To Flick or Not To Flick ...

[Strytllr]

to quote (sort of) an extremely old thread where Craig says that flicking is cheating like dunking a basketball is cheating...

I disagree. A better analogy to dunking would be the fleche. They're both showy and either masterfully land or masterfully fail.

Flicking is more like getting the basketball to hit the rim, not necessarily fall through the net, but still count as a score, because it could have fallen through.

I think that flicking can be used very effectively and since it's allowed, is a worthwhile technique to know. Unfortunately, in the training, it leads to sloppiness and slaps more often than not. So i think it's an advanced technique that should not be taught early on. Learn to hit solidly and accurately first. Rely on THAT first... later, learn the flicking technique. Use it when you need to, don't when it's clear that it won't work. As in everything else, it is a tool to keep in your tool belt of tricks, to be used depending on the situation and moves leading up to the moment.

Of course ROW is a touchy thing. One director's bent arm is another director's obvious attack. I don't think that any director can claim to be absolutely right absolutely all of the time. Hence why we fence to a director as much to each other. The director in question obviously thought that the opposing fencer clearly showed ROW in his intent to flick. That's as it stands. You may have problems with a director, but at the end of the bout, it's him that makes the calls. I don't see any reason to further throw names at each other over differences of opinion here.

[wflaschka]

Neither it is simultaneous

In this instance, it's for Fencer A, the lunger.

The fencers are at lunge distance, and fencer A is lunging to hit. At lunge distance, Fencer B extends... but clearly without any expectation of hitting, since it's not extension distance but lunge distance, ergo it's not an attack. So in this situation, regardless of simultaneity (usually subjective), Fencer B is either (1) reacting to Fencer A's change in distance, or (2) attempting a line. Either way, Fencer B loses.

I think that flicking can be used very effectively and since it's allowed, is a worthwhile technique to know.

I feel the same way about attacks to the flank. And the chest. When comments about the flick are prefaced "since it's allowed...", it sort of puts flicks in a second-class status as an action. I.e., "Flicks aren't real, but since you can get hit with them, you might as well parry them." I've found it more productive, with my students, to just give the topic an everyday sheen: "Here's a flick, here's how you destroy 'em, here's how you use 'em."

I agree that it's not worthwhile to show flicks to beginners... although I've found that as soon as they show up in lessons, the fencer learns how easy they aren't, and the flicks disappear from the repertoir. At least until they are trained up enough to be workable. A nice side-effect is when the coach casually parries the student's flick, the student gets the message that these things are easily parryable.

In terms of stop-time into flicks, many flicks are reflexive riposty things which are largely direct&continuous, or could be interpreted to occupy the same tempo-space as a cutover (a "protected" broken attack action): it's not feasible to try to stop-hit these actions. The stoppable flicks are the gargantuan marching hand-behind-the-head marching attacks, and the attacker deserves humiliation if they get into the opponent's kill-zone with their hand behind their own target.

Once the flick commences its downward trajectory, however, the defender needs to observe it. An extension is an extension whether it's arriving straight, sideways, from the bottom, or from the top. I've discovered that a lot of fencers who complain about getting hit with flicks simply don't understand the nuke-them-from-space, out-of-distance bladeless attacks they got hit with. They see an opponent's target getting close to them, and, ignoring RoW, mindlessly try to hit it... but this is just what the opponent is hoping. That big juicy target is an invitation to sucker the defender into distance.

In a sense, flicks are like dunking in basketball: If the player can't dunk, the dunk looks like a train wreck; if they can dunk, it looks wonderful.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by wflaschka
In this instance, it's for Fencer A, the lunger.

The fencers are at lunge distance, and fencer A is lunging to hit. At lunge distance, Fencer B extends... but clearly without any expectation of hitting, since it's not extension distance but lunge distance, ergo it's not an attack. So in this situation, regardless of simultaneity (usually subjective), Fencer B is either (1) reacting to Fencer A's change in distance, or (2) attempting a line. Either way, Fencer B loses.

Both began the attack at exactly the same time. At the extension of the arm. They both were within distance. And both lunged....it does not matter that "A" lunged first.

[wflaschka]

It comes down to the question of what Fencer B was thinking he could accomplish, offering a mere extension from lunge distance. He certainly wasn't expecting to hit anything. In all, Fencer B was lucky that Fencer A was attacking him and bringing the target close; taken alone, without Fencer A's attack, Fencer B's extension is a big nothing. It's like holding out your hand and having a dollar bill blown into it by the wind: You can't pretend you were expecting that dollar bill.

The only reason Fencer B would do such an extension, from that distance, (and assuming simultaneity) is to establish a line. That's probably how most directors would assess the action -- attack, counter-attack.

I have to say, though: If I was Fencer B and I was caught flat-footed like that, I, too, would extend, hit, and then cheer, pumping my fist. But if everybody did this all the time, we'd live in a world where every attack could be nullified by a simple extension.

(Edit: PS -- I'm working from downunder's post, where one fencer lunges and the other doesn't, both having extended at the same time.

I concur that if both extended at the same time, and lunged at different speeds, it would be simultaneous, absent considerable tempo differences.)

[downunder]

yeah, B doesn't lunge at all, B just stands there and extends simultaniously with A

[ysbadadden]

I'm trying to figure out how this action happened. Seems to be that A begins his lunge before he finishes his extension, while we'll never know whether B would have lunged or not.

Also, it seems that for this action to take place, A might have come too close. Again, we'll never know.

Since the priority is awarded to the extending arm, and since both arms are extending simultaneously, there is "no time," no priority, no ROW.

Originally posted by downunder
yeah, B doesn't lunge at all, B just stands there and extends simultaniously with A

[vegan]

timing of lunge, and flicking,
Hi guys,
So, I'd have to all in with Wflaschka on this, its going to go to the fencer who lunges. Perhaps it should not, but it will 8 times out of 10 or so. The attack is defined as extending arm, but often called based upon extension with foreward motion . . . in fact, my coach teaches attack in preperation with lunge or advance lunge! Not to mention the only way I could think this to happen in a bout is while B is moving away or standing still, stopped; in either case for sure its a counterattack.
Flicking is good action to have in your bag of tricks, and nice to have and use- however as a fencer and an athlete, we should all realize that it has limits, and can be exploited. This week I schooled myself on this, bouting against a girl who covers with the front arm and squirms a bunch, she is very good at this. Also, she was wearing a dead lame (which neither of us knew!). I after hitting off, or just missing- decided like a big dumb jock to go harder and faster to make my touches. Needless to say, that when I decided to flick like this, it did not help matters- and it hurt more . . . after about 10-4 I tried to slow down and place my point on target . . . this was much more effective- I lost 15-14 . . lesson learned for now!
Cheers,
B.

[labouche]

Originally posted by ysbadadden
I'm trying to figure out how this action happened. Seems to be that A begins his lunge before he finishes his extension, while we'll never know whether B would have lunged or not.

Also, it seems that for this action to take place, A might have come too close. Again, we'll never know.

Since the priority is awarded to the extending arm, and since both arms are extending simultaneously, there is "no time," no priority, no ROW.

Wrong! If both extensions started at the same time but only A lunged then it is As touch. After all if B did not lunge then he was attempting PiL, but in order to get ROW on a PiL one must have his extension out before the opponents attack begins. Therefore, A gets the touch in this example.

[downunder]

exactly!

thanks labouche

[Agent_V]

Originally posted by labouche
Wrong! If both extensions started at the same time but only A lunged then it is As touch. After all if B did not lunge then he was attempting PiL, but in order to get ROW on a PiL one must have his extension out before the opponents attack begins. Therefore, A gets the touch in this example.

No.
Lunge or flesh must follow extension, BUT suppose he is extending slowly and would have started the lunge just before he had finished extending, but he had already hit his opponent by then? The attack started from the moment he started his extension, and it never stopped either.

The whole point of this is that the footwork does not matter, unless there is a significant pause between the extension and the lunge, in which case the fencer is attempting to establish a line. Not in this scenario though

-Alexander

[edew]

Then B's still hit in tempo. B's too slow to complete his action, so as far as the referee is concerned, he is making an attempted (and definitely late) point in line.

Wanted to lunge, but was too late? Well, isn't that the plainest reason why the touch should go to A? A made the commitment to make the lunge, made the effort and took the gamble to make the attack. B didn't take the same gamble. Hence, touch for A.

[downunder]

Originally posted by Agent_V
No.
Lunge or flesh must follow extension, BUT suppose he is extending slowly and would have started the lunge just before he had finished extending, but he had already hit his opponent by then? The attack started from the moment he started his extension, and it never stopped either.

The whole point of this is that the footwork does not matter, unless there is a significant pause between the extension and the lunge, in which case the fencer is attempting to establish a line. Not in this scenario though

-Alexander

how can it be an attack if he doesn't lunge tho.... and 'would have' just doesn't cut it...

the rules are clear about it

[Agent_V]

Originally posted by edew
Then B's still hit in tempo. B's too slow to complete his action, so as far as the referee is concerned, he is making an attempted (and definitely late) point in line.

Wanted to lunge, but was too late? Well, isn't that the plainest reason why the touch should go to A? A made the commitment to make the lunge, made the effort and took the gamble to make the attack. B didn't take the same gamble. Hence, touch for A.

I simply ask one easy question: When does an attack actually start?

The rule book (at t.7) states that it starts with the extension (NOT the lunge), yet you claim that only A had the guts to make the attack since he lunged. However, B is not attempting a PIL here, he is simply doing a slow attack, which started at the beginning of his extension. Where am I going wrong here?

BTW, I'm pretty sure that if I actually saw this action I would award this touch to A, since it just *seems right* that way. However, right now I cannot see any real flaw in my logic, but I hope one of you can show it to me because this has been bothering me at various times.

[canthidefromme]

Originally posted by edew
Then B's still hit in tempo. B's too slow to complete his action, so as far as the referee is concerned, he is making an attempted (and definitely late) point in line.

Wanted to lunge, but was too late? Well, isn't that the plainest reason why the touch should go to A? A made the commitment to make the lunge, made the effort and took the gamble to make the attack. B didn't take the same gamble. Hence, touch for A.

What if the distance is such that B didn't need to lunge, while A's lunge is from too close of a distance.

[labouche]

Originally posted by Agent_V
No.
Lunge or flesh must follow extension, BUT suppose he is extending slowly and would have started the lunge just before he had finished extending, but he had already hit his opponent by then? The attack started from the moment he started his extension, and it never stopped either.

The whole point of this is that the footwork does not matter, unless there is a significant pause between the extension and the lunge, in which case the fencer is attempting to establish a line. Not in this scenario though

-Alexander

Actually he is correct. As long as both fencers started extending and moving their feet at the same time it would be called together. When I was invisioning it before I was thinking that they were at lunge distance, in which case it would be As touch but I don't think that is the case in this situation.

[Cerian]

Originally posted by Agent_V
I simply ask one easy question: When does an attack actually start?

The rule book (at t.7) states that it starts with the extension (NOT the lunge), yet you claim that only A had the guts to make the attack since he lunged. However, B is not attempting a PIL here, he is simply doing a slow attack, which started at the beginning of his extension. Where am I going wrong here?

BTW, I'm pretty sure that if I actually saw this action I would award this touch to A, since it just *seems right* that way. However, right now I cannot see any real flaw in my logic, but I hope one of you can show it to me because this has been bothering me at various times.

I would guess that the attack has to actually threaten to score a touch. Just beginning to extend without moving in order to hit the target can't really be considered an attack if you're out of extension range. Very simply, you're not attacking them, rather you're just beginning to give them something to run themselves onto, a point in line.

[downunder]

Originally posted by Agent_V
The rule book (at t.7) states that it starts with the extension (NOT the lunge), yet you claim that only A had the guts to make the attack since he lunged. However, B is not attempting a PIL here, he is simply doing a slow attack, which started at the beginning of his extension. Where am I going wrong here?

the attack starts with the extension, but for it to be an attack, that extension must precede a lunge or fleche.

[The0ne]

Agent_V, just take the situation as it is explained, with the distance explained. THey are both just standing there then both extend and A lunges at lunge distance B extends at the same time as A, then does nothing. Attack ends. A lunges, A's attack. In a "real-bout" situation who knows, but taking just the facts given that is the way the ROW plays out. And an attack doesn't need a lunge or fleche, 2 advances with extension is an attack. 1 advance is an attack. But not moving forward is Point-in-line, which must precede an attack from your opponent. . . Which in the situation down_under explain is what fencer B attempted.

-Isaiah

[Agent_V]

Originally posted by Cerian
I would guess that the attack has to actually threaten to score a touch. Just beginning to extend without moving in order to hit the target can't really be considered an attack if you're out of extension range. Very simply, you're not attacking them, rather you're just beginning to give them something to run themselves onto, a point in line.

By that logic the attack starts only when the foot moves, which is not what the rule book says...

[Agent_V]

Originally posted by The0ne
Agent_V, just take the situation as it is explained, with the distance explained. THey are both just standing there then both extend and A lunges at lunge distance B extends at the same time as A, then does nothing. Attack ends. A lunges, A's attack. In a "real-bout" situation who knows, but taking just the facts given that is the way the ROW plays out. And an attack doesn't need a lunge or fleche, 2 advances with extension is an attack. 1 advance is an attack. But not moving forward is Point-in-line, which must precede an attack from your opponent. . . Which in the situation down_under explain is what fencer B attempted.

-Isaiah

Shall we clear up the situation a bit? I now think there have been several different ones thrown around now. The one around which I have been trying to argue is as follows, I'll even throw in some numbers to add some concreteness....

Ok. A and B are at lunge distance. A and B both start extending at the same time and with the same (very slow) speed of extension: 1 second from bent arm till full extension. A starts his/her lunge 0.1 seconds after s/he begins the extension. B starts his/her lunge 0.9 seconds after beginning the extension (i.e. s/he is still extending). However, there is not any point in B doing a lunge, because A's lunge takes a total time of 0.7 seconds until the tips of A and B have hit B and A respectively. (neither extension had finished yet)

Both fencers started their attacks at the same time, so now tell me exactly when B's attack stopped being an attack...