"According to Wittgenstein, philosophical problems arise when language is forced from its proper home into a metaphysical environment, where all the familiar and necessary landmarks and contextual clues are removed." You really need to understand that so we can move on. Familiar and necessary landmarks and contextual clues are : - Definition of what is an attack in the fencing context (that's the convention), - There is the logic of fencing (Try to touch without being touched), - "Réglement" (convention based and not common rules) . Your new familiar, landmarks and contextual are : How FIE referee do. That's not an argument. Because we don't care how they do, we care about why (but you don't) . But when language of fencing is forced from its proper home from FIE referee into their metaphysical logic (that's nobody really sure). We got problems. Some attacks are no more attacks, so some counter-attacks definition based on attack are no more counter-attacks. Some beats of blade are now parries. Some fentes without arm and weapon are now attacks... etc We don't talk about the same thing... Definition on what we are talking about, is crucial. (ex : When i talk about the rules, i don't talk about common rules. When i talk about convention, i don't talk about common rules) And you talk about attack with body and legs, you talk about fencing with incentives to make your opponent attack yourself before go, you talk about foil priority without talk about arm and weapon. That's the main difference, that's where is the problem. And if you even read and understand wittgenstein, that's an easy problem compare to some phisolophical problem.