changes to priorty interpretation?

Discussion in 'Rules and Referee Questions' started by anton_fairfax, Nov 12, 2018.

  1. fenceart

    fenceart Made the Cut

    Joined:
    May 14, 2011
    Messages:
    92
    Location:
    florida
    . I would not argue that playing to the director is
    new—the evidence, including my own competitive experiences, suggests otherwise—but the
    inconsistencies in the rules and established fencing theory have some coaches focusing more on
    how to win than on how to fence.12 Sadly, there is often a dichotomy between fencing well and
    victory and that should not be.


    Very interesting and that pretty much sums it up. My coach tells me this. I love to engage with someone who wants the chess game no matter what the outcome. True, the object is to win... but I do not enjoy "fencing" with someone who has (for example as one move) that flick to the middle of the back down 100% and basically arrives, bored, to the strip, just to execute the 5 flicks and leave. It's not my loss that bothers me, it's that I didn't get to fence.
     
  2. ChrisL

    ChrisL DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    143
    Location:
    London
    To answer your question Anton:

    Everything that isn't an attack is preparation, by definition. Stops and hesitations are examples of gaps where an opponent can seize the right of way but aren't necessarily good examples of the Attack in Preparation being referred to here.

    A better description of the shift would be to calling more "attack in preparation against the march". That is to say calling attacks into a marching opponent a little more. That is not to say any random attack into a march is AiP. It still has to be well executed (without attempts to evade) and still has to be before the marching opponent begins their attack.

    A lot of the time whilst out of distance fencers will hold their hand back and then progress it if they feel the distance collapsing or the opponent change direction. If the opponent is able to change direction without this reaction they have the possibility of getting an attack into prep. The execution skill required for this action is very high and against high level opponents it is very difficult to achieve hence the rarity of the call.
    It is much easier to simply start your hand whilst marching forward than to change direction and execute an attack before that happens.

    A good rule of thumb to calling this is looking at the desire to finish. If the marching fencer is hit and then goes to finish they are often a tempo late, if they sensing the change of direction start their hand and finish with a relaxed bent arm then it is often still their attack.

    This is healthily balanced by the punishment of "attack no" being given if fencers start their hand too early, the gap here gives the opportunity for an opponent to seize priority. Ironically the one of the video sets shown in this thread demonstrates this very nicely.

    In the first video Garozzo starts his hand and as he does so Avola breaks distance, if he continued his attack he would have been easily parried so he pulls his hand back, his first attack stopped and there is an opportunity for Avola to attack. The phrase is: Attack right no, attack left touche, reprise right out of time.
    (Note this isn't attack in preparation, the stop is attack no, not preparation. I'm using this as an example of why people can't just progress their hand any time they want, doing too early = attack no. Too late = attack in prep.)

    [​IMG]

    In this second video Garozzo is continuous in his advance and finished cleanly with a relaxed arm. If Avola wanted AiP (which he almost definitely did not here) he probably would have used a similar action from a slightly wider distance to ensure he was ahead of Garozzo's step lunge.

    [​IMG]

    --

    Hope that helps, I'm not going to engage really with the rest of the irrational discussion. I'm an FIE referee myself and I can say that all my colleagues and especially the ones refereeing at GP level work extremely hard and hold themselves (and are held by coaches and fencers) to a high standard of calls.
    These calls are not in question, the whole body of International fencing across the world: Fencers, Coaches and Referees agree this is how fencing is called.
    Just because some are incapable of rationalising how these calls are made from the rule book does not mean the calls are incorrect and it is insulting/arrogant to suggest that everyone in the world doing fencing to a high level does not understand the game.
     
    anton_fairfax likes this.
  3. posineg

    posineg DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    331
    Location:
    Norwich, CT
    ... but at what point did FoR ever establish the attack?

    Are you saying some where back in the strip FoR clearly started a attack and then marched down the strip and finished a attack? How does FoR leaving advanced lunge distance play into the phrase... since there was at least two advances into FoL distance before the final attack?
     
  4. wwittman

    wwittman DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    278
    Gender:
    Male
    (Remember, I was an active international level fencer 40+ years ago, and I’m only recently returning to it... so bearing that in mind:)

    I do see it as problematic if fencing is taught, and REF’ed, at the “local” level differently than at the national or FIE levels.

    When I was young we trained with the assumption that we were ALL trying to be Olympic or internationally competitive fencers. (Even though that’s ultimately not realistic for many).
    But you’re not going to get the points or the attention to get there if the kind of actions required to BE there aren’t called in your favour on the WAY there (if that’s clear)

    I’m not sure if it’s true.
    But if it is, then I would think teaching, or calling, right of way in a way that it simply is NOT called in the major stage is a disservice to everyone. (Except the purists)
     
  5. wwittman

    wwittman DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    278
    Gender:
    Male
    FWIW (which isn't much!)

    I, with my out of date and rusty eyes, still see both those actions the same way you aptly explain them.



     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2019
  6. Malicia

    Malicia DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    108
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    France
    Could you read and quote the technical rules? Could you open your eyes and your minds?

    Article t83-2-a : "The simple attack, direct or indirect, is correctly executed when the straightening of the arm, the point threatening the valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge or the flèche".
    [​IMG]
    Right fencer is straightening his arm then he is doing lunge (then he 's hitting)
    Left fencer is NOT (no straightenig, nor lunge).

    Article t83-2-d : "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".
    [​IMG]
    When left fencer is hitting, the right fencer'a arm is bent, so it's preparation.

    Please be serious and rigorous!
    Use rules, not tasseography.



    Sergei Golubisky, Ukrainian fencer who won three straight world championships in Men's Foil, etc.
    I'm very sad […]. I start to check out on the world's referee and I’m not happy about it at all because practically attack in preparation rapidly vanished. So there is a new way I would, call it new wave of a performing an attack. So basically it becomes marching and dancing on the spot.
    […] Many fences did actually in different countries but this is quite sad because they just stayed standing on the spot and pretend to advanced […]
    So fencing in the way has changed so since opponent doesn't finish his attack you can not take the blade, so you cannot parry it. So in the end if you try to make correct attacking preparation they won't give to you anyway. So in the end you have to do only some weird squirmy counter-attacks and then but people complaining all: “look at these these guys just squirmy and ugly fencing” …
     
    ccadet and Michael Comte like this.
  7. garyhayenga

    garyhayenga DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    444
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, Michigan
    Oh, good. At least he'll get something useful from posting his question here, if only indirectly.
     
  8. anton_fairfax

    anton_fairfax Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2017
    Messages:
    88
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Newcastle, Australia
    Chris, that did help immensely thanks! It helps in understanding those small, fine grain distinctions between a marching attack and AIP. Though I can’t imagine how hard it is to see things like that at that level. Thank you for the input, and the examples were very clear.

    Agreed! Hence why I, and my club, make an effort to be consistent. or try at least...

    I will also reach out to downunder. thanks for the help everyone!
     
    wwittman likes this.
  9. Michael Comte

    Michael Comte DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    161
    Gender:
    Male
    How do you judge the desire to finish of one fencer? You have to read in his mind.

    I quote Jeff Bukantz, in another post:
    "The attack is not determined by the footwork but rather by the hand, the point threatening the opponent valid target, watch the hand, not the feet"
     
    Stellan and ccadet like this.
  10. Michael Comte

    Michael Comte DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    161
    Gender:
    Male
    When you speak about "Some", it includes Serguei Golubitsky, right? (listen to what he says)

    This is quite some arrogance from you.
     
  11. Belegur

    Belegur Made the Cut

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    176
    Location:
    Australia
    Oddly enough, I've actually heard of Golubitsky. For some reason, I've never heard of you. A no-named zero presuming to give advice on what foil fencing should be. Sovereign citizens and the Freemen on the Land nutjobs make more sense than you do.
     
  12. Michael Comte

    Michael Comte DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    161
    Gender:
    Male
    Never heard of you either, never insulted you.

    Again: would you have the same attitude in front of me than hidden behind your keyboard? I don't think so.

    So in this case, don't post this kind of message, it gives a bad image of you.
     
  13. ChrisL

    ChrisL DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    143
    Location:
    London
    Without engaging too much further in this discussion, I think that what you are asking for the game to be changed to is quite different to what he has in mind, considering he coaches fencers who play the current game and also fenced actions that would disagree with you.

    However I wouldn't presume to know the mind of someone else nor their desire for the game. However having spoken to Sergei a few times about the state of foil I didn't get an impression that he is trying to make the shift you are. I think his outspoken desire for more prep calls against the march is positive and the game has certainly shifted a little as he was stating he wanted it to.
    I won't presume to be able to guess at someones interpretation of where fencing is and should go based off a few conversations and an interview but I would suggest you do the same. I don't think you are necessarily as much on the same page as you think.
     
  14. Malicia

    Malicia DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    108
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    France
    Serguei was speaking in 2016.
    If he continues to say what he really thinks ("very sad", "it becomes marching and dancing on the spot.", "ugly fencing"), the poor Sergei will have a real problem in the foil community: He will be without a job.
    What happens is a kind of putsch, not a democratic debate.
     
  15. Belegur

    Belegur Made the Cut

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    176
    Location:
    Australia
    Now, let's get serious for a moment. I take exception to where the interpretation is completely at variance to the official rules. Foil may be dubious, depending on your adherence to the old ways of thinking. Sabre is another thing entirely. You have actions that are clearly remises which are called as attacks - no regard for when the front foot lands. Even Sydney Sabre in their Youtube videos say that this is the way it is called these days. That might be true pre-mid 2000s, but when the front foot lands, the attack is over. The rules say this unambiguously.
     
  16. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    37,164
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere in your nightmares!
    The rule used to say that the attack ends when the front foot hits the ground "or immediately thereafter". That was fudge of which referees took full advantage to award attack which they just felt were good, rule or no. So they changed the rule and eliminated those last three words. And "immediately thereafter" we got the attaque compose "interpretation", which...allowed the referees to keep on awarding the attacks which they just felt were good, rule or no.

    To paraphrase Monty Python, "We referees are more than a match for the likes of you, rulemakers".
     
  17. tbryan

    tbryan Podium

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,117
    Location:
    Durham, NC
    I noticed that there were two calls in the NCAA MF final this year that may serve as good examples for calls on either side of the current attack-in-preparation interpretation. (Both calls were made/upheld after checking video replay.)

    Kiefer is trying to attack, but he is waiting / stops. Itkin is awarded a touch for the attack-in-preparation:


    Long, marching attack. Itkin attempts another attack-in-preparation, but the referee felt that this time Kiefer maintained the attack:


    In case the embedded YouTube video clips don't start at the right time, the first one is at 1:06, and the second is at 1:51.
     
    anton_fairfax likes this.
  18. ccadet

    ccadet Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    52
    The only way to understand attack of preparation, is to understand what's an attack and what's a preparation, right ?

    But today, the attack can be a preparation.
    So, if an attack is done in attack (even if it's preparation). It's a counter-attack (Not an attack on preparation).
    And so, attack on preparation, only can be : You already have priority (attacking, in walking...), and the other guy make preparation.

    What i see : They say "attack in preparation" when the other guy gain the right to attack, and the first "attacker" continue (but he have no more attack right !)
    So attack on preparation can be use for : You lost your attack right, and because there is no rules to refereeing that's "lost of priority during preparation", They will use this criterious : stop, hésitate... etc

    End of explain irrational refereeing. (I suppose FIE said them to give more attack on preparation. But they continue to interpretate what is could be (in there new rules), rather than what is it... What's a filter bubble !)

    _______________

    That's still a foot and leg job interpretation who don't care about the definition of an attack (An initial offensive action executed by stretching at the weapon arm and carrying on with a progressive movement) and a preparation (Movement of the blade, body. or of the legs which precedes the situation that one has the intention of creating).
    http://static.fie.org/uploads/4/24222-glossaires escrime ANG.pdf

    "Attack on preparation" !
    But you don't use the definition of attack (and of preparation) ?
    "Yes, it's new fencing way. Shut up noob backward referee !"
    But i'm only 32, and i'm fencing until i got 6...
    "You learned the bad way ! That's 2000's bug !"
    But that's way of fencing have no sense ?
    "We don't care about sense."
    But did you understand that's because of globalization and bad international refereeing, because the best referee cames at the lowest level for consistency ? That's came step by step, and now that's killing foil ? Refereeing are in filter bubble and are blind to reason and prefere the holy consistency.
    "No, but i don't care. I like this new foil, that's evolution ! Everybody like it ! And if it's done that way, there must be a cooler reason than leveling down !"
    Some people (FIE international referees) say, that's because fencer a too speed. That's because it's too hard to refereeing with the rules. Not enouth consistency between referees... Some people (who's not referee) say that's better for the show (I don't think so) : More offensive, whip attack are impressive and moving forward is easier for spectator understand who get the point.

    ______________

    Someone talk about irrational debate... This is it. But not because of backward fencing and referees...
    Because of actual ideology of FIE refereeing who don't have any argument than :

    Main arguments :
    - it happened so it's the good way. And it will be too hard to stop. (That's a really good argument : Change the ideology of all FIE referee seams impossible... Even if they kill our weapon.)
    - Easier way of refereeing = more consistency between referees. (And fencer prefere to know how referees will see the touch. Not dependant to his level of refereeing)

    lower arguments :
    - Faster fights (Less 3 x 3 minutes end at time fight), more offensive.
    - Impressive = more corps à corps, more whip attack (or ripost)

    vs

    Main arguments
    - Logic of foil.
    Why did we use a convention to refereeing ?
    And why change this convention this way get out sense to use a convention ?

    History : protect yourself before attack. (Safe your life before kill ennemy = évitez la "double veuve")
    The attack is with arm and weapon because that's the better way to touch without be touch. Then is you see the other guy tried to attack you, defend your life !
    So to avoid double touch, there is a convention : if you are attacked, you must protect yourself.
    Other convention is : Rispost is better than remise because the stroke of remise seams less serious than rispost (time to remise and no impulse of remise)
    In convention, There is idea of kill in first intention (or maximization damage)
    So, convention give torso as vital(valid) target, (head were not because : danger of training attacking head), but i'm agree with evolution of material, rules could add head as valid target without violate convention. (Because it's in the same logic).

    Then, the convention (1914)... When we talk about convention, we talk about this one (1914, and we call this fencing : modern fencing), and when we talk about actual convention, we talk about rules (revisit every year but continue to carry logic of fencing)
    And clearly actual rules is close from the convention (1914) : Modern fencing.
    And convention/rules gives criterious for know the begin of action you must parry or avoid.
    => it's attack and it is made by extending arm and threatening the target, preceding...
    That's follow the logic of foil.
    And i don't know what should be the name of common rules in "competition of foil"... Footfencing ?

    Then, we have criterious for judge the correctness of attack
    Respond : don't give incentives to double touch
    So the attack must be correctly executed.
    Logic is : If it's not, opponent could attack on it (don't see that's you are attacking or attack in your preparation (Attack before you begin your attack))
    If it's not, opponent could counter-attack (because he can't avoid or parry your attack because you "attack" with your body and not your point).
    (The rules, actual t.83 say what's an attack, a compound attack, and what's isn't (t.83 2-d, preparation bent arm isn't))

    But now, incentives for "attacker" is to step-forward an initiate attack at last moment.
    Sometimes after the "counter-offensive" begin before the attack : It's playing for double touch !
    That's the opposite logic of why made a convention ! There is no more logic of according priority than history of bad refereeing.
    -> There is no good reason to continue this "masquerade" (apart from the fact that it's already in place <= And that is not reason enough)

    lower arguments :
    - That's fencing is more technical. Because that's hard to threat with point and not being parry.
    You must feint, try make the other believe in your attack to make a "derobement" => More compound attack
    And you still can feint an attack (with preparation) as we already do and attack tardily, but you must care that your opponent believe in you, if he not, he can attack and you finish sad (that's introduce tactical) ;)
    - That's fencing is more tactical. You have to understand your opponent, feint some action,
    ex : attack with actual preparation (bending arm), then feint offensive with bending arm for parry rispost on the attack on preparation ! And if you see it, you can attack on preparation in 2 times (feint and attack)
    - That's less untidy,
    You see less fencer trying to "die" for get the touch.
    There are less untidy dodge because point is already treathening with point (better incentives to parry).
    There are less corps à corps. Attack begin from further.
    There are less useless preparation (Dansing with stars ?), as preparation are for preparing attack, or feint preparing attack...
    - Rules are already written ! And you can understand them (even if you are only parents) !
    - You are killing the conventional foil. (that's not really good ?)

    _____________

    Sry, im bad in english, but when i come back here, i want to answer.
    And i want you to understand foil. That's stupid. (I said it's the last time)
    It's the last time ! xD

    I really hope will got IA to judge of attack,
    but im afraid, i hope that we will not forget, when give images to deep learning, the rules and why refereeing don't actuality apply them. (mainly because they are not able, according to FIE international referees)

    And i really hope to a schism, whom I call from my wishes, because now everybody hides behind : there is no choice.
    What's when there will be officially 2 way of fence foil ? And give people choice ?
     
  19. ChrisL

    ChrisL DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    143
    Location:
    London
    Yeah someone else actually sent me these, they are really nice clean examples of AiP against not AiP
     
  20. Michael Comte

    Michael Comte DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    161
    Gender:
    Male
    First video, it's clear.

    Second video, I see a long preparation of attack from the left fencer, pointing his foil far from the target, then at 2:00 right fencer starts its attack, and at 2:01 left fencer reacts by finally aiming at the target. By looking at the slow motion, it is for me clearly a point for the right, as you can expect from me ;-)
    But without the slow motion, it is a difficult one.

    What I really don't like about the way this call is made is:
    1- 15 year ago, it would have been point to the right. It is not very good to have the rules changing so fast
    2- The left fencer is mainly playing with the referee to get the right of way, he is doing all what he can to show the referee that he is attacking, without taking the risk of being parries. He pretends to have the initiative, but wait for a move from the oponent. I feel with this kind of attitude, we will end up like soccer players, diving to show a fault to the referee.
     

Share This Page