Re: New, almost approved FIE rule changes regarding foil.

User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 07:13:31 -0800
Message-ID: <no_one_knows-DEE782.07133111112003@comcast.ash.giganews.com>
Lines: 29
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.58.141.239
X-Trace: sv3-NfwzwQWWe16OZgYh6uqvZxnC5QNnjtNzB/AySPkICmI8MYBQbIqq23CPAd6uPFbG5sQd0jGLMIM6Rn5!nUKk x8deEHNLWxGuOxcNcyL9U/7uDhI6p9ICR+q/za6wBWg5iu4rs+ySAZw80xePqMZxsTzkQyBA!2UOJ9rxhhuzEO KLQXl0=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1
Xref: news.netfront.net rec.sport.fencing:9551

In article <3fb04770.34265260@news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
grbr25235@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:

> So the straightening of the arm must precede the attack and if the arm
> is bent when the attack is executed, it does not have priority.
> Nowhere is "extending" mentioned. It is one of those meta-rules
> that infests fencing. Schopenhauer once took people to task for
> saying a thing "conditioned" something when they intended to imply
> that it "caused" it. So we have blades being "met" rather than beaten
> or parried, we have arms "extending" rather than being straight (If
> they are straightened before the attack is made and cannot be bent
> during it, they must be straight to have priority).


Something can be straightenING without being fully straightened. The arm
must begin straightening before the initiation of the lunge or fleche,
blah, blah, blah. If they'd meant, "The arm must be straight," they
would have just said that.

And I'm sorry you can't see that extending and straightening are
synonyms in this context.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: bucket.its.unimelb.edu.au
X-Original-Trace: 12 Nov 2003 09:46:01 +1000, bucket.its.unimelb.edu.au
Organization: The University of Melbourne
Lines: 32
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.250.20.3
X-Original-Trace: 12 Nov 2003 09:46:27 +1100, 128.250.20.3
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:46:03 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.21.131.11
X-Trace: news.optus.net.au 1068590763 203.21.131.11 (Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:46:03 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:46:03 EST
Xref: news.netfront.net rec.sport.fencing:9570

grbr25235@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>
> So the straightening of the arm must precede the attack and if the arm
> is bent when the attack is executed, it does not have priority.
> Nowhere is "extending" mentioned. It is one of those meta-rules
> that infests fencing. Schopenhauer once took people to task for
> saying a thing "conditioned" something when they intended to imply
> that it "caused" it. So we have blades being "met" rather than beaten
> or parried, we have arms "extending" rather than being straight (If
> they are straightened before the attack is made and cannot be bent
> during it, they must be straight to have priority).

:-)

It's always entertaining to read something posted by someone
completely clueless about the rules. Your comprehension skills
need a little tuning. How do you jump from "straightening of
the arm must precede the attack" to it "must be straight to
have priority"?

It just means that the arm can still be straightening during
the lunge, fleche, etc (of a simple attack or step forward
attack) and still have priority even without being completely
straight from the start. It doesn't even have to be completely
straight when it hits, it just needs to still be straightening.

What you say is true for compound attacks though. The arm must
be completely straight before the final attack (simple or
step forward attack) for the whole action to retain priority
eg, if you present a line and then break it you lose priority
no matter what action you end up doing (lunge, fleche, whatever).
Simon.

In article <Xns9438C0E6296A5439754hjkgfdjio5408@216.196.97.13 6>,
"Holly E. Ordway" <OUTordwayWITHTHIS@comcast.net> wrote:

> > PS: Personally i think it obvious who the attacker is. Just find
> > the person whos retreating and or attempting to parry. thats the
> > defender right? the person then opposing him must be attacking,
> > thusly he has priority. Silly i know...but there ya go.
>
> Oh no, oh no no no no no. Advancing is not attacking. Running at your
> opponent is not attacking. Moving forward in an aggressive manner is
> not attacking. All those things MAY be PART of an attack, but they
> don't MAKE the attack. The extension of the arm with the blade
> threatening valid target area is what constitutes the attack. That
> can be done retreating just as well as advancing, though I'll grant
> you that it usually is the other way around.


I almost jumped on that statement, too. He's almost sort of kind of
right. If fencer A is retreating *AND* attempting to parry, fencer A
can't have right of way. However, if A is simply retreating, A can
certainly have right of way (in both foil and saber). I missed the "or"
part of "and or" when I first read it; if it's just "and" he's close to
right.

Of course, if fencer A is retreating and parrying, fencer B doesn't
neccessarily have right of way, since fencer B could be retreating and
parrying, too!

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:57:37 -0600
Holly E. Ordway <OUTordwayWITHTHIS@comcast.net> wrote:
> foil fencers (hehe). In sabre, if you are advancing with a bent arm,
> YOU ARE IN PREPARATION. You DO NOT have right of way. If the
> retreating fencer attacks, it will be his attack into the bent-arm
> guy's preparation (or attack and bent-arm's counterattack).
>
> Also, if you start the attack by (correctly) extending your arm, but
> then you "break" your arm (bend it again) you lose right of way.
>

OK... knowing nothing about modern fencing as I do...

What's the difference between "bent" and "straightening"? Is it that as
the arm has to be *moving*, even if that's only a teeny bit?

So if A advances with point pointing skywards, and it's *slowly* moving
down, glacially even, and B extends and hits A, that was not an attack
into preparation?

Zebee

In article <slrnbro93m.ofk.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>,
Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:

> In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:57:37 -0600
> Holly E. Ordway <OUTordwayWITHTHIS@comcast.net> wrote:
> > foil fencers (hehe). In sabre, if you are advancing with a bent arm,
> > YOU ARE IN PREPARATION. You DO NOT have right of way. If the
> > retreating fencer attacks, it will be his attack into the bent-arm
> > guy's preparation (or attack and bent-arm's counterattack).
> >
> > Also, if you start the attack by (correctly) extending your arm, but
> > then you "break" your arm (bend it again) you lose right of way.
> >
>
> OK... knowing nothing about modern fencing as I do...
>
> What's the difference between "bent" and "straightening"? Is it that as
> the arm has to be *moving*, even if that's only a teeny bit?
>
> So if A advances with point pointing skywards, and it's *slowly* moving
> down, glacially even, and B extends and hits A, that was not an attack
> into preparation?


Well, if A is really slow, it's likely to be called a stop hit. If
you're attacking, but I hit you and don't get hit "in time," that's the
usual call, I think.

Now, there's also the issue about whether the point at the sky is
"threatening target" or not, but I won't go into that here.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

In article <slrnbro93m.ofk.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>, zebee@zip.com.au wrote:

> In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:57:37 -0600
> Holly E. Ordway <OUTordwayWITHTHIS@comcast.net> wrote:
> > foil fencers (hehe). In sabre, if you are advancing with a bent arm,
> > YOU ARE IN PREPARATION. You DO NOT have right of way. If the
> > retreating fencer attacks, it will be his attack into the bent-arm
> > guy's preparation (or attack and bent-arm's counterattack).
> >
> > Also, if you start the attack by (correctly) extending your arm, but
> > then you "break" your arm (bend it again) you lose right of way.
> >
>
> OK... knowing nothing about modern fencing as I do...
>
> What's the difference between "bent" and "straightening"? Is it that as
> the arm has to be *moving*, even if that's only a teeny bit?
>
> So if A advances with point pointing skywards, and it's *slowly* moving
> down, glacially even, and B extends and hits A, that was not an attack
> into preparation?
>
> Zebee

What it all boils down to is the question "Was the counterattack in time?"
If it lands on a bent elbow, or on a noggin attached to one, it was (In
time).

Also, what might conceivably entitle a leadfoot rooted to the strip the
right to cut in on an attack? Answer: a parry or taking the blade.

Wrong answer: A slooooooow movement by the defender that the Director
imagines began before the real attack. If successful this indicates the
defender is the Director's student and the attacker had better plan
on winning with one-lighters.

"> Frankly, if someones arm must be ramrod straight before the attack,
> before its considered an attack, then attacks will fail much more
> often as the blade will be picked up.

Sincerely, the attack will be more precise and you may coupé or dissengage
on an atemp to take your blade. And for the experience i had ( not really
much tough ) my attack miss more if i attack with a bent arm ( not
straithening arm

Agleos

"Holly E. Ordway" <OUTordwayWITHTHIS@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9438C0E6296A5439754hjkgfdjio5408@216.196.9 7.136
> Just for the record, here I'm talking about sabre (and how *I* think
> foil should be called ...
[snip]
> No. The attack *begins* with the *extending* arm. (In terms of
> technique, the best attack is one in which the arm gradually extends
> as the attack progresses, reaching full extension just as the blade
> hits the opponent.)
[snip]
>> Heres an example. A person starts a chase with a bent arm
>> attempting to flick to the back. typically the arm is bent for
>> this. The other fencer is retreating to avoid it...but then decides
>> to counterattack due to this bent arm thing. as he does, fencer a
>> lands the flick at the same time, within tempo.
>>
>> Whose point?
>>
>> In saber, it seems the arm that moves forward first has priority..
>
> I won't venture to guess what monstrosity of a call would be given to
> foil fencers (hehe). In sabre, if you are advancing with a bent arm,
> YOU ARE IN PREPARATION. You DO NOT have right of way. If the
> retreating fencer attacks, it will be his attack into the bent-arm
> guy's preparation (or attack and bent-arm's counterattack).
>
> Also, if you start the attack by (correctly) extending your arm, but
> then you "break" your arm (bend it again) you lose right of way.
>
> With fortunately few exceptions, this is consistently how I've seen
> it called (and had it called, in my bouts) in all my National-level
> fencing and in the regional tournaments that bring in real referees.

This is absolutely the way it is supposed to be called in foil as well.
That doesn't mean that it is always called that way, whether by
incompetent, novice referees or even by experienced referees who claim
to be calling it "the way they do it in Europe". Both the FIE and the
USFA are trying to clean this up, but I'm sorry to say there are still a
lot of referees that give lip service to the correct intepretation of
the rules, yet still call it wrong anyway. FWIW, in the latest issue of
Swordmaster, the USFCA newsletter, Bucky Leach comments in an interview
that he's starting to see the right-of-way problem improve in
international fencing.

The problem is confused yet further by coaches who quite properly tell
their fencers to *expect* that right of way is going to be given to
agressive forward motion, so that the fencers will be prepared for it
and not rely so much on the referee calling right of way correctly.
With the current state of refereeing, coaches are right to give such
instructions, but they need to stress that it's not the way calls
*should* be made, and that these fencers shouldn't call it that way when
they themselves are refereeing.

One thing a referee should watch out for, on the other hand, is the
attacking fencer who does break right of way, and then resumes before
the defender can take advantage of it. On the flip side of not
recognizing the break at all are those referees who see the break and
"switch off", not recognizing the timing of the resumption before the
reaction. These right-of-way games are part of the constantly changing
tactical picture, which the referee should be observing. Misperception
by the *fencers* of the actual events often leads to complaints that
"this referee is just calling any forward motion the attack", when that
may not actually be the case.

>> PS: Personally i think it obvious who the attacker is. Just find
>> the person whos retreating and or attempting to parry. thats the
>> defender right? the person then opposing him must be attacking,
>> thusly he has priority. Silly i know...but there ya go.
>
> Oh no, oh no no no no no. Advancing is not attacking. Running at your
> opponent is not attacking. Moving forward in an aggressive manner is
> not attacking. All those things MAY be PART of an attack, but they
> don't MAKE the attack. The extension of the arm with the blade
> threatening valid target area is what constitutes the attack. That
> can be done retreating just as well as advancing, though I'll grant
> you that it usually is the other way around.

Quite.

> (Like I said, this is all in reference to sabre, not foil.)

But it applies equally to foil. Really. :-)

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:no_one_knows-DEBCCF.20532819112003@comcast.ash.giganews.com
> In article <slrnbro93m.ofk.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>,
> Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:
>
>> In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:57:37 -0600
>> Holly E. Ordway <OUTordwayWITHTHIS@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> foil fencers (hehe). In sabre, if you are advancing with a bent arm,
>>> YOU ARE IN PREPARATION. You DO NOT have right of way. If the
>>> retreating fencer attacks, it will be his attack into the bent-arm
>>> guy's preparation (or attack and bent-arm's counterattack).
>>>
>>> Also, if you start the attack by (correctly) extending your arm, but
>>> then you "break" your arm (bend it again) you lose right of way.
>>>
>>
>> OK... knowing nothing about modern fencing as I do...
>>
>> What's the difference between "bent" and "straightening"? Is it
>> that as the arm has to be *moving*, even if that's only a teeny bit?
>>
>> So if A advances with point pointing skywards, and it's *slowly*
>> moving down, glacially even, and B extends and hits A, that was not
>> an attack into preparation?
>
> Well, if A is really slow, it's likely to be called a stop hit. If
> you're attacking, but I hit you and don't get hit "in time," that's
> the usual call, I think.

Not unless B does something to force A to add another tempo. If A,
regardless of initial position, begins a simple action that extends to
hit, then by definition B cannot be in time. "In time" refers to
hitting a tempo ahead, and you react to a one-tempo action and hit a
tempo ahead. Tempo is not defined in terms of duration, it's defined as
"the time it takes to execute a single fencing action".

That said, with electric scoring the box's lockout timing most
definitely defines an absolute maximum tempo length, so there is a
practical limit to how slow you can be. But B's response to an
insufferable slow attack should be to hit, then parry, retreat, or evade
to force A to insert another tempo. If A is so slow, that should be no
problem.

Reducing the lockout timing on the scoring box, which was among the
proposed rule changes that started this thread, has the potential to
change this tactical principal, but really, how often is your attacker
that slow? You don't really need this change except as a way to reduce
the viability of the withdrawn preparation, which you wouldn't need to
do if referees simply called the actions correctly.

> Now, there's also the issue about whether the point at the sky is
> "threatening target" or not, but I won't go into that here.

Well, yes, but I have no problem with the current accepted
interpretation that once you start making a simple action to hit, so
long as it involves handwork, not just footwork, you're threatening
target.

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

In article <23e9ba68.0311191244.1fc4fe45@posting.google.com >,
michael_lichtstrom@yahoo.com (magni) writes:

>
>I am SOOOOOOOOO lost in re this arm straightening thing.
>
>So does the arm have to be straight..ramrod straight before the body
>moves?
>
>Heres an example. A person starts a chase with a bent arm attempting
>to flick to the back. typically the arm is bent for this. The other
>fencer is retreating to avoid it...but then decides to counterattack
>due to this bent arm thing. as he does, fencer a lands the flick at
>the same time, within tempo.
>
>Whose point?

Micheal, you have already decided: you called something a counterattack, so by
definition, your view is that priority of attack is with the advancer, since
they landed their hit within the magic period of 'tempo', it is their point.

Next time, be more careful what you assume; it's all how you see it, and many
people are trained to see it wrongly.

>In saber, it seems the arm that moves forward first has priority..

It only seems that way when people haven't been trained properly.

>Frankly, if someones arm must be ramrod straight before the attack,
>before its considered an attack, then attacks will fail much more
>often as the blade will be picked up.

When someone maintains their arm ramrod straight absolutlely all the time, (A.
they are really go ing to have a hard time hitting very much, and B.) it's a
little hard to discern exactly WHEN they are initiating an attack, since they
can no longer extend their arm: it kind of puts them in terminal preparation,
until they actually lunge, or actually hit.

>This type of interpretation MAY, i say MAY, create longer
>phrases...which i think will be beautiful, but disastrous since a
>great deal of referees cannot seem to follow whats happening
>currently.

Well, that MAY just be your perception...

The word MOST people lose track of is CONTINUOUS threat: a threat that is
DIS-continuous does not maintain its priority.
Ideally, you want your attack to be more and more threatening as time (very
quickly) goes by,
(i.e. if your opponent were to continue their movement, but not actually
parry, you would need less, and less, time to actually do an action that would
hit them),
You DON'T want to decrease that threat by withdrawing your hand*, if it means
that your final action will now take longer to accomplish, the threat is now
decreasing, and not very continuous.
*(likewise the point, but that's a little more of a gray area, since you can
move the point pretty fast, although many people over do that, as well...)

In addition, you are allowed to deliver an attack with advance-lunge, so a stop
hit must land before the beginning of the final action of the attack to be
valid.

However, all of this is relies on the ASSumption that you have priority to
begin with, which many people do not actually have, despite their
protestations;
You can't assume that you have the attack, and use this rule to prove that your
opponent has an invalid stop-thrust, so therefore you have a valid attack!
That's circular logic, and it just doesn't wash! I don't care how loud you
shout about, A. it's wrong, and B. I can shout louder, anyway!

>Is this debate going on elsewhere in the world....?

Just a little -
The rules on the attack, and priority really haven't changed that much in 20
years, or so; only one or two interpretations have (regarding point-in-line);
mostly, the confusion stems from the fact that various groups of people will
agree on things, but this agreement will have a trend; and actions of a certain
sort will be increasingly allowed/disallowed; yet the people in the group are
still aggreeing with each other; until they don't, or until the whole group
needs correction, and are (corrected); this sometimes gets interpreted as a
rules change, but it's really not ; this occurs in various waves of ebbing and
flowing: people who have more moderate interpretations of things

> What does the FIE think about this?

Just a little -

> Does it even matter?

Just a little -

>So confuzzled.

I am afraid you will have to get used to it!

>magni
>
>PS: Personally i think it obvious who the attacker is. Just find the
>person whos retreating and or attempting to parry. thats the defender
>right? the person then opposing him must be attacking, thusly he has
>priority. Silly i know...but there ya go.

Silly, and WRONG!
Circular logic! - See above!
This is way people get confused! See above!
This is why people often think the rules have changed! See above!

Often the person retreating IS being attacked, and often the person advancing
is, or ends up attacking, but that by no means can that be generalized into a
decision rule:
If someone is retreating, and withdrawing their arm, NO, they are NOT
attacking, however, that doens't imply that there opponent IS attacking; often,
NO ONE is attacking! Even when they are both moving in the same direction!

Let me introduce you to a concept called maneuvering! It by no means requires
attacking.

Yes, it's all relative, and many people fall into a defensive mode and invite
an attack, but you must always look at the timing of both people's actions, and
you must determine who the attacker is by using the definition of attack!

You should spend a little more time observing experienced fencers and referees,
until you can tell the difference.

In the meantime, enjoy fencing!
In article <Xns9438C0E6296A5439754hjkgfdjio5408@216.196.97.13 6>, "Holly E.
Ordway" <OUTordwayWITHTHIS@comcast.net> writes:

>(Like I said, this is all in reference to sabre, not foil.)
>
>--Holly
Yes, but everything you said applies to foil!

But, as usual, Dirk says it better than me!
;-)