Quote:
|
I simply ask one easy question: When does an attack actually start?
|
According to the rulebook, an attack begins with the start of the extension of the arm. (By inference, the attack is over when the arm stops extending.) But this isn't the whole story, which is why it's an interesting question. By extending, Fencer B started what
could have been an attack, but
turned out not to be an attack because Fencer A stole tempo (or took ownership of the action).
An extension (and other moves) must be examined in context of the action. An "arm only" reading only gives part of the story -- and were we to be strict about "arm only", then, why,
I'd be able to defeat every attack against me by extending at the same time and having it called simultaneous. We don't do this, and so Fencer A gets the touch.
Quote:
|
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.
|
In
downunder's scenario, there was no mention of Fencer B lunging. Per the scenario, Fencer B just stood there, so it's quite clear where the attack is. If Fencer B
were to have been planning to lunge, well, too late!
Yesterday, I had a direct counter-parry riposte called as, "Attack, parry riposte, and then the retaking of the attack with a beat." I won a point with no blade contact, with a line that was called, "Parry riposte." It is taxing enough to be a director. I think it is probably too much to ask them to consider what fencers may have been planning to do before the action has been made. I think it's possible and necessary (and natural) for directors to evaluate what fencers were planning to do based on what they actually
did -- in this case, an extension from Fencer B that was probably an attempted PIL or stop hit.
PiL, no, out of time. Stop-hit, no, out of time. (
t.60.1.a, Only the fencer who is attacked is counted as touched: If he makes a stop hit on his opponent's simple attack.) If frustrated, Fencer B can practice until he sees what the world sees.
If I was Fencer B, I would've added an after-the-fact lunge (doubling out), if only to cast doubt in the director's mind. Most directors aren't fooled by me, though.
Quote:
|
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?
|
I don't think anybody is going wrong, but the answer to the question is in unwritten(?) nuances like tempo and intent. It may be less a question of going frame-by-frame through the action (nonhuman), and more of evaluating the outcome of an action (human). Both fencers started an attack (possibly), but only one carried it through (fer sure).
Quote:
|
By that logic the attack starts only when the foot moves, which is not what the rule book says...
|
t.7, extending the arm and continuously threatening the target. The target wouldn't be necessarily threatened by an extension from lunge distance or greater. On the other hand, "threatening" says nothing about distance (t.10). On the third hand, I feel pretty unthreatened when someone is extending towards me from across the room.
Quote:
|
What if the distance is such that B didn't need to lunge, while A's lunge is from too close of a distance.
|
Simultaneous.
Linear Mode
