Pointing out what's incoherent in the foil/saber Convention and it's application.

[FENCINGNEEDSRULES]

Dear fencers of the FIE sports,

With all due respect...WHAT’S THE (INTERNATIONAL) REFEREE COMMISSION DOING?
The last Great actions were: electric bibs, the YouTube channel and video refereeing. Ok, but what’s the use when the Convention (the essence of this game upon Fencing) is what it is. Since the very beginning (1914 for the essential part of the Convention) it seems OBVIOUS that the FIE is not really willing to change the Convention.
Indeed international events in conventional weapons are and have always been led by what? An INCOMPLETE and globally INCOHERENT Convention .Only epee is coherent (there is one).
Let's recognize it's difficult to produce a coherent and above all else respectful of the spirit of the fight (fencing being the ancient word for the art of fighting not just for foil, epee and saber) rule of Right Of Way (ROW). But it’s a duty to enable fencers to know the coherent rules of the game they are playing!
Let me explain…


I. LET’S PRACTICE…
You are a conventional referee, find in the international rules book where you have a (conventional) solution to these really frequent practical problems?
http://britishfencing.com/uploads/files/book_t_(3).pdf

A. THE MISSINGS OF THE CURRENT CONVENTION:

1) A are lunging short arm then extends his arm first, then B extends is arm (before A’s hit), both hit.
2) A attacks and fall short (without being in line), B who’s now quite close (because of the lunge of the attack) while stepping backward extends then A remises and both hit.
3) A is attacking and fall short and B is counter-attacking. Then A makes a remise on B’s counter- attack.
4) A and B are hitting with neither lunging nor flèching (it’s also quiet possible with no arm extension and so in combining this cases).
5) A is attacking (so in the valid target direction) but in the end hits on off-target surface.
6) A hit with no arm extension (he’s not reposting) B don’t hit.

B. THE INCOHERENCES OF THE CURRENT CONVENTION

1) A is attacking from high(low) to low(high), B from low(high) line to high(low)line extends his arm, both hit. In this case we can see either beat/dérobement (slip away) or respectably trompement/ parry.
2) A realizes a coupé, and then B makes an attack. Both hit.
3) A and B are “point in line” without attacking. Then A advances (not B) and both hit.

C. WHAT IS MAINELY APPLIED TODAY AND SHOULDN’T ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT CONVENTION(and the Conventional spirit)

1) A makes a beat and then A and B extends simultaneously their arms and both hit.
Point: A
2) A makes a parry, no immediate riposte, B extends is arm and A makes his riposte. Both hit.
Point: A
3) While A is making a riposte (or an attack) and miss B is doing nothing (or a remise he misses). Then both do nothing immediately, then simultaneous extensions and both hit.
Point: B
4) While A is advancing short arm (and/or is lunging) B is stepping backward and suddenly is extending then lunging. Both hit.
Point: A
5) A makes an attack and is stepping (just or not) before hitting without stopping his progression in the valid target direction. After A has landed B extends and both hit.
Point: B
6) A is point in line then lunges in front of B and miss and stop the progression (still point in line). Immediately B is attacking while A is remising (still point in line).
Point: B
7) A are lunging(or advancing) short arm then B extend is arm first without lunging or fleching, both hit.(extremely frequent)
Point: A

Argued comments or reaction welcome.
Fencingest regards

[Wizardly]

My advice: be willing to accept the fact that you may be misreading the rules or your understanding of them is wrong.

[Bonehead]

What the hell?

[edew]

Work first to understand the rules and conventions for grammar and spelling.

[haroldbuck]

Is this one of those deals where you write a thoughtful post in English and then successively translate it online into German, then into Hebrew, then into Japanese, then back to English just for fun?

[Inquartata]

Perhaps English is not his first language...

[peet]

"Convention":

[K O'N]

Perhaps English is not his first language...

So what? I'm sure everyone who's criticizing the imperfect grammar is ready to discuss the matter in perfect French, German, Spanish or Russian, right guys? Sure you are.

K O'N

[A0A7]

Did you even consult the rulebook or common sense before posting?

[Landon]

I have no idea what you're trying to say in sections A and B of your post, FencingNeedsRules. All the points you make in section C, from my reading of the situations from your English, seem correct, except point 6, which is incoherent and unclear (A's action can't be described as a remise). I don't see how the rules or the "spirit of fencing" demand different results from the situations you describe in section C.

For me, controversy over point 6 of section C is the "when does the failed attack ending with a straight arm become a line" issue again. See http://www.fencing.net/2415/when-doe...k-end-in-foil/

[haroldbuck]

I have no idea what you're trying to say in sections A and B of your post, FencingNeedsRules. All the points you make in section C, from my reading of the situations from your English, seem correct, except point 6, which is incoherent and unclear (A's action can't be described as a remise). I don't see how the rules or the "spirit of fencing" demand different results from the situations you describe in section C.

For me, controversy over point 6 of section C is the "when does the failed attack ending with a straight arm become a line" issue again. See http://www.fencing.net/2415/when-doe...k-end-in-foil/

Did you mean to give this link?

http://www.fencing.net/422/point-in-...ter-an-attack/

[shlepzig]

What have we learned?

Point in Line will always end in tears.

[edew]

Perhaps English is not his first language...

It's not whether English is his first, second or third language. It's that he doesn't explain what he wants in sections A and B. And in section C, he makes statements that are patently against the explicit written rules (#1 for example). At least if I'm reading his writing right.

[Inquartata]

That was a specific reply to your exhortation to "Work first to understand the rules and conventions for grammar and spelling".

So you see, it kinda IS about that.