both fencers even if one of
them has been touched off the target.
The double touch, on the other hand, is the result of a faulty
action on the part of one of the fencers.
Therefore, when there is not a period of fencing time between
the touches:
1. Only the fencer who is attacked is counted as touched:
(a) If he makes a stop hit on his opponent’s simple attack.
(b) If, instead of parrying, he attempts to avoid the touch
and does not succeed in so doing.
(c) If, after making a successful parry, he makes a
momentary pause which gives his opponent the right to
renew the attack (redoublement, remise or reprise).
(d) If, during a compound attack, he makes a stop hit
without being in time.
(e) If, having his ‘point in line’ (cf. t.10) and being
subjected to a beat or a taking of the blade (prise de
fer) which deflects his blade, he attacks or places his
point in line again instead of parrying a direct attack
made by his opponent.
2. Only the fencer who attacks is counted as touched:
(a) If he initiates his attack when his opponent has his
point in line (cf. t.10) without deflecting the
opponent’s weapon. Referees must ensure that a mere
grazing of the blades is not considered as sufficient to
deflect the opponent’s blade
(b) If he attempts to find the blade, does not succeed (is
the object of a dérobement) and continues the attack.
(c) If, during a compound attack, his opponent finds the
blade, but he continues the attack and his opponent
ripostes immediately.
(d) If, during a compound attack, he makes a momentary
pause, during which time the opponent makes a stop
hit, after which the attacker continues his attack.
(e) If, during a compound attack, he is stop-hit in time
before he begins his final movement.
(f) If he makes a touch by a remise, redoublement or
reprise when his original attack has been parried and
his opponent has made a riposte which is immediate,
simple, and executed in one period of fencing time
without withdrawing the arm."

In relation to the above scenario, It would seem that "X's" action - the lunge - meets all of the criteria listed in t.7 and t.56(1) to be a considered a correctly-executed simple attack, and "X" had not done any of the things listed in t.60(2).

It also seems that "Y's" action - the advance-lunge - meets all of the criteria for being considered a correctly-executed advance-lunge (as defined in t.56(3)). In fact, it seems that "Y's" advance-lunge meets a lot of the same criteria as "X's" lunge, save one: being the initial offensive action (that distinction, in this case, seems to go solely to "X's" lunge). Moreover, "Y's" offensive action was executed into (and, since the primary, explicitly-stated criterion in each mention of "attack" is the extension of the arm, initiated subsequent to) "X's" offensive action - which would seem to make "Y's" advance-lunge fit the very definition of a counter-attack (as stated in t.8, quoted above), as well as meeting the condition given in t.60(1/a).

So, I would think the touch should go to "X", since it appears that "Y" made a counter-attack into "X's" initial attack...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My confusion comes from posts like noodle's (quoted above) or this one by TooLotheDevil, that seem to assert that, in scenarios similar to the one outlined above, the point should, for some reason, go to "Y" - that, somehow, "Y's" subsequent offensive action can seem to "steal ROW" from "X's" initial offensive action without having "X's" action be parried or avoided. The explanations given in each of those posts - merely quoting the criteria for a correctly-executed (as opposed to an incorrectly-executed) advance-lunge, or merely reiterating "mine's an *advance-lunge*, so it's my attack" - do not seem to provide any sort of clear and logical rationale for this line of thinking.

Is there actually a logical/rational explanation behind this notion? If so, what is it?