PDA

View Full Version : Presiding Flick Hits



Robert
-29th September 2003, 12:41
I would appreciate the opinions of anybody willing to venture an opinion and perhaps even of some people qualified to do so.

As I said in another thread I am unsure how should you preside flick hits, what should you look for etc.

My ropey understanding of the rules:

The rules seem to imply that direct attacks done with a flick lose priority to counter-attacks BUT this doesn't seem to be the way they are presided. It seems to be the case that if someone smoothly extends their arm that a counter launched during the extension does not have priority. This seems like a very logical interpretation of the rules to me.

Secondly I understand from the rules (I'm referring to the stuff at about t.55 to t.60 here, copy rules not handy) that flicks following beats or as the second or subsequent compound action, or following a derobement, or following a succesful parry, always have priority and the opponent must find the blade before counter attacking.

Now for the questions:

Fencer A advances towards fencer B with his arm back intending to launch a flick, B lunges, A flicks. Who gets the hit?

My understanding (please correct)
B lunges first - B's priority
B lunges at the same time as A starts his flicking action - simultaneous hit, no priority
B lunges after A begins to extend his arm - A's priority

Fencer A advances towards B, who is retreating. B extends his arm to point in line. At some point after that either B lunges or A catches him, either way A flicks. Both hit. Who gets the hit?

My understanding
In all circumstances unless A takes the blade - B's priority.

Fencer A brings his arm back and then flicks to B's shoulder as B attacks. Whose hit?

My understanding
If B attempted to pris de fer or beat during the attack - A's priority
If B commences his attack after A's arm starts to move forward - A's priority
If A had beat or parried but is hit before his arm is moving forwards - B's priority
If A and B commence together - B's priority

I would appreciate not only opinions on the correctness or otherwise of the theory but also things that you can look for (particular hand movements, sounds, etc) that will make it easier to see in practice.

Robert

ihunter
-29th September 2003, 19:28
Good posting!!! I don't think you have to worry too much, you seem to have a good grip of what the 'rules' say about priority!
Fencing comps are noisy(apart from finals) so don't look to hear too much re blade contact. Don't watch either fencer too closely, rather form an opinion, based on experience as to what has happened in any series of actions. A flick is just an attempted valid hit which has the same priority as a straightening arm IF it has ROW. Forget Flicks as such, concentrate on priority.

Ian Hunter FIE foil 'b'

Boo Boo
-29th September 2003, 20:04
Originally posted by ihunter
A flick is just an attempted valid hit which has the same priority as a straightening arm IF it has ROW. Forget Flicks as such, concentrate on priority.


What a brilliant way of putting it :)

Boo

Pointy stick
-25th October 2003, 17:36
As a new fencer this is one of the things I've found difficult to understand. The rules of right of way are reasonably clear to me in theory, but not always in practice!

My understanding of an attack is it's when the arm is extended, with the point continuously threatening the target. (I understand that if you just stick your arm out and do nothing else for a period of fencing time then you can lose right of way.)

Now, if one fencer makes a clear beat and establishes right of way, it's easy. Similarly, if there's a clear attack and parry, it's easy.

But...

Two fencers, fighting with absence of blade. Fencer A does a classic extend and lunge; fencer B extends and flicks. The hits land simultaneously. Whose hit is it?

Romantic preconceptions of classic swordplay tell me that the 'proper' attack 'ought' to win... but that's not how the modern game is played.;)

Fencer B never straightened his/her arm, and the point was nowhere near the target until the last moment - but 'common sense' says that a single smooth movement 'ought' to count as a single period of fencing time, and if it results in a hit, it must have been an attack.

So I guess I'd adjudge the hits as simultaneous, no clear priority, and put the fencers back on guard. But is that right?

Then again, in a bit of a melee, where there are no straight arms at all, and it's hard to distinguish beats from parries from accidental clashes of the blades... and when is the (necessary) slight raising of the point for the flick part of the attack, and when is it a preparation?

reposte
-25th October 2003, 17:49
ith a flick lose priority to counter-attacks BUT this doesn't seem to be the way they are presided.

Never heared of this, and apparently I'm not alone.

Australian
-26th October 2003, 02:21
Originally posted by Pointy stick
As a new fencer this is one of the things I've found difficult to understand. The rules of right of way are reasonably clear to me in theory, but not always in practice!

My understanding of an attack is it's when the arm is extended, with the point continuously threatening the target. (I understand that if you just stick your arm out and do nothing else for a period of fencing time then you can lose right of way.)

Now, if one fencer makes a clear beat and establishes right of way, it's easy. Similarly, if there's a clear attack and parry, it's easy.

But...

Two fencers, fighting with absence of blade. Fencer A does a classic extend and lunge; fencer B extends and flicks. The hits land simultaneously. Whose hit is it?

Romantic preconceptions of classic swordplay tell me that the 'proper' attack 'ought' to win... but that's not how the modern game is played.;)

Fencer B never straightened his/her arm, and the point was nowhere near the target until the last moment - but 'common sense' says that a single smooth movement 'ought' to count as a single period of fencing time, and if it results in a hit, it must have been an attack.

So I guess I'd adjudge the hits as simultaneous, no clear priority, and put the fencers back on guard. But is that right?

Then again, in a bit of a melee, where there are no straight arms at all, and it's hard to distinguish beats from parries from accidental clashes of the blades... and when is the (necessary) slight raising of the point for the flick part of the attack, and when is it a preparation?

if they are both extending together... then the attacks are together. The arm does not have to be straight! It just has to be extending.

Its about threatening the target, not the precise location of the tip, and if the flick lands then i'd consider it threatening.

If its one smooth movement, that is one big (or small) extension, then it is the same as any other simple attack, and any counterattack is treated as such.

fencingmaster
-26th October 2003, 09:35
Robert, as Ian posted, your summary of interpretation of the reading of the r.o.w. re flick hits appears sound.

The idea that a direct attack by flick loses priority is not sustainable; ('classic')attacks by disegage/counter-disengage and cut-over all fail to continuously threaten the target (the point passes over the non-valid target and/or threatens empty space) - so an attack by flick is no different * It is only a convention that the classic attacks are actually 'threatening' and a flick hit is no different. What they all do is demonstrate the initiative taken by the fencer. This initiative is also identified by the advancement of the sword hand. It is this initiative that enables a fencer to gain priority - some fencers fall into the trap of only reacting to a stimulus

So, as Ian posted, form an opinion based on your understanding of priority and experience, but this can be aided by considering which fencer at any moment showed the initiative. For example a slow lunge with or without flick will always have priority over an offencive action into it. A fencer who advances (with feet) whilst flicking in order to seek a response is disengenuous to claim r.o.w. if he provokes an attack into which he extends, steps or lunges. Sometimes there is a grey area between these two examples and that's when the fine judgement of the referee is tested.

It's very difficult to state which action has r.o.w. in a discussion, and r.o.w. is a subject that is repeatedly discussed. Wouldn't it be useful if BFA produced a short video - what about it, Ian?

*except that the mechanics of the action can make it faster.

Robert
-26th October 2003, 11:10
Originally posted by reposte
Never heared of this, and apparently I'm not alone.

I meant that the rules require the arm to be extended prior to the footwork (lunge or step-lunge) which is ussually not the case with flick, but that the usual interpretation seems to revolve around extending (rather than extended) as the last post mentioned.
I did also say that this made good sense to me, and wasn't questioning it (your out of context quote implied I was saying something very different).

Robert

reposte
-26th October 2003, 12:36
Don't quite see what's out of contest, did you not write:

The rules seem to imply that direct attacks done with a flick ?
What do you suppose did my remark imply ?

however flicks where I come from usually do involve some prior move of the hand which can be construed as threatening.

Robert
-26th October 2003, 19:58
Originally posted by reposte
Don't quite see what's out of contest, did you not write:
?
What do you suppose did my remark imply ?

however flicks where I come from usually do involve some prior move of the hand which can be construed as threatening.

Fencingmaster also got the impression that I was saying flicks should lose priority to direct counter-attacks, and your out of context quoting implied that is what I thought.

Robert