Intent

[gojujay]

Taken from the Golubitsky interview


"Another problem is that there are 3 types (styles) of refereeing, when there should be only one. Here are these types: 1.German-Italian (when referee gives right of way to a fencer who started to move forward first); 2.French (when referee gives right of way to the fencer who really intends to attack); "


How do you really determine intent? Could not a move forward just be an intent to draw an attack or reaction. Some people say that ANY move is an opportunity to attack, any thoughts?

My intent with this post is to see what people think

[jeff]

Hmmm... There's this old idea, a little passé these days, something about extending the arm that used to be used as the indication of an attack.

[The0ne]

that is SOOOO 1980's!!!

[onesandzeros]

Hmm... Refs...Directing, that was one of the reasons I picked up epee.

The other? I needed a second weapon to suck at

[Tireur]

that is SOOOO 1980's!!!

80s, hell, it went out in the 80s. That's when all the "that's the way they call it in europe" started........

God, I miss it. Rules meant something then.

Before everyone starts, I got no problem with calling it any certain way. Just change the rules to reflect the way you're calling it.

[Tireur]

Hmm... Refs...Directing, that was one of the reasons I picked up epee.

Don't for a minute think a bad director can't screw you in epee.

[edew]

Originally posted by The0ne
that is SOOOO 1980's!!!

I don't think you want to use the 1980s as an example of fencers extending their arms to gain right of way.

Just recall all the TCFC folks like MJ O'Neill, Molly Sullivan, et al., who make their attacks with the blades pointed at their back toe.

I would say that fencers now do more extending than in the 1980s.

[GGK]

Originally posted by gojujay
How do you really determine intent?

If you watch you can see the intent of a fencer. Whether they are committed to an attack or if they not fully committed to their attack.
It looks different.

[The0ne]

well I'm 15, the phrase "the 80's" just means really old!

[Tireur]

well I'm 15, the phrase "the 80's" just means really old!

Why you!!! I'll dance on your grave, you little whippersnapper!!

[The0ne]

=) At least I can say I was born in the 80's!

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by gojujay
Taken from the Golubitsky interview


"Another problem is that there are 3 types (styles) of refereeing, when there should be only one. Here are these types: 1.German-Italian (when referee gives right of way to a fencer who started to move forward first); 2.French (when referee gives right of way to the fencer who really intends to attack); "


How do you really determine intent? Could not a move forward just be an intent to draw an attack or reaction. Some people say that ANY move is an opportunity to attack, any thoughts?

My intent with this post is to see what people think

Hey....that's two styles, what's the third?
By the rules?

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by Tireur
Before everyone starts, I got no problem with calling it any certain way. Just change the rules to reflect the way you're calling it.

Hear, hear!

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by GGK
If you watch you can see the intent of a fencer. Whether they are committed to an attack or if they not fully committed to their attack.
It looks different.

Huh?....seems to me that if you have two lights they were both committed to thier attack.

No, seems to me that the person that is attacking is the guy with his weapon extending with the tip pointed at, and moving toward, his opponent's torso first. Pretty hard to say that he doesn't intend to attack.

[The0ne]

you can get half-hearted touches that don't really take right of way. . . To figure this kind of thing out you need to actually direct, not read the rulebook a hundred times.

[Tireur]

To figure this kind of thing out you need to actually direct, not read the rulebook a hundred times.

Maybe not a hundred times......But, I would advise reading it. Otherwise you get stuck in that "well, he was advancing so he must have been attacking fallacy.

People confuse advancing with attacking. It looks aggressive, so it must be. Even armies advance without attacking, sometimes.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Tireur
80s, hell, it went out in the 80s. That's when all the "that's the way they call it in europe" started........

God, I miss it. Rules meant something then.

Before everyone starts, I got no problem with calling it any certain way. Just change the rules to reflect the way you're calling it.

The rules as they are written are open to interpretation.

For instance DaninMI writes:

No, seems to me that the person that is attacking is the guy with his weapon extending with the tip pointed at, and moving toward, his opponent's torso first.

In this succinct summation, he interprets the words written in the rule book.

The rules say the point needs to 'threatening' not 'point[ing] at.' Threatening is open to interpretation. Obviously, through DaninMI's comment we can infer that he believes that the point has to be pointing at the target to be considered an attack. The FIE and national refs have a different interpretation of threatening. Taken as a stand alone interpretation, neither is wrong, but in the context of sport fencing, one has to acknowledge the head organizations interpretations and not one's own.

I don't know if it would be possible to rewrite the rules so that only one interpretation is possible. I mean just look at lawyers. The US has a very good reason to make the laws as clear as possible, yet lawyers routinely argue and interpret the law differently.

It would of course be possible to narrow the interpretations possible.

Besides, Golubitsky acknowledges the different styles of refs. He's not the only one who noticed this. It's not that difficult to stay current and know how the rules are applied. The difficult part is training a wide variety of moves, and knowing when to use them.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

I want to know the third type also. But I'll go with by the book, hand extending, 135 degree angle etc. over "intent". Plus I don't like intent calls because they usually hurt me more than they help me.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]
I want to know the third type also. But I'll go with by the book, hand extending, 135 degree angle etc. over "intent". Plus I don't like intent calls because they usually hurt me more than they help me.

2 things:

1) Sabre's different than foil

2) People! Read the interview with Golubitsky if you want to know the three types! The third type is not important for the discussion of intent.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

1.)Fine, so I listed some sabre rules....


But I'll go with by the book,insert foil rules for establishing and maintaining an attack over "intent". Plus I don't like intent calls because they usually hurt me more than they help me.


2.) I'm still curious, lol...and lazy. And since you've obivously read the interview...wanna help me out?