In foil, to attack, do you have to have your point in line when you extend your arm? Ive seen people extend their arm to signify an attack but have their point horizontally outward or straight in the air.
Well, you have to do it prior to your opponent attacking, no matter what. But basically, it depends on what the referee decides. If the referee thinks it's a threat, then it's a threat. If the referee thinks it's not a threat (just a preparation), then it's not a threat.
I can think of few things in RoW, foil or sabre, that work this way--I.e., "If I do this, I am always attacking." Or, "motion 'x' is always preparation." It depends; it always depends.
Is a straight arm extension and lunge always an attack? Not if your opponent did the same thing, right before you did; now it's a counterattack. Does a fencer who executes an esquive or a duck automatically forfeit RoW? What if they're doing it as they parry, instead of as they try to score?
Some salient points to remember about RoW:
1) Just because the attacking fencer included some form of preparation does not automatically make it the defender's touch.
2) There are some things that have a high probability of getting called against you--hitting your opponent's guard in sabre is a pretty bad idea, for example. So is searching for the blade and not succeeding, on offense or defense--though there are lots of situations where it wouldn't kill you.
3) No individual body motions are guaranteed to provide a definitive RoW result--not even an attempt to establish point in line. it depends on the distance, timing, and interaction between both fencers.
Well, you have to do it prior to your opponent attacking, no matter what. But basically, it depends on what the referee decides. If the referee thinks it's a threat, then it's a threat. If the referee thinks it's not a threat (just a preparation), then it's not a threat.
I wonder if its a bot that starts this thread every couple of weeks...
In foil, to attack, do you have to have your point in line when you extend your arm? Ive seen people extend their arm to signify an attack but have their point horizontally outward or straight in the air.
Its a complicated question, but I'll give you a very simple answer that I think gets the point across fairly accurately.
No, you don't have to have your point on target to be "Attacking."
__________________
"Sir, didn't I parry"
"You didn't take advantage of his blade enough, so no."
In foil, to attack, do you have to have your point in line when you extend your arm? Ive seen people extend their arm to signify an attack but have their point horizontally outward or straight in the air.
The other part that is important in defining this word is that your point (for foil) or your blade (for sabre) is going toward your opponent's valid target. It is a very common misconception that, for example, a foil attack requires the point to be "aimed" at the valid target before an attack starts.
Hope this helps.
__________________
"Close only counts in horseshoes and trebuchets."
t.7 ... The attack is the initial offensive action made by extending the arm and continuously threatening the opponent‘s target, preceding the launching of the lunge or flèche (cf. t.56ss, t.75ss).
Therefore, the arm does not have to be fully extended. The point also does not have to be pointing at a valid target. The key phrase here is "continuously threatening". Do you feel threatened when your opponent comes at you with his blade pointed straight up? Was his threat continuous?
Its a complicated question, but I'll give you a very simple answer that I think gets the point across fairly accurately.
No, you don't have to have your point on target to be "Attacking."
I agree. Catwood1's answer is basically the unambiguous answer you are asking for...though the arm need not be straight nor the point pointing at the opponent, now the point needs to be at least somewhat aimed at the opponent. In the days of the flick, foilists would have the point aimed at the ceiling or nearly behind the back and refs would call the attack for them.
However (and this took me a while to wrap my head around this point though it may seem simple and obvious) row does not exist in a vacuum and is dependent on what the other person does. Others have mentioned it above.
The question takes many aspects of row and the fencers' relationship to each other for granted; e.g. that you are starting first; the director agrees your bent (not straight) arm is not preperation; you don't pull your arm back before finishing, and so on.
You may have seen badly executed bent arm attacks, e.g. point is aimed at the ceiling, yet he still gets the attack. For example, you could make a bad bent arm attack, your opponents retreats in confusion extends his arm first and finishes while you finish -- most likely this will still be your attack.
Catwood1 was very correct, the answer is complicated.
Last edited by South_Paw; 11-06-2009 at 12:57 AM..
I agree. Catwood1's answer is basically the unambiguous answer you are asking for...though the arm need not be straight nor the point pointing at the opponent, now the point needs to be at least somewhat aimed at the opponent. In the days of the flick, foilists would have the point aimed at the ceiling or nearly behind the back and refs would call the attack for them.
However (and this took me a while to wrap my head around this point though it may seem simple and obvious) row does not exist in a vacuum and is dependent on what the other person does. Others have mentioned it above.
The question takes many aspects of row and the fencers' relationship to each other for granted; e.g. that you are starting first; the director agrees your bent ot straight arm is not preperation; you don't pull your arm back before finishing, and so on. You may have seen badly executed bent arm attacks, e.g. point is aimed at the ceiling, yet he still gets the attack. For example, you could make a bad bent arm attack, your opponents retreats in confusion extends his arm first and finishes while you finish -- most likely this will still be your attack.
Catwood1 was very correct, the answer is complicated.
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.
__________________
"Sir, didn't I parry"
"You didn't take advantage of his blade enough, so no."
Only if you're these people. Specifically, see the video towards the bottom of the page.
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.
Reading this thread (I'm not sure why, just figured there might be a newer funnier comment), after watching the World Series (baseball) for the last week, I realized an interesting paralell. We think, in fencing, that we are unique in our indeterminate application of some of the rules. Andy Pettite (Yankee pitcher, for those who only follow ONE sport) has a move to first base that by any strict application of the rule is a balk. However, the umpires say "since he does it all the time that way consistently, as long as we know what he means to do, it's not a balk". If another pitcher made the same move occasionally, it would be a balk.
Also, better camera work has clarified the fact that the shortstop RARELY touches 2nd base appropriately on double plays....the rule is applied somewhat indiscriminately, so that if the play "looks right" and the shortstop is in "the right vicinity", they don't call him missing the base.
And that doesn't even address the totally arbitrary (between umpires, batters, and the day) calling of balls and strikes.
I guess the opposing players get ticked off as much as a fencer who thinks he has ROW, only to lose the touch.
Reading this thread (I'm not sure why, just figured there might be a newer funnier comment), after watching the World Series (baseball) for the last week, I realized an interesting paralell. We think, in fencing, that we are unique in our indeterminate application of some of the rules. Andy Pettite (Yankee pitcher, for those who only follow ONE sport) has a move to first base that by any strict application of the rule is a balk. However, the umpires say "since he does it all the time that way consistently, as long as we know what he means to do, it's not a balk". If another pitcher made the same move occasionally, it would be a balk.
Also, better camera work has clarified the fact that the shortstop RARELY touches 2nd base appropriately on double plays....the rule is applied somewhat indiscriminately, so that if the play "looks right" and the shortstop is in "the right vicinity", they don't call him missing the base.
And that doesn't even address the totally arbitrary (between umpires, batters, and the day) calling of balls and strikes.
I guess the opposing players get ticked off as much as a fencer who thinks he has ROW, only to lose the touch.
I think there are a number of justifications for Pettite's move, but thats not it. I wouldn't describe it as a balk. Its close, but its not. I don't think he gets away with it because he is Andy Pettite, I think he gets away with it because its a very good move. And the old neighborhood play has basically stopped showing up due to mutiple tv cameras on every player. SS have gotten way better at holding the bag there.
I like the idea, but I disagree with your examples.
__________________
"Sir, didn't I parry"
"You didn't take advantage of his blade enough, so no."
That's true; I specifically remember the Angels' SS Erick Aybar not being given the out for the lead runner on a double-play turn in this year's ALCS, because he tried to "neighborhood" the bag.
Linear Mode
