Kolombatovich : Rules of Referees

[jeff]

Let's make it very simple. If you are not extending your arm you are not attacking.

Rep for that.

Which reminds me: it's never a bad idea to to call attention to the FOC Handbook for Referees section on the attack, at http://fencingofficials.org/Info/Han...tml#_Toc976816

The analysis starting with its quote of t.7 "The attack is the INITIAL OFFENSIVE action made by EXTENDING the arm and CONTINUOUSLY THREATENING the valid surface of the opponent's target. is essential reading.

[forethought]

What the hell is going on in this thread...

I think you should just resort to posting the ASCI JLP Face-palm picture

[IanSerotkin]

I tried to find a picture of a ten foot pole and some ASCII way of representing that I wasn't going near this thread with one, but I failed.

[KD5MDK]

Isn't that Justin Meehanowski?

[Allen Evans]

I tried to find a picture of a ten foot pole and some ASCII way of representing that I wasn't going near this thread with one, but I failed.

What's to be afraid of?

If you're exending and moving forward, you are attacking.

If you're exending and moving backward, you are also attacking...hmmm....wait a minute...

[TooLoftheDeviL]

What's to be afraid of?

If you're exending and moving forward, you are attacking.

If you're exending and moving backward, you are also attacking...hmmm....wait a minute...

extending and cartwheel ducking flipping springing into handspringing... still the attack right? :P

[noodle]

extending and cartwheel ducking flipping springing into handspringing... still the attack right? :P

no, but the rulebook says nothing about invalidating PIL while cartwheeling

[Welted 24/7]

extending and cartwheel ducking flipping springing into handspringing... still the attack right? :P

If they can somehow avoid getting carded for turning their back during that sequence, then I say they damn well deserve to have that attack called for them.

[wbowman]

Not to mention getting tangled up in the reel cord.

[Joe biebel]

That is absolute nonsense.

No it's not. The concept is probably a little bit over your head. If your going backwards you don't make attacks. You make stop hits, jabs, etc. anything but an attack. While there is only the attack gesture for offensive actions and it is an offensive action, it has no right or way. It merely puts on a light . I noticed you did not make the call on the action I posed in post 272. Chicken?

[forethought]

If your going backwards you don't make attacks. You make stop hits, jabs, etc. anything but an attack.

Just because you retreat doesn't mean the other person is attacking, and it doesn't mean you can't attack. If someone is dumb enough to run at you with reckless abandon, if you were amidst a retreat, why should you have to, at the very least (by what it sounds like you're trying to imply), completely stop in order for the extending of your arm to be considered an "attack"?

I noticed you did not make the call on the action I posed in post 272. Chicken?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but simply by reading what you put down, I would say,"Attack, parry-riposte is 'No', redoublement of the attack and remise/reprise of the riposte simultaneous. Nothing done; en guarde."

This is just me being nit-picky, since you used the phrase "at the same time", otherwise I'd call it for whoever started extending the arm after the failed riposte.

Here's a question: why do you think it's in the rulebook that the attack is defined by the initial extending of the arm, as opposed to which direction, if any, the fencer is moving? Why do you think they made no such distinction? (I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm genuinely curious)

[erooMynohtnA]

Here's a question: why do you think it's in the rulebook that the attack is defined by the initial extending of the arm, as opposed to which direction, if any, the fencer is moving? Why do you think they made no such distinction? (I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm genuinely curious)

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.

I rarely see people lunge backward, and I can't recall ever watching a backwards fleche.

I don't want to argue with an FIE ref, but I've always been taught a backwards movement can be a riposte, a stophit, a counterattack, a PiL, etc, but not The Attack.

[downunder]

I noticed you did not make the call on the action I posed in post 272. Chicken?

Not at all, just missed it. For reference:

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.

"Attack", "Parade", "Riposte", "Non", "Remises Simultanee", "Rien"

The fact that you are giving someone right of way based on the direction they are moving I find very alarming.

I rarely see people lunge backward, and I can't recall ever watching a backwards fleche.

I don't want to argue with an FIE ref, but I've always been taught a backwards movement can be a riposte, a stophit, a counterattack, a PiL, etc, but not The Attack.

The threatening arm movement precedes the lunge or fleche. This doesn't mean that a lunge or fleche is required, but that it is executed incorrectly if you lunge first then extend your arm.

[jeff]

Not only do I agree with downunder's reconstruction of the phrase above (to which he might respond "who cares?" ) but I express my jealousy that he still has opportunity to officiate in French, which I miss.

[bigdawg2121]

Not only do I agree with downunder's reconstruction of the phrase above (to which he might respond "who cares?" ) but I express my jealousy that he still has opportunity to officiate in French, which I miss.

Might I suggest that you just ref a few phrases in French to sate your jealousy for a bit? Most fencers understand what's going on anyway. You could go back to FIE reffing if you're not past retirement age as well.

[jeff]

I thought we're strictly supposed to always use local national language unless it is an international event. Isn't that the rule? So, except for words like "attack", "riposte" that are the same or are borrowed, isn't it a no-no to say things like "pas valable" or "êtes-vous prêt ?" ? (however, my accent sucks...)

[bigdawg2121]

Strictly speaking it's encouraged to use English in the US. However, assuming people understand it's generally ok. Generally people understand, hence it's rarely a problem...unless you actually say things like "pas valable" and your accent is terrible. Then I'd suggest not reffing in French; butchered French makes my head hurt a little bit.

[Dr Epee]

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).


gary hayenga

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a stop hit and an attack in preparation were the same thing. You attack, interrupting your opponent's complex preparation before he establishes his priority by extending. By that definition, it does have priority because the opponent had not yet established his. A remise-in-tempo only works if the opponent delays initiating his riposte.

If somebody has priority you can't "steal" it. (except, nowadays, by locking them out in the scoring machine)

[Inquartata]

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.

Oh, great, now I have to start out a post by agreeing with you. Bad omen!

Ideally, we'd arrive at some sort of shared consensus...the way referees ( at least try to ) do. Rules would be shaped by that, rather than sent down from on high---bottom up instead of top down.

The problem with the Lexan and similar rulings, I think, is that the rules are indeed made by experts, but often in another weapon than the one affected. Eg epeeists making rules for foil and sabre. One strongly suspects that there will be a subconscious tendency to "make it more like epee"...

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

No, you're thinking of me.

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've proved many times, notably in the Politics thread, that just about anything is "defensible".

But seriously, don't both our positions on this have a logic to them?

Or maybe mine just extends the logic of yours farther out...

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.

Lord, I'm agreeing again...meanwhile I'm listening carefully for the Trump of Doom* to sound. ( Or the Gjallar horn, if you prefer. )

*And I don't mean The Donald.

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.

Yes, but this is what I was asking about: Under that logic, one would never beat a line and then simply attack onto a re-establishment of it...well, not if one weren't in the grips of an adrenaline dump or a berserker rage.

So why make the rule say we can safely do so, when, "if they were sharp", we could not?


What is is about that specific point in a phrase which makes it sufficiently realistic, but not too cumbersomely so?

Give me a case that void and parry should be treated the same and I'll listen.

Well, both end a threat, at least temporarily.

In fact, "when they were sharp", voids were much more common and more highly praised than parries, simply because of the weight of the weapons...


Sigh...once again with the time limit. Back anon.

[Inquartata]

Continuing...

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".

Again I must agree.

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?!

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"

Preach it.

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.

Yes.

Not only do they call it to the contrary, in sabre they do it almost universally. So long as A is moving forward, "all he has to do is finish and get a light". Very perplexing. I think it just makes life easier for referees, myself.

I once watched a WS bout where A was advancing with bent and unmoving arm, B was retreating with feints ( which A was ignoring ), and finally B extended and lunged. She was about 90% of the way to A's target, and A had taken at least one more complete step, before A deigned to extend and cut. The call, of course, was attack for A.

Mind-blowing.

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.

Egad, I'm agreeing with you, too? Heresy!

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

Out of curiosity, what's the hand signal for 'non-correct'? Are they no longer using the arm-pumping "preparation" signal? Or have they just reassigned it?

No it's not. The concept is probably a little bit over your head. If you're going backwards you don't make attacks. You make stop hits, jabs, etc. anything but an attack.

Uh...

Why not?

A makes an attack, it falls short. Attack is over, it no longer exists. B, who has been retreating, extends and cuts to the head while taking another step back.

This meets all of the criteria listed in the definition of the attack. There is no attack to which it could be counter, so it can't be a counterattack, of which the stop cut is a form.

Like it or not, that will be called attack no, attack yes almost every time by competent referees. Because, well, that's what it is.

I rarely see people lunge backward, and I can't recall ever watching a backwards fleche.

I've done backward lunges. While extending continuously, threating valid target, etc. And hit. So what was that, then?

There is nothing in the definition of the attack which makes forward motion with the feet a criterion.

I thought we'd settled this a long time ago, with Bill Oliver's verdict that attack while retreating, while difficult to pull off and rarely observed, was indeed possible. You can read it here:

http://www.fencing.net/about/rules/r...e-retreat.html