Rule Question ... ?

[rory]

With one exception (cross-steps forward, see other threads) in foil, you CAN be attacking while stepping backwards, so long as the hand moves forwards.

Everybody, repeat after me:

ROW is NOT defined by the feet. The hand is all that maters.

(Note: not exactly true for sabre, and there's that ONE exception in foil)

[edew]

What exactly is the exception?

And in sabre, it is possible to be "attacking" in the sense of having right of way while reeling backwards: fencer A is running backwards as fast as possible. Fencer B is chasing A down the strip and makes a swipe that misses. Fencer A, still moving backwards because of momentum, hits B with a stop-cut like action while B moves forward, because of momentum. A's hit has right of way (even though there's one light and RoW is somewhat irrelevant in that case).

If there is a large delay between B's first swipe and A's scoring hit, it is possible for the referee to call it A's attack since a whole tempo has elapsed. In this case, A's still moving backwards.

Now, given the good conditioning and skill available to most of these fencers, such a scenario isn't likely to take place.

[Rolls]

What about in foil when the attacker attacks by advance/lunge. Fencer A advace lunges. Fencer B extends after the advance but before the lunch. I think this is a case where the hand is not determining right of way.

Rolls.

[edew]

If A does not begin the extending until after his advance, and B starts the extending before A does, then B does have right of way. A's footwork, as you said, does not alone determine right of way. B's extension does not give him right of way in your scenario only because it's late. Indeed, if A's execution of the advance lunge is correct, A should be extending during the advance, and thus A's hand is the sole factor in determining the right of way (and in this case, for A).

[Rolls]

Maybe my understanding of ROW is flawed, but it was my understanding that a properly executed Advance/lunge had the extention after the beginning of the advance but before the lunge (and the end of the advance). But you still got ROW at the begining of the advance. So, it would seem to me that footwork is taken into account either way because even if they extend at the same time and Fencer A advanced lunged properly and Fencer B just lunged wouldn't fencer A get ROW (I'm by no means a referee so I could be wrong). But it still seems that footwork is taken into account at some point.

Here's another situation where footwork DOES effect right of way. When the attck ends, is not that determined by (on a lunge at least) when the foot hits the ground and not when the hand is withdrawn.

Rolls.

[edew]

If you don't extend while advancing, how is the referee to know that you're making an attack? It could be that you're just walking up to your opponent, planning a second intention. Of course, you need not make a big splashy display of an extension. It can be quite subtle and might move no more than millimeters forward (relative to your body).

If you advance, without extending, I extend (or begin my extension), you then extend and lunge, and I continue my extending and lunge. I get the point. I'm the first to attack by virtue of having my arm extend first. You're counter-attacking into my attack because you did not have established RoW. Moving forward does not establish RoW.

[tchwojko]

I'm a confused epee fencer, and this kind of philosophical debate keeps me there. It all seems like an Airistotilean Solar System.

"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 fleche."

To make an offensive action, the distance between the fencers probably ought to be diminishing. How that happens really seems irrelevant. Fencer A runs forward, hands over head, Fencer B starts extending toward target while retreating backwards, Fencer B has made an offensive action.

Now let's say that Fencer A, just before impaling himself/herself, gets back to a reasonable form, and starts extending, finishing with a nice lunge, hitting B squarely on target. Note that Fencer A started the extension and lunge after B's offensive action started.

A's extending arm preceded the launch of a lunge. B's extending arm did not.

According to the rule as written, A executed an attack, B did not?

[Wizardly]

I noticed the lack of question mark. Why the lack of question mark?

Rory, are you saying that foil is the exception to teh "you can attack while moving backwards" rule? Or are you saying that a cross-step forwards is the exception? How is moving forward moving backwards?

Also, ROW is not entirel defined by the hand. The feet DO matter. They matter quite a lot.

Edew, why wouldn't the "stop cut like action" performed by B that results in a 1 light action simply be called a stop hit in time?

Tchwojko, literally following the rules, that's probably right. This is a case of B trying to make a stop hit in time. (I'm going to go out on a limb here, so correct me if I'm wrong) but stop hits need to HIT in time. Attacks onto preparations need to BEGIN in time. B would have been making an attack if instead of retreating off the extension, (s)he lunged instead.

Yes, this may confuse you..."enlightened self-interest" is enforced in foil...you epeeists are just assumed to practice it. (You come to an intersection with a green light to make a left hand turn with oncomming traffic. Foil fencer: waits for oncomming traffic to pass before going. Epee fencer: tries to beat oncomming traffic or squeezes through first available openning whether it's big enough or not...and tries to get very good at picking out gaps that are juuuuust big enough). Sorry, couldn't resist counter-mocking a ROW mocking epeeist.

Two cents on advance lunge:
In order for it to be one big attack, the extension has to begin at any time before the end of the advance, before the lunge begins. Advances aren't big, so this isn't a lot of time, and your extension can get lost in the fuzzy zone between advance ends and lunge begins resulting in an unhappy advance-lunging fencer. If the extension begins with the lunge, the attack consists only of the lunge (and if you were attacked during your bent-arm advance), you are counter-attacking (barring any defensive action taken on your part).

[tchwojko]

I don't mind the foilist riposte as long as you don't mind an epeeists hand- (or nit-)pick. I'm really not trying to disparage foil, I just don't get it. Others do, and that's great, there's plenty of room.

I actually used to enjoy foil quite a bit, as a change of pace from epee. I really hate the flick, and feel like it used to be called quite differently. It seemed to me that there used to be more opportunity for attacking into the preparation of the flick, and allowed for more aesthetic responses. (If my opponent moves their point significantly away from target, I wanna hit something.) That's just me, though. I also used to enjoy fencing saber now and then, when crossovers were allowed. (And I don't even want to get into that "flunge" thing.) So now I just sit in my little epee box in the midwest happily attacking openings and defending threats.

Back to my example.
The possible actions in order of priority according to http://www.fencingofficials.org/Info...htm#_Toc976814 are:
1. Point in Line
2. Attack
3. Prise de Fer
4. Riposte
5. Counter Attack
6. Remise/Redoublement/Reprise

B didn't attack, so which action is it? Is it actually a point in line, in which case the line needs to be established before A starts the (really ugly prepped) attack? Or does A simply get the priority?

In a non-rules-lawyering sense, I'd expect that B had the attack even though retreating. The distance was closing, B started extending into that distance first, A needs to take back right of way.

[oiuyt]

Originally posted by Wizardly

Edew, why wouldn't the "stop cut like action" performed by B[sic] that results in a 1 light action simply be called a stop hit in time?

For one thing because it's not in time. It STARTED after the original attackers swipe had already missed. How is that POSSIBLY in time? Frequently that action will be called a riposte, but for the purists that insist that a parry requires a blade contact, and therefore a distance parry followed by a riposte is actually an "attack, no (by the opponent) attack, yes", the action executed by fencer A must be an attack.

Anyone here doubt that A had ROW even if B followed his/her swipe with a second swipe that did arrive (now giving us two lights and the need to make a call)? Once you start introducing a pause (as EDew does at the end) it gets more complicated, but looking at the base case (and there definately are referees that insist that this be called an attack).

-B :)

[Rolls]

I've always extended with the movement of my back foot, which guarantees that the extention is in the middle of my advance. But I also slow down the movement of the front foot.

I've never had a problem with referees calling it in my favor. They always do. Usually my opponent won't try extending into my advance lunge (maybe it looks menacing) but when they do they usually extend after the movement of my front foot (ie they see me move) but before I extend. When this happens, I just extend, finish my advance (the movement of the back foot) and lunge.

Rolls.

[Wizardly]

Originally posted by oiuyt
It STARTED after the original attackers swipe had already missed. How is that POSSIBLY in time? Frequently that action will be called a riposte, but for the purists that insist that a parry requires a blade contact, and therefore a distance parry followed by a riposte is actually an "attack, no (by the opponent) attack, yes", the action executed by fencer A must be an attack.

In time because the attacked missed, and becomes a "yippie skippy" "we don't really need to care about it anymore" the "stop hit" was in time relative to the next (true) attack. It really isn't a matter of "parry must preceed ripose." To those purists I'd counter their technical obsession with "how can you make an attack without a lunge or fleche?"

Now that I read the rules under a microscope, I realize an oversite on my part. I always thought riposte implied attack, not merely any "offensive action." Very interesting...<ponders implications>...an offensive action can occur while moving backwards. (This is why I hate the rule book: circular references. "Offensive actions: ...riposte... Riposte: ...an offensive action..." grrr.)

Anyone here doubt that A had ROW even if B followed his/her swipe with a second swipe that did arrive (now giving us two lights and the need to make a call)?

In light of my recent epiphany, I'll say it's A's riposte. If we start sticking delays in there, I guess I'll call it a delayed riposte. I still wouldn't (easily) call it an attack without the forward motion.

[edew]

A delayed riposte is one where the riposter is intentionally holding the thrust (or cut) back to await the flailing, searching parry (see the searching thread).

The scenario I hypothesized to illustrate a possible moving backwards attack is the case where fencer B (the attacker) misses, continues to barrel along, and fencer A continues to reel backwards, and after a significant amount of time, A chooses to extend the arm to hit B coming at A, all the while retreating. Suppose for the sake of argument, B makes no further attempts to re-initiate an attack: he's just moving forward on momentum.

Can it happen? Yes. Likely to occur? No. But does it illustrate a possible scenario whereby a person is attacking while retreating? Well, that's my hope when I tried to describe it.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by edew
A delayed riposte is one where the riposter is intentionally holding the thrust (or cut) back to await the flailing, searching parry (see the searching thread).

The scenario I hypothesized to illustrate a possible moving backwards attack is the case where fencer B (the attacker) misses, continues to barrel along, and fencer A continues to reel backwards, and after a significant amount of time, A chooses to extend the arm to hit B coming at A, all the while retreating. Suppose for the sake of argument, B makes no further attempts to re-initiate an attack: he's just moving forward on momentum.

Can it happen? Yes. Likely to occur? No. But does it illustrate a possible scenario whereby a person is attacking while retreating? Well, that's my hope when I tried to describe it.

The action you describe can be called many things besides an attack.

For example, if it's possible for an attack to be made while retreating, then how is this action called:

Fencer A starts extrending and executes an adv-lunge.
fencer B starts extending at the exact same time as A and then retreats.
Both hit.

Having seen EDEW ref, I know how he would call the action.
Having reffed myself, I know how I would call the action.
Knowing members of the FOC, I know how they would call the action.
Having competed at World Cups, and watched, I know how the action would be called.

Attack for A, not simultaneous, why, becasue you can't attack while retreating!

[Wizardly]

So achilleus, what would you call it if not an attack (JOC)?

[vegan]

wow,
This thread runs deep! Edew, you're correct as always, however I am curious what happens if the ref can't see the subtle hand movement foreward by the attacker- In foil, fencer a attacks with advance lunge, and starts his hand correctly (before the opponent counters) but slowly, fencer b steps back and extends fully before fencer a completes a lunge, both hit- who's touch.
iIcidentally, in NYC you can't get a touch while retreating in foil (at least not easily- it works if you get on light!).
Craig- you're right, if jeff says this is the way to go, I for one am inclined to just do it. However perhaps next time I see him I will ask for some way to pass down FOC rules "chages" to fencers at the FOC website- that way before going to a NAC we could check?? what yous guys think about that idea?
Finally, In my mind, if you are being attack and retreat only one step and stick your arm out, you've succeded in counterattacking, but if you force your opponent to take three of four advances with your arm out, your using line! Sometimes, I think that in a single tempo action a retreat is a tactict admision of the opposing fencers attack!
Cheers,
B.

[edew]

If the ref can't see, you're SOLed. I've been in that situation before. I've vowed to calm my arguing with the referees at competitions from now on. I'll still B&M at practice because it's practice and it's good for the person who's refereeing to understand what he or she is or is not seeing. But at tournaments, I've vowed to keep my lips zipped. We'll see how long that vow will last! (Tournament this Sunday...)

[OCTAVIA]

I was taught that in foil, en garde had to be when your point threatened a valid target, and so in foil that would mean that your tip had to point towards the vest. Is this correct? I got in a bad habit of pointip upwards also, from playing around with a saber, but it was corrected at least for the beginning of a bout. Thanks.

[vegan]

Edew,
So let me know how it goes on sunday- so that I can learn what to do about that also- as I am somewhat vocal, and very mental about refs mistakes (I tend to focus on it a lot!)
Octavia,
Sure point up is traditional- and correct but a lot of people start to bout with the tip at the floor, however this seems to be being corrected by Refs these days in the Us and people are confused or upset about it.
Cheers,
B.

[jjg]

Do you think epee creates a more personal style compared to the other two weapons.