Is Foil "Broken"?

[noodle]

i have a simple question, then.

why is the call attack in preparation, instead of attack is no, attack arrives? if it as cut and dry as the people saying "hand not extending = no attack" are saying, what is the point of having the words preparation anywhere? or having a hand signal?

attack no, attack arrives.

[erooMynohtnA]

You might recall the vocabulary change stressed a year or two (or three?) ago where you weren't supposed to call "attack in prep" anymore and were simply supposed to call it the attack. I think it was specifically to deal with that type of thinking, but it was a stupid idea in my opinion.

Also, the FIE doesn't have AiP. They have "attaque non correct, attaque, touche." Which is very close to "attack no, attack, touch."

Edit: I'm not claiming the attack/counterattack or preparation/attack in prep is some simple issue that involves only the hand and that's all you should watch as a ref. I think most people know an attack vs a prep when they see it. I think a lot of people confuse the timing of an AiP and a stophit, which is, I think, much harder than just recognizing an AiP.

[noodle]

You might recall the vocabulary change stressed a year or two (or three?) ago where you weren't supposed to call "attack in prep" anymore and were simply supposed to call it the attack. I think it was specifically to deal with that type of thinking, but it was a stupid idea in my opinion.

Also, the FIE doesn't have AiP. They have "attaque non correct, attaque, touche." Which is very close to "attack no, attack, touch."

Edit: I'm not claiming the attack/counterattack or preparation/attack in prep is some simple issue that involves only the hand and that's all you should watch as a ref. I think most people know an attack vs a prep when they see it. I think a lot of people confuse the timing of an AiP and a stophit, which is, I think, much harder than just recognizing an AiP.

yes, i remember, and i remember watching people flip out over it, too.

edit: nevermind. deleted a wall of text. not worth dredging up that discussion.

[erooMynohtnA]

I agree, and I just try to call things how I see them called. I argue the the theory of it, but my calls don't reflect how I personally feel something should be called.

Particularly when coaching I try to stay away from teaching fencers to do anything depending on the their ref's interpretation of any hot issues.

[edew]

The point of calling it an attack in prep is to indicate that fencer A has been acting offensively and fencer B has been acting defensively and then suddenly, when fencer A got too uppity and goofing off on the offensive actions, B decided to take advantage and bang in an offensive action. In other words, the flow changed suddenly instead of the usual way: the offensive action did not follow through to its expected end (hitting or being blocked or missing) before the offensive action by the opponent commenced.

[noodle]

The point of calling it an attack in prep is to indicate that fencer A has been acting offensively and fencer B has been acting defensively and then suddenly, when fencer A got too uppity and goofing off on the offensive actions, B decided to take advantage and bang in an offensive action. In other words, the flow changed suddenly instead of the usual way: the offensive action did not follow through to its expected end (hitting or being blocked or missing) before the offensive action by the opponent commenced.

wouldn't that end be served just as easily with an "attack no"? shows that someone had the attack but lost it by messing around.

[mrbiggs]

wouldn't that end be served just as easily with an "attack no"? shows that someone had the attack but lost it by messing around.

Yes, but I think it's an extremely useful distinction for the fencers.

If I'm coming forward in what I think is a slow, steady marching attack, my opponent counterattacks and I finish, then there's a huge difference between "attack no, counterattack" and "attack in prep". One means my attack stopped, one means I didn't finish in time.

Honestly, if the calls weren't different, I'd have to ask for the distinction nearly every time "attack no" was said. I've fenced under referees that don't distinguish between the two, and it's confusing.

[RITFencing]

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.

I'm sorry, I left this thread alone for a little bit... but seriously? It's not an attack because it can't be parried? A threat is not something which can be defended against using the blade, it's something that can hit.

There are more methods of defense than parrying, and even a flick to the back can be parried, even if not with traditional, blade in front of the torso parries.

Distance and false actions can be used to make attacks end in a time and place that parries can work, and there are ways to make the attack end without ever touching their blade.

[noodle]

One means my attack stopped, one means I didn't finish in time.

based on the discussion we've had so far in this thread, the two are identical.


if your attack is incorrect or you miss, attack no, attack yes
if you just miss the hit, attack no, counterattack yes.

i'm mostly trying to play devil's advocate here, for reference.

[Stormbringer]

wouldn't that end be served just as easily with an "attack no"? shows that someone had the attack but lost it by messing around.

I would think that the two are completely different things.

The call of "attack is 'no'" would seem to imply:
1.) There was an attack (meeting all of the criteria of t.7 and t.56) executed by one fencer (let's call this one "fencer X") while the other ("fencer Y") was not attacking.
2. For some reason, X's attack does not trigger the the scoring apparatus at the end of the phrase.
a.) the attack misses the target completely, of its own accord (poor execution on the part of X)
b.) Y successfully avoids the incoming attack without parrying
c.) some combination of (a) and (b)
d.) X holds back for some reason, and does not actually finish the initial attack (though, X may later strike the valid target with a renewal of that initial attack, or a redoublement)
e.) X executes the attack in such a way that the point arrives on Y's valid target after the lock-out time has elapsed

By contrast, the call of "attack in preparation" would seem to imply:
1.) The opponent ("fencer X") of the fencer who executed the AiP ("fencer Y") may have been the first to begin "acting aggressively/offensively", but never actually initiated an attack.
(One example would be marching forward without extending the weapon arm while the opponent retreats; one fencer is behaving offensively, while the other is behaving defensively, but the former, since there is no extension of the weapon arm, cannot be said to have initiated an attack (cf. t.7, t.56)).
2.) Y, seeing that X is merely preparing to attack (by trying to move into range) rather than actually attacking (since there is no extension on X's part), initiates an offensive action - an actual attack - against X. Since Y's attack is the first observable (by the referee) attack in the phrase, and it is executed against an opponent who has not already initiated an (observable) attack (nor is in the PIL position), the AiP carries ROW - just like any initial attack in any other phrase.

The former call ("attack is 'no'") implies that the initially-more-agressive/offensive fencer (X) made an observable (by the referee) attack which, for whatever reason, failed to trigger the box.
By contrast, the latter call ("attack into preparation") implies that, while X may have been displaying body language meant to imply the intention to attack, there was never, at any point prior to the initiation of Y's offensive action, an observable (by the referee) offensive action that could be considered an attack (cf. t.7, t.56) executed by X.

At least, that's the best I can do at articulating my current understanding of the difference at this time.

What do you think?

[erooMynohtnA]

What do you think?

I think that your posts are very well thought out, but you should pare it down a little more, because I doubt anyone reads through them. Brevity is the soul of wit.

As to Noodle's claim that a preparation should be called attack no: Sometimes, I think that what you've posited is partially correct. Preparation and "attack no" could be interchangeable. However, a prep can exist without the attack ever starting. As such, it can't be attack no, despite being a preparation, just like you could miss your target without ever preparing.

Attack non correct vs attack no is also much more desirable, because it's so much more precise. I think part of the rationale behind never calling AiP was that it was giving the preparing fencer too much information and helping them out. That's stupid. You want your calls to be as transparent as possible, and that transparency is severely clouded by not calling prep. Furthermore, it just makes you look like a dip**** as a ref, because no one gets what you mean.

[noodle]

I think that your posts are very well thought out, but you should pare it down a little more, because I doubt anyone reads through them. Brevity is the soul of wit.

As to Noodle's claim that a preparation should be called attack no: Sometimes, I think that what you've posited is partially correct. Preparation and "attack no" could be interchangeable. However, a prep can exist without the attack ever starting. As such, it can't be attack no, despite being a preparation, just like you could miss your target without ever preparing.

Attack non correct vs attack no is also much more desirable, because it's so much more precise. I think part of the rationale behind never calling AiP was that it was giving the preparing fencer too much information and helping them out. That's stupid. You want your calls to be as transparent as possible, and that transparency is severely clouded by not calling prep. Furthermore, it just makes you look like a dip**** as a ref, because no one gets what you mean.

my argument with attack non correct is that it isn't in the rulebook, nor is it an official (usfa) handsignal.

as for preparations without an attack, why even mention it if it isn't in conjunction with an attack. its not a ROW action.

[erooMynohtnA]

my argument with attack non correct is that it isn't in the rulebook, nor is it an official (usfa) handsignal.

??? 2008 Rules, Pg 16, Figure 3b. They call it preparation because it's in English. As far as I'm aware, attaque non correct and preparation are interchangeable.

as for preparations without an attack, why even mention it if it isn't in conjunction with an attack. its not a ROW action.

Theoretically, that's why that defunct line of reasoning said you never called a preparation or an attack into it, because it wasn't a RoW action.

There are circumstances in which a fencer did nothing except prepare until the very end when they countered to put on a light, but they thought they were threatening the entire time. I would probably call it attack in prep to let them know that they didn't do what they think they did.

I do get what you're saying, and yes, something that is 100% preparation is 100% retarded, and will never happen in the real world.

[noodle]

I would think that the two are completely different things.

The call of "attack is 'no'" would seem to imply:
1.) There was an attack (meeting all of the criteria of t.7 and t.56) executed by one fencer (let's call this one "fencer X") while the other ("fencer Y") was not attacking.
2. For some reason, X's attack does not trigger the the scoring apparatus at the end of the phrase.
a.) the attack misses the target completely, of its own accord (poor execution on the part of X)
b.) Y successfully avoids the incoming attack without parrying
c.) some combination of (a) and (b)
d.) X holds back for some reason, and does not actually finish the initial attack (though, X may later strike the valid target with a renewal of that initial attack, or a redoublement)
e.) X executes the attack in such a way that the point arrives on Y's valid target after the lock-out time has elapsed

By contrast, the call of "attack in preparation" would seem to imply:
1.) The opponent ("fencer X") of the fencer who executed the AiP ("fencer Y") may have been the first to begin "acting aggressively/offensively", but never actually initiated an attack.
(One example would be marching forward without extending the weapon arm while the opponent retreats; one fencer is behaving offensively, while the other is behaving defensively, but the former, since there is no extension of the weapon arm, cannot be said to have initiated an attack (cf. t.7, t.56)).
2.) Y, seeing that X is merely preparing to attack (by trying to move into range) rather than actually attacking (since there is no extension on X's part), initiates an offensive action - an actual attack - against X. Since Y's attack is the first observable (by the referee) attack in the phrase, and it is executed against an opponent who has not already initiated an (observable) attack (nor is in the PIL position), the AiP carries ROW - just like any initial attack in any other phrase.

The former call ("attack is 'no'") implies that the initially-more-agressive/offensive fencer (X) made an observable (by the referee) attack which, for whatever reason, failed to trigger the box.
By contrast, the latter call ("attack into preparation") implies that, while X may have been displaying body language meant to imply the intention to attack, there was never, at any point prior to the initiation of Y's offensive action, an observable (by the referee) offensive action that could be considered an attack (cf. t.7, t.56) executed by X.

At least, that's the best I can do at articulating my current understanding of the difference at this time.

What do you think?

your definitions only cover preparing before initiating an attack, and not preparing during one, which is the issue at hand.

[mrbiggs]

based on the discussion we've had so far in this thread, the two are identical.


if your attack is incorrect or you miss, attack no, attack yes
if you just miss the hit, attack no, counterattack yes.

i'm mostly trying to play devil's advocate here, for reference.

In terms of right of way, yes, the two are identical. In terms of what I did, however, they are not. So I agree with you that the distinction is unnecessary in terms of calling touches, but it is extremely handy in terms of determining, as a fencer, why your attack was considered to have failed.

[rudd]

They are not identical.

Attaque Non: Attack was correctly carried out but whatever reason you failed to turn on a light.

Attaque Incorrect. Although you were possibly a forward motion and you may have hit, your action did not initially meet the criteria for an attack, generally this means the initial extension of the arm was missing or you pulled back your arm etc. Obviously your opponent has to start his action within this window of oppertunity. This seems to be what the video reffing picks up a lot.

[Stormbringer]

your definitions only cover preparing before initiating an attack, and not preparing during one, which is the issue at hand.

As I understand the concepts, it seems - to me - one cannot both attack and prepare simultaneously.

I can see how one can prepare before initiating an attack, or even to prepare between attacks (i.e. prepare an attack, launch the attack, terminate that attack, prepare another attack, launch another attack). However, in the latter case, one is still either preparing or attacking - never both, simultaneously - at any given moment.

Can you give an example of how one could be "preparing during an attack"?

[edew]

[...]

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.

[...]

This is so wrong on a game-theoretic front it's not even funny. How easy is it for me to say, "but sir, I just couldn't parry that blade, so I don't consider that a threat, so my action is clearly an attack in preparation." Who is to decide whether a fencer has the opportunity to parry?

A threat and the subsequent attack should be considered a threat regardless of physical distance, and regardless of whether the opponent could physically parry the threat or intends to parry the threat.

I make compound parries and can't find the blade, then extend and hit. "But sir, look, I made multiple searches for the blade and never found it. It couldn't possibly have been threatening me, right?"

[jBirch]

I tried SOOOO hard to resist...

Attaque non correct is a sabre call. Basically, you attacked, but you didn't conform to the 135 degree rule, "pumped your arm" excessively, changed the line or whatever.

It's got nothing to do with preparations per se.

Attack in preparation (or, attack upon the preparation) indicates that the counter-attack was in time. Yes, it's a counter-attack, and yes, it has priority and yes, it's called an attack because it's in time and therefor, initial and therefor not a counter-attack!

Properly, attack in preparation doesn't exist and should never be called. The action is simply: attack, touche.

James.

[edew]

jBirch, I can hang with that. AIP is a colloquialism. Sorta telling the guy who got hit why the hit is against a forward moving person.