forward movement as an attack!

[Inquartata]

Eric didn't say that, though. He said that he "leans forward". It is possible, indeed very often desirable, to do this while still retreating with the feet...

[Namir]

darius,
i don't think that dan was saying that YOU had ever argued anything.
From the very beginning the argument has been about whether you could be attacking while retreating. While Daninmi and Inquartata and Rolls may not have been right about every little detail they were sure a lot righter than the guys that said "you can not be attacking if you are retreating!"

Also Daninmi made the point that "going toward your opponent" is a relative term, related to the bodies, not the strip. Mr. Oliver seems to bear that out when he says that the person who causes the distance to be closed is the attacker. (even if her does that by merely slowing his retreat.)

Also i seem to recall that one of them argued that a reverse lunge can be an attack. Mr. Oliver seems to support that when he says that if the retreating fencer were to stop, causing the distance to close on the advancing fencer he would have the ROW.

Eric Dew does NOT say that the retreating fencer changes direction. He says that he "leans in" to score the touch, that is not the same thing. He is very clear that the the fencer took the priority while retreating. (by the way...Eric is one of the highest ranked foilists in the country)

ALSO....why are you hasselling him about HIS referreeing credentials? The other guys are the ones that have made claims (seemingly bogus) about THIER credentials. And they have made many more statements about what "Competent" refs would do.

[The0ne]

It's about changing distances, like I said in my post. The idea that one needs to be moving forward to attack is brought about by distance issues. In EDEW's post he mentioned that the sabre fencer in question waited until his opponent pumped his arm, or made preperation, since he hit he was in distance, thus preperation attack. This post is an example of a situation in which both sides are mostly correct.

CarlKnoch, I am a 7, but the only tournament i was observed at was an E competition, so I didn't have many difficult calls, and I am also only 15 years old, and don't have many years of directing experience.

[achilleus]

Was I the only one who saw the bottom line from Mr. Oliver's answer:

Bottom line: in nearly all cases, a retreating fencer
cannot have priority, in any weapon.

I've never said you can't have priority retreating.

It just isn't the attack. Which is what I've said all along.

[Mulligan]

Originally posted by achilleus
[B]Was I the only one who saw the bottom line from Mr. Oliver's answer:



I've never said you can't have priority retreating.

It just isn't the attack. Which is what I've said all along.

ummm according to the highest rated director in the united states it IS the attack

give up...you LOST

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Mulligan
ummm according to the highest rated director in the united states it IS the attack

give up...you LOST

Perhaps you should reread his entire post.

Especially the bottom line.
Or even Craig's input.


EDEW's situation of the sabre fencer is a perfect example of either a stop hit or an attack in prep, depending on whether the fencer changes directions or not.

[Mulligan]

Originally posted by achilleus
Perhaps you should reread his entire post.

Especially the bottom line.
Or even Craig's input.


EDEW's situation of the sabre fencer is a perfect example of either a stop hit or an attack in prep, depending on whether the fencer changes directions or not.

i see...so you are saying that a stop hit (that has right of way) is not an attack
niether is an "attack into attack in preparation."

ok, i see that you can not be taught, i give up

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Mulligan
i see...so you are saying that a stop hit (that has right of way) is not an attack
niether is an "attack into attack in preparation."

ok, i see that you can not be taught, i give up

No.

You have problems with reading comprehension, or simply have a life and haven't read this enitre thread...

A stop hit is a counter attack, not an attack. If the stop is in time, it has ROW. For a definition of an in time stop hit read the rule book.

If the retreating fencer changes directions at the right time, it is an attack into prep.In EDEW's example if the fencer changes directions, as EDEW says he does most of the time, it's an attack into prep. If the fencer were to hit then step away, it's a stop hit.
Either way, from EDEW's description, it sounds the like the fencer hits at the right time regardless whether he's stepping away, or attacking into prep.

Again reread Mr. Oliver's entire post.

Distance, footwork, and the arm all factor into determining ROW.
It's not jsut the hand.

[jBirch]

Hey All,

Y'know, I'm wondering if the current confusion and frustration here is centred around the miscomprehension of the word "attack". We do all realise and agree that it is a specific technical term, seperate from the English definition in common use, and has a particular meaning, definition, usage and connotation in a fencing context? It just seems to me that we are arguing around two different ideas. There is the underlying assumption that only an attack has RoW and therefor can score points in one camp and the assumption that an attack must satisfy a particular set of requirements to be considered an attack in another.

Can we at least agree that an attack does not always have RoW? Mulligan, DanInMi and Rolls, in particular, could you look at the preceding examples in the thread, just as a courtesy? I'm not saying you're wrong, but could you at least look at the entire series of posts that achilleus has posted with the idea that an attack does not necessarily have RoW but rather is a technical term only? Just play with the concept that an attack is not the only way to score a point and see what happens. Substitute the word "attack" with the term "blingy" and see if that makes a difference in interpretation.

Take it easy.

[Rolls]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but could you at least look at the entire series of posts that achilleus has posted with the idea that an attack does not necessarily have RoW but rather is a technical term only?

I agree completely. The argument is what constitutes that technical term attack. But I DO believe that if an attack doesn't have RoW, it ceases to be an attack and becomes a Counter Attack.

My main point was not over how REAL those hypothetical situations were. My point was to say a criteria for an attack is to have forward movement of the body (i.e. advancing, lunging, or fleching) is wrong. You can be the attacker AND not be moving forward.

If the retreating fencer changes the distance by stopping, advancing, or slowing down, then he's the attacker.

Thus, foward movement is NOT what makes an attack. Most often, the attacker IS moving forward. Most often it's cold in January. But being cold is not what makes it January. Moving forward does not make you an attacker.

Rolls.

[jBirch]

Rolls,

Ah, ok then. I see what you're saying. I don't agree, but I see what you're saying. [grin]

In the context of that phrase analysis Craig posted I saw two things:

1) The forward movement of the body is relative to the other fencer. This is a key distinction. You can be moving backward in absolute terms, but forward in relative ones. Retreating implies that one is increasing the distance between oneself and one's opponent and hence is moving backward relatively if not absolutely. Offensive means that one is reducing the distance between oneself and one's opponent and hence is moving forward relatively, if not absolutely. This is what Mr. Olliver means when he talks about "collapsing the distance". We need to keep this in mind when we're analysing these contrived scenarios.

2) The question was whether a retreating fencer can have RoW, which has nothing to do with whether an individual retreating can be attacking or not.

A counter-attack does not, by itself, mean that RoW is forfeited, BTW (a common misconception). The key to a counter-attack is that it must be "in time". Whether it is in or out of time determines whether it has RoW or not. As well, one does not need to be attacking for one's opponent to be counter-attacking. Remember that a counter attack is what one is doing if one's opponent is executing an offensive action (being defined as going towards one) and we're extending to get a touch. It doesn't have to be an attack that the opponent is doing, merely an offensive movement. So the advancing fencer is offensive while the fencer who "shoots and scoots" is executing a counter-attack even though the advancing fencer is not attacking.

I agree that moving forward (in relation to the other fencer) is not the sole criteria for an attack, but it is a key component of one. If one is not moving forward, one can not be attacking since one is not offensive. One can be doing a whole host of other movements that involve the point threatening target and going toward the opponent, but one can not be attacking. If one *is* moving forward, one does not neccesarily have to be executing an attack. Seperate forward movement from getting RoW.

Fencer A moves forward (is offensive).
Fencer B retreats.
Fencer A runs into B's point while advancing.
Fencer B does not cause A to change distance. A initiates the change.
Fencer B is not PIL.

Analysis:
Fencer A is offensive, but not attacking.
Fencer B is defensive. Therefor, B can not be attacking.
B does, however, execute an action into A's offensive action.

Counter-Attack B. Point B.

If we change the situation so that the points arrive together, the question is whether B's hit arrived before A started to extend in the final movement designed to hit (and so had RoW by virtue of being a full fencing beat ahead of A's final attack). Make sense?

As well, seperate the english terms (and their interpretation/definition) from the fencing terms. Keep in mind that all of the fencing terms are technical in nature, with specific definitions, that may or may not relate to their english definitions. If you try to interpret a fencing technical action using english definitions, you're bound to get into trouble. A counter attack, like I was saying, is another technical term that exists independent of the words counter and attack. That one is executing a counter-attack does not mean that one's opponent is executing an attack. See what I mean?

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Rolls
I agree completely. The argument is what constitutes that technical term attack. But I DO believe that if an attack doesn't have RoW, it ceases to be an attack and becomes a Counter Attack..

Just because the attack is executed incorrectly, and doesn't have ROW doesn't mean it's not the inital offensive action. Take a look at the following rule.

t.59 (d) When compound attacks are made, the opponent has the right to stop hit; but to be valid, the stop hit must precede the conclusionof the attack by an interval of fencing time; that is to say that the stop hit must arrive before the attacker has begun the final movement of the attack.

The stop is clearly a counter that has to hit in a very specific time window. Even if the attacker is executing the attack poorly, the stop has to hit before they start the final action.

A real world example:
Fencer A and B are at adv-lunge distance.
A starts advancing
B starts retreating
After three steps B starts to extend
extending before the lunge, A finishes with a lunge
Both hit

The call will go to A (except in MI, as we all know). A executes the textbook definition of an attack with step forward lunge. For B to steal the time on it, B would have to hit before A starts that advance lunge.

In other words, B would have to hit, then A would have to take an adv-lunge then hit for B's stop to be valid.

Again I've written it several times throughout this thread I'll write it once more.

Footwork, distance and the hand determine ROW. Not just the hand to the exclusion of all else.

Originally posted by Rolls
My main point was not over how REAL those hypothetical situations were. My point was to say a criteria for an attack is to have forward movement of the body (i.e. advancing, lunging, or fleching) is wrong. You can be the attacker AND not be moving forward..

OK, you win. If you were to teleport next to your opponent, extend then retreat and score a one light touch, it would be the attack.

However by this same token one can attack with a bent arm, that never extends. I still won't say , and you won't either, that a bent arm, that never extends can have the attack.

Hypothetical:
I teleport to extension distance from my opponent. My opponent so suprised byt the sudden *bamf* noise, my opponent stands stock still. I advance without ever extending, and hit my opponent.

When people on this board post that you can have the attack while you retreat because it's only the hand that matters, they are giving the wrong information to people.

At FIE and USFA (offer not valid in MI) events, when fencer A advance lunges, and B retreats, even though they extend at the same time, it's not simultaneous. It's attack for A.

Originally posted by Rolls
Thus, foward movement is NOT what makes an attack. Most often, the attacker IS moving forward. Most often it's cold in January. But being cold is not what makes it January. Moving forward does not make you an attacker.

Rolls.

You're right. Forward movement does not make an attack, no one who's posted here thinks it does.

It is a component of the attack, just like extending the arm is.

[achilleus]

One other thing of note.

Everyone keeps referring to the same rule:
t.56 (a) Every attack, that is every initial offensive action, which is correctly executed must be parried or completely avoided and the
phrase must be followed through — that is to say, coordinated (cf. t.7).
In order to judge the correctness of an attack the following points must be considered:1. The simple attack, direct or indirect (cf. t.8), is correctly executed when the extending of the arm, the point threatening the valid
target, precedes the initiation of the lunge or the flèche.


If you look at this rule alone, you can argue quite a bit about what was intended.

However if you look at the rest of the rules following, you'll notice something.

2. The compound attack (cf. t.8) is correctly executed when the arm is extending in the presentation of the first feint, with the
point threatening the valid target, and the arm is not bent between the successive actions of the attack and the initiation of the
lunge or the flèche.
3. The attack with a step-forward-lunge or a step-forward-flèche is correctly executed when the extending of the arm precedes the
end of the step forward and the initiation of the lunge or the flèche.
4. 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).


The mention of the lunge or fleche isn't thrown into the definiton of a simple attack for no reason. It's mentioned in every type of attack that the arm extends before the lunge or fleche.

Clearly, the authors of these rules obviously felt the need to include that bit of information for a reason. Going towards your opponent is obviously part of what makes an attack. Not the only part, but an important part nonetheless.

Also notice that in part 4 a fencer in preparation is open to 'offensive, or defensive/offensive' actions. Implying, that just because someone is preparing, doesn't mean the other fencer who scores makes an offensive action.

[GGK]

Originally posted by achilleus

A real world example:
Fencer A and B are at adv-lunge distance.
A starts advancing
B starts retreating
After three steps B starts to extend
extending before the lunge, A finishes with a lunge
Both hit

The call will go to A (except in MI, as we all know). A executes the textbook definition of an attack with step forward lunge. For B to steal the time on it, B would have to hit before A starts that advance lunge.

Yes.

Originally posted by achilleus

Footwork, distance and the hand determine ROW. Not just the hand to the exclusion of all else.

Yes

Originally posted by achilleus

Hypothetical:
I teleport to extension distance from my opponent. My opponent so suprised byt the sudden *bamf* noise, my opponent stands stock still. I advance without ever extending, and hit my opponent.

I'll remember next time I fence Nightcrawler in MI

Originally posted by achilleus

When people on this board post that you can have the attack while you retreat because it's only the hand that matters, they are giving the wrong information to people.

At FIE and USFA (offer not valid in MI) events, when fencer A advance lunges, and B retreats, even though they extend at the same time, it's not simultaneous. It's attack for A.

It is a component of the attack, just like extending the arm is.

Amen

May this thread rest in peace.

[Webster]

this sure ahs been a successfull first thread thanks for all your feed back