forward movement as an attack!

[Webster]

(btw this is in foil)this is very annoying here in canada, almost all of the judges at tournaments see the forward movement as an attack even though it is not, attacks in the prep are virtually impossible when even if the arm is not extended threatening the target it is called the attack so that when you attack in the prep the ""attacker"" finishes and then recievs the point because the judge sees that they are moving forward.

[Fechter1]

That's one reason I don't ref foil.

My read on the rules pretty much boils an attack down to 3 points:
1- closing distance
2- threatening valid target
3- extending arm continuously

(Note on 3- As fa as I know, the USFA rules don't specify which arm had to be extending... )

Unfortunately, I hardly ever see it called that. Granted, these are the rantings of an irredeemable Epee jockey...

[corinna2u]

Very annoying...we have one that fences and directs that way. I guess luckily for us it is only one.

We counter that by starting movement with the feet with little steps that allow us to plan out the attack but still give us forward movement. With both of us starting movement forward, at least it will get called simultaneous, instead of for the opponent. Also, with that director we really work for binds, strong beats, etc. to get one light.

Very Annoying.

[labouche]

Yes, I have run into some directors like that. Try doing fake counter attacks to get the oponent to finish then parry riposte.....Or point in line.
-la bouche

[labouche]

one more thing.....if someone is calling attacks simply when you are moving forward use this to your advantage. As soon as the director says fence run forward with your arm back so he can't parry.

[Methix]

mmm...epee....

[SJB]

If "all" the judges call it that way maybe you should change your fencing.

Since the judges consistently exemplify what they consider an attack you should adapt to it.

Rather than knowing how they're going to make the call and then complaining about it afterwards.

[corinna2u]

I hear this alot...adapt your fencing to the director. Yes, Do That. But, for those of us that want to get past our regional directors, we want to know what is the correct way that an action should be called, so when we advance higher we still know how to fence properly. So, I want to thank all who answer the technical questions on how a call should be called. Thanks.

[Wizardly]

There are a couple of points to consider:

1) You cannot make an attack while movin backwards
2) An advance-lunge is correctly executed when the extending of the arm precedes the conclusion of the advance. You don't just have to beat the lunge, you have to beat the advance too.
3) PIL must beat the advance lunge, however once established you can keep moving backwards or forwards (or not at all) and keep the line.
4) Attacks on the blade are preparations and the right of attack passes to the defender if they are deveived (see note 1). In my estimation, your best chance at attack in prep (short of your opponent not even bothering to extend) is to catch them searching.
5) New fencers have a habit of panicking when they can't find the parry, give up on parrying and counter-attack.
6) Referees are there to see what you cannot. Their judgement is better than yours, their perspective is better than yours, and their say is final; all of this is true even when they're wrong.

[mercurialblue]

This is also annoying for directors who do call it correctly. When Fencers learn that forward movement is ROW, they argue no end with a director who calls it on the actual extension.

I fence and direct saber. As a defensive saber fencer (we exist!), I was always annoyed by directors who would call aggressive forward movement an attack regardless of whether the arm was bent up and back like a pretzel or not. As a director of saber, I call attack on the extension of the hand and call the end of the attack when the front foot hits (a little leeway for compount actions as described in the rules). Unfortunately, many of the people I direct have been conditioned by people who call it badly and whine and moan when I don't give their ungainly, sloppy, windmilling, flop down the strip ROW.

I agree that you should fence both to your opponent and the director when competing in saber and foil. However, if you know what correct action is, you will become a better fencer, while the bent-arm thrashers will always stay at the same level. Also, if you have the proper knowledge, you can at least try to question a call, explaining your reasoning calmly, and hope that the director will at least watch a little closer on the subsequent touches.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by corinna2u
I hear this alot...adapt your fencing to the director. Yes, Do That. But, for those of us that want to get past our regional directors, we want to know what is the correct way that an action should be called, so when we advance higher we still know how to fence properly. So, I want to thank all who answer the technical questions on how a call should be called. Thanks.

If you want to know how actions are called at the higher level, you should talk to the fencers, coaches, and refs of said higher level. But beware, even there you will find different opinions on how actions are called. That's the nature of subjectivity.

This site, while a a great resource, isn't the best place to get final words on how actions are called. Partly because there are very few, if any, international refs here, partly because applying ROW requires more than just a knowledge of the textbook definition of an attack, it requires the ability to apply the current inerpretation of those rules to a dynamic situation that was seen and heard by a third party, not typewritten by one of the fencers. But really, there is no one final answer except the ref presiding over your current bout. That's the nature of subjectivity.

And besides, to get the higher levels, you need to pay your dues at the lower levels. So fence to the ref, and diversify your actions so that you won't get stuck fencing at one level.

[Feanor]

Originally posted by corinna2u
I hear this alot...adapt your fencing to the director. Yes, Do That. But, for those of us that want to get past our regional directors, we want to know what is the correct way that an action should be called, so when we advance higher we still know how to fence properly. So, I want to thank all who answer the technical questions on how a call should be called. Thanks.

heh, They always told me fencing was a mind game as much as a physical one, but they never told me that the tactical and psychologcal considerations extended beyond the opponent to the director

I'm such a newb at this point I have to defer almost completely to the director, trusting that they are getting things sorted out correctly... I guess when I get to the point where I can feel solidly confident about arguing a point and risking hte Yellow card, that's when I'll turn my psychological game on them as well

"You don't need to give my opponent that touch, and these are not the droids you are looking for..."

[sabreur]

Originally posted by Wizardly
There are a couple of points to consider:

1) You cannot make an attack while moving backwards.

Correct. However, you can stop in time while moving backwards.

2) An advance-lunge is correctly executed when the extending of the arm precedes the conclusion of the advance. You don't just have to beat the lunge, you have to beat the advance too.

But don't confuse an advance-lunge with a lunge that is preceded by preparation consisting of advances.... They are two different things--the extension of the arm in the advance is key--it also helps to accelerate through the advance. And a stop delivered during the advance will always be considered in time in sabre.

3) PIL must beat the advance lunge, however once established you can keep moving backwards or forwards (or not at all) and keep the line.

Correct (once I read it correctly... at first I thought you said that PIL beats the advance lunge...)

4) Attacks on the blade are preparations and the right of attack passes to the defender if they are deceived (see note 1). In my estimation, your best chance at attack in prep (short of your opponent not even bothering to extend) is to catch them searching.

If you've got a decent ref, you establish PIL, the bad guy (or gal) tries to take, and you deceive and attack while (s)he comes forward... Too many refs blow this call.

5) New fencers have a habit of panicking when they can't find the parry, give up on parrying and counter-attack.

New fencers panic in general.

6) Referees are there to see what you cannot. Their judgement is better than yours, their perspective is better than yours, and their say is final; all of this is true even when they're wrong.

Referees are there to see what apparently happens--if they can't see the action, it is usually because the fencers performed it badly--you still have to "show" your actions in sabre, even though there are no side judges anymore. I have no problem telling a couple of fencers that I can't interpret a messy action. Your idea as a fencer of what happens is completely irrelevent. What is important is what the referee sees. Therefore, fence cleanly.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by Wizardly
There are a couple of points to consider:

1) You cannot make an attack while movin backwards

who says?
What about passat a soto? Is that not an attack? (ok,it is usually a counter-attack, but still an attack.)

I have heard this stated before, but I can't find anyone that can show me the basis for this.

"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 flèche." t.7

Show me a rule that says that you can't be moving backward while doing this. Footwork has nothing to do with whether you are attacking or not. (with the exception that if you continuously cross over your feet you are deemed to be in preparation.)

I think that some confusion comes from the "preceding the launching of the lunge or flèche" part. I think that this is confusing, and seems to imply that an attack must be finished with a lunge or fleche. Therefore there must be forward motion.
(Not true..... you can reverse lunge.)

I think that the point of that phrase is not that it MUST include a lunge or fleche, but that the attack does not BEGIN with the lunge or fleche. The attack begins with the extension of the arm, and finishes with the succesful parry, the touch, or the completion of the lunge or fleche. (I am sure that most would agree that this is the way it is called.)

[FoilyGeezer]

Originally posted by DanInMI
Show me a rule that says that you can't be moving backward while doing this. Footwork has nothing to do with whether you are attacking or not. (with the exception that if you continuously cross over your feet you are deemed to be in preparation.)

Whenever I'm fencing an opponent who closes distance too much I've always found it useful to parry and then start moving backwards delaying my riposte until they're in range. In effect my feet are moving backwards but my hand is moving forward faster, so technically I suppose it's true that it isn't an attack moving backwards.

However I have lost points doing this where the opponent (even though s/he was successfully parried) landed a remise after my touch, for the exact reason that "you didn't have the attack because you were moving backward". What I learned was that if you're going to do this you'd better be prepared to parry all the way out, even after you land the touch.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by FoilyGeezer
Whenever I'm fencing an opponent who closes distance too much I've always found it useful to parry and then start moving backwards delaying my riposte until they're in range. In effect my feet are moving backwards but my hand is moving forward faster, so technically I suppose it's true that it isn't an attack moving backwards.

However I have lost points doing this where the opponent (even though s/he was successfully parried) landed a remise after my touch, for the exact reason that "you didn't have the attack because you were moving backward". What I learned was that if you're going to do this you'd better be prepared to parry all the way out, even after you land the touch.

You should dare that director to show you that rule. There is no rule that says that you can't be moving backward when you initiate the attack.

[FoilyGeezer]

Dan,

I've made it my own personal policy never to discuss a ruling with a director <I>during</I> a bout. If I find that a director is calling a bout in a certain way, I modify my approach to accomodate his/her preferences and often I can still win. I've honestly never seen a director go..."Oh yeah, I was so wrong and you're so right...I'll reverse my decision!" during a bout.

I won't hesitate to engage the director in enlightened conversation after the bout is over and state my opinion. Even when the calls were falling my way. But I've found the old adage "Don't try and teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." to be pretty much spot on when applied to trying to convince directors that they grossly blew a call.

Not that it should be that way....but this is not a perfect world.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by DanInMI
...
"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 flèche." t.7
...
I think that the point of that phrase is not that it MUST include a lunge or fleche, but that the attack does not BEGIN with the lunge or fleche. The attack begins with the extension of the arm, and finishes with the succesful parry, the touch, or the completion of the lunge or fleche. (I am sure that most would agree that this is the way it is called.)

That's how you interpret the rule. I've met a few locally who think this way, they usually don't travel beyond their local division. In the US, on a national level, if you are standing still or retreating, you are not considered to be attacking.

On the world cup scene, you are not considered attacking.

In whatever small local tournaments you may fence in, you may be getting the touch, but when you move up to a larger scale, you are in for a shock.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by FoilyGeezer
Dan,

I've made it my own personal policy never to discuss a ruling with a director <I>during</I> a bout. If I find that a director is calling a bout in a certain way, I modify my approach to accomodate his/her preferences and often I can still win. I've honestly never seen a director go..."Oh yeah, I was so wrong and you're so right...I'll reverse my decision!" during a bout.

I won't hesitate to engage the director in enlightened conversation after the bout is over and state my opinion. Even when the calls were falling my way. But I've found the old adage "Don't try and teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." to be pretty much spot on when applied to trying to convince directors that they grossly blew a call.

Not that it should be that way....but this is not a perfect world.

yes, I agree completely. I did not mean to say that you should debate it during the bout.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by achilleus
That's how you interpret the rule. I've met a few locally who think this way, they usually don't travel beyond their local division. In the US, on a national level, if you are standing still or retreating, you are not considered to be attacking.

On the world cup scene, you are not considered attacking.

In whatever small local tournaments you may fence in, you may be getting the touch, but when you move up to a larger scale, you are in for a shock.

How I interpret what rule? This rule doesn't say anything about moving forward or backward, does it? Show me one that does.
Is the passata soto an attack? A reverse lunge? Inquartata? Of course they are!

Of course that is not true of world class competition, I have seen dozens of points awarded when a fencer is moving backward. (If there is a point awarded then there must have been an attack, right?) There is definitely an attack there, the question is whether that attack has priority over the opposing attack.

And again I submit that the rules are very clear that forward motion does not establish right of way, only the extension of the fencing arm establishes right of way.