ROW question

[I_luv_saber]

I'm totally chill.

luv_saber, you and I are basically implying the same thing

Actually, I think just about everybody is on the same page, we're just working from different definitions (as per usual )

[TooLoftheDeviL]

you make a feint but draw no response so you continue it, fine. in your head, thats what happened. referee sees it as a direct attack, no feint or preparation involved.

What the referee sees is a simple attack, which may be direct, or indirect. Either way, this initial offensive action began before the opponent's offensive action, and arriving in 1 tempo, would get called attack, counter-attack.

Notably different from a compound attack which begin with 1 or more preparatory actions which may be feints. Thus the rules about compound attacks opening themselves to attacks on preparation should the counter-offensive action arrive before the start of the initial offensive action's final action.

By definition, compound attacks consist of more then 1 tempo. One prepares, and THEN they attack. The feint alone grants no priority one way or the other.

The action Superscribe is describing is one that is simple, and indirect. It's an attack that is made with a disengage, not a feint followed by an attack made with a disengage.

Preparations don't grant you ROW. And if you say that they do, you're being purposefully obtuse.

[shlepzig]

It may be that the language written in the rules is covering more ground than it needs to. It seems to me that the nature of any sort of blade waggling is only muddying the waters.

In my naiveté it seem that you can sum up this entire ROW section for foil: it seems that if the attacking fencer continues to develop the attack without withdrawing the weapon then they maintain ROW. As Goldgar quoted earlier the attacker may lose ROW if the defender can land a hit before the attacker can start his final action.

So in deference to this thread, any feint, search or other blade waggle (assuming there is no blade contact in the phrase) is improperly executed if it results in the withdrawal of the weapon from the opponent. It is properly executed if the weapon is not withdrawn from the opponent. The intention of the blade waggle is moot.

In one case, the attacker starts for some line, stops changes line for some reason, defender goes and attacker finishes, the ref decides if he saw a withdrawal of the attack or not. If he did not the attack was continuous, if he did, the attack was not.

In the initial case case of the search, if the search is wide (goes wide of target enough for the ref to consider it withdrawn) or pauses (long enough for the ref to think that the attack is not starting), the defender has the opportunity to counter on the search and land before the final extension starts, or hope the ref will agree that the attack was not yet developed into an attack. The ref will decide.

At least that is my understanding. This has given me tons of trouble in my refereeing and my fencing, I would like to know if I am wrong here.

-Shlep

[Superscribe]

What the referee sees is a simple attack, which may be direct, or indirect. Either way, this initial offensive action began before the opponent's offensive action, and arriving in 1 tempo, would get called attack, counter-attack.

Notably different from a compound attack which begin with 1 or more preparatory actions which may be feints. Thus the rules about compound attacks opening themselves to attacks on preparation should the counter-offensive action arrive before the start of the initial offensive action's final action.

By definition, compound attacks consist of more then 1 tempo. One prepares, and THEN they attack. The feint alone grants no priority one way or the other.

The action Superscribe is describing is one that is simple, and indirect. It's an attack that is made with a disengage, not a feint followed by an attack made with a disengage.

Preparations don't grant you ROW. And if you say that they do, you're being purposefully obtuse.

Preparations don't grant you ROW. I'm saying a feint is not preparation. It's an attack with plan B

some rule was dragged up:

(e) If during a compound attack the opponent finds the blade during one of the feints, he has the right to riposte.

Why is finding the blade necassary for the opponent to riposte. Why is there even a riposte. Why hasn't the fencer stuck his arm out during the feint and scored, because the feint has no ROW?

[I_luv_saber]

Why do I get the feeling this is about to morph into an "attack in preparation" flame thread?

[keith]

Preparations don't grant you ROW. I'm saying a feint is not preparation. It's an attack with plan B

I think you are saying that feints which involve extension may be seen as attacks. Head feints, foot feints, body feints, extension of the back arm feints generally don't count.

some rule was dragged up:

(e) If during a compound attack the opponent finds the blade during one of the feints, he has the right to riposte.

There are other rules depending on whether the feint is part of a simple, indirect or compound attack. All this says is that it is not necessary to parry the final action of a compound attack to gain the right of a riposte with RoW.

Why is finding the blade necassary for the opponent to riposte. Why is there even a riposte. Why hasn't the fencer stuck his arm out during the feint and scored, because the feint has no ROW?

... but they can. As AE pointed out, it is a function of what everyone involved sees and does not just one view point. Or, as the little old lady I nearly did in last night discovered; it doesn't matter that she thought her light was green .

[Superscribe]

You've ignored the point. The disengage is an action (in this case) used to put your feint into action. You do not necessarily have to disengage in order to feint. However you do have to do SOMETHING in order to feint. If you just finish, it's an attack, regardless of intent. You're arguing what's in your head (intention) vs reality (actions occurred).

However the fact remains. Attack and hit with no feint does not mean it was feint attack just because you wanted it to be.

I'm not ignoring the point.

My point is whether or not a feint has ROW. I'm willing to discuss whether or not its beneficial as a fencer or coach to think of a feint as having ROW.

For me, a feint is like someone cocking the hammer of a gun and pointing it at me. Sure the gun may not be loaded. Is it generally a good idea to consider the gun is loaded? I like to think so. Arguing whether a feint has ROW is like arguing whether a cocked gun is dangerous until it's blown a hole in you.

[TooLoftheDeviL]

Preparations don't grant you ROW. I'm saying a feint is not preparation. It's an attack with plan B

Well then, what you're saying is wrong. Again, the action you're describing is one that is simple and indirect. i.e one that contains no feints at all. Just an attack that started in one line and finished in another.

[vivoescrimare]

I suggest all of us just let this drop. Some people will never realize that screaming until people get bored of telling them they're wrong doesn't make them any less wrong. Move on from the feint debate. Sort it out on strip as necessary.

[Superscribe]

I think you are saying that feints which involve extension may be seen as attacks. Head feints, foot feints, body feints, extension of the back arm feints generally don't count.



There are other rules depending on whether the feint is part of a simple, indirect or compound attack. All this says is that it is not necessary to parry the final action of a compound attack to gain the right of a riposte with RoW.

Bro. WTF. The rule i mentioned is saying that during a feint, you don't have the right to riposte during a feint. I conclude that during a feint, the guy who is feinting seems to have ROW. It doesn't talk about the final action. "one of the feints"


... but they can. As AE pointed out, it is a function of what everyone involved sees and does not just one view point. Or, as the little old lady I nearly did in last night discovered; it doesn't matter that she thought her light was green .

Alright, under what circumstances would it be helpful to teach people that a feint has no ROW? teaching them to attack during a feint... when (according to one arguement) it's impossible to know if a feint is a feint until after an attack has landed or a parry has already been made?

[I_luv_saber]

Again, you are viewing the intent to feint as an actual feint. This is not so. In reality it is an attack until it becomes a feint. As I said, if you've never changed lines in any way and simply finished it would be a simple attack.

Now, I do see what you're saying here. It seems like your position is that "Yes, it was a feint that finished as a simple attack" whereas mine is "It's a simple attack because a feint never occurred".

Again, one is based in the mind of the fencer, the other is based on the reality of the situation.

[Superscribe]

Again, you are viewing the intent to feint as an actual feint. This is not so. In reality it is an attack until it becomes a feint. As I said, if you've never changed lines in any way and simply finished it would be a simple attack.

Now, I do see what you're saying here. It seems like your position is that "Yes, it was a feint that finished as a simple attack" whereas mine is "It's a simple attack because a feint never occurred".

Again, one is based in the mind of the fencer, the other is based on the reality of the situation.

One is based on the mind of the fencer, and what the action is (mine). The other is the only way someone without knowledge of intent is going to deduce what's going on.

I think that's an appropriate way of saying it.

I'm glad we worked discussed it.

[I_luv_saber]

One is based on the mind of the fencer, and what the action is (mine).

From your perspective.

Not the perspective of the other fencer, the referee, the audience, the armorer, etc. I would call that the mind of the fencer vs reality.

I don't understand how the intention of an action can be called an action. If you haven't done it yet, you haven't done it yet, it doesn't exist yet except in your mind, period!

But this is becoming argumentum ad nauseum...

[Superscribe]

Well then, what you're saying is wrong. Again, the action you're describing is one that is simple and indirect. i.e one that contains no feints at all. Just an attack that started in one line and finished in another.

Well then all you need to do is show me how an feint is always considered preparation. If you point to something that gives evidence that a feint is considered only prepatory, or an attack during a feint (not before) is valid, or an opponent is NOT obliged to find the blade during a feint before riposting, then this case is settled, yeah?

(d) In compound attacks the feint must be correctly carried out, i.e.: 1. A feint with the point, with the arm extended and the point threatening the target continuously. 2. A feint with a cut, the arm extended, the blade and the arm forming an obtuse angle of about 135°, with the cutting edge threatening a valid part of the target.
(e) If during a compound attack the opponent finds the blade during one of the feints, he has the right to riposte.
(f) In a compound attack the opponent has the right to stop-hit; but, in order to be valid, the stop hit must precede the last movement of the attack by one period of fencing time, i.e. the stop hit must arrive before the attacker has started the last movement of the attack itself.

(d) During a compound attack, "a feint with the point, with the arm extended and the point threatening the target continously..." If you attack after i've started this feint, do you really think the referee is going to give you the touch?

From what i can tell (e) is saying you have to find my blade because, by golly, my feint has ROW, and if you don't find the blade and we both finish, you got touched.

[keith]

Alright, under what circumstances would it be helpful to teach people that a feint has no ROW?

Well perhaps when you are teaching them that waving their arm feinting here, there and everywhere is going to get them into trouble if an opponent catches on.

This is quite different from initiating an action that may, or may not, become a simple direct attack, an indirect attack or the first motion of a compound attack. By the time you reach compound you are vulnerable to a simple attack having priority.

teaching them to attack during a feint... when (according to one arguement) it's impossible to know if a feint is a feint until after an attack has landed or a parry has already been made?

Hmm now leaving aside whether a given ref is going to call it with RoW or as counter;

If an opponent is getting over enthusiastic with their line changes attacking into a feint may be a perfectly valid approach if the opponent is not paying enough attention to how they are going to finish.

This is where you get into the line between what a ref (who is the only one who counts) is going to see for a given action: attack, feint, or pure preparatory wiggle.

If from a low sixte guard I feint to octave with just the fingers and then lunge to hit in sixte on my opponents counter I am doing something quite different from;

Feint low with hand in septime and heavily supinated, and then on my opponents action, withdraw hand in a coupe to hit in sixte.

In the first case providing I started extending first I would always expect to get the call. In the second.... the timing is going to matter a bit more.

[Superscribe]

From your perspective.

Not the perspective of the other fencer, the referee, the audience, the armorer, etc. I would call that the mind of the fencer vs reality.

I don't understand how the intention of an action can be called an action. If you haven't done it yet, you haven't done it yet, it doesn't exist yet except in your mind, period!

But this is becoming argumentum ad nauseum...

No, but i have done it, you just don't know about it. The other fencer doesn't know about it. The ref might not know about it. But it happened. I was the only person standing in the forest when the tree fell, man. The tree still fell.

[I_luv_saber]

*sigh*...

[Hauptman]

Well then all you need to do is show me how an feint is always considered preparation. If you point to something that gives evidence that a feint is considered only prepatory, or an attack during a feint (not before) is valid, or an opponent is NOT obliged to find the blade during a feint before riposting, then this case is settled, yeah?

(d) In compound attacks the feint must be correctly carried out, i.e.: 1. A feint with the point, with the arm extended and the point threatening the target continuously. 2. A feint with a cut, the arm extended, the blade and the arm forming an obtuse angle of about 135°, with the cutting edge threatening a valid part of the target.
(e) If during a compound attack the opponent finds the blade during one of the feints, he has the right to riposte.
(f) In a compound attack the opponent has the right to stop-hit; but, in order to be valid, the stop hit must precede the last movement of the attack by one period of fencing time, i.e. the stop hit must arrive before the attacker has started the last movement of the attack itself.

(d) During a compound attack, "a feint with the point, with the arm extended and the point threatening the target continously..." If you attack after i've started this feint, do you really think the referee is going to give you the touch?

From what i can tell (e) is saying you have to find my blade because, by golly, my feint has ROW, and if you don't find the blade and we both finish, you got touched.

I agree with this. A feint is not usually preparation; it is usually part of a compound attack. Or if a feint puts the point in line then a counterattack by the opponent would have to deal with that.