Basic foil RoW questions

[Crossfire]

Hello !
I have recently started fencing and like many others before me feel somewhat befuddled by the right of way rules. I understand the need for priority when sorting out simultaneous touches, but what about single touches ? Let's start with something simple: let's say two fencers X and Y have gotten within an arms reach of each other and X does some awkward gesture resulting in a registered touch. Leaving style aside- would that be a valid touch or is "extending arm with point in line" a prerequisite ?

Now something more interesting:
X: aims, extends and advances
Y: beat parries (X's foil stays in line) gets ready to riposte
X: lunges and hits Y

Valid or not?

[Big Sky Fencing]

Hello !
I have recently started fencing and like many others before me feel somewhat befuddled by the right of way rules. I understand the need for priority when sorting out simultaneous touches, but what about single touches ? Let's start with something simple: let's say two fencers X and Y have gotten within an arms reach of each other and X does some awkward gesture resulting in a registered touch. Leaving style aside- would that be a valid touch or is "extending arm with point in line" a prerequisite ?

Right of way and style don't matter if there is only one light.

Now something more interesting:
X: aims, extends and advances
Y: beat parries (X's foil stays in line) gets ready to riposte
X: lunges and hits Y

Valid or not?

If Y doesn't finish their reposte before X's remise times out, it doesn't matter. If, however, there are two lights (Y finished), it would be Y's touch.

Regards!

[Crossfire]

So generally speaking (ignoring off-target, off-piste,etc. situations) : if there's a single light - it's a hit. If there's two lights then RoW decides the point ?

[dharmaqueen]

So generally speaking (ignoring off-target, off-piste,etc. situations) : if there's a single light - it's a hit. If there's two lights then RoW decides the point ?

Bingo Tiger!

[Tomas N]

So generally speaking (ignoring off-target, off-piste,etc. situations) : if there's a single light - it's a hit. If there's two lights then RoW decides the point ?

Just to clarify, don't ignore off-target. You can have a white light and a colored light both go off and have no touch awarded.

Tomas

p.s. The easiest way to deal with right-of-way is to fence epee.

[Crossfire]

Thanks all!

p.s. The easiest way to deal with right-of-way is to fence epee.

Kind of what my coach said, but until then...

[theLuz]

row is not just to decide double touches. It's the whole Philosophy of foil and sabre. The rules are similar to a formal debate: one side presents an argument, the other must deflect the argument before presenting an argument back. If they just reach out and hit, even if they hit first, it doesn’t count.

[Purple Fencer]

Getting involed in RoW arguments?? My condolences to your brain cells!

[NGV]

row is not just to decide double touches. It's the whole Philosophy of foil and sabre. The rules are similar to a formal debate: one side presents an argument, the other must deflect the argument before presenting an argument back.

Do these "debate rules" also say that you can dodge an "argument" to make it miss you, rather than deflecting it? Or that you can simply reply while hoping that opponent's argument is passe? Or that you can win by replying fast enough that initial argument is timed out by the machine?

Of course, none of that makes much sense - and neither does the "debate" metaphor.

An excellent way to make fencing less accessible to newcomers is to make it seem more complicated or obscure than necessary. The idea of ROW is extremely simple - if both fencers hit each other at roughly the same time, the attack that started first takes precedence.

Of course, figuring out exactly whose attack started first can be a tricky process. But the principle behind it is simplicity itself.

[Sean Butler]

Do these "debate rules" also say that you can dodge an "argument" to make it miss you, rather than deflecting it?

The debate opponent can assert that your particular argument is not relevant to the proposition being debated. Thus dodging your argument.

Or that you can simply reply while hoping that opponent's argument is passe?

That depends on the format of the debate. In some cases each side has topic points they must introduce and support. One choice in such debates is either to confront the opponent's topics or to present your own.

Or that you can win by replying fast enough that initial argument is timed out by the machine?

Speed of delivery and brevity of language is always an effective debating tool and can win a debate by the volume of ideas which can be presented. While there is no machine, neither is there in dry fencing. The lockout timing is a bit artificial anyway, and there has been great debate over whether it should be removed. Just because it's in the rules now, doesn't mean that rule reflects the essence of fencing.

Of course, none of that makes much sense - and neither does the "debate" metaphor.

I disagree, I think metaphors are much better than overly simplified descriptions. They may not always apply, but a metaphor can convey volumes to a person all at once, while your simple description:

if both fencers hit each other at roughly the same time, the attack that started first takes precedence.

conveys only what it says, which isn't much.

[Bryn Ralph]

The issue of ROW must be directed to and answered by the official board of the FIE.

All other responses are based upon subjectivity and hearsay.

Remember: fencing is originally an European sport.

[theLuz]

Do these "debate rules" also say that you can dodge an "argument" to make it miss you, rather than deflecting it? Or that you can simply reply while hoping that opponent's argument is passe? Or that you can win by replying fast enough that initial argument is timed out by the machine?

all of the examples you state result in one light. The philosophy is still sound. You may not have any idea what a debate is (it's not an argument)

[catwood1]

The issue of ROW must be directed to and answered by the official board of the FIE.

All other responses are based upon subjectivity and hearsay.

Remember: fencing is originally an European sport.

My sarcasm-o-meter is hovering right in the middle, and I ultimately have no idea if you are serious or not.

[NGV]

all of the examples you state result in one light.

Uh, that's exactly the point.

Comparing ROW to the rules of a formal debate (where one side is required to address the other side's argument before presenting their own) isn't just an inappropriate analogy, it's an actively misleading one- because (unlike the hypothetical debaters) fencers are permitted to respond to an attack in any way they want, whenever they want. Only in the case of two lights does responding in an "incorrect" manner lead to a touch against rather than a touch in favor.

[theLuz]

Uh, that's exactly the point.

Comparing ROW to the rules of a formal debate (where one side is required to address the other side's argument before presenting their own) isn't just an inappropriate analogy, it's an actively misleading one- because (unlike the hypothetical debaters) fencers are permitted to respond to an attack in any way they want, whenever they want. Only in the case of two lights does responding in an "incorrect" manner lead to a touch against rather than a touch in favor.

If you get one light (however you get it) the point is mute. (pun intended). If you fence properly with the Philosophy in mind, it will more likely result in one light, and if there are two lights, you get the point. Get the point?

[TheNamelessOne]

p.s. The easiest way to deal with right-of-way is to fence epee.

To ignore RoW in this fashion is not dealing with it. It is merely choosing to ignore something that you cannot fathom and hope that it will just "go away".

[theLuz]

To ignore RoW in this fashion is not dealing with it. It is merely choosing to ignore something that you cannot fathom and hope that it will just "go away".

he does have a point. It does go away in epee.