Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 113

Thread: foil priority

  1. #1
    Forum Rabbit
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Milton Keynes
    Posts
    2

    Default foil priority

    Hi,

    I was refereeing a foil bout in my club and there was a point that proceeded as follows.

    Fencer A advances into fencing distance and performs a beat, which takes their weapon point way off-target. and continues advancing with a bent arm for at least two paces.

    Fencer B - no sword reaction, but retreats.

    Fencer A executes flick to high sixte shoulder just as fencer B performs stop-hit. No parry and both lights went on.

    i think I gave the point to fencer B, because, I decided B had performed proper arm extension and therefore was attacking.

    I'm not sure if I was right, and on review I think I should have called no point as they both attacked together! :/

    could I get a little advice?

  2. #2
    Senior Member JackSparrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Shipwrecked
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Hi h00b,

    I hate doing this without a video of what actually happened, but from the way you described it... fencer b retreats and then sticks their arm out as fencer a attacks. You describe this as a stop hit, but it's not. Its a counter attack. Point to fencer a.
    Savvy!

  3. #3

    Default

    Hit to A from your description.

  4. #4
    Senior Member JackSparrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Shipwrecked
    Posts
    384

    Default

    I've read my reply back and realised that it wasn't well phrased (you can categorize a stop hit as a type of counter attack). So just to be clear, a stop hit needs to be executed (normally at a moment of hesitation or preparation) one moment of fencing time before the opponents attack. The rule is:

    t.59 (d) When compound attacks are made, the opponent has the right to stop hit; but to be valid, the stop hit must precede the conclusion of the attack by an interval of fencing time; that is to say that the stop hit must arrive before the attacker has begun the final movement of the attack.

    In you example above - Ref should call, attack fencer A
    Savvy!

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    685

    Default

    Attack Fencer A.

  6. #6
    Initiate pjgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Bradford Fencing Club
    Posts
    76

    Default

    Bent arm, even foil tip pointing backwards is simply not considered as negating the right of their attack in competitive foil now - it's about the context and intention of the fencer. I know the rules say ... but it's just not refereed like that.

    Taking all of the fluff out of it (forget what happened in the middle), Fencer A found the blade, made continuous forward movement and completed his attack with a hit on his opponent. Fencer B countered. Two lights. Point to A.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    894

    Default

    concur,
    point to fencer A.

    realistically the way foil is refereed now, any movement forwards without a 'stop' is interpreted as having right of way. Even where point is way wide and can't be considered as 'threatening target' it is still interpreted as having right of way… therefor in modern foil as it is refereed now it is rare to award 'attack into preparation'.. the only exception where the fencer may lose priority is where the hand comes behind the hip or behind the elbow.. in which case video / ref may conceivably award attack into prep provided the opponent times it correctly.

    kind regards
    mark

  8. #8
    Forum Rabbit
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7

    Default Further clarification required

    I am a very poor referee for foil for fundamental philosophical reasons and I have many similar debates about this type of situation at my club and would appreciate further guidance/interpreatation - for example;

    any movement forwards without a 'stop' is interpreted as having right of way - does this mean that only the advancing fencer has right of way i.e. a retreating fencer cannot execute an attack which is what occurred in the described situation

    Fencer A advances into fencing distance and performs a beat, which takes their weapon point way off-target. and continues advancing with a bent arm for at least two paces -

    I agree with other contributors that without being able to view the situation it is difficult to interpret; however I cannot easily see how a fencer can execute a beat and then advance with bent arm without withdrawing the arm, if this is the case and refereeing is about intention (which I don't understand how a referee can know unless he asks...) then clearly the intention was not to execute a beat attack

    a beat is a preparation; fencer A then advances two paces i.e. does not execute an attack from the beat so my question is how many paces can A advance and maintain right of way; what if he had not done a beat does he have right of way simply by advancing;

    fencer B does not need to defend until the flick hit is executed, in fact cannot execute any type of defence (and in an instance at my club where equivalent of fencer A has the point facing over his left shoulder Fencer B cannot execute a beat or any other action on the blade) also in my imagination executing a flick hit from a bent arm woudl require bringing the arm back further.

    leading on from above based on the description an alternative view could be look at last movement; fencer executes a flick, fencer B executes (presumably) a direct thrust - simultaneously attacks-who initiated the attack first?

    Possible defence for fencer B:
    don't retreat either get point in line as fencer A takes first step (with bent arm); fencer B could then take a step back or not with point in line; close the distance so that an attempted flick will be difficult to land

    Thanks for this discussion looking forward to further responses, explanations etx.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    685

    Default

    Is this similiar to the action you are trying to describe: https://youtu.be/16wJH1UbOcQ?t=311

    Start at abut 5' mark: Garozzo takes over to attack, pushes Massialis to the end where he finishes.

  10. #10
    Senior Member JackSparrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Shipwrecked
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Yes, Garozzo is a very good fencer to watch to see how these kind of actions are being called at the top level, as he operates right at the very threshold of what can currently considered as an attack. As Ziemek puts it "he is playing with fire". With Garozzo, it is also worth noting that he almost always receives the hit from his opponent before landing himself.

    I think many fencers and indeed coaches feel like they are in some way being asked to betray the way they were taught (ie an attack is constituted by the arm continuously extending with the point threatening the target ... I was certainly taught that way). It might be helpful to say that this is not about what I or you 'think right of way should be', but simply dealing with the reality of how the top referees are calling actions. I do think there is a case to be made for the rules to be rewritten to reflect the way things are actually being called, however, there will always necessarily be an element of interpretation.
    Savvy!

  11. #11
    Senior Member ChrisL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    284

    Default

    For all of those saying things along the lines of: "foil as it is called now", here is a link to some video from the 1989 World Championships. There are similar videos all over youtube.
    The idea of some sort of fundamental change in priority calls is a myth, foil has always been called with an element of common sense. If an opponent is coming forward attacking you don't get to simply stick your arm out and claim they did something slightly wrong whilst citing the rulebook you keep in your back pocket

  12. #12
    Senior Member JackSparrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Shipwrecked
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Of course there are trends in refereeing priority! Listen to the interviews with Golubitsky (who fenced in the 90's) where he bemoans fencers not being given attack in preparation anymore.
    Savvy!

  13. #13
    Senior Member JackSparrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Shipwrecked
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JackSparrow View Post
    Of course there are trends in refereeing priority! Listen to the interviews with Golubitsky (who fenced in the 90's) where he bemoans fencers not being given attack in preparation anymore.
    Here's one from a week ago:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mriDtr9XO7g#t=03m16s
    Savvy!

  14. #14
    Forum Rabbit
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rudd View Post
    Is this similiar to the action you are trying to describe: https://youtu.be/16wJH1UbOcQ?t=311

    Start at abut 5' mark: Garozzo takes over to attack, pushes Massialis to the end where he finishes.
    Not exactly - this is more difficult for me; final action takes place over 2-3sec so I have viewed the video several times at 0.25x speed. Starting at 5:28 what I (I think) see is: Garozzo takes a step to initiate an attack, takes another step & brings arm back, gets hit then completes attack with a lunge. i.e. Garozzo's attack is step-step-lunge; if he gets hit before he starts his lunge, it is arguable it could be one period of fencing time, if he got hit after the first step then more argument for hit going to Massialis - two periods of fencing time before Garozzo lands; alternatively Garozzo's attack is viewed as a compound attack with the blade deception being executed as a withdrawal rather then evasion (disengage). I would be interested to know how you and others would phrase this (especially at club level for beginners, novices).

    The situation I find difficult to interpret is: Fencer A (right handed for this example) beats the blade, whthdraws his blade, arm across his body point facing over or nearly over his left shoulder, advances several steps; fencer B retreats and towards the end of A's advance launches an (counter?) attack and hits direct, during which A flicks to B's shoulder, since B has already attacked he cannot parry sufficiently fast - hit goes to A. In the situation above Garozzo has at least launced an attack in the last phrase. In my example Fencer A has done nothing until B counters and then lands a flick hit. Under the interpretation of intention one could argue that niether Massialis nor Fencer B had an intention of hitting until the last moment when desperately they make a direct thrust, this line of arguemnt however destroys any chance of a perfectly timed stop hit one period of fencing time before the attack lands since the referee will go with the advancing fencer. It also makes it difficult to attack when retreating.

  15. #15
    Forum Rabbit
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JackSparrow View Post

    I have to agree with Gloubitsky. In an example given in another post to this thread there is the example of a fencer (A) effectively withdrawing his weapon out of reach of his opponent (B), who does not need to parry and cannot execute any blade action. 'A' simply launches a high flick to B's shoulder as B makes a direct thrust. One argument I have heard is that A is threatening B even though the point is nowhere near B's target because of the theat of the flick. This however neglects the threat of B, whose point is on A's target and can a hit with a direct thrust - philosophically why does A's flick threat have "priority" over B's potential of a direct thrust? To me it also undermines the principles behind foil which in essence (used) to teach that you must defend yourself if attacked before attacking.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitan View Post
    I would be interested to know how you and others would phrase this (especially at club level for beginners, novices).
    Attack Garozzo

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitan View Post
    perfectly timed stop hit one period of fencing time before the attack lands since the referee will go with the advancing fencer. It also makes it difficult to attack when retreating.
    With current timings and convention you will never get a call of "stop hit in time" if there are two lights on the box.

    If by "attack when retreating" you mean lunge into the advancing fencer who has been pushing you down the strip, then no. That isn't an attack, it's a counter attack.

    If you mean take over the attack, by stopping your opponents advance, that that is one of the fundamentals of the modern (last 60 years) foil game.

    Golubitsky and you are entitled to your opinions. But if you want to advise and coach fencers, especially novices, then you need to teach them the game as it is played today.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    894

    Default

    hello capitan,

    ok. it might be easier for you and developing referees to understand the way things are; if, instead of looking at the rulebook definition of attack, that you instead make a much more generous interpretation of 'point threatening target'.

    basically foil fencing is very much more three dimensional now, and the attack can land from any starting point with the hand ( apart from behind hip or elbow ). similar to sabre reffing, the foil referees look to the legs to see who establishes priority.

    A good analogy as to why the rules seem to differ so much from the reality of referee interpretations is to look at Law. Law has two aspects; statute law and case law. So whilst statute law is the codified frame of reference, Case law ( the history of Judges interpretations of individual cases ) is equally important. case law is the precedents of how statutes are interpreted and how Judges rule on cases.. it is evolves and adapts.


    This thread is quite important for foil refs, as I often see nice 'pressing' attacks that are not being awarded as priority by refs who have read the rule book but don't have a feel for the game. It is crucial for developing fencers especially that they are refereed correctly. i.e if the ref feels it is an attack into preparation when there is double light then they are very probably wrong.. unless fencer A completely stops.. by the way they can even slow down but as long as the action is blended and finishes then its priority A every time.

    hope that makes sense
    kind regards
    mark

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitan View Post

    any movement forwards without a 'stop' is interpreted as having right of way - does this mean that only the advancing fencer has right of way i.e. a retreating fencer cannot execute an attack which is what occurred in the described situation
    Pretty much so, (unless PiL is established by the defender) so long as the point is threatening the target. If there is a counter attack and a finish of the attack in the same moment, I'd suggest the point was sufficiently threatening the target. Often this is misinterpreted as meaning it has to be directly in line with the body at all times.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitan View Post
    however I cannot easily see how a fencer can execute a beat and then advance with bent arm without withdrawing the arm, if this is the case and refereeing is about intention (which I don't understand how a referee can know unless he asks...) then clearly the intention was not to execute a beat attack
    You can be the attacker (have right of way); and be attacking (moving forward as your opponent moves backwards); without making an attack (specific definition of attack in foil which is different to the other weapons).

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitan View Post
    a beat is a preparation; fencer A then advances two paces i.e. does not execute an attack from the beat so my question is how many paces can A advance and maintain right of way;
    You can maintain right of way whilst making foot and blade preparations. In this situation, it is for the defender to try to establish right of way as the attacker is developing the attack.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitan View Post
    fencer B does not need to defend until the flick hit is executed, in fact cannot execute any type of defence
    PiL or any second intention action to draw the final attack (and deal with it) would do. Or don't lose right of way in the first instance.


    Quote Originally Posted by Capitan View Post
    leading on from above based on the description an alternative view could be look at last movement; fencer executes a flick, fencer B executes (presumably) a direct thrust - simultaneously attacks-who initiated the attack first?
    That is the purpose of the referee, to determine who has right of way. If the defender has not made the opponent miss, or taken the blade, PiL, etc, then they don't have right of way. If there are two lights, the fencer with right of way scores.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JackSparrow View Post
    Squirmy counters, now where have I seen that before.... ;-)

    He is correct of course, the definition of what 'threatening the target' means has changed subtly over the years and the current style makes it very hard for non-fencers to understand what is going on let alone fencers themselves.
    Affiliated to the nearest pub!

  20. #20
    Senior Member JackSparrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Shipwrecked
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCommuter View Post
    Squirmy counters, now where have I seen that before.... ;-)
    Got to stop telling people who I am on the forum ☺

    Here's Jeremy Cadot, 'building his attack'

    https://gfycat.com/ViciousSleepyJohndory
    Savvy!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •