Is Foil "Broken"?

[bigdawg2121]

Is Foil “Broken”?

The short answer is, yes, foil is broken and it needs to be fixed. The long answer requires some explanation.

http://www.sofaemployed.com/?p=1225

And the people say: Amen*



* with a nod to Keropie who has fenced on boxes with a couple of different timing options and may very well be right about the 7.5ms being enough thing. I've never fenced on such a box but I trust his sense of timing explicitly.

[RITFencing]

Well, I don't have a copy of the rules handy, but isn't there language about the point threatening the opponent? If so, then what exactly should that mean?

If you allow that the point can be pointing anywhere and still be threatening, then how would you define it? What was the reason for including that language in the rules?

The example also specifically talked about the point not continuously moving towards the target, but being held back. Unless you're counting the forward motion of the body, and not necessarily the arm, as moving the tip forward?

The rules themselves are very silent on what exactly defines a threat; it's up to the opponent. Honestly, they're all but useless regarding RoW.

I define a threat as an action which moves the tip closer to the target in an attempt to touch. If my weapon is behind my head, but I'm moving it closer to you in an arc to click around your back, I'm making an action which brings my tip towards your target in an attempt to score. I also do that if I extend my arm fully and then lunge with everything in a straight line from my shoulder to your chest. One sure is harder to parry than the other, and while it might not be seen in traditional swordplay, isn't making the attack difficult to parry the main idea?

I'm not really referring to an example here, just the whole idea of "bent arm != threat." As far as situations in which the point is pulled back, look at what the opponent does. If I pull my arm back, my opponent keeps attempting the defend himself, and then I put the tip out again and score, I'd expect it to be called my attack. Maybe first attack no, second attack yes, or remise yes, or redoublement yes, or w/e.

[OROD]

Man, usually I love a good argument. But, the whole bent arm thing gets kind of boring after the first 1000 times or so.

It's already been said, there's nothing in the rules or the current interpretation that says you have to be pointing at anything to be attacking. It's also not true that you have to have a non-bent arm to be attacking. It's not even true (in the case of step-lunge) that you have to have an extending arm... since you can begin your step with a non-extending arm and then begin extending before the step ends, yet the attack has RoW from the beginning of the step.

.

[noodle]

Man, usually I love a good argument. But, the whole bent arm thing gets kind of boring after the first 1000 times or so.

It's already been said, there's nothing in the rules or the current interpretation that says you have to be pointing at anything to be attacking. It's also not true that you have to have a non-bent arm to be attacking. It's not even true (in the case of step-lunge) that you have to have an extending arm... since you can begin your step with a non-extending arm and then begin extending before the step ends, yet the attack has RoW from the beginning of the step.

.

yeah, this. i'm tired of this argument.

[jeff]

The congregation will rise and read from t.56 which speaks of "Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations" and the "point threatening the valid target", and yea, verily, other matters of importance. Amen.

Are we done now?

[Hauptman]

The rules themselves are very silent on what exactly defines a threat; it's up to the opponent. Honestly, they're all but useless regarding RoW.

I define a threat as an action which moves the tip closer to the target in an attempt to touch. If my weapon is behind my head, but I'm moving it closer to you in an arc to click around your back, I'm making an action which brings my tip towards your target in an attempt to score. I also do that if I extend my arm fully and then lunge with everything in a straight line from my shoulder to your chest. One sure is harder to parry than the other, and while it might not be seen in traditional swordplay, isn't making the attack difficult to parry the main idea?

I'm not really referring to an example here, just the whole idea of "bent arm != threat." As far as situations in which the point is pulled back, look at what the opponent does. If I pull my arm back, my opponent keeps attempting the defend himself, and then I put the tip out again and score, I'd expect it to be called my attack. Maybe first attack no, second attack yes, or remise yes, or redoublement yes, or w/e.

I'll agree with you that the rules need to be made much more clear, then everyone's life would be easier.

I would also agree that a bent arm does not automatically mean prep; that's why I was trying to give an extreme example that might be outside the gray area, but that didn't work.

My philosophy, and this is strictly my own, is that an attack is prep until such a point in time such that the opponent at least has the opportunity to parry.

If the arm is bent so far that the blade is completely out of reach for the defender then there is no opportunity for the defender to regain ROW through a parry as the rules state. This would restrict the idea of the "extending" arm to one tempo only; any complete tempo in which the blade is held such that it can't be parried would be considered preparation.

The idea being that to have a valid attack there must be some opportunity for the opponent to defend themselves with a parry. I just hate those attacks where there are multiple steps with a bent arm and the blade pointing backwards where it is obvious that the attacker is waiting for the stop-hit to come out before finally finishing his attack. The frustration for the defender in that scenario is that retreating or extending are his only options until the attacker finally finishes. Hence my idea that it's not really an attack until it can be parried.

[Hauptman]

The congregation will rise and read from t.56 which speaks of "Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations" and the "point threatening the valid target", and yea, verily, other matters of importance. Amen.

Are we done now?

I love all the people who post opinions, but don't want to defend those opinions.

But hell, I fence epee specifically to avoid this crap. I'll let the argument die.

[Pieter]

Man, usually I love a good argument. But, the whole bent arm thing gets kind of boring after the first 1000 times or so.

It's already been said, there's nothing in the rules or the current interpretation that says you have to be pointing at anything to be attacking. It's also not true that you have to have a non-bent arm to be attacking. It's not even true (in the case of step-lunge) that you have to have an extending arm... since you can begin your step with a non-extending arm and then begin extending before the step ends, yet the attack has RoW from the beginning of the step.

I'm but a humble epeeist, so perhaps I don't understand the intricacies... but how are you threatening target if you point isn't towards valid target? Are you going to smack them in the chest with the flat of the blade?

[noodle]

The congregation will rise and read from t.56 which speaks of "Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations" and the "point threatening the valid target", and yea, verily, other matters of importance. Amen.

Are we done now?

we can't also forget the t.59.d classic:
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.

[downunder]

Well, I don't have a copy of the rules handy, but isn't there language about the point threatening the opponent? If so, then what exactly should that mean?

If you allow that the point can be pointing anywhere and still be threatening, then how would you define it? What was the reason for including that language in the rules?

It's not point threatening the target, the rules require just threatening the target.

[jeff]

we can't also forget the t.59.d classic

Absolutely - and that applies to a correctly made compound attack - the attacker is stopped before initiating the final action. But if the defects mentioned (eg) in t.56(a)2 or (a)4 occur, then the opponent need not hit before the last action.

Hauptmann: quoting those articles illustrates my opinions (and I've repped you for yours), and I've defended them at length. IMO, foil has been broken for quite a long time in various ways, but I'm disinclined to spend a lot of effort re-arguing this yet again much more than putting my oar in for fun. People who take different stances aren't going to change at this late date,

Though it can be interesting to emphasize the issues, eg: t.56(a) repeatedly uses the text:the point threatening the valid target. That's as clear as the rules book gets.

[Purple Fencer]

The way I've called it locally, if the arm's bent back and the point is NOT moving toward target, it's prep....if there is an attempt to put the point on, THAT'S the attack.

Similar to football...if the quarterback loses the ball while cocking his arm back for a pass and has not actually started the forward arm motion to throw the ball, it's a fumble....if he HAS started the forward arm motion and loses the ball, it's an insomplete pass.

I think it was Jeff Bukantz who related one time when he was reffing a high-level foil bout and had to make this same call (before the timing changed)...Fencer A winds up for a flick, Fencer B attacks into it, 2 lights....gave B the touch for attack in prep...call was argued, but Jeff stood by it...was later proven correct at a post event slo-mo video review of the call by the event FOC...B LANDED this attack before A's point had started down.

Or maybe that was Bill Oliver?? Either way...illustrates the point.

And besides....wasn't this rule updated recently to REMOVE coming forward with a bent arm (especially bent to the side with the weapon arm across the body) as an attack in and of itself?

[jeff]

That was indeed Bukantz. Great story.

Has the relevant rule been changed???

[Purple Fencer]

That was indeed Bukantz. Great story.

Has the relevant rule been changed???

I remember being told it had at the beginning of the season....wish this specific issue had come up last Friday...I could've asked Derek Cotton when I saw him at the Cadet JO quals out here.

[jeff]

I just checked the USFA website. The September 2007 rules are the most recent, and the "Modifications to Rules" has nothing on this topic. If something was changed here it would be big news.

BTW, I'm sympathetic to your description and the football analogy. I am not sympathetic to rationales for directing that award ROW to an individual who might at some future time start to move the point forward.

[Purple Fencer]

I just checked the USFA website. The September 2007 rules are the most recent, and the "Modifications to Rules" has nothing on this topic. If something was changed here it would be big news.

Maybe it was an FIE change that hasn't hit the US book yet...they CAN be somewhat slow, sometime.

[noodle]

Absolutely - and that applies to a correctly made compound attack - the attacker is stopped before initiating the final action. But if the defects mentioned (eg) in t.56(a)2 or (a)4 occur, then the opponent need not hit before the last action.

yep, it very explicitly states that bent arm attacks are preparations, and it also very explicitly states that you can attack into that preparation validly as long as you land your action before they break off the preparatory action and start their final attack.

preparation does not mean you lose ROW completely.

[flyingfencer]

I love all the people who post opinions, but don't want to defend those opinions.

But hell, I fence epee specifically to avoid this crap. I'll let the argument die.

This argument has been hashed and rehashed. It doesn't matter if the arm is bent. How many foil fencers do you see attack by running down the strip with an unbent arm?

Bill Oliver's article explains the whole foil attack issue quite nicely. He discusses t.7, t.8, t.56, t.59 and how they fit into the logic of the attack. You can't cherry pick rules and expect them to apply to all actions at all times:

http://www.fencing.net/about/rules/t...k-in-foil.html

Also, I have not seen any referees at an NAC or other large tournaments change the rules for a bent arm attack based on the fencers. I find your argument about inequality in calling this action to be a canard.

[contre-Sixte]

Also, I have not seen any referees at an NAC or other large tournaments change the rules for a bent arm attack based on the fencers...

I have. Several years ago and pre-timing change, I had the privilege to fence (and lose to) Tiomkin in a NAC pool bout. He marched me down the strip with his arm back, I lunged into it, he took an additional step and then flicked me on the back. 2 lights. The referee was about to rule against me, but Tiomkin acknowledged before the ref could finish the call. The referee shrugged his shoulders and gave the point to me. Reputation does matter.

[mrbiggs]

I have. Several years ago and pre-timing change, I had the privilege to fence (and lose to) Tiomkin in a NAC pool bout. He marched me down the strip with his arm back, I lunged into it, he took an additional step and then flicked me on the back. 2 lights. The referee was about to rule against me, but Tiomkin acknowledged before the ref could finish the call. The referee shrugged his shoulders and gave the point to me. Reputation does matter.

Well I'm convinced!