ROW question

[edew]

Balls and strikes are rather arbitrary. I remember watching baseball many times as a kid (can't stand to watch it now because it's so boring that they throw in all those additional stimuli which increases the chances for epileptic seizures) and seeing balls thrown down the middle called balls and balls that barely edge the plate called as strikes.

It depends on the hitter and the pitcher. If it's A-Rod vs some rookie pitcher, anything A-rod doesn't swing at is a ball. If it's a rookie batter against a cy young pitcher, if the ball doesn't take a bounce to get to the plate, it's a strike.

[pillow]

I think it's important to understand that in order to make foil more TV-friendly,the FIE is planning on elimination of ROW from this weapon. This is the same logic applied to the use of visor masks and electrified bibs for foil. No doubt the elimination of ROW will make foil more popular than football and baseball according to the research done by the FIE. It will also simplify f.net, in that all the ROW threads will cease to exist.

[Fiat Slug]

I think it's important to understand that in order to make foil more TV-friendly,the FIE is planning on elimination of ROW from this weapon. This is the same logic applied to the use of visor masks and electrified bibs for foil. No doubt the elimination of ROW will make foil more popular than football and baseball according to the research done by the FIE. It will also simplify f.net, in that all the ROW threads will cease to exist.

If we want to make foil more TV-friendly, then FIE should drop the corp-a-corp rule to encourage hockey-style body checking. After all, watching a good fight on the piste is far more interesting on TV than being able to see the fencers' faces through a piece of lexan.

Oops, wrong thread...

[cbcarey]

A while back someone here directed me to this: http://www.fencingofficials.org/faq/faq.php

Most importantly, this part:

Hope this helps.

What I found interesting in that was this line

"The attacker who lunges has the attack end when the front foot lands." I always thought that was a saber practice and not a general practice?

[keith]

What I found interesting in that was this line

"The attacker who lunges has the attack end when the front foot lands." I always thought that was a saber practice and not a general practice?

It is probably reasonable short hand in foil, after all if the attack is made in distance it would be expected to hit at the end of the lunge. Which either means that it was deliberately short (as a second intention action) or it missed (either short or wide).

That said I don't think there is anything, in the rules, that says if I lunge and then lean forward (continuously) after my foot hit the ground that my lean was a remise. Current convention is a different matter of course .

[edew]

That "lean" seems to be a remise for saber, at least much more so than for foil. In foil, the end of the lunge becomes the end of the attack because there is usually a "bounce back" where the body moves slightly backwards. So to resume a forward movement would definitely require a new effort, hence a second action.

[eac]

It's true that the applications of the rules in baseball are totally arbitrary, but one difference is that it's fairly well-specified what they're supposed to be looking for, they're just stupid and don't get it right. You could very easily make a video/electric set of equipment to adjudicate baseball perfectly every game, but baseball people are too stupid to do that.

With ROW, it takes a while to even understand what they're supposed to be looking for, and no amount of technology will ever make it unambiguous. I bet you couldn't even train a vision- or motion-capture-based classifier that the FIE (or anyone else) would be happy with, especially in sabre. It's too much about intent and patterns of communicating intent to the ref.

[South_Paw]

Emphasis changed.

Even now, it does not need to be pointed anywhere near the opponent. Its relative. I can have my point physically behind my knees and still be attacking you, I promise. But you're basically on the money.

And if you think the flick is gone, you are very mistaken.

I meant when flcks were more prevalent.

As for the first part, in referee meetings we are told everything else being equal, when both folks start attacking together at the same time, the guy with the point aimed at the ceiling should not get the attack. Let's end this here because this is just starting on a slippery slope to hell.

[South_Paw]

What I found interesting in that was this line

"The attacker who lunges has the attack end when the front foot lands." I always thought that was a saber practice and not a general practice?

I was told be several higher up refs, including Derek Cotton, that this rule has been codified for foil by the FIE and will be by USFA.

[Omar Bhutta]

I meant when flcks were more prevalent.

As for the first part, in referee meetings we are told everything else being equal, when both folks start attacking together at the same time, the guy with the point aimed at the ceiling should not get the attack. Let's end this here because this is just starting on a slippery slope to hell.

This is a misleading statement.

First, the only time things are equal is when the fencers are en-guard prior to the command of "Fence" being given, and at this time, both points are in similar positions, nor are they attacking.

Second, if both attacks start at the same time, by definition, the attacks have started at the same time and there is no priority.

Lastly, what the point is pointing at makes no difference as long as the person is attacking - that is, where the point aims does enter into the definition of an attack. What makes an attack? You will not answer it on a message board like this. You need to find a qualified referee and/or qualified referee instructor and have them teach you with real people/video. This discussion cannot adequately take place with words alone.

I was told be several higher up refs, including Derek Cotton, that this rule has been codified for foil by the FIE and will be by USFA.

And currently, the FIE rulebook and USFA rulebook both do not state this. This rule is currently only in the sabre section (t.56 for foil, f.75 for sabre).

[I_luv_saber]

No doubt the elimination of ROW will make foil more popular than football and baseball according to the research done by the FIE. It will also simplify f.net, in that all the ROW threads will cease to exist.

Saber would still be the last bastion.

[cbcarey]

I emailed the FOC site and got confirmation that foil attack ending is indeed on its way to a bout near you.

[Omar Bhutta]

I emailed the FOC site and got confirmation that foil attack ending is indeed on its way to a bout near you.

That is excellent, as official clarification will be useful. Until then, there are (by current convention and not precluded by the rules) clearly attacks that end after the front foot has landed, even if in most cases it coincidentally is true. Until there is clarification though, I would not apply this carte-blanche.

Cheers.

[shlepzig]

Taken to an absurd conclusion, why don't we just make it such that attacks in weapons of convention are only valid if the front foot is off the ground.

Then we can use grounded strips to electronically determine whether the front foot is down and lock out the weapon to score if so.

Foil and sabre can turn into bizarre hopping fests.

Mirthfully yours
-Shlep'

[Insipiens]

Taken to an absurd conclusion, why don't we just make it such that attacks in weapons of convention are only valid if the front foot is off the ground.

Then we can use grounded strips to electronically determine whether the front foot is down and lock out the weapon to score if so.

Foil and sabre can turn into bizarre hopping fests.

Mirthfully yours
-Shlep'

presumably only jump ripostes would count?
It might prevent a lot of ducking because it is harder to duck with your feet off the floor

[shlepzig]

presumably only jump ripostes would count?

Technically they could still be performed on one foot (Karate Kid style). It would make it much more television friendly. Loads of exciting and absurd jumping.

It would also make Eric Roberts fencing technique in By The Sword seem far less absurd. We all have a responsibility to ensure Eric Roberts is less absurd.

-Shlep'
OK I think I am done now.

[kalivor]

It would also make Eric Roberts fencing technique in By The Sword seem far less absurd. We all have a responsibility to ensure Eric Roberts is less absurd.

This makes me wish I could rep you twice in succession.

[rudd]

This makes me wish I could rep you twice in succession.

I'll rep him for you.

[migopod]

I don't want to rag on fans of "classical fencing," so I'm not generalizing or trying to insult. But that video literally made me nauseous. My stomach is uneasy.

I wonder if Tae Kwon Do competitors, for example, feel that way about movie fights.

If you think that's bad, try reading the articles... in particular the one where Crown talks about his nude modelling.