Right of way

[Harold Buck]

So, as I think I may have mentioned, I moved from the Twin Cities to
Indianapolis over the summer. This meant that I had to give up my
ten-year high school coaching job. I decided I'd try the local fencing
club to improve my skills and maybe eventually to get back into coaching.

I just got back, and mostly I had a good experience: nice club, friendly
people. However, I got into a disagreement over what I will politely
term an "interesting" interpretation of right of way (specifically for
foil, although the same argument could theoretically be had for saber).

Here's the interpretation:

"If you start extending your arm threatening target first, you have
right of way . . ."

[I have no argument with this so far.]

". . . and once you have right of way, you can't lose it by withdrawing
your arm. You can pump your arm back and forth all you want without
losing right of way; that's just a compund attack. The rules don't say
you lose right of way for withdrawing your arm, and this is the way it
gets called at all the tournaments."

I made a number of arguments, but this person was adamant. So, what's
the best rebuttal of this? [Yes, I could look in the rules myself, but
the traffic here has been so lame lately I thought I'd post here first
and see what people had to say.] Rule cites would be *greatly*
appreciated.

Thanks!

--Harold Buck


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

[Bryan J. Maloney]

Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> nattered on thusnews:no_one_knows-
BAC391.23430408012004@comcast.ash.giganews.com:

> I made a number of arguments, but this person was adamant. So, what's
> the best rebuttal of this?

Can't help you. All my arguments would presume the Classical
interpretation.

[Joseph Haig]

Harold Buck wrote:

> So, as I think I may have mentioned, I moved from the Twin Cities to
> Indianapolis over the summer. This meant that I had to give up my
> ten-year high school coaching job. I decided I'd try the local fencing
> club to improve my skills and maybe eventually to get back into coaching.
>
> I just got back, and mostly I had a good experience: nice club, friendly
> people. However, I got into a disagreement over what I will politely
> term an "interesting" interpretation of right of way (specifically for
> foil, although the same argument could theoretically be had for saber).
>
> Here's the interpretation:
>
> "If you start extending your arm threatening target first, you have
> right of way . . ."
>
> [I have no argument with this so far.]
>
> ". . . and once you have right of way, you can't lose it by withdrawing
> your arm. You can pump your arm back and forth all you want without
> losing right of way; that's just a compund attack. The rules don't say
> you lose right of way for withdrawing your arm, and this is the way it
> gets called at all the tournaments."
>
> I made a number of arguments, but this person was adamant. So, what's
> the best rebuttal of this? [Yes, I could look in the rules myself, but
> the traffic here has been so lame lately I thought I'd post here first
> and see what people had to say.] Rule cites would be *greatly*
> appreciated.
>

Seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about what comprises a compound
attack:

> t.56
> 2. The compound attack (cf. t.8) is correctly executed when the arm is
> straightened in the presentation of the first feint, with the point
> threatening the valid target, and the arm is not bent during the
> successive actions of the attack and the initiation of the lunge or the
> flèche.

Which part of "the arm is not bent" is so confusing to your friend? ;-)

[Andrew John]

Harold,

According to USFA 2002 rev C your opponent does not have a leg to stand on
- unless they have a cooperative referee:

t.55 "The Referee alone decides as to the validity or priority of the touch by applying
the following basic rules which are the conventions applicable to foil fencing."

( I like that one - the referee is right. Full Stop - So depending on who is doing the
preciding at these tournaments pretty much anything goes ? )

t.56 2. though, is pretty clear:

"The compound attack 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 fleche"

So if it is allowed to be only extending in the first feint ( rather than completely straight ),
the only way (without dislocations) to stop it from subsequently bending is to keep
extending / straightening it, or at least keep the elbow stationary. And t 56 4. Rules that out:

"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)."

In sabre it's even easier to debunk:

t.75 " ... the point or the cutting edge continuously threatening the valid target ...."

No pumping there.

I think the rules can be summarised: "If the attack is not paryable then it is not an attack"
Arm bent, arm back, wild cutovers or disengages, blade completely out of line...
- they all amount to attempts to hit, without your opponent being "allowed" to parry,
or otherwise start an action of their own. That's not a sport - thats a firing squad.

Regards
AJ


"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:no_one_knows-BAC391.23430408012004@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> So, as I think I may have mentioned, I moved from the Twin Cities to
> Indianapolis over the summer. This meant that I had to give up my
> ten-year high school coaching job. I decided I'd try the local fencing
> club to improve my skills and maybe eventually to get back into coaching.
>
> I just got back, and mostly I had a good experience: nice club, friendly
> people. However, I got into a disagreement over what I will politely
> term an "interesting" interpretation of right of way (specifically for
> foil, although the same argument could theoretically be had for saber).
>
> Here's the interpretation:
>
> "If you start extending your arm threatening target first, you have
> right of way . . ."
>
> [I have no argument with this so far.]
>
> ". . . and once you have right of way, you can't lose it by withdrawing
> your arm. You can pump your arm back and forth all you want without
> losing right of way; that's just a compund attack. The rules don't say
> you lose right of way for withdrawing your arm, and this is the way it
> gets called at all the tournaments."
>
> I made a number of arguments, but this person was adamant. So, what's
> the best rebuttal of this? [Yes, I could look in the rules myself, but
> the traffic here has been so lame lately I thought I'd post here first
> and see what people had to say.] Rule cites would be *greatly*
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson

[Bryan J. Maloney]

"Andrew John" <aj@DELETEmistrose.com> nattered on
thusnews:3ffe97dc@duster.adelaide.on.net:

> "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)."

Doesn't that contradict the whole "extending and NOT extended arm gives
right of way" thing?

[Harold Buck]

In article <3ffe97dc@duster.adelaide.on.net>,
"Andrew John" <aj@DELETEmistrose.com> wrote:

>
> t.56 2. though, is pretty clear:
>
> "The compound attack 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 fleche"
>
> So if it is allowed to be only extending in the first feint ( rather than
> completely straight ),
> the only way (without dislocations) to stop it from subsequently bending is
> to keep
> extending / straightening it, or at least keep the elbow stationary. And t
> 56 4. Rules that out:
>
> "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)."
>


Yeah, that's pretty much it. It also refutes his claim that the term
"preparation" is not in the rulebook and that it's something that people
made up.

--Harold Buck


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

[Andrew John]

"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote that
> "Andrew John" <aj@DELETEmistrose.com> nattered:
>
> > "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)."
>
> Doesn't that contradict the whole "extending and NOT extended arm gives
> right of way" thing?
>

Yes, I agree t56 contradicts t55 if you don't allow a straightening arm to be considered "unbent".
- in which case the only way to get and keep right of way, in a compound atttack satisfying both rules,
is with a completely straight arm after the first feint.

So our acceptable interpretation is already giving greater lattitude to the attack, than strictly speaking
the rules allow.

[gary hayenga]

Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> "Andrew John" <aj@DELETEmistrose.com> nattered on
> thusnews:3ffe97dc@duster.adelaide.on.net:
>
>
>>"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)."
>
>
> Doesn't that contradict the whole "extending and NOT extended arm gives
> right of way" thing?

No, because here 'bent' is a verb not a noun, as in 'he bent his arm',
which means if the arm is being withdrawn then it is an action executed
with a bent arm and is not considered an attack but as a preparation.

If the arm is still extending then it is not being bent.

gary hayenga

[Bryan J. Maloney]

"Andrew John" <aj@DELETEmistrose.com> nattered on
thusnews:3fff2794@duster.adelaide.on.net:

>
> "Bryan J. Maloney" wrote that
>> "Andrew John" <aj@DELETEmistrose.com> nattered:
>>
>> > "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)."
>>
>> Doesn't that contradict the whole "extending and NOT extended arm
>> gives right of way" thing?
>>
>
> Yes, I agree t56 contradicts t55 if you don't allow a straightening
> arm to be considered "unbent".

It isn't unbent, it may be in the process of becoming unbent, but it is
still bent.

[Bryan J. Maloney]

gary hayenga <vandg@speakeasy.org> nattered on thusnews:W--
dnV10xKf0oGKiRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net:

> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>> "Andrew John" <aj@DELETEmistrose.com> nattered on
>> thusnews:3ffe97dc@duster.adelaide.on.net:
>>
>>
>>>"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)."
>>
>>
>> Doesn't that contradict the whole "extending and NOT extended arm gives
>> right of way" thing?
>
> No, because here 'bent' is a verb not a noun, as in 'he bent his arm',

You don't speak English, do you? It is an ADJECTIVE in this case,
specifically "a bent arm". It does not say "an arm in the process of
being further bent" or "a bending arm".

Such magnificent dishonesty on your part.

[Harold Buck]

In article <Xns946BC5E77E88Cdogfaceinsightbbcom@206.141.193.3 2>,
"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote:

> gary hayenga <vandg@speakeasy.org> nattered on thusnews:W--
> dnV10xKf0oGKiRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net:
>
> > Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> >> "Andrew John" <aj@DELETEmistrose.com> nattered on
> >> thusnews:3ffe97dc@duster.adelaide.on.net:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"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)."
> >>
> >>
> >> Doesn't that contradict the whole "extending and NOT extended arm gives
> >> right of way" thing?
> >
> > No, because here 'bent' is a verb not a noun, as in 'he bent his arm',
>
> You don't speak English, do you? It is an ADJECTIVE in this case,
> specifically "a bent arm". It does not say "an arm in the process of
> being further bent" or "a bending arm".

Yes, he meant adjective, not a noun, but you don't need to be a jackass
about it. People on this NG tend to be a bit more civil than on other
ones.

And I think what he meant when he said "'bent' is a verb" is not
referring to the quoted passage, but to the statement "the arm can't be
bent during an attack" (that's not a quote from the rules, but a general
statement people tend to make). He's saying that here "bent" doesn't
play the role of an adjective (i.e., meaning it has to be fully
extended), but instead it plays the role of a verb (i.e., you can't bend
it while you're attacking).

I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but just explaining his argument.

> Such magnificent dishonesty on your part.

As I said, there's no need to be a jackass about this sort of thing.
Just because you don't understand what he's talking about doesn't mean
that he's a liar.

Oh, BTW, there are a LOT of people who speak English who couldn't find
an adjective in this big, green, long, interesting sentence.


--Harold Buck


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

[William Marshal]

Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote


> Yes, he meant adjective, not a noun, but you don't need to be a jackass
> about it. People on this NG tend to be a bit more civil than on other
> ones.
>
> As I said, there's no need to be a jackass about this sort of thing.
> Just because you don't understand what he's talking about doesn't mean
> that he's a liar.


Heh, you must be unfamiliar with Bryan's, er, "style". "Jackass" is
his accustomed idiom...

[Simon Summerfield]

"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
>
> gary hayenga <vandg@speakeasy.org> nattered on thusnews:W--
> dnV10xKf0oGKiRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net:
>
> > Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> >> "Andrew John" <aj@DELETEmistrose.com> nattered on
> >> thusnews:3ffe97dc@duster.adelaide.on.net:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"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)."
> >>
> >>
> >> Doesn't that contradict the whole "extending and NOT extended arm gives
> >> right of way" thing?
> >
> > No, because here 'bent' is a verb not a noun, as in 'he bent his arm',
>
> You don't speak English, do you? It is an ADJECTIVE in this case,
> specifically "a bent arm". It does not say "an arm in the process of
> being further bent" or "a bending arm".

Christ...here we go again... :-)

What it actually says is "actions...which are executed with a bent arm",
meaning starts AND FINISHES with a bent arm. Forget nouns, verbs,
adjectives or whatever, we are talking transition of time - states before
and after a given action is performed. If the action finishes with a
fully extended arm, it was NOT executed with a bent arm.

Had the rule stated "actions...which are executed STARTING with a bent
arm", that would be a different matter, but that's not what it says.
Simon.

[Andrew John]

So you are saying that if I magically make a compound attack,
consisting of a dizzying array of disengages, with a gradually
extending arm, which evade my dazzled openent's ever more frantic
attempts to find the blade, after which he nefariously stop hits me
before the final action deftly undoes his cravat, that you would give
the point against me?

For shame you epeeist you !

Regards
AJ

"Simon Summerfield" <simonrs@unimelb.edu.au> wrote in message news:4001D79F.DDAB8DAC@unimelb.edu.au...

>
> Christ...here we go again... :-)
>
> What it actually says is "actions...which are executed with a bent arm",
> meaning starts AND FINISHES with a bent arm. Forget nouns, verbs,
> adjectives or whatever, we are talking transition of time - states before
> and after a given action is performed. If the action finishes with a
> fully extended arm, it was NOT executed with a bent arm.
>
> Had the rule stated "actions...which are executed STARTING with a bent
> arm", that would be a different matter, but that's not what it says.
> Simon.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:36:29 +1100
Andrew John <aj@DELETEmistrose.com> wrote:
> So you are saying that if I magically make a compound attack,
> consisting of a dizzying array of disengages, with a gradually
> extending arm, which evade my dazzled openent's ever more frantic
> attempts to find the blade, after which he nefariously stop hits me
> before the final action deftly undoes his cravat, that you would give
> the point against me?

If your distance is bad enough that you hit that cravat while your arm
is still bent, then you deserve all you get.

(Such as missing it....)

Zebee

[Dirk Goldgar]

"Andrew John" <aj@DELETEmistrose.com> wrote in message
news:40026a9b$1@duster.adelaide.on.net
> So you are saying that if I magically make a compound attack,
> consisting of a dizzying array of disengages, with a gradually
> extending arm, which evade my dazzled openent's ever more frantic
> attempts to find the blade, after which he nefariously stop hits me
> before the final action deftly undoes his cravat, that you would give
> the point against me?

Not that I have any real interest in these semantic quibbles, nor do I
think that's what Simon meant, but I'll stir the pot and point out that
if your dazzled opponent sticks his arm out and hits you before you
*begin* that final action that "deftly undoes his cravat", the point
most definitely should be given against you. Right of way would then be
irrelevant, as the opponent's stop hit would be in time.

--

Dirk Goldgar

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

[Simon Summerfield]

Andrew John wrote:
>
> So you are saying that if I magically make a compound attack,
> consisting of a dizzying array of disengages, with a gradually
> extending arm, which evade my dazzled openent's ever more frantic
> attempts to find the blade, after which he nefariously stop hits me
> before the final action deftly undoes his cravat, that you would give
> the point against me?

Ummmm - trying to decipher what you wrote there - if your opponent's
stop hit lands *BEFORE* your final action begins, it is in time and
it should be your opponents point (as Dirk has already pointed out).

But if during the compound attack your opponent looks for a parry,
your opponent has no rights (unless they meet your blade) and you
are perfectly justified in changing your line and completing the
attack with full right of way.

"Actions...which are executed with a bent arm...": Your entire
compound attack is not a single action. Only the final step-lunge
is a single action...all steps before the final step-lunge are a
separate action in themselves and therefore (if done with a bent
arm) are preparations which leave themselves open for the
possibility of a stop hit or counter-action being in time. But the
stop hit can *never* be in time if your final step-lunge has started.

Hope that's clear now. :-)
Simon.