Melon Industries Presents...

[Wetmelon]

Another Right of Way question!!!!



Fencer A is moving forward with his arm down.

Fencer B puts out a fake line, turning it into a point attack.

Fencer A attacks from underneath immediately after being hit in the chest with a point.

Two lights.

Fencer A never stopped moving forward during the action, and the actions were clean.


Whose point, do you think?

Rep for your thoughts xD

Oh, and it's Sabre.

[lguillemin]

Can you explain the tempo? Kind of an important factor lol

[prototoast]

Based on you calling it a "fake" point in line, I'm assuming it means it wasn't up in time (or else it wouldn't be fake, but fake is really a poor word to use in this situation anyway), and thus the point attack (which, again, would still be a point in line, unless the line was broken, in which case it would be a new attack started after the point in line, and if the point in line wasn't in time the new attack certainly wouldn't be) was not in time.

So I'm going to give the touch to fencer A, but that is only based upon your poorly chosen descriptive words.

[erooMynohtnA]

Fencer A is moving forward with his arm down.

Fencer A is not attacking.

Fencer B puts out a fake line, turning it into a point attack.

Fencer B attacks.

Fencer A attacks from underneath immediately after being hit in the chest with a point.

Fencer B's attack arrives, then fencer A attacks.

After winnowing the descriptive chaff, is there any question whose touch it is? (Especially given the bolded phrase)

[Stormbringer]

Another Right of Way question!!!!



Fencer A is moving forward with his arm down.

Fencer B puts out a fake line, turning it into a point attack.

Fencer A attacks from underneath immediately after being hit in the chest with a point.

Two lights.

Fencer A never stopped moving forward during the action, and the actions were clean.


Whose point, do you think?

Rep for your thoughts xD

Oh, and it's Sabre.

Firstly, what is a "fake point-in-line"?
Last I checked, PIL has two (rather binary) qualifiers - either one is in the PIL position, or one is not... and, one assumes the position in time (to be able to claim ROW), or one does not.

Also... what eroomynohtna said.

To be a bit less concise: "Preparation from A; attack from B - arrives; touch B".

[JacoKierkegaard]

Firstly, what is a "fake point-in-line"?
Last I checked, PIL has two (rather binary) qualifiers - either one is in the PIL position, or one is not... and, one assumes the position in time (to be able to claim ROW), or one does not.

Also... what eroomynohtna said.

To be a bit less concise: "Preparation from A; attack from B - arrives; touch B".

This.

[keropie]

Yeah, from the description, B attacks. Of course, the description says...

'A marches, point down; B (does something like a line and) makes a point attack; After B HITS A attacks'

Clearly from this description, A attacks after B. Therefore B must have ROW. Duh.

Of course, the other question (the more interesting one) is could a similar (surface) situation exist where A is actually the attacker. The answer is probably yes.

A begins an advance, point down. B begins an extension that does not reach PiL. A finishes the advance and begins another, while B retreats and does not reach PiL. This continues for an arbitrary number of [A finishes an advance and begins another while B does not attack but continues to retreat, never improving his extension to PiL/full extension or an attempt to attack]. Then, A begins an advance, B 'finishes' his PiL/makes an attempt to attack, A begins his extension before the end of his advance, immediately lunges to finish the attack, both hit. Unless things have changed (haven't read the rulebook in a couple of years), this is still a correct step-lunge/advance-lunge, and should carry RoW.

So the question now becomes whether you meant the presented situation (which boils down to B attacks, then A attacks, who has RoW?) or the second, or something in between?

[erooMynohtnA]

As Keropie points out this could easily be called the other way. I don't want to be mean, but the description is one of the worst I've seen. A lot of people here need a class in Effective Writing for Right of Way Threads.

Here is how I would have phrased the pertinent action:
Fencer A moves forward with his arm down.
Fencer B puts out his point while retreating then switches direction and lunges
Fencer B hits fencer A in the chest as fencer A brings up his blade to hit fencer B's arm.

Or

Fencer A prepares.
Fencer B establishes a point in line.
Fencer B attacks and hits then A attacks and hits.

There are essentially two ways to ask a RoW question: the first is using only the phrases point in line, attack, counterattack, beat, parry, remise, miss, hit, preparation, and whatever else would be used by a referee to phrase an action. The other way is to use everything except those. Each has its own obvious limitations.

Onto the fundamental unasked question: is the low line thing A did a preparation, and did B invalidate an attack in prep by trying a PiL feint? I don't know, and neither does anyone else, because there's no video.

[Wetmelon]

Ok, B's arm came up into a line, but he only kept it there for a split second at which point he bends his arm slightly, keeping point on target, then changes direction and fully extends the arm in a point attack.

The touch lands, at which point A's arm starts moving and A's touch lands on B's stomach.



As I was reffing it, I called it for B because quote, "A reacted to B's attack, he didn't initiate anything." At which point I was laughed at by about 10 people who said "A was moving forward, therefore point A. No discussion."

P.s. I got the "Fake" line from on of Cyrus's videos (perhaps the PiL one?) - It describes using a line very briefly to trick the opponent into thinking you're putting out a proper line. Like "faking" a parry 5...

[erooMynohtnA]

Then what most likely happened is that B was late or A was slowly extending and you missed it.

[keropie]

Or perhaps (despite Occam's best intentions) 10 people are wrong lol...

[Hauptman]

As I was reffing it, I called it for B because quote, "A reacted to B's attack, he didn't initiate anything." At which point I was laughed at by about 10 people who said "A was moving forward, therefore point A. No discussion."

Ok, your situation is much clearer now, but not completely. Were the "10" people referring to A moving forward in distance or that A's arm was moving forward?

If the arm was moving forward then it would be a touch for A, but you seem to describe that A didn't really extend at all until after B attacked.

What does anyone here think of "A was moving forward, therefore point A. No discussion."?

I've been in the same situation while reffing foil, and gotten the same reactions from the peanut gallery. Fencer A would close distance with arm down or back, but not make any attempt to hit until clearly after B reacts with his own attack... then A finishes. It doesn't hold up to me.

[keropie]

I've been in the same situation while reffing foil, and gotten the same reactions from the peanut gallery. Fencer A would close distance with arm down or back, but not make any attempt to hit until clearly after B reacts with his own attack... then A finishes. It doesn't hold up to me.

Be careful with this, as (unless the rules have changed, see my earlier caveat) it is important to realize that linear time and fencing time do not have 100% correlation.

eg: I begin my advance with no extension, but before my opponent does anything. During my advance he begins his extension. I see this, and begin my extension, before I finish my advance. I finish my advance, we both lunge, we both hit. Who's touch?

Should be mine, since the correctly executed advance lunge begins with the advance, and as long as I begin my extension before my advance ends, it is correct (assuming the other requirements of correctness in terms of constant extension once begun, etc.).

And in that example, my actual attempt to hit began after my opponent's.

[rsy]

...the correctly executed advance lunge begins with the advance, and as long as I begin my extension before my advance ends, it is correct (assuming the other requirements of correctness in terms of constant extension once begun, etc.).

And in that example, my actual attempt to hit began after my opponent's.

QFT. t.56(a)3 says:

The attack with a advance-lunge or a advance-flèche is correctly executed when the extending of the arm precedes the end of the step forward and the initiation of the lunge or the flèche.

So, if A's footwork and tempo were correct, that is if during A's advance B began his attack and in response A started his extension, finished his advance and then lunged and finished on target, then it was A's point. But, if A advanced without extension and simply lunged and extended in response to B's attack, then it was B's attack in prep.

The OP doesn't focus on the footwork and the tempo other than to say, "Fencer A attacks from underneath immediately after being hit in the chest with a point", and later, "The touch lands, at which point A's arm starts moving and A's touch lands on B's stomach." It would be difficult to read A extending, ending his advance and then lunging into the timing that those sentences imply. So, in the end it is probably still B's attack in prep.

-r

[Alexander Kai]

"A was moving forward, therefore point A. No discussion."

My comments on this are as follows:

Distance does NOT determine right of way 100%, and neither does footwork.

Fencer A should not be given RoW JUST because he was moving towards his opponent, it should be based mostly on whether or not his hand is moving forward (extension, extending, whatever you want to call it)

Of course, the common mis-conception is that "if they're moving forward then their arm is moving forward too." and a well trained fencer will do just that, BUT, it is better to watch the hand (which you did, props for that) and be a good sabre ref, than it is to watch the feet (which you were smart enough not to do) and be a not so good sabre ref.

I have heard (and seen) not so good sabre ref's being lazy and using footwork to determine RoW instead of blade work.

[Goldgar]

QFT. t.56(a)3 says:

The attack with a advance-lunge or a advance-flèche is correctly executed when the extending of the arm precedes the end of the step forward and the initiation of the lunge or the flèche.

So, if A's footwork and tempo were correct, that is if during A's advance B began his attack and in response A started his extension, finished his advance and then lunged and finished on target, then it was A's point. But, if A advanced without extension and simply lunged and extended in response to B's attack, then it was B's attack in prep.

Have we established that this is foil, not sabre? The corresponding rule is worded quite differently in the sabre section. Whether the difference is intentional or the result of uneven editing, in sabre, for a correct advance-lunge attack the start of the extension must precede the step forward.

[Hauptman]

Be careful with this, as (unless the rules have changed, see my earlier caveat) it is important to realize that linear time and fencing time do not have 100% correlation.

eg: I begin my advance with no extension, but before my opponent does anything. During my advance he begins his extension. I see this, and begin my extension, before I finish my advance. I finish my advance, we both lunge, we both hit. Who's touch?

Should be mine, since the correctly executed advance lunge begins with the advance, and as long as I begin my extension before my advance ends, it is correct (assuming the other requirements of correctness in terms of constant extension once begun, etc.).

And in that example, my actual attempt to hit began after my opponent's.

True enough... the particular example I was remembering did not involve a lunge or fleche by either party.

But is your example truly realistic? You're suggesting that fencer A advances as part of an advance-lunge or advance-fleche, and between the start and finish of that advance fencer B extends, fencer A sees that extension, and reacts to that extension by starting their own extension?

That must have been one VERY slow advance.

[Wetmelon]

He was moving forward in distance and started moving his arm forward in an extension AFTER being hit.

The peanut gallery said that because A was moving forward in distance, he had the point regardless of what happens. I told them they were full of **** xD

eg: I begin my advance with no extension, but before my opponent does anything. During my advance he begins his extension. I see this, and begin my extension, before I finish my advance. I finish my advance, we both lunge, we both hit. Who's touch?

Your touch. Your extension started before his attack landed.

Anyway, I think I have read enough in these posts to determine that I was correct in my call and should continue to ref as I thought it should be reffed. Thanks for keeping my self-esteem up haha.

[AndrewH]

The peanut gallery said that because A was moving forward in distance, he had the point regardless of what happens. I told them they were full of **** xD

Obviously. However, I have a feeling that this action would get called for A quite often. The reason being that a PIL preceded the attempt at attack in preparation. The line gets viewed as the response to the preparation, then when you drop the line, many referees will treat that as having given A a window of opportunity to make an attack. So long as they get their light on I think that A would get the touch.

Again, maybe not correct from a rules standpoint, but if I was B I would expect it to be called against me.

[rsy]

Have we established that this is foil, not sabre? The corresponding rule is worded quite differently in the sabre section. Whether the difference is intentional or the result of uneven editing, in sabre, for a correct advance-lunge attack the start of the extension must precede the step forward.

Well of course it is foil, Goldgar. If you had only bothered to take the time to go back and read the OP it clearly says, "and it's Sabre."..... Oh, that's different. Never mind.

-r