Can you make an attack while moving backwards? (foil)

[Bonehead]

I felt like stirring up some ****.

In foil, is it possible for you to make an attack, or attack in preparation (not counter attacks or stop hits) while your body is moving backwards (relative to the earth)?

If so, under what circumstances...

[bigdawg2121]

No. It's either counterattack or stop hit. It might have RoW but it's not an attack.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

No. It's either counterattack or stop hit. It might have RoW but it's not an attack.

This.

[erooMynohtnA]

I feel that this article is ridiculous and did a huge amount of damage. http://www.fencing.net/421/right-of-...h-the-retreat/

Yeah, I went there.

[Stormbringer]

I felt like stirring up some ****.

In foil, is it possible for you to make an attack, or attack in preparation (not counter attacks or stop hits) while your body is moving backwards (relative to the earth)?

If so, under what circumstances...

Is it technically possible: yes

Example 01:
1.) X advances on Y, but is not extending; Y holds their ground
2.) X continues advancing, pulling the arm back; Y, seeing X's arm pulling back, initiates an extension
3a.) X, seeing Y's extension, begins their own extension as they continue to advance; Y continues their extension and executes a (normal) lunge
3b.) X, seeing Y's extension, begins their own extension as they continue to advance; Y continues their extension and, rather than advancing into X and risking close-quarters-combat or corps-a-corps, executes a "reverse-lunge"
4.) X finishes with a lunge; Y finishes with the reverse lunge

Both fencers strike the respective valid targets; neither fencer makes an attempt to parry or avoid the other's action.

Example 02:
1.) X advances on Y, but is not extending; Y holds their ground
2.) X continues advancing, pulling the arm back; Y, seeing X's arm pulling back, initiates a gradual extension
3.) X, not seeing Y's extension, continues to advance while withdrawing the arm; Y continues their extension and, rather than advancing into X and risking close-quarters-combat or corps-a-corps, quickly executes a "reverse-lunge"
4.) Y finishes with the reverse lunge; X is hit without having ever extended or taken any defensive action

Example 03:
1.) X advances on Y, but is not extending; Y holds their ground
2.) X continues advancing, pulling the arm back; Y, seeing X's arm pulling back, initiates a gradual extension
3.) X, not seeing Y's extension, continues to advance while withdrawing the arm; Y continues their extension and, rather than advancing into X and risking close-quarters-combat or corps-a-corps, quickly finishes the extension while jumping backward
4.) Y's extension connects with X's valid target; X is hit without having ever extended or taken any defensive action

----------

Let us consider the following definitions:

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).

-----

Counter-attacks are offensive or offensive–defensive actions made during the offensive action of the opponent.

1. The stop hit
A counter-attack made into an attack.

2. The stop hit made with opposition
A counter-attack made while closing the line in which the opponent‘s attack will be completed (cf. t.56ss, t.64ss and t.76ss).

3. The stop hit made within a period of fencing time, i.e. 'in time' (cf. t.59, t.79).

-----

Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as preparations, laying themselves open to the initiation of the offensive or defensive/offensive action of the opponent (cf. t.8).

-----

Continuous steps forward, with the legs crossing one another, constitute a preparation and on this preparation any simple attack has priority.

In Ex. 01, it is Y who makes the initial offensive action of the phrase (as X, by virtue of withdrawing the (sword) arm, is not extending, thus not attacking); Y's offensive action meets all of the stated criteria for the attack (initial, offensive, extending, continuous, threatening).
X's action, on the other hand, was only initiated (by virtue of the extension of the (sword) arm) in the midst of the execution of Y's action; when Y's action was initiated, X was not attacking, but preparing to attack.
In this case, the timing of the initiation of each offensive action (as indicated by the extension of the (sword) arm) is the same, regardless of the "directionality" of Y's footwork ((3a) vs (3b)).

As such, X's action is a counter-attack executed into Y's attack, which was, in turn, executed into X's preparation.

Ex. 02 and 03 makes this even more clear. Here, X commits no offensive (or defensive) action; Y's offensive action - which, again, meet all of the stated criteria for the attack (initial, offensive, extending, continuous, threatening) - is the only offensive action of the phrase.
As such, it cannot be a stop-hit/counterattack, as there was no offensive action (e.g. attack) from X into which it could be executed.

As such, Y's action is, again, an attack executed into X's preparation.

No. It's either counterattack or stop hit. It might have RoW but it's not an attack.

Then, in Ex. 02 and 03, what is Y's action (the initial - and only - offensive action in the phrase), if not an "attack"?

-----

Though, the crux of the issue is that while it is physically and technically possible to execute an action that, within the context of the phrase, could/would technically be "the attack" while holding one's ground or retreating, having such an attack recognized and rewarded is another issue...

[Goldgar]

I say yes. If the fencers are in equilibrium with respect to distance, whether standing still or in motion, such that the distance is not closing and neither of them has yet begun any attempt to hit the other, then the first one to do so is the attacker, regardless of the direction of motion.

Consider the simple, artificial case where fencers are moving down the strip at riposte distance, neither closing nor opening distance. If the fencer moving forward never extends at all, and the fencer moving backward reaches out and touches, what has that fencer done? They made an attack. Some will say that's a stop hit, but a stop hit presumes an attack on the part of the oppionent, if only to be "in time" before it. If the opponent is clearly not intending to attack, then the retreater's action is not a stop hit, so it must be an attack.

In the real world, however, the fencer moving forward will usually want to hit his opponent, so he will probably try to attack at some point. And the definition in the rules for an attack with advance lunge says that it begins with the start of the advance, so long as the extension begins before the completion of the advance. A retreater who decides to attack would have to time it very precisely, and the advancing fencer would have to be very late in extending, in order for the retreating fencer's action to be an attack and not a counterattack. And in order for that to happen at all, the fencers would have to be awfully close, because otherwise the retreating fencer would have to change directions to make any real attempt to hit the opponent.

So while it is theoretically possible within the rules for a fencer to make an attack while moving backward, the circumstances are extremely constrained, and it would be very rare.

[bob46]

I felt like stirring up some ****.

In foil, is it possible for you to make an attack, or attack in preparation (not counter attacks or stop hits) while your body is moving backwards (relative to the earth)?

If so, under what circumstances...

For attacking in preparation while moving backwards check out this bout http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uahdcxBaS_I at about 24:20 and how it is called.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Then, in Ex. 02 and 03, what is Y's action (the initial - and only - offensive action in the phrase), if not an "attack"?

It's Point in Line.

[OROD]

In foil, is it possible for you to make an attack, or attack in preparation (not counter attacks or stop hits) while your body is moving backwards (relative to the earth)?

If you look at the arm action by itself, you might say that you can attack while moving backwards. If you look at the entire body's actions to determine such calls (which I do), then you have to ask yourself: Can you be performing an "offensive" action while moving backwards? My answer, no. To me, by definition, if you're moving backwards you're not in an offensive mode. Hence, no attack.

.

[mrbiggs]

Is it technically possible: yes

Example 01:
1.) X advances on Y, but is not extending; Y holds their ground
2.) X continues advancing, pulling the arm back; Y, seeing X's arm pulling back, initiates an extension
3a.) X, seeing Y's extension, begins their own extension as they continue to advance; Y continues their extension and executes a (normal) lunge
3b.) X, seeing Y's extension, begins their own extension as they continue to advance; Y continues their extension and, rather than advancing into X and risking close-quarters-combat or corps-a-corps, executes a "reverse-lunge"
4.) X finishes with a lunge; Y finishes with the reverse lunge

Both fencers strike the respective valid targets; neither fencer makes an attempt to parry or avoid the other's action.

wut


.

[erooMynohtnA]

I say yes. If the fencers are in equilibrium with respect to distance, whether standing still or in motion, such that the distance is not closing and neither of them has yet begun any attempt to hit the other, then the first one to do so is the attacker, regardless of the direction of motion.

Consider the simple, artificial case where fencers are moving down the strip at riposte distance, neither closing nor opening distance. If the fencer moving forward never extends at all, and the fencer moving backward reaches out and touches, what has that fencer done?

This is all very physicsy of you, but there is someone constantly closing distance and constantly opening distance. If we had no frame of reference, I might agree, but we do, and it's called the strip. The advancer is constantly attempting to get closer, and the retreater is constantly trying to get farther away. Just because someone stops emptying water from a container does not mean they are filling it.

The retreater is not "closing the distance" by stopping, he is simply no longer preventing the advancer from closing it.

They made an attack. Some will say that's a stop hit, but a stop hit presumes an attack on the part of the oppionent, if only to be "in time" before it. If the opponent is clearly not intending to attack, then the retreater's action is not a stop hit, so it must be an attack.

Saying that a stop hit requires an attack to function is like saying that an armor piercing bullet requires armor to work. This is, to me, like saying that since referees have no hand signal for beats, there is no such thing as a beat attack.

For attacking in preparation while moving backwards check out this bout http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uahdcxBaS_I at about 24:20 and how it is called.

Stop hit. Before anyone argues about the hand signals he made, he didn't really have any other options. There is no signal for "Well, it wasn't an attack, but you were preparing, and he hit you before your preparation had ended, therefore before your attack began, thus a counterattack in time." That's what he said when he was talking to them, but we conveniently can't hear that.

[tbryan]

In foil, is it possible for you to make an attack, or attack in preparation (not counter attacks or stop hits) while your body is moving backwards (relative to the earth)?

I can think of one situation where a retreating fencer will have the attack, I think.

* Fencer A attacks, advancing without making a lunge.
* Fencer B does not retreat.
* Fencer A overshoots his attack.
* The fencers end up very close but do not touch and do not pass.
* Both fencers stop fencing and relax, thinking that the referee will call a halt.
* The initial phrase has effectively ended here.
* Both fencers glance at the referee.
* Both fencers realize that there was no halt.
* Fencer A retreats and extends.
* After A starts his action, Fencer B extends.
* Both fencers hit on target.

Fencer A is retreating, but I think that I'd call that an attack for Fencer A.

Of course, you could also pretend that the initial phrase continued through the pause and call it a remise for A. Having seen this action before, everything that happens after that long pause feels like a new phrase to me. The fencers just happen to be starting the phrase at less than extension distance.

[erooMynohtnA]

I can think of one situation where a retreating fencer will have the attack, I think.

I can think of one situation in which the retreating should be awarded the attack. The retreating fencer changes direction so he is now advancing.

In the situation you describe I would call it an attack for simplicity's sake, but I would argue it's technically a stop hit.

[Jason]

Saying that a stop hit requires an attack to function is like saying that an armor piercing bullet requires armor to work.

I haven't really read any of this thread, because this will clearly be the breeding ground of nonsense, but I did notice this comment which--unless I'm taking it completely out of context (very possible; see the comment about me not really reading the thread)--is completely wrong.

A stop-hit cannot exist independently of an attack. A stop-hit is, by definition, a counter-attack. You cannot have a counter-attack without an attack being in progress.

[bob46]

"Well, it wasn't an attack, but you were preparing, and he hit you before your preparation had ended, therefore before your attack began"

How else would you define an AiP? You seem to have defined it perfectly here.

That's what he said when he was talking to them, but we conveniently can't hear that.

Were you there? If you were and heard him say that, I was wrong, and ignore my the rest of this paragraph. My interpretation of it is the ref is basically saying, "Dude you pulled your arm back, and Massialas stuck his arm out while you were pulled back. Also I hate you b/c you, your coach, and your supporters have been loud and obnoxious the whole bout. So go away and whine in your own little place instead of being in my face."

If I'm not mistaken, you're trying to say that if Aspromonte had been extending and Massialas did the same action, it would have been called a stop-hit/counterattack against Massialas. I get what you're trying to say but I still think that extending your arm into a preparation is the definition of an attack in prep.

[erooMynohtnA]

I haven't really read any of this thread, because this will clearly be the breeding ground of nonsense, but I did notice this comment which--unless I'm taking it completely out of context (very possible; see the comment about me not really reading the thread)--is completely wrong.

A stop-hit cannot exist independently of an attack. A stop-hit is, by definition, a counter-attack. You cannot have a counter-attack without an attack being in progress.

No, you're reading it right, and I know a counterattack can't exist without an attack according to the rules as well as common sense. However, I am interested in neither of those things, as this is a RoW thread.

[Jason]

No, you're reading it right, and I know a counterattack can't exist without an attack according to the rules as well as common sense. However, I am interested in neither of those things, as this is a RoW thread.

Ah. Breeding ground and all. I'll be on my way then.

[erooMynohtnA]

Were you there? If you were and heard him say that, I was wrong, and ignore my the rest of this paragraph. My interpretation of it is the ref is basically saying, "Dude you pulled your arm back, and Massialas stuck his arm out while you were pulled back. Also I hate you b/c you, your coach, and your supporters have been loud and obnoxious the whole bout. So go away and whine in your own little place instead of being in my face."

As a side note, if I'm not mistaken, you're trying to say that if Aspromonte had been extending and Massialas did the same action, it would have been called a stop-hit/counterattack against Massialas. I get what you're trying to say but I still think that extending your arm into a preparation is the definition of an attack in prep.

I certainly wasn't there, and even if I was I wouldn't hear anything over the Italians. For all I know he was saying that it was actually an invisible parry. I was just trying to say there are things beyond the hand signals if that was going to be the argument.

And no, I'm not sayng that it was his touch because he stuck his arm out into Aspromonte's preparation. That happens a lot, and the call is obviously attack/counterattack, even if the counterattacker starts his extension first. It was his touch because he hit with a counterattack before Aspromonte could start his attack, thus his counterattack was in time and was awarded priority.

[bigdawg2121]

This is absurd for a variety of reasons. Part of me almost wants to sit down and explain why attacks don't exist going backwards but it's not worth it. I would like to point out that the word "correctly" appears at the beginning of the definition of the attack. Also, the rules seem to only entertain the idea of an attack ending with lunge, flèche, step-lunge or step-flèche. This would preclude the idea of being able to finish with an advance but hey the rules don't actually assume any real knowledge of the sport so the reason that idea is glossed over is b/c it's just not valid.

I'm now going to thank the powers that be that I'm not going to be in Detroit to witness the Div 2/3 reffing that'll probably occur after this thread. I'm also glad I won't be there to hear Inq give people crap for not awarding his backward attack...and them actually going for it. I feel like I'm T-6 posts to agreeing with Jeff Bukantz about something he wrote in American Fencing that wasn't a funny account about Alejandro...

[tbryan]

In the situation you describe I would call it an attack for simplicity's sake, but I would argue it's technically a stop hit.

Hm...odd. I see how you could argue that, but I'm not sure that it really makes sense.

Whatever. For all practical purposes, I agree with you. The guy who is currently moving backwards is not attacking.

And a yellow card to Bonehead for starting this thread.