when does an attack end?

[gofence]

I would be grateful for everybody's opinions on the question of when does an attack end - because some referees here in rainy Scotland are taking different views on the matter.

What I am talking about is the following scenario:

Fencer A attacks and lunges but Fencer B retreats so that the attack by fencer A is short. Fencer A then stays on the lunge with the sword arm extended. After avoiding the initial attack Fencer B launches an attack and both fencers register hits.

Now some referees (lets call them Camp B) give the hit to Fencer B on the basis that fencer A has lost ROW because Fencer B avoided the attack and that ROW is then transfered to the attack of Fencer B. Other referees (Camp A) call it as hit for fencer A on the basis that fencer A still has a straight sword arm threatening the target of fencer B.

I have heard that this scenario is refereed differently depending on which country you are in. So:
- is there any truth to this tale?
- and how is it generally presided in the US?


Alex

[GGK]

Your attack is short -your attack is over. Failed. It is now the other guys turn.
A short attack does not immediately transform into a point in line. That requires a full tempo.

[The0ne]

what GGK said. . .

[Jarentz]

This is copied from the USFA Referee's handbook
looks clear to me like the decision would be for the point-in-line;
(example #3 at the end)

from what I read online it seems even international referees are split on this one...

"The Point In Line
The point in line exists as the highest level of priority. If it is established correctly, the opponent must avoid it, remove it, or have the fencer with the point in line to no longer have the point in line.

A point in line exists when a fencer has the following conditions met prior to an opponent’s attack:

Ø weapon arm fully extended

Ø a straight line from the point of the weapon to the shoulder

Ø point aimed at valid target

Ø no movement of the blade except to derobe the opponent’s attempt to find the blade

Ø is standing still, moving forward, or moving back.


The other is that it isn't what one person does that makes an action an attack. The attack is defined by what both fencers do in relationship to each other. Here is an example. In a foil bout between Mary and Sue, Mary lunges while extending her arm. Her arm is fully extended just before her forward foot hits the ground. What fencing action has Mary done? Here are three possibilities:

1 If Sue was immobile, in lunge distance, and in the On Guard position, Mary made an attack.

2 If, just before Mary started, Sue lunged while extending her arm, Mary made a counter attack.

3 If Sue was immobile, beyond lunge distance, and in the On Guard position, Mary established a point in line."

[Wizardly]

Case 1:
Attack A no, immediate riposte B yes, remise A yes
Touch B

Case 2A1:
Attack A no, delayed riposte B yes, line A yes
Touch A

Case 2A2:
Attack A no, delayed ripose B yes, line A, unnecessary attempt to deceive A, line A yes
Touch B

Case 2B:
Attack A no, remise/redouble/reprise A yes, delayed riposte B yes
Touch A

Case 3A:
Line A (out of advance-lunge distance), attack B yes, line A yes (irregardless of advances, retreats, or standing still)
Touch A

Case 3B (pop quiz):
Line A (correctly established), attack B yes, lunge A yes
Question: is this attack B counter attack A (touch B), or is this line A attack B (touch A)?

There really isn't much confusion towards the higher levels (that I've noticed).

[edew]

Jim is correct in that what it really depends on is what fencer B did. If there is a pause or tempo between the end of A's attack (and immediately establishment of the PIL) and the initiation of B's "riposte", then A's PIL has tempo, by definition from the situation. If B makes an immediate counter-offensive action, then B has started his riposte in tempo, and so A's PIL is not in time.

It's up to the referee to decide whether there was a break in tempo. The prevailing point of view, by the way, is that the tempo should be dictated by B so that if B retreats fast and has to downshift to R3 to neutral, and then upshift to first, then second, then third gear, all that is part of B's single effort to make the immediate riposte, and so is part of his one tempo. B is not required to stop on a dime and make the change in direction and speed off forward based on any chronological device.

In a nutshell (maybe O'Reilly should publish a book on this...), it could be for camp B or camp A, depending on how smoothly B transitions from avoiding the attack to commencing his own.

On the flipside, because there is no chronological device to measure tempo, any slight hesitation by B will, can, and should be considered by the referee as a break in the single tempo and thus breaking B's riposte into a two- (or multi-) tempo action. In that case, it would be valid and acceptable (and indeed, desirable) that A's PIL then regains priority.

[Victor]

When she gets tired of yelling at you and goes to bed.
Or you apologize.

[sloper]

A few years ago, a touch happened exactly as you describe in the top 16 of a Div I NAC in men's foil. I don't remember what call was made or who made it, but I do remember that I've never seen the top US refs so honestly divided by an action. Everyone agreed exactly with what happened, but half thought it was point in line and half thought (distance) parry riposte. I think it came down to whether a director believed in distance parries in foil. If the action is two attacks, then you lean toward line because the line was up before the second attack started. If, however, you believe that the first attack was parried, then the Fencer B has a right to a (n immediate) riposte that preempts the established line.
For what it's worth, I think now that more foil directors are calling distance parries and short attacks like in sabre, so I bet that the call would more likely be for Fencer B today.

Susan

[labouche]

The attack ends when the front foot hits the ground on your lunge. After that the point in line depends on whether the retreating fencer attacks immediately or hesitates, in which case it could be PiL for the attacking fencer.
-la bouche

[angrylemur]

Originally posted by labouche
The attack ends when the front foot hits the ground on your lunge. After that the point in line depends on whether the retreating fencer attacks immediately or hesitates, in which case it could be PiL for the attacking fencer.
-la bouche

I don't know if the weapon was specified anywhere, but I want to make sure everybody knows that this is only a sabre rule.

In saber, attack no, then action from the other side (the best way I've heard this called is simply "second attack, touch") touch, and then the remise or counterattack, depending on how you analyse the action.

In foil, I am unsure on it because the rules are not perfectly clear. There is technically no such thing as a "distance parry", even though it is a very common term, and in most cases makes actions much easier to call. However, think the fencer who is running into the other guy's point should be considered at fault. The point was never taken out of line, and although one could argue that there was a "distance parry", I see no such term in the rule book, nor do I see anything that says the attacker can EVER ignore a point in line.

My way of thinking is, if it's obvious that so many referees have conflicting views on it (and it is, in your case), just take the bloody blade and hit the guy. Nobody can argue that your croisé wasn't in time. Likely that nobody would even argue a quick tap with counter six and a flick to the shoulder, as long as you make blade contact.

So rather than worry about whether or not the judge is going to give it to you if you make that attack, why not just make it a beat-attack instead and save yourself the trouble.

[labouche]

Originally posted by angrylemur
I don't know if the weapon was specified anywhere, but I want to make sure everybody knows that this is only a sabre rule.

In saber, attack no, then action from the other side (the best way I've heard this called is simply "second attack, touch") touch, and then the remise or counterattack, depending on how you analyse the action.

In foil, I am unsure on it because the rules are not perfectly clear. There is technically no such thing as a "distance parry", even though it is a very common term, and in most cases makes actions much easier to call. However, think the fencer who is running into the other guy's point should be considered at fault. The point was never taken out of line, and although one could argue that there was a "distance parry", I see no such term in the rule book, nor do I see anything that says the attacker can EVER ignore a point in line.

My way of thinking is, if it's obvious that so many referees have conflicting views on it (and it is, in your case), just take the bloody blade and hit the guy. Nobody can argue that your croisé wasn't in time. Likely that nobody would even argue a quick tap with counter six and a flick to the shoulder, as long as you make blade contact.

So rather than worry about whether or not the judge is going to give it to you if you make that attack, why not just make it a beat-attack instead and save yourself the trouble.

In that regards foil is the same as sabre. Once your front foot hits the ground your attack has ended.
-la bouche

[angrylemur]

Hmm.. you may be right, can you post a rule for clarification?

I know that there specifically is one in sabre, although I didn't know there was one in foil.

[sloper]

In that regards foil is the same as sabre. Once your front foot hits the ground your attack has ended.

The rule about a correctly executed attack "arriv[ing] at the latest when the front foot touches the strip" rule only appears in the sabre conventions in the USFA rules (t75). It's not in the corresponding foil conventions section (t56).

Susan