Discussion arising from Bill Oliver's comments

[pkt]

Discussion arising from Bill Oliver's comments re
[U][B]Right of Way with Retreat
Which can be read here:
http://www.fencing101.com/content/view/42/31/

This is the response and the ensuing discussion between me and Morgan arising from my disseminating the above comments from Bill Oliver.

Your consideration, contribution to this discussion and our education in refing is much appreciated.

FYI, Morgan has [Cdn] N [National] ref ranking for foil and epee. I have N for Foil & sabre, P [provincial] for epee.

PK

==)---------

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

[From Morgan]

False! Consider the cases:

Case 1: attack vs. counter-attack
Case 2: attack vs. riposte
Case 3: attack vs. line
Case 4: attack vs. stop-hit in time
Case 5: preparation of attack vs. derobement/attack into the preparation

Only in Case 1 does the retreating fencer not have the priority.

..... Morgan


pkt wrote:

You're taking a quotation out of context.
Bill Oliver's point was that "When both fencers start a simultaneous action with one going forward and one going back..." using a favourite economist term "...with all thing being held equal"...
I appreciate the rebuttal.

PK

[From Morgan]

No, my context is fine. The question being addressed (the follow-up question, part way down) is how can a retreating fencer convince the ref that he had the priority, in spite of the fact that he is retreating?

Bill's follow-up answer is
(1) this action doesn't happen, and
(2) a retreating fencer cannot have the priority.
Both points are wrong - it happens all the time (attack vs. stop-hit), and retreating fencers can convince the ref they have priority using any of the techniques I mentioned. Bill has answered the question under the presumption that the fencer is doing nothing other than some vague "threatening actions with the blade" -- and even then he is interpreting it a bit too strictly (since derobements and stop-hits fit this description).

Your quote to restore the context is missing its context, however ;-) The fuller quote is "All things being equal, the advancing fencer has the advantage. The onus of action falls on the retreating fencer to create something." Which is completely true. And the conventional ways to "create something" in this situation are (1) parry, (2) derobement, (3) line, or (4) stop-hit in time.

..... Morgan

==)---------


__________________

[jeff]

I think they may not be responding to the same scenarios. In the initial question to Oliver, both fencers extend and eventually hit, eliminating the ROW-changing actions of riposte, derobe, etc., that Morgan lists.

Oliver says his general rule and then cites exceptions to it, so he's not stating that retreating guarantees losing ROW. It's also not clear (to me at least) if his answers to the followup are still in the context of "both retreating and advancing fencers extended their arms".

It's possible that the two directors, given a chance to illustrate what they were talking about (instead of try to do it via typed descriptions) might just say "Oh, that's what you meant. Sure."

[Craig]

All of Bill's answer was referring to the initial question:

On the command fence, both fencers start extending...one moving forward one moving backwards. Both end up hitting valid. Who's touch?

To bring in situations around stop-hits, riposts, etc are to bring in things that take the answer out of it's context.

Craig

[pkt]

Craig,

I agree with you.

PK

[nahouw]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pkt

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

[From Morgan]

False! Consider the cases:

Case 1: attack vs. counter-attack
Case 2: attack vs. riposte
Case 3: attack vs. line
Case 4: attack vs. stop-hit in time
Case 5: preparation of attack vs. derobement/attack into the preparation

Only in Case 1 does the retreating fencer not have the priority.

..... Morgan

Morgan is absolutely right here -- and I even proved his scenarios out during a pool bout in WE World Cup in San Juan.

It is very interesting that Bill Oliver says that in nearly all cases that a retreating fencer cannot have priority. It is more than weapon positiion and aggresiveness that fencing is about -- that is what counter-time is about -- the ability to provoke your oppponet. The best fencers were always artisans of this, but, nowadays, these fencers are discarded and rejected by the community.

There is an Intellectual component that people have been missing in the thrust to make our sport appear as a sport, Luckily, since I impose the same tactics as in foil as in epee, it is seen more effective in epee which is the true nature of our sport.

[DHCJr]

nahouw

You might look at what Craig stated above, before you say that Bill Oliver is wrong. He was not talking about any of those situations.

[pkt]

Originally posted by nahouw

Originally posted by pkt

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

[From Morgan]

False! Consider the cases:

Case 1: attack vs. counter-attack
Case 2: attack vs. riposte
Case 3: attack vs. line
Case 4: attack vs. stop-hit in time
Case 5: preparation of attack vs. derobement/attack into the preparation

Only in Case 1 does the retreating fencer not have the priority.

..... Morgan

Morgan is absolutely right here -- and I even proved his scenarios out during a pool bout in WE World Cup in San Juan.

It is very interesting that Bill Oliver says that in nearly all cases that a retreating fencer cannot have priority. It is more than weapon positiion and aggresiveness that fencing is about -- that is what counter-time is about -- the ability to provoke your oppponet. The best fencers were always artisans of this, but, nowadays, these fencers are discarded and rejected by the community.

There is an Intellectual component that people have been missing in the thrust to make our sport appear as a sport, Luckily, since I impose the same tactics as in foil as in epee, it is seen more effective in epee which is the true nature of our sport. [/B]

nahouw,

As I wrote to Morgan: "You're taking a quotation out of context."

PK