Is Foil "Broken"?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by 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.

Which means that, either way, you're not attacking--so identical in terms of right of way, different in terms of what actual actions happened during the fencing.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by edew

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."

Sarcastic and cute, but has nothing to do with what Hauptmann was saying. "Opportunity to parry" is that the putative attacker actually placed his weapon in a direction where it might conceivably be parried, rather than carry it back behind his ear. There's a complete difference between saying "Buddy, YOU couldn't parry it" and "there was nothing to parry".

The equivalent and opposite claim is "sir, I was making a threat because some time in the future I might actually extend my weapon towards the target. But I want my ROW to start at this moment anyway, and even if I pull my arm back again".

There is a clash of axiomatic systems that I don't think can be reconciled. In one system, the definition of an attack includes the idea that the weapon must be progressing towards the opponent - the defender is compelled to parry or avoid a threat consisting point heading at that moment towards his target. The attacker, in order to make this ROW-creating threat is required to direct his weapon towards the target, and expose himself to the risk of being parried. Hence the age-old paradigm of attack, parry, deceive. If you didn't advance the weapon, you had no ROW. If you pulled it back, you risked losing ROW. This is the system that I think is correct.

In the other system these requirements don't exist, and there is tactical advantage to holding the weapon back until the last possible moment to shorten the time at which it is at risk of being parried. Since there is nothing to parry, the defender has to try to control distance to provoke the final action that can finally be parried.

Originally Posted by edew

Who is to decide whether a fencer has the opportunity to parry?

The referee, who else? And on the basis of an attack consistent with the previously quoted rules.

[downunder]

I thought we resolved this three years ago?

[stillchris]

Originally Posted by downunder

I thought we resolved this three years ago?

Dreamer

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by edew

AIP is a colloquialism.

Then why does the rulebook show a director's hand signal FOR preparation??

I usually phrase it this way to a fencer..."In your preparation, he attacks"...kinda covers the bases -- states that one guy was, in fact, preparing and the other guy's touch IS, in fact, an attack. You DO want to give the fencers some info so they can learn to adjust. If they never realize they're getting hit in prep, they'll never learn, otherwise why reconstruct ANY of the action??

That's why Don Benge used to argue the reconstruction on one light shots -- even ones he won...not that he thoguht HE was wrong, but that he wanted to understand the acgtion so he could ID and correctny percieved faults in his game.

[erooMynohtnA]

I had to give a big what-what-what to this whole statement. What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by 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.

So you prepared?

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

Then why is "attaque non correct" translated to "preparation" in the English rules, and they share the same hand signal?

I posit they are, in fact, exactly the same thing, and they apply to both saber and foil.

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!

I think I see what you're saying, but I disagree that you can equate a counterattack in time with an attack.

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

I disagree. It is a disservice to both fencers to call only "attack, touch"

[edew]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

Then why does the rulebook show a director's hand signal FOR preparation??

I usually phrase it this way to a fencer..."In your preparation, he attacks"...kinda covers the bases -- states that one guy was, in fact, preparing and the other guy's touch IS, in fact, an attack. You DO want to give the fencers some info so they can learn to adjust. If they never realize they're getting hit in prep, they'll never learn, otherwise why reconstruct ANY of the action??

That's why Don Benge used to argue the reconstruction on one light shots -- even ones he won...not that he thoguht HE was wrong, but that he wanted to understand the acgtion so he could ID and correctny percieved faults in his game.

The referee may make the "preparation" hand signal, but the call is still, "attack". The referee doesn't actually say, "attack in preparation". The referee would say, "Preparation (by fencer X), attack (by fencer Y)."

[downunder]

Some people here are crazy.

Non-correct in French is preparation in English and should be used to describe the phrase in foil and sabre.

[noodle]

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

thoughts? no longer accurate?

[zenpharaohs]

Originally Posted by contre-Sixte

Even now with the current timings referees still are afraid to clearly state that a bent arm or a painfully slow hesistating march is just a preparation. To make things worse, referees timidity in calling a preparation "preparation" increases with the notoriety of the preparing fencer.

I will say that there is a lot of pressure in this direction. When I direct, I want to see the extendING arm and I want the weapon to continuously threaten valid target before I give any priority. And I say so. The two best foilists in the club are national level fencers and they keep telling me "But this is the way they call them at the NACs". And they are right about that. I say, "fine, you fence those directors their way and when I conduct a bout you fence my way, and until the rules are off the books, I go by the rules."

But the truth is I can only do this because I absolutely do not care at all about officiating at "high level" tournaments, and never will. Anyone who DOES want to officiate "officially" is going to get nothing but pressure on this issue.

On the other hand, it is nice to have the rules turmoil screwing up one of the lesser weapons for a change.

[catwood1]

Originally Posted by zenpharaohs

I will say that there is a lot of pressure in this direction. When I direct, I want to see the extendING arm and I want the weapon to continuously threaten valid target before I give any priority. And I say so. The two best foilists in the club are national level fencers and they keep telling me "But this is the way they call them at the NACs". And they are right about that. I say, "fine, you fence those directors their way and when I conduct a bout you fence my way, and until the rules are off the books, I go by the rules."

But the truth is I can only do this because I absolutely do not care at all about officiating at "high level" tournaments.

Disclaimer: many "national level" fencers think that foreword motion is constantly called as an attack at NACs. This isn't really true. You can make a slow extension. You can even make a "painfully slow" attack. Many fencers don't see the difference between a slow extension being called an attack, and all foreword motion being called an attack.

But anyway, on with the snarkfest!


Sigh...
I hate referees like you.
Almost every referee that talks that way, is wrong. Is just blatantly wrong.
Not all, but almost all...

[tlucente]

Someone will now say "If the weapons were sharp" in 3...2...1...

[dberke]

Originally Posted by zenpharaohs

I will say that there is a lot of pressure in this direction. When I direct, I want to see the extendING arm and I want the weapon to continuously threaten valid target before I give any priority. And I say so. The two best foilists in the club are national level fencers and they keep telling me "But this is the way they call them at the NACs". And they are right about that. I say, "fine, you fence those directors their way and when I conduct a bout you fence my way, and until the rules are off the books, I go by the rules."

But the truth is I can only do this because I absolutely do not care at all about officiating at "high level" tournaments, and never will. Anyone who DOES want to officiate "officially" is going to get nothing but pressure on this issue.

On the other hand, it is nice to have the rules turmoil screwing up one of the lesser weapons for a change.

I find this attitude very troubling.

As fencers, referees, and coaches, I think what we all want is consistencey. In theory, that is why the rules exist - to provide a consistent set of rules so that we are all playing the same game.

However, it is clear that are really two sets of rules here. First, there are the poorly written and frequently vague rules in the rulebook. Second is the "current interpretation" as expressed by referees at the national and international level.

When you walk out onto the strip at a national event, you are going to be refereed by the second one, whether you like it or not. Therefore, it only makes sense to teach, train and practice actions that are consistent with how things are called as per "current interpretation."

You can argue that the current interpretation of some actions aren't supported by the rules. Fine, you can believe that, and it may or may not be true. But when you step onto the strip, you are being refereed by a person, not a stack of papers called a rulebook.

Those people who referee strictly "by the rulebook" really are just introducing their own interpretation into the mix. Just as they have reasoning for why action X is called one way, there actually is a rationale behind why action X is called differently by the "current interpretation." Perhaps the rationale has been lost over time, but there must be a reason why so many people have agreed to call an action a certiain way. (And I doubt that reason is "we don't like this rule in the rulebook, so let's ignore it.")

Despite all of the bickering that goes on here at Fencing.net, I think that 90% of actions you see in foil would be called with no argument by anyone. We tend to focus on edge cases, subtle and unclear actions, and pointless banter about nomenclature. If so many people disagreed with fundimental concepts such as "what constitutes an attack", NACs would degenerate into chaos because of all of the arguing that would go on. But that doesn't happen, because the majority of fencers and coaches have accepted the current rule interpretations and know what to work with.

In the post I quoted, the two fencers were being done a disservice by their referee. What value do they get out of trying to conform to an interpretation that may not be valid outside of that room? How does that elevate their game and make them more effective competitors? I suppose you could say it teaches them how to deal with poor refereeing...

So, while we all enjoy arguing over all of these hypothetical situations, maybe on occasion we should ask what's the goal? To improve the effectiveness of our fencing/coaching, or to show off how great we are at reading the minds of the dead French guys who wrote the rulebook.

Dan

[keropie]

Originally Posted by tlucente

Someone will now say "If the weapons were sharp" in 3...2...1...

If the weapons were sharp.... I'd never come back and fence, regardless of the timings

[catwood1]

Originally Posted by dberke

I find this attitude very troubling.

... good comments...

Dan

Rep given. This is the long winded and less pissed off version of what I was thinking.

[zenpharaohs]

Originally Posted by catwood1

I hate referees like you.
Almost every referee that talks that way, is wrong. Is just blatantly wrong.
Not all, but almost all...

Well the chances I will direct any of your bouts is microscopic. I'm actually pretty good at directing, but since I regard it as a chore, I don't go out of my way to do it.

Plus, I'm not wrong. neener neener neener.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by zenpharaohs

Well the chances I will direct any of your bouts is microscopic. I'm actually pretty good at directing, but since I regard it as a chore, I don't go out of my way to do it.

The testimony you've given is to the contrary. There is a difference between being able to see what goes on and being a good referee.

[noodle]

i'd love it if we we could make this more polite, about facts/info, and less personal

ROW threads tend to deteriorate.

[zenpharaohs]

Originally Posted by dberke

When you walk out onto the strip at a national event, you are going to be refereed by the second one, whether you like it or not. Therefore, it only makes sense to teach, train and practice actions that are consistent with how things are called as per "current interpretation."

It makes a whole giant amount of sense to teach things that are completely unlike high level competition; it always has, and it will for the foreseeable future. One of the best ways to train people in the conduct of the bout, the rules, and how to analyze the fencing phrase is to have seven people get together and conduct round robins in non-electric sabre and/or foil. I'm not even aware of any significant non-electric competitions these days, but this is still a great way to teach the rules (whatever interpretation you subscribe to). And yet, it is not the way it will be done in any competition I'm aware of.

There's a lot of other objections to pretending that the exigencies of high level competition are the be-all end-all of fencing, but the one example should serve for the moment.

[catwood1]

Originally Posted by zenpharaohs

It makes a whole giant amount of sense to teach things that are completely unlike high level competition; it always has, and it will for the foreseeable future. One of the best ways to train people in the conduct of the bout, the rules, and how to analyze the fencing phrase is to have seven people get together and conduct round robins in non-electric sabre and/or foil. I'm not even aware of any significant non-electric competitions these days, but this is still a great way to teach the rules (whatever interpretation you subscribe to). And yet, it is not the way it will be done in any competition I'm aware of.

There's a lot of other objections to pretending that the exigencies of high level competition are the be-all end-all of fencing, but the one example should serve for the moment.

But refusing to adhere to current interpretations is more like having an electric practice event where the only thing that matters is who hits first. Neither of these will actually help the fencers.

Its not similar to running a dry event.