How some foil referees break rules

Discussion in 'Rules and Referee Questions' started by Malicia, Mar 28, 2019.

  1. Michael Comte

    Michael Comte DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    29
    Not at all, I still wait for you to show you the action. Anyway, he is not my hero, I just quoted him as a 3 times world champion and olympic silver medalist and current coach who says that there is a problem in the way foil is judged.

    I must admit you are right, the rulebook says:
    "t.83
    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 (cf. t.10-11).
    "

    So yes, left fencer makes a preparation and right fencer makes an attack on preparation.
     
  2. sdubinsky

    sdubinsky DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    82
    The link goes directly to the action in question, but if you're unable to make it work somehow it's 2:50 in.

    We're making progress! Now that you've admitted that FOTL is preparing, by definition FOTR is making a counterattack. According to the rules, counterattacks(or stop hits as the rulebook refers to them) must arrive before the final action begins. Particularly in that last gif mal linked, it's clear that fotr's action does not arrive before fotl's arm begins extending.

    Now, in most of the others, you could make a reasonable argument that they're just late on their final action. That would be something we could talk about. Instead, you two(?) chose sweeping statements about how these are worthless nonsense non-attacks and completely against the rules.
     
  3. Michael Comte

    Michael Comte DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    29
    No, FOTL is preparing, not yet attacking, read again:

    Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered
    as attacks but as preparations
     
    posineg likes this.
  4. Grey Sabreur

    Grey Sabreur DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    42
    You attack into a preparation. You counterattack into an attack.
     
    posineg likes this.
  5. Michael Comte

    Michael Comte DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    29
    Indeed.

    And here it is clearly an attack from the right on a preparation from the left:
     
  6. keropie

    keropie Podium

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,552
    Likes Received:
    214
    So I agree that you attack into preparations (generally speaking), and I agree that the action feels like attack by right. But even Miles is doubtful (he looks to his coach a couple of times before asking for video), and there are a few reasons to wonder about if it's actually an attack.

    1- Foconi continues to move forward (he doesn't stop), and he does finish an action which hits; on earlier actions he parries, this one he doens't. He's at least trying to finish what he believes is an attack.
    2- Miles finishes a big extension, without hitting; the then fleches, which does hit. It's certainly something that could be parsed as 'attack (from the right), no; left continuation, then right continuation.' But it would be just called attack from left, because I don't see a lot of FIE refs wanting to give more information than 'this is the action that had RoW'
    3- Again, Foconi thinks it's his attack, Miles is uncertain, and no one really goes crazy about the call; if the competitors feel like it's at least reasonable, then they both are playing the same game, and that's really what we want/need.

    Certainly there was a time while I was fencing where this would just be attack from right; but that's no consistent with current officiating, and I know I'll get some damn quote from the rule book, but the truth is that fencing and fencing officiating is more dynamic and grows more/faster than the rulebook can keep up with. In a perfect world, maybe this wouldn't be true, but given that we do not inhabit such a world, I'd rather participate in a dynamic, growing, evolving sport rather than what would happen if we strictly interpreted the rulebook. In most of Mal's examples, she shows that someone is fully extended and hitting while someone's arm is still bent; if that's the actual interpretation, then whoever finishes extending first evidently wins (even if I am extending, if other person extends faster we can find a frame where they are extended and I am not). That's a super dumb game. So, given that I assert that we are not super dumb, we understand that the full extension first doesn't mean you have RoW; so how much extension is required to get RoW? What constitutes extending, rather than waiting? That conversation has shifted over the years, and has be reaffirmed by the timing and change in actions because of it, and now the attacker has a lot of leeway about when the extension must start (and how big it must be). I believe that is starting to swing back, and will continue to do so, but not hugely.
     
  7. sdubinsky

    sdubinsky DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    82
    t.88
    1. the stop hit must precede the last movement of the attack by one period of fencing time, i.e. the stop hit must arrive before the attacker has started the last movement of the attack itself.
     
  8. Michael Comte

    Michael Comte DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ockham's razor.
    Simple explanation:
    Right is extending his arm, fleching, touching,
    Left doesn't react, until he is hit, and then partly extends his arm to hit (partly because at this stage, right fencer is already close to him).
    Right is jumping because he believes he scored, then asks the video, the referee denies his point.

    Your explanation:
    Left fencer is moving, when right fencer is attacking he is still moving his right toe (note that the left foot doesn't move any more).
    Then you see right fencer pausing (pausing in a fleche is hard to do), before hitting, so the priority changes (!), still left fencer get hit before starting extending his arm, but anyway, he has the point because his attitude seems to prove that he was more convinced than the other.
    Taking the argument of another participant of this forum: "If you are parrying, I must be attacking", you could say:
    "Left fencer is not parrying, so right fencer probably does not attack".

    So the new foil is: once en guard, start moving as slowly as you can with your foil behind your back, wait for your opponent to hit you, then he cannot defend himself with his extended arm, so you can make a simple attack, the point is yours because you have been moving your toes from the start.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2019
    Grey Sabreur likes this.
  9. Allen Evans

    Allen Evans Podium

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    974
    Super. Super dumb.
     
  10. Grey Sabreur

    Grey Sabreur DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    42
    Yup.
    18th, 19th and 20th centuries - you attack with the sword. 21st century - you attack with your feet.
     
    Ipsum likes this.
  11. sdubinsky

    sdubinsky DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    82
    Oh! This explains a lot. You think the entire action can be decided based on what's in the second-long gif shown.
     
    Privateer likes this.
  12. Michael Comte

    Michael Comte DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    29
    If you start earlier it is the same story:
     
  13. keropie

    keropie Podium

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,552
    Likes Received:
    214
    So, that is your interpretation of what I was saying. It's not what I was saying, but we can agree it's what you read.
    I see Miles fully extend and not hit; so, there's a world where I might call that attack, no. He then fleches; that's a second action. Foroni never stops, he makes one action. I agree, it's not particularly pretty, it's certainly not classical, but he makes one action. If we have Miles as extension, no, fleche (reprise) yes, then the only way we can give it to him is that we believe both his extension and his reprise precede Foroni's action by a measure of fencing time. I don't believe that (I'm not even really sure I'd give it to him if the extension hit, but I'd have to see that).

    Foroni is entitled to finish his step lunge if the beginning of the extension precedes the end of the step. In the opinion of the official, it does, and that step begins before whichever of Miles' actions hits. It's tight, but I don't think it's crazy. I also wouldn't have thought it was crazy if he thought Miles was first (though personally I lean left here). And I think that's what the reactions indicate; Miles looks at his coach, asks if he should ask for review, and then asks for it, though neither defiantly nor particularly confidently. The review happens, and then the call is upheld. No one freaks out.
     
  14. sdubinsky

    sdubinsky DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    82
    s'funny, to me it looks like Miles is retreating while Foconi is advancing.
     
  15. jkormann

    jkormann Podium

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,240
    Likes Received:
    248
    Foconi looked paused or stopped in his attack. That might be what Miles saw and began what he thought was an attack, not a counter-attack.
     
    Michael Comte likes this.
  16. posineg

    posineg DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    36
    Direction of foot work does not dictate a attack, never did.
     
    Michael Comte likes this.
  17. Michael Comte

    Michael Comte DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    29
    Sorry, this wrong. In fact he perfectly executes his attack, like described by the rule:
    "The simple attack, direct or indirect (cf. t.10), is correctly executed when the straightening of the
    arm, the point threatening the valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge or the flèche.

    "
    Almost all individual lesson begin with drills to reach this level of coordination (arm first, then legs close the distance): you hit by just extending your arm a few times, then the master makes a step backward, you must follow you extension by a step to close the distance, then he moves further, you must lunge, step-lunge, etc...
     
  18. Ipsum

    Ipsum Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2019
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    4
    Even if we go along with your point of view, we cannot speak of reprise : he didn't return on-guard (if he did, he would have lost a fencing time). Moreover I don’t see Chamley-Watson’s extension as a first attack : he’s too far and didn’t aim to hit. To me it’s only the beginning of the flèche (that fits with the required definition, as Michael said).
     
  19. Ipsum

    Ipsum Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2019
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    4
    I'm not against evolution and maybe neither are the other classical guys here (for instance, I read ideas such as making the head as a valid target, round pistes...). But where will it lead us ?

    Let's make a (very) quick analogy with Latin. Think about how Caesar's, Cicero's high standard classical Latin was replaced by a late (or low) Latin, a lower grade tongue, for over time speakers wouldn’t respect the grammatical rules, change vocabulary... Eventually, it splitted off into Italian, Spanish, French, etc. These are latin languages yet they are no longer Latin itself.

    By the same way, if fencing were a language, the rules would be the grammar. And the core of this grammar is the logic of swordplay. If you change this core, if you reinterprete the sense of words, you change the language. From my point of view, "Modern foil" is another language. I’am not saying it’s intrinsically bad. It's just another sport.

    If you enjoy playing this way and have fun with it, no problem. But when it comes to agree an international standard, how can we tolerate this mess ? Maybe, if the FIE doesn't take on its responsibilities, the best solution would be to officially split into two different schools. Call them classical/traditonal/arm/martial foil vs modern/new/leg/??? foil as you want. Two products in the market, let the people's wisdom choose !
     
    Grey Sabreur likes this.
  20. ChrisL

    ChrisL DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    28
    I think this is exactly the case. Fencing is a sport, the objective of any athlete in any sport is to win.
    Therefore the sport is the set of constraints and conditions in which athletes act to gain points and victories.

    The "logic of swordplay" is not represented here except as a historical inspiration for the current movements, this makes sense since the objective of the sport is not to replicate a swordfight.
    There are many existing groups that do aim to replicate a sword fight, they market themselves as to various degrees and on various periods, there is a lot of choice out there.

    The disagreement here seems to stem from the belief that the FIE is somehow obligated to provide for those who do not wish to do sport fencing but would rather do something with rules more akin to a sword fight. This is not the case.
    Sport fencing is about scoring points, it is not about sword fighting. If you want to do sword fighting that is fine and commendable but changing a competitive game into something different to suit your own needs doesn't seem the way.

    And there are 2 major products already on the market, one is called (Sport/Olympic) Fencing the other is called HEMA. There are also many other minor ones. It seems like you want to do HEMA/one of the minor ones.
     

Share This Page