Kolombatovich : Rules of Referees

[Stormbringer]

This thread is funny. By now we should all realize that downunder will post answers from a purely theoretical standpoint 9/10 or more. People looking for likely practical answers are barking up the wrong tree. Conversely, you could just consider that he's offered the most practical explanation ever given: if someone is attacking or continuously remising or somehow imitating a bowling ball heading in your general direction the only real way to take right of way is to parry.

So, why is it that downunder's recent responses cannot be both theoretically and practically applicable? They seem correct, and straightforward enough...

[downunder]

By now we should all realize that downunder will post answers from a purely theoretical standpoint 9/10 or more.

They give me a theoretical question, I'll give them an answer. They show me a video or a picture, I'll give them an answer .

Maybe I'll have to come over to one of the US tournaments...

[bigdawg2121]

So, why is it that downunder's recent responses cannot be both theoretically and practically applicable? They seem correct, and straightforward enough...

As do most things that simply come down to an ability to know and apply the rules. Like I said before what would one do if there was a veritable bowling ball of a fencer consistently trundling down the strip with their arm threatening a target? Award them right of way indefinitely until such a time as the opponent takes the blade? Make it so that their worst possible outcome is simultaneous? Come now, be serious when you ask these sorts of rhetorical questions; there aren't that many many people around here representing my hometown so you have to do us proud

[Stormbringer]

So, why is it that downunder's recent responses cannot be both theoretically and practically applicable? They seem correct, and straightforward enough...

As do most things that simply come down to an ability to know and apply the rules. Like I said before what would one do if there was a veritable bowling ball of a fencer consistently trundling down the strip with their arm threatening a target? Award them right of way indefinitely until such a time as the opponent takes the blade? Make it so that their worst possible outcome is simultaneous? Come now, be serious when you ask these sorts of rhetorical questions; there aren't that many many people around here representing my hometown so you have to do us proud

Ummm... I was being serious. Also, that wasn't a rhetorical question...

Let's consider your previous statement about downunder's responses:

This thread is funny. By now we should all realize that downunder will post answers from a purely theoretical standpoint 9/10 or more. People looking for likely practical answers are barking up the wrong tree. Conversely, you could just consider that he's offered the most practical explanation ever given: if someone is attacking or continuously remising or somehow imitating a bowling ball heading in your general direction the only real way to take right of way is to parry.

1.) I assume that by "a theoretical standpoint", you meant "are internally consistent with themselves, and with the written rules of the sport"
2.) I then assume that by "practical answers", you meant "are internally consistent with themselves, and with some individual's (or individuals') ideas of how referees would/should do things in a real-world situation".

The bold part of the statement seems to imply that, for a vast majority (I assume that "9/10 or more" means "90+% of instances") of cases, the statements are correct in theory, but impractical and/or incorrect in practice.

Is that what you meant?



Let's consider some of downunder's recent statements:

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

Is this not rather straightforward, consistent with the rules of the game, and relatively easy to enforce (to a reasonable degree) - especially when one considers the importance of the distinction between "is, in fact, attacking (/counter-attacking/riposting/remeising/etc.)" and "is not actually attacking (/counter-attacking/riposting/remeising/etc.)" in foil and sabre?

Thus if fencer x makes an attack that is no, fencer y makes a counter-attack that is no, and both fencers begin an immediate remise, should fencer x not receive the touch for beginning an attack immediately after his opponent missed him just because his opponent made an immediate remise?

If both fencers begin an immediate remise then the referee shall signal simultaneous and award no hit.

I believe that the idea is that the initiation of the remises (following the failure of both the initial attack and counter-attack) are simultaneous, and that both remises arrive, making them the final actions of the phrase. Is that correct?

and so, you're saying that if i make an attack, my opponent counters, we both miss and remise, but my opponent remises faster, they get ROW? sounds like epee. whats the point of even having ROW if its being interpreted to allow such a remise-fest now?

They don't have to remise faster, they have to remise first to have 'ROW' in the situation above

Why should you get the hit if your opponent's remise starts before yours?

How is taking the blade different than your opponent missing as long as you're still immediately taking over the action?

Because a parry gives the right to a riposte, making your opponent falls short doesn't. Assuming you make your opponent fall short, you still need to start your 'counter' attack before he begins any remise.

Would you (or anyone else) be willing to elaborate on why (if at all) downunder's statements might be considered impractical and/or incorrect?
(This is also not a rhetorical question...)



Finally, let's consider your example of this "bowling-ball fencer":

if someone is attacking or continuously remising or somehow imitating a bowling ball heading in your general direction the only real way to take right of way is to parry.

Like I said before what would one do if there was a veritable bowling ball of a fencer consistently trundling down the strip with their arm threatening a target? Award them right of way indefinitely until such a time as the opponent takes the blade? Make it so that their worst possible outcome is simultaneous?

Is this fencer the first to (perceptibly, from the referee's POV) initiate a continuous extension of their weapon-bearing arm (the first and foremost criterion in the definition of the attack, as well as the descriptions of how the various attack types may be correctly executed) while threatening their opponent? More specifically, is this the case during the final action(s) of the phrase? If not, then on what basis would they be awarded priority?

(Also, what is the opponent doing during this? Are they running away, or merely advancing (without perceptible extension) on the fencer? Is the opponent searching for the fencer's blade - and did they ever find it? Had the opponent long-since established point-in-line, or initiated an extension before (or after) the fencer in question?)

[TooLoftheDeviL]

I won't quite use the bowling ball as an analogy, but it touches on an important point. From the point of view as a fencer, if you make an attack that falls short this interpretation of the rules strongly encourages you to make an immediate remise since the absolute worse case scenario (excluding second intention parries, etc) is a simultaneous action, and the best case scenerio is you get the point. And if your remise is short? Immediately remise again - there's no reason not to.

[swordsen]

Watching a lot of foil fencing now that pretty much seems to be the way it is operating anyway. Attack, remise, remise, remise........ And as you stated, the easy way to stop it is to parry.

[bigdawg2121]

....stuff....

Is this fencer the first to (perceptibly, from the referee's POV) initiate a continuous extension of their weapon-bearing arm (the first and foremost criterion in the definition of the attack, as well as the descriptions of how the various attack types may be correctly executed) while threatening their opponent? More specifically, is this the case during the final action(s) of the phrase? If not, then on what basis would they be awarded priority?

(Also, what is the opponent doing during this? Are they running away, or merely advancing (without perceptible extension) on the fencer? Is the opponent searching for the fencer's blade - and did they ever find it? Had the opponent long-since established point-in-line, or initiated an extension before (or after) the fencer in question?)

Oooops my bad, how was I supposed to know that was a serious question? You yourself are kind enough to point out that there are aspects of referee POV and perception; considering that these particular aspects play a significant role in determining the difference between real and theoretical priority I mostly figured you had it under wraps.

Let me put it to you this way:

If I staged a demonstration in which the fencer on the left extends and makes a lunge while the fencer on the right evades that lunge perfectly and then begins their own lunge exactly as the fencer on the left begins a redoublement and both fencers hit at the same time the theoretical correct call should be simultaneous. Considering that getting this staged perfectly would probably require the fencers to move slowly, it would be a terrible example. Great! So we speed up the frame rate of this wonderfully contrived situation so that it looks like a real action. Practically speaking this call almost never actually be called simultaneous. Most people, especially fencers will percieve that somehow the fencer on the right actually started first. I don't really care to go into any of my theories on why this will be the case but it almost certainly will be. If it were not the case the repeated/continuous remise would be the pinultimate attack in all of fencing and the ultimate attack would be something of a whirly-gig type thing in which fencers claimed to be doing continuous simple indirect attacks to further confound any attempt to find the blade by their annoyed opponent.

[Inquartata]

If I staged a demonstration in which the fencer on the left extends and makes a lunge while the fencer on the right evades that lunge perfectly and then begins their own lunge exactly as the fencer on the left begins a redoublement and both fencers hit at the same time the theoretical correct call should be simultaneous.

It should?

Why?

Attack no. Attack yes. ( Assuming R begins immediately and hits. )

Unless you're talking about foil, in which case the phase of the moon might be a factor for all I know.

[noodle]

It should?

Why?

Attack no. Attack yes. ( Assuming R begins immediately and hits. )

Unless you're talking about foil, in which case the phase of the moon might be a factor for all I know.

you didn't read this thread did you

[bigdawg2121]

you didn't read this thread did you

False!*

It's Inq. He likes to fein rationality. In a strictly rational world theory and practice would mesh perfectly. Unfortunately, he's Inq and wants things to mostly be the way he wants he them to be. Even if he read the thread, the theoretical answer doesn't jive with what he wants. If the theoretical doesn't jive with what he wants, rationally neither should the practical. Therefore Inq must reject the theory.


*to coin the phrase as it's currently used by the kids as opposed to the strictly correct usage.

[jeff]

In a strictly rational world theory and practice would mesh perfectly.

Hey man, don't mess with my signature!

(do the kids really say that "False!" ?)

[Inquartata]

you didn't read this thread did you

Once you learn to use proper English I may deign to reply substantively to you. I only read this post of yours because it was so short. Usually I ignore them because they're so hard to read.

You and Nein should really get together and hire a teacher to give you a class in using the shift key.

[Inquartata]

False!*

It's Inq. He likes to fein rationality. In a strictly rational world theory and practice would mesh perfectly. Unfortunately, he's Inq and wants things to mostly be the way he wants he them to be. Even if he read the thread, the theoretical answer doesn't jive with what he wants. If the theoretical doesn't jive with what he wants, rationally neither should the practical. Therefore Inq must reject the theory.

Meh, this is rich, coming from someone who just argued that a redoublement and an attack are properly called simultaneous actions...

[Cerian]

It's hard to say which deserves more remediation: being unable to use a shift key, or being unable to understand a sentence without capital letters... I'd say both culprits could stand for some extra learnin'...

[Inquartata]

Less a matter of inability than of unwillingness.

Why should I have to deal with someone's laziness before getting the gist of his meaning? It says "I don't respect any of you enough to inconvenience myself to use the language properly." So I give the same amount of respect back for opinions stated in this fashion...

[bigdawg2121]

Meh, this is rich, coming from someone who just argued that a redoublement and an attack are properly called simultaneous actions...

There you go again...being yourself. I guess I shouldn't expect much more should I?

I actually just argued that properly they are not called simultaneous actions. The fact that I also stated that in a purely theoretical world they would be parsed as simultaneous (b/c in the example they started simultaneously...and well, simultaneous actions are simultaneous ) does not change the practical side of my argument. Don't hate me b/c I don't have problems wrapping my mind around the inconsistencies between practice and theory.

[Inquartata]

Not "theoretically", either.

The fact of an attack ending has intervened. As long as the subsequent attack by the erstwhile defender is immediate, the redoubler could even start to extend first and still not have ROW.

Think of the same example, but with a parry by right instead of an evasion. Now left begins extending with his redouble at the same time that right begins his riposte. Still simultaneous in your theoretical world?

If so, you are arguing that the rules deliberately award an almost insuperable advantage to the initial attacker. So long as he keeps plugging away with fresh extensions, it doesn't matter how many of them fail, he can always just go on to the next and never do any worse than a double...

[forethought]

If I staged a demonstration in which the fencer on the left extends and makes a lunge while the fencer on the right evades that lunge perfectly and then begins their own lunge exactly as the fencer on the left begins a redoublement and both fencers hit at the same time the theoretical correct call should be simultaneous.

If FotL kept their extension, they maintain priority. If they pumped their arm, then yes, the redoublement and attack from the right are simultaneous (given the ref determines the extensions started at the same time).

[Inquartata]

The standard is extendING, not exendED. Left cannot just leave his arm out, recover to guard and then lunge again and retain ROW. ( In sabre, anyway. )

[bigdawg2121]

Not "theoretically", either.

The fact of an attack ending has intervened. As long as the subsequent attack by the erstwhile defender is immediate, the redoubler could even start to extend first and still not have ROW.

Think of the same example, but with a parry by right instead of an evasion. Now left begins extending with his redouble at the same time that right begins his riposte. Still simultaneous in your theoretical world?

If so, you are arguing that the rules deliberately award an almost insuperable advantage to the initial attacker. So long as he keeps plugging away with fresh extensions, it doesn't matter how many of them fail, he can always just go on to the next and never do any worse than a double...

Wow...part of the entire point of this thread and the newsletter that started it was to clarify that there is no "right to riposte" associated with an evasion. The riposte follows the physical act of parrying. In theory, the rules do in fact award "an almost insuperable advantage" to the attacker as you have put it (barring a physical parry). In practice, the defender must have some sort of a perceptible delay in the beginning of their action before anyone will actually call simultaneous. You'll be hardpressed to find any rule that says ROW is turn based or that refers to the concept of parry by distance.