Is Foil "Broken"?

[fencer1960]

preparation does not mean you lose ROW completely.

I don't think I understand this statement. Isn't ROW gained by the attack or offensive action? A beat, for instance, is a preparation; the extension afterwards is the attack and establishes the ROW. Defensively, the parry stops the attack, but the riposte gives ROW to the defender.

If I were to stop in the middle of an attack and beat again, or press, or perform some other preparation, would I not lose ROW?

[noodle]

I don't think I understand this statement. Isn't ROW gained by the attack or offensive action? A beat, for instance, is a preparation; the extension afterwards is the attack and establishes the ROW. Defensively, the parry stops the attack, but the riposte gives ROW to the defender.

If I were to stop in the middle of an attack and beat again, or press, or perform some other preparation, would I not lose ROW?

simple example: i beat your blade. immediately after i beat your blade, we both extend and lunge, hit valid. whose touch, and why?

[Purple Fencer]

simple example: i beat your blade. immediately after i beat your blade, we both extend and lunge, hit valid. whose touch, and why?

Your touch because you performed the actual attack immediately after the beat (more accurately, within one tempo, correct?)....fencer1960 would be a counter-attack.

If you beat and held it past one tempo (which is a judgment call by the ref), I would give it to whoever started the final attack first...could be you, might be him...might be together.

[tchwojko]

Check body cord before declaring foil broken.

[Goldgar]

I just checked the USFA website. The September 2007 rules are the most recent

No, they aren't. The 2008 rules are posted on the FOC website. This link may work to download the PDF; if not, go to www.fencingofficials.org .

[OROD]

"Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations"

Yes, the rulebook says this, but it's one of the dumbest things in there. It's also completely ignored by current interpretation of attack and RoW, and should be taken out of the rulebook.

.

[Matt]

"Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations"

Quote:
Yes, the rulebook says this, but it's one of the dumbest things in there. It's also completely ignored by current interpretation of attack and RoW, and should be taken out of the rulebook.

.

*facepalm* Well, I think we've finally arrived at the crux of the problem.

[downunder]

consider bent as 'bent back so the elbow is against the body', not 'a slight bend in the arm'

[Stormbringer]

Based on the combination of the following:

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.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.
2. 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.
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.
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).

To judge the priority of an attack when analysing the fencing phrase, it should be noted that:
5. If the attack is initiated when the opponent is not 'point in line' (cf. t.10), it may be executed either with a direct thrust, or by a disengage, or by a cut-over, or may even be preceded by a beat or successful feints obliging the opponent to parry.
6. If the attack is initiated when the opponent is 'point in line' (cf. t.10), the attacker must, first, deflect the opponent‘s blade. Referees must ensure that a mere grazing of the blades is not considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent‘s blade (cf. t.60/2a).
7. If the attacker, when attempting to deflect the opponent‘s blade, fails to find it (dérobement), the right of attack passes to the opponent.
8. Continuous steps forward, with the legs crossing one another, constitute a preparation and on this preparation any simple attack has priority.

It would seem that, since so much emphasis is placed on the extending of the weapon arm, the word "bent" is being used to describe the state of the weapon arm when it is neither in the process of extending (that is, in the process of becoming "unbent", such that the distance between the wrist and shoulder of the weapon arm is increasing) or in the PIL position (a non-action state where the arm is considered unbent). That is, it seems, to me, that a "bent arm" is one that meets the following criteria:
1.) the longest axes of the upper arm, forearm, and blade are not all coaxial with one another (as, if they were, this would be the PIL position), or
2.) the inside angle of between the upper arm and the forearm is either static (unchanging), or becoming more acute (the angle is shrinking, such that the distance between the wrist and the shoulder of the weapon arm is decreasing).

Or, to be more succinct, "bent arm" == "arm in any state other than extending or in the PIL position".

What do you think?

[jeff]

No, they aren't. The 2008 rules are posted on the FOC website. This link may work to download the PDF; if not, go to www.fencingofficials.org .

Thanks, Dirk! (and the direct link worked)

For cryin' out loud, could somebody responsible for the USFA website please replace the obsolete rules with the current one?

[jeff]

*facepalm* Well, I think we've finally arrived at the crux of the problem.

several years ago on this forum I said "either change the rules to reflect current officiating, or change officiating to conform to the rules". And that's the heart IMO of why Foil Is Broken.

[jeff]

(snip)Or, to be more succinct, "bent arm" == "arm in any state other than extending or in the PIL position".

What do you think?

It may be helpful to go to the original French:

t.56.2.b) L'attaque composée (Cf. t.8.1) est correctement exécutée quand le bras s'allongeant dans la présentation de la première feinte, la pointe menace la surface valable sans raccourcir le bras pendant l'exécution des mouvements successifs de l'attaque et le déclenchement de la fente ou de la flèche.

t.56.2.c) L'attaque par marcher-fente ou marcher-flèche est correctement exécutée quand l'allongement du bras précède la fin de la marche et le déclenchement de la fente ou de la flèche.

My French isn't too great but (b) tells me you must straighten/lengthen the arm in the first feint, and "sans raccounrcir" tells me you cannot subsequently bend (verb, transitive) it.

[bigdawg2121]

Thanks, Dirk! (and the direct link worked)

For cryin' out loud, could somebody responsible for the USFA website please replace the obsolete rules with the current one?

Let's not blame the USFA for our own failures to d/l. Clearly internet connections work well enough to post on FNet, why didn't they work well enough to read the current rules? I'm pretty sure I've been notified or sent the rules changes for thus season a minimum of 4 times...pretty much all by Oct. When we collect enough rules changes to warrant a reissue of the entire book it'll happen. Until then, small digests are much more convenient.

[jeff]

Right - I should have downloaded the latest when the word went out. Still no reason for usfencing.org under 'Important References" to still be listing "06 Rule Book" (sic) which is actually the September 2007 Rules book, months after the October 2008 edition is on FOC.

[HDG]

I know I'm not really adding much with this observation, but it seems like there are some obvious generation gap issues here. People who started prior to the dominance of the march & flick -- or whose coaches are from that era / school -- are more likely to read bent arms as prep (and see it as obviously so). People who have mostly fenced in the era of the march and flick see it as obviously the case that the direction of the tip or the arm has little or no correlation to what constitutes an attack.

[noodle]

People who have mostly fenced in the era of the march and flick see it as obviously the case that the direction of the tip or the arm has little or no correlation to what constitutes an attack.

incorrect.

both schools you describe have a strict interpretation of what *begins* an attack. that isn't what is in question here, i believe. it is what constitutes feints and finishing.

yes, bending the arm is preparation. but for an attack into any preparation to be valid, it has to fully arrive and score in its entirety before the attacker stops the preparation and begins their final attack for the touch. that is the crux of the issue. the "older" fencers as you say tend to think that any preparation loses you ROW and gives full priority to the attack into the preparation, no matter what the attacker does.

[flyingfencer]

incorrect.

both schools you describe have a strict interpretation of what *begins* an attack. that isn't what is in question here, i believe. it is what constitutes feints and finishing.

yes, bending the arm is preparation. but for an attack into any preparation to be valid, it has to fully arrive and score in its entirety before the attacker stops the preparation and begins their final attack for the touch. that is the crux of the issue. the "older" fencers as you say tend to think that any preparation loses you ROW and gives full priority to the attack into the preparation, no matter what the attacker does.

Yes, this is it exactly. The attack in prep must arrive before the prep becomes an extension. That is the defender must land while it is prep for the defender's touch to be valid. If the defender lands while the attacker is extending, it is a counter-attack and does not have ROW.

What happens between the initial establishment of ROW and the final extension does not cause the attacker to relinquish ROW if the defender does not land before the final extension begins, or does not find the attackers blade, or the attacker is not hit while searching for the defender's blade, or the attacker is not hit doing a cross-over, or the attacker does not simply relinquish the attack by coming to a stop, ie "momentary pause".

[ejemyr]

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.

.

Well... that's correct. And that's EXACTLY what needs to be CHANGED to get foil back where it should be. (let's all send our prayers to the new FIE president...)

[erooMynohtnA]

Yes, this is it exactly. The attack in prep must arrive before the prep becomes an extension. That is the defender must land while it is prep for the defender's touch to be valid. If the defender lands while the attacker is extending, it is a counter-attack and does not have ROW.

You are not correct, and your explanation of right of way here is an illustration of why the FIE changed the timings in the first place. The attack in prep is The Attack. The only thing The Attack needs to do to have RoW is start before a PiL.

If an attack in preparation is started into a incorrect attack (preparation), the preparation will become the counterattack once the preparer extends.

What you're describing are the conventions surrounding the counterattack in time or stophit/stopcut/stopthrust.

What happens between the initial establishment of ROW and the final extension does not cause the attacker to relinquish ROW if the defender does not land before the final extension begins, or does not find the attackers blade, or the attacker is not hit while searching for the defender's blade, or the attacker is not hit doing a cross-over, or the attacker does not simply relinquish the attack by coming to a stop, ie "momentary pause".

Also no, and you shouldn't use defender/attacker in a situation in which both fencers are attacking/counterattacking/agressing/offending.

[Stormbringer]

incorrect.

both schools you describe have a strict interpretation of what *begins* an attack. that isn't what is in question here, i believe. it is what constitutes feints and finishing.

yes, bending the arm is preparation. but for an attack into any preparation to be valid, it has to fully arrive and score in its entirety before the attacker stops the preparation and begins their final attack for the touch. that is the crux of the issue. the "older" fencers as you say tend to think that any preparation loses you ROW and gives full priority to the attack into the preparation, no matter what the attacker does.

I disagree with the bolded assertion of the third paragraph.

Last I looked, that requirement applied only to stop-hits:

t.8
(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).

t.59
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.

A stop-hit is a counter-attack (which, by definition, requires the opponent to be executing an attack into which one can launch said counter-attack) that, in order to be considered valid, must arrive before the initiation of the final action of a compound attack in progress; that is, it must arrive while the attacker is still executing feints.

By contrast:

t.56
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).

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

The AiP, on the other hand, is an attack (NOT a counter-attack!) made against an opponent who is in preparation (i.e. is NOT ATTACKING, since they are in preparation), and which, if executed as a simple (as opposed to compound) action, holds ROW over the opponent's preparation (and the offensive action - now a counter-attack into the AiP - that comes out of that preparation).

I thought this distinction had already been discussed...

EDIT: erooMynohtnA beat me to the posting...