Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

HilandDoug · 10-29-2002, 12:38 PM

Referee Jim Vesper explained to me that the point threatens valid target when the arm is moving forward and will arrive on target if a defensive action is not made. I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea. So their point can be at the ceiling, but if their arm BEGINS THE EXTENSION before yours, they have the attack, and yours is a counter. Unless you can find a way to hit first and block the flick so it's a one-lighter...

Now, if there's a SIGNIFICANT TEMPO between hits, you can argue that your "counter" is actually into their prep, else why the significant tempo difference in the hits. If it sounds, "B-Bam!" and both lights go on, the flicker gets it. If it goes, "Bam!...Bam!", you may want to question the tempo.

Eric, what's yor take on this? Any other rated referees want to comment?

edew · 10-29-2002, 01:22 PM

You're essentially correct. If he flick hit, that's about as good an indication that it threatened target as anything.

As for the timing, it could be bam!...bam! Or it could be bam!.................bam!. The point isn't the physical amount of time, but what the two fencers were doing. It could be bam!bam! and still be an attack into the preparation (certainly in sabre, the timing is much tighter, but this topic is about foil).

The question is, is the attacker just attacking, and is that motion continuous without hesitation, and did it occur with one fencing tempo, as defined by the attacker? If the above are "yes", then it's an attack. If the attacker makes a hesitation (and a full stop hesitation, not just a slowing down action, which is perfectly legitimate and is a tactical way to draw the counter-attack), the attack ends at the hesitation (presumably without having touched the body, but who knows: sometimes, a person makes a hesitation, but the opponent happened to be on the receiving end of the tip). If the attacker has to make a redoublement, then the priority may be taken by the opponent if he can start before the redoublement begins. There are other aspects which lend themselves better to visual description and explanation rather than written explanation.

No matter, the curt comment by Tim is absolutely not the right way to interpret flicks or any large compound actions.

Tomas N · 10-29-2002, 01:58 PM

Isn't there (or is it proposed (or am I way off base)) a lockout in foil, where a second hit won't register after a designated period of time?

Tomas

Chris Aher · 10-29-2002, 02:06 PM

Hi Tim,

Instead of bayonnet, think hand grenade! (or howitzer)

Seriously, I agree with Eric on this one. This is exactly the interpretation that has been consistently presented at the ref seminars that I have attended over the last few years. I will call it this was every time (unless I have a brain f*rt

) until told differently by the FOC.

oiuyt · 10-29-2002, 03:03 PM

Tomas- According to the (current USFA) rules book the delay is somewhere between 700 and 800 miliseconds for foil. Similar to the 20-25 ms for epee or the 300-350 ms delay before lockout in sabre.

That much time (in foil) is a LOT of time....

-B :)

neevel · 10-29-2002, 11:12 PM

One of the raft of proposed foil rule changes that were floated about last year was to shorten the double touch lockout to 350 ms. If you have an Eigertek box, you can try it out by opening it up and adjusting one of the trim pots (there are two-- one adjusts the sound tone, the other the lockout time). What you'll find is that the 350 ms lockout really has little significant effect on allowing one to "time out" a flick hit. When I've been fencing with the shorter lockout time, in the great majority of cases any delay on the part of the attacker that permits a time-out would've been a one-lighter anyway. The main effect of the shorter lockout is to prevent late remises from registering (and to allow floor hits to block out attacks or ripostes-- referees at tournaments without metal pistes will need to remember the "voluntary touch not on opponent" rule if the shorter lockout window is adopted).

-Dave

sallearmourer · 10-29-2002, 11:19 PM

I don't like flicks and that why I refuse to get a rating in foil. I have seen my wife arm bruise by a women trying to do flicks on her plus putting a six inch cut on her lame.

Tim

Artisan · 10-30-2002, 12:12 AM

I can understand not liking flicks - I've not yet been able to parry them and often get stung... But, it is part of the game - and is not a new invention either. On rec.sports.fencing there was an interesting post from a guy who had an old timer returning to fencing at age 80... he reports that the flick was alive and well in the 30's. Though I'm new to the sport, I just don't understand the controversy... it's like complaining about fighting in professional hockey - if it wasn't part of the game, why would there be a penalty for it?

As far as not getting a rating in foil because you don't like flicks, I simply don't understand that logic. Who are you punishing, the FIE, USFA everyone else at NAC's by not honoring them with your presence? Perhaps Classical fencing will appeal more to you. Or maybe the other post about Bayonette fighting applies...I dont understand the need to create these arbitrary hurdles.

Then there are those who apparently think that the pistol grip has ruined the sport (Nick Evangelista) Whats up with that?

latenight · 10-30-2002, 08:29 AM

Well, I don't like the designated hitter in baseball, but I don't refuse to acknowledge it exists.

Particularly if I were the umpire.

Don't think you ned to worry about that foil rating.

achilleus · 10-30-2002, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sallearmourer
I don't like flicks and that why I refuse to get a rating in foil. I have seen my wife arm bruise by a women trying to do flicks on her plus putting a six inch cut on her lame.

Tim

Just because you personally don't like it doesn't mean it isn't valid.

As for the bruising thing, I've seen a guy, using straight thrust puncture the leg of another guy. As well as leave large bruises on people.

Out of control people are out of control people, regardless of the technique they are attempting to use.

135711 · 10-30-2002, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sallearmourer
I don't like flicks and that why I refuse to get a rating in foil. I have seen my wife arm bruise by a women trying to do flicks on her plus putting a six inch cut on her lame.

Tim

I really think you're going to have to learn how to flick. But the thing is you have to flick correctly. I don't think I "practiced" flicking on a person, I practiced on a pole at home, and then it would come out naturally during fencing. It should be like any other attack. You wouldn't coupe in a bout for practice unless you were fencing a beginner and you didn't need to use much power, you would use it more powerfully against a more powerful fencer, and it would fall into place, the same with the flick.

Sabresque · 10-30-2002, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Boo Boo
I know his coach is of the "old-fashoined" school (i.e. flicks aren't attacks because the point is not always pointing at the target), but I am sure that he didn't teach him that your arm has to be straight and fully extended to be an attack....

Boo
(Doesn't like bashing her head against brick walls...)

Ah, yes. Those ones. (Trying not to scream) We have one of those in our club, always railing about his great accomplishments from 1920 or so. Eek, he also always rails on about flicks, pistol grips, and how terrible they are. he also tryed to dissuade me from fencing sabre (when I was moving from foil to it), saying it was too "rough" and "Agressive", because I am a girl. The guy has no idea what he's talking about sometimes, and with his old fahsioned reffing... UGH!

I understand completely. Sorry for my rant.

edew · 10-30-2002, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sallearmourer
I don't like flicks and that why I refuse to get a rating in foil. I have seen my wife arm bruise by a women trying to do flicks on her plus putting a six inch cut on her lame.

Tim

Tim, that's as ridiculous as saying that I don't want to be an armorer because the rules do not allow for a 5% tolerance on equipment checks. I would like to pass my foil weight with 500 gm, +/- 25 gm. Would that be acceptable?

A person who bruises others doing "flicks" is not doing good flicks, especially if it hits the arm. Still, fencing is a competitive martial sport. You should be expecting some bruising.

I used to fence a guy who consistently bruised me on my inner-upper (weapon) arm. He'd flick as hard as he can against my held-steady four parry, and the blade would bend against the parry and hit me in the arm.

Over time, the bruises migrated from arm to upper arm to should to chest. I guess it was a way to track his improvements.

By the way, I don't like ripostes, either. When I'm refereeing, I don't ever give ripostes.

EDEW

darius · 10-31-2002, 01:05 AM

Quote:

When I'm refereeing, I don't ever give ripostes.

...mental note...

darius

haggis · 10-31-2002, 09:13 AM

I'm with edew on this one. Ripostes are terrible things and have thoroughly spoilt my enjoyment of several fights (that I have lost). I propose that we start to pressurise the FIE so future generations of foilists can concentrate on flicking and counter-attacking without the unpleasantness of being hit by ripostes.

Haggis

Psi Shadowdark · 10-31-2002, 02:20 PM

this has been a quite amusing thread.

u guys are harsh! =)

angrylemur · 11-02-2002, 07:42 PM

as far as tempo goes, I don't judge according to when the lights go on, but rather extension of the arm.

I mean, I can be casually marching forward with a bent arm or something, waiting for you to hit me, and then finish once you start your attack in prep, and the tempo can be b-bam. it's still your attack in prep regardless.

on the other hand, I can start a slow advance and a slow extension of the arm, and if you counter into it lightning quick and I slowly finish, as long as I still have a double light it's my attack.

D'Artagnan1673 · 11-03-2002, 12:26 PM

Well Tim, I am going to have to disagree with you on this. You argue that the flick is invalid because such a move would be stupid in a real fight such as with a small sword or bayonet. What you fail to realize is that the foil is not a sword. If people wish to fence with the foil in the manner that they do, then the foil is not a sword, but a toy. Any knowledge derived from the application of this toy is useless outside of itself.

The proper application of the foil will give the fencer a solid foundation of true sword fighting principals which will make the fencer far more effective in the real point weapon of fencing, the epee. The epee has no artificial rules which are open to the interpretation of any person. Therefore, there is simply right, and there is not right. This truth is not the subjective opinion of an official, but of the scoring devices alone. I should hope that there will be no critisicms of my observations since they are made from fact and not opinion.

Therefore, it is my conclusion that if all you want out of fencing is to make a light go off, attack improperly to your hearts desire. If you wish for some truth in fencing, then use the foil as a means of learning the proper technique of fencing and then move on to the epee.

mfp · 11-03-2002, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by D'Artagnan1673
The epee has no artificial rules which are open to the interpretation of any person. Therefore, there is simply right, and there is not right. This truth is not the subjective opinion of an official, but of the scoring devices alone. I should hope that there will be no critisicms of my observations since they are made from fact and not opinion.

What a load of poppycock.

Good grief, anyone who claims epee doesn't include rules open to the subjective opinions and interpretations of officials is being either disingenuous or naive.

The rule t.21 part on passing applies to epee as well, along with all the various "Crossing the limits of the strip" rules. Both include elements open to the subjective opinions of officials, primarly timing.

On the passing rule, it's a subjective call as to when exactly the pass occurred let alone the fairly wide (ie subjective) variation between certain officials on what immediately means and when a defender has been considered to have begun their action.

D'Artagnan1673 · 11-03-2002, 05:05 PM

Oh please,

I did not think I would have to refer to incidents such as those. I expected everyone would figure out what I mean. I am referring to the priority of attack.

While you are at it, you could have mentioned that on non grounded strips, a call can be subjective if it appears that the light going off was the weapon hitting the floor.