Kolombatovich : Rules of Referees

[peet]

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.

[snip for length...]

This is a really great description of attacks in prep and stop hits.
Notice that he didn't quote a single rule, but rather discussed how we fence in the real world, along with the tactical concerns, and how it impacts ROW.

Not that it's bad to quote rules (I do it here plenty), but the rulebook is a crappy place to learn about real fencing.

Note also that edew's post is well grounded in the rules, it's just that he's not relying on the exact wording of t.<whatever> to figure out what's happening on the strip.


Just my $0.02

-p

[bigdawg2121]

At least part of your confusion comes from the fact that you're situation assumes two fencer converging. It's not an analagous situation for the most part.

[jeff]

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. (etcetera)

I don't buy that at all. I have never seen this as a description. A stop hit is not described that way in the rules (which doesn't really describe it anyway, but that's another thing...) and in the USFCA Foil Technique and Terminology (editor Gillet) "a thrusting action made at the moment when the opponent initiates an action (usually an attack)" That's hopelessly vague too, but indicates there's no differentiation based on what your feet are doing. In sabre, I used to drill stop-cut followed by parry riposte without a retreat

The difference is that AiP is an offensive action made into a preparation (a little circular reasoning is required if you are trying to use this to prove the opponent was in prep). A stop thrust or stop hit (those are identical) is an offensive action which is in time (has ROW) if made before the final action of a compound attack, or during a momentary pause in an attack (t.60). A stop thrust/hit may also be out of time, too.

An asymmetry: calling something AiP implies the other guy was in prep. Calling something a stop hit doesn't even imply it was in time, let alone what the opponent was doing.

[Stormbringer]

At least part of your confusion comes from the fact that you're situation assumes two fencer converging. It's not an analagous situation for the most part.

Might I be correct in assuming that this is directed at my last post (#260 in this thread)?

In that case, my response:

1.) That post was directed at the catwood1/TooLoftheDeviL/noodle side-discussion of whether an advance-lunge can take priority over another, previously-established, correctly-executed simple attack - a whole other issue than the AiP/stop-hit discussion...

2.) A phrase in which two fencers converge from the start and go through the sequence of actions described doesn't seem at all unrealistic, to me. Do you disagree?

[Allen Evans]

This is a really great description of attacks in prep and stop hits.

It IS a great description, but unfortunately, it is not correct. You can make a stop in a variety of ways, including going forward (for instance, in making a stop with opposition, or a "timed thrust").

AE

[Stormbringer]

This is a really great description of attacks in prep and stop hits.
Notice that he didn't quote a single rule, but rather discussed how we fence in the real world, along with the tactical concerns, and how it impacts ROW.

Not that it's bad to quote rules (I do it here plenty), but the rulebook is a crappy place to learn about real fencing.

Note also that edew's post is well grounded in the rules, it's just that he's not relying on the exact wording of t.<whatever> to figure out what's happening on the strip.


Just my $0.02

-p

Having now read it, I have a couple of issues with edew's response:

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.

I was under the impression that the key difference was in what the opponent was doing...

If the opponent is in a state of preparation, then they are not attacking (as they have not yet actually initiated an offensive action); if the opponent is attacking (by having actually initiated an offensive action), then they cannot be in preparation; the two conditions cannot exist simultaneously in any one fencer...

If the fencer initiates an offensive action against an opponent who happened to meet the criteria for being in preparation, then the fencer had then initiated an attack into said opponent's preparation - a literal "attack into (a) preparation", if you will...

If, on the other hand, fencer initiates an offensive action against an opponent who had already initiated an offensive action, then the fencer had initiated a stop-hit/counter-attack into the opponent's attack...

...and that either of these conditions (AiP or stop-hit) holds for any simple offensive action on the part of the fencer (a mere extension, a lunge, an advance-lunge, a ballestra, a fleche...), and that substituting one specific type of physical action for another in the exact-same phrase, with the exact-same timing of execution, shouldn't change the categorization... should it?

[MdA]

A stop hit is not described that way in the rules (which doesn't really describe it anyway, but that's another thing...) and in the USFCA Foil Technique and Terminology (editor Gillet) "a thrusting action made at the moment when the opponent initiates an action (usually an attack)" That's hopelessly vague too, but indicates there's no differentiation based on what your feet are doing.

I am glad to see you using Foil Technique and Terminology. I wish more coaches would use it. Then we would know what we are talking about.

[jeff]

*grin*

Thank you! I wouldn't want you to think I pull all of my pronouncements out of my, err, mask It's good to have a fencing library.

BTW: Not related to the argument, but just a point of linguistic oddity in the style of"how come you park on the driveway, but drive on the parkway": how come you call it a "time thrust" when it's the variety that opposes the blade and stops it from hitting, but you call it a "stop thrust" when it works based on timing! (this has always struck me as backwards!)

EDIT #2 Jean Jacques one of the most pleasant personalities I ever encountered in fencing, and a real maitre. I say that despite the turmoil I went through in a French salle after training in Italian....

[MdA]

It is backwards. That was the memory jogger I used when I took my Prevot exam. Many of the English translations don't make sense in that way.

I think it is because in our fencing isolation in the early days these American translations became standard...then it was too difficult to change everyone's thinking.

I have come to prefer the French term "Arret". It seems everyone understands this term internationally...we used it in Germany when I studied there.

I agree, JJ Gillet is one of the best FMs I ever met. Many people don't realize his huge impact on American fencing with the American Fencing Academy at Cornell. I wish they could have kept it going.

Bob Scranton was a wonderful FM tutored by Gillet at AFA. Unfortunately, he is no longer with us. He was a mentor and a friend to me. Fencer's salute. --)----------

[peet]

It IS a great description, but unfortunately, it is not correct. You can make a stop in a variety of ways, including going forward (for instance, in making a stop with opposition, or a "timed thrust").

AE

I agree that eric's post leaves out a lot of other possibilities & other cases, but I still applaud his attempt to veer the discussion back towards the real, and away from the theoretical. After all, we have to fence and ref in the real world, not in theory. I feel like too often on this board we get into impassioned discussions of edge case possibilities that rarely if ever happen on strip.

I was under the impression that the key difference was in what the opponent was doing...

It always matters what the other guy is doing. so yeah, if the "aggressor" isn't preparing, you can't attack into preparation. However, it also matters what you do. If you stick your arm out while running backwards, it's unlikely to be an AiP, more likely a stop hit (and probably out of time, to boot), or counterattack. If you attack with lunge, advance-lunge, etc., it's more likely to be called an attack.

Basically, too often people think "hey, he's preparing" and figure that any attempt to hit is an attack into that preparation. The "Attack" part of AiP is just as important as the "Preparation" part.

Note that I'm talking about foil, not saber where "attack" has a much more rigidly defined, umm.... definition.


-p

[jeff]

It's still wrong to define a stop hit is as something delivered while going backwards. A stop hit into a correctly executed compound attack has to land before the final action begins. Sometimes, the very best way to ensure that is to step in while making the stop. That's as real, and non-theoretical as you can be. It doesn't help to spread mis-information by labeling useful rules of thumbs (which still can be misleading) as definitions

[Joe biebel]

Fencer "A" flesches at fencer "B".
Fencer "B" parries and misses the riposte.
"A" continues to flesche overtaking "B" to the point that both fencers can reach each other with a bent arm.
Both fencers jab at the same time and hit valid. Touch for "A". Why?, because "A" is moving forward (attacking) and "B" is (making a stop hit) moving backward. Why is "B"'s action a stop hit? Because of the direction "B" is moving. It can not be an attack going backwards. I think direction of movement is to defining ROW and as to whether an action is a stop hit or and attack.

[Grasshopper]

It's still wrong to define a stop hit is as something delivered while going backwards. A stop hit into a correctly executed compound attack has to land before the final action begins. Sometimes, the very best way to ensure that is to step in while making the stop. That's as real, and non-theoretical as you can be. It doesn't help to spread mis-information by labeling useful rules of thumbs (which still can be misleading) as definitions

I would call a stophit delivered while going forward an attack on prep.

[Goldgar]

A stop thrust or stop hit (those are identical) is an offensive action which is in time (has ROW) if made before the final action of a compound attack, or during a momentary pause in an attack (t.60).

Jeff, much though I agree with most of what you've been saying in this thread, I disagree with your wording here. Being "in time" is not the same as having right of way. Rather, being in time renders right of way irrelevant. A stop hit does not have right of way, but scores if it is in time; that is, if its arrival precedes the start of the final motion of the attack.

[downunder]

It can not be an attack going backwards.

That is absolute nonsense.

[jeff]

I would call a stophit delivered while going forward an attack on prep.

You would be wrong. Read the relevant rules again. The stop hit might be made with an advance into a compound attack before its last motion. Or, it could be made into a simple attack or the last motion of a compound attack and be wrong. In all of these cases it can be done advancing or retreating. Each of these cases is a stop hit made into an attack - not into a preparation That's why it's not AiP. What the feet are doing has nothing to do with it. Just read the rules or get the fencing coaches document I referred to previously.

[jeff]

Jeff, much though I agree with most of what you've been saying in this thread, I disagree with your wording here. Being "in time" is not the same as having right of way. Rather, being in time renders right of way irrelevant. A stop hit does not have right of way, but scores if it is in time; that is, if its arrival precedes the start of the final motion of the attack.

I think this is a parsing error or my using the wrong word, rather than a disagreement over fencing. Change my wording to "valid" as in t.59(d) and I think we're okay. We do not differ in our understanding of who gets the touch.

[garyhayenga]

You would be wrong. Read the relevant rules again. The stop hit might be made with an advance into a compound attack before its last motion. Or, it could be made into a simple attack or the last motion of a compound attack and be wrong. In all of these cases it can be done advancing or retreating. Each of these cases is a stop hit made into an attack - not into a preparation That's why it's not AiP. What the feet are doing has nothing to do with it. Just read the rules or get the fencing coaches document I referred to previously.

A stop hit does *not* have priority, an attack-in-preparation does. Forward or backward is irrelevant to a stop hit. A stop hit his takes the *tempo* away from an opponents compound action that *does* have priority. You can stop hit (or remise-in-tempo) into a compound riposte that has priority.

Practically speaking stop hits aren't called any more, if you don't get the 300ms lockout the referee won't call it for you no matter how obviously you stole the tempo (hit way before your opponent began his final action).

Technically I suppose that you could do something that could only be called a stop hit if your opponent is chasing you down the strip and pulls his arm back while close enough for you to reach out and tag him even though you're running backwards at full speed. You didn't make an attack and he was pulling his arm back when you hit him so he didn't have priority either. However half the referees will still give it to him if he gets a light on before the 300ms lockout time anyway, and the almost all of the other half will incorrectly call it an attack-in-preparation so practically speaking it doesn't really matter.

gary hayenga

[downunder]

Technically I suppose that you could do something that could only be called a stop hit if your opponent is chasing you down the strip and pulls his arm back while close enough for you to reach out and tag him even though you're running backwards at full speed. You didn't make an attack and he was pulling his arm back when you hit him so he didn't have priority either. However half the referees will still give it to him if he gets a light on before the 300ms lockout time anyway, and the almost all of the other half will incorrectly call it an attack-in-preparation so practically speaking it doesn't really matter.

gary hayenga

What the hell is going on in this thread.

The above action action is phrased: 'non-correct', 'attaque', 'touche', 'point'


Let's make it very simple. If you are not extending your arm you are not attacking. Slow-motion replay makes this very obvious and easy to enforce at grand prix level and above. This is just the way it is.

[jeff]

A stop hit does *not* have priority, an attack-in-preparation does. (etc)

I agree. My sentences "The stop hit might be made" and "Or, it could be made" were intended to be definitional of "what is a stop hit", but not saying whether those actions would earn a touch for one party or the other. I agree with your summary. Just affirming that forward and backward motion is irrelevant to "is this a stop hit or not" definition. Sorry if my imprecise wording made it seem I was taking a different stance.