Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 113

Thread: foil priority

  1. #21
    Forum Rabbit
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by coach carson View Post
    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.


    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).


    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.

    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.



    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.

    Good break down - thanks

  2. #22
    Forum Rabbit
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by plenty View Post
    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

    Yes, that's useful. So for coaching novice fencers/refs without confusion them a key aspect then is to teach/educate about regaining priority rather than timing of counter attacks/attack into preparation. ie. you probably need to do more than just Pil (unless the attacker stops -risky). Thanks for the explanation.

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by plenty View Post
    similar to sabre reffing, the foil referees look to the legs to see who establishes priority.

    ......


    i.e if the ref feels it is an attack into preparation when there is double light then they are very probably wrong..


    Erm.... What? To both of these sentences... What? No... The first is just factually inaccurate. The second just leaves me bemused...

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Savin.A View Post
    Erm.... What? To both of these sentences... What? No... The first is just factually inaccurate. The second just leaves me bemused...
    sorry savin,
    i should have added * particularly when there has been no blade contact

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitan View Post
    Yes, that's useful. So for coaching novice fencers/refs without confusion them a key aspect then is to teach/educate about regaining priority rather than timing of counter attacks/attack into preparation. ie. you probably need to do more than just Pil (unless the attacker stops -risky). Thanks for the explanation.
    hello capitan,
    yes, their understanding of priority and ability to regain priority is crucial skill. Point in line established against pressing fencer ( as opposed to point in line before opponent starts moving fwds ) does not have automatic priority but is still very useful tool. The line can be used to disrupt and hinder the advancing fencer from developing attack… it can also be used to invite the advancing fencer to finish their attack when perhaps they are not ready, thus making it easier for the defender to set up parry riposte. Thirdly the line can then be turned into an attack should the pressing fencer hesitate and make a 'stop'. Fourthly the line can be used as counterattack ( but important obviously pressing fencers point misses, hence counter attack with avoidance and or blocking action )
    however these are advanced concepts;
    feint of counter attack revert parry riposte
    counter attack with esquive
    counter attack with block , coup de temp
    finta in tempo with forwards action

    kind regards
    mark

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    908

    Default Views pls

    To add to this ( pretty vital thread ) I have seen an important new development in international reffing-

    Things have changed somewhat since start of thread. Previously an attack was defined as any Fwd 'pressing' action on the opponent ( classic one to watch at its most extreme is Garrozzo ) but referees are now interpreting that attacker loses priority if the defender dramatically opens up distance ( e.g six or seven v fast steps back ) with then immediate presentation of line against attackers advance.

    The underlying logic is that the defender has retreated so far away that the attacker can no longer be considered to be 'threatening the target'.


    The scenario is as follows.. Garrozzo type (fencer A) initiates and advances down piste with absence of blade, defender ( fencer B ) makes multiple steps / cross steps of half a piste length and then comes to stop & makes line ; fencer A keeps advancing and finishes on target ( no blade contact ) , two lights = point to fencer B !


    However I have a question not related to above -
    Has anyone seen referees giving priority to pressing attacks where hand is behind elbow or hip ? After all behind the back ripostes in CQ are awarded.
    Mark

  7. #27
    Senior Member randomsabreur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    2,099

    Default

    Without seeing a video that sounds like standard PIL interpretation. An "attack" is at most step lunge, break beyond that, establish PIL then you can advance, retreat, lunge, do riverdance and without breaking said PIL and your opponent needs to deal with the line!
    Last Competition: Bristol L8
    Next Competition: Dunno

  8. #28
    Mavis Thornton pinkelephant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Lytham St Annes, Lancs
    Posts
    6,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by randomsabreur View Post
    Without seeing a video that sounds like standard PIL interpretation. An "attack" is at most step lunge, break beyond that, establish PIL then you can advance, retreat, lunge, do riverdance and without breaking said PIL and your opponent needs to deal with the line!
    Wanna see the river dance one!
    Advocate extraordinaire to Beelzebub.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pinkelephant View Post
    Wanna see the river dance one!
    That would be SOOOO funny!

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    908

    Default

    Hi pinky and perky, once you two stop playing with each other you may notice that the OP was referring to a foil bout.. ( thus while R.Sab is correct in terms of sabre, foil priority is much more generous.. the 'pressing or initiating fencer can maintain priority for much longer and press all the way down piste )

    Hence also note of caution to Savin

    Where there are two lights and ref awards an attack into prep, it is essential that for the ref to have been correct that either the attack into prep was with a blade action or that there was hesitation with a 'stop' be the preparing fencer.... Otherwise the preparing fencer is awarded the point. So, even if preparing fencer is looking for the blade as long as they started moving first and they then finish seamlessly they are awarded the hit!
    Cheers
    Mark

  11. #31

    Default

    Leave me out of this. Thanks.

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Savin.A View Post
    Erm.... What? To both of these sentences... What? No... The first is just factually inaccurate. The second just leaves me bemused...
    no chance Savin
    as a senior tournament organiser and referee ( and main BF subcontractor ) , its pretty important dont you think ?
    perhaps you can at least confirm you ok with above because from your response in the thread it was clear that you not interpreting ref conventions correctly ...
    maybe it was misunderstanding and is clearer now ?

    arent you in some way responsible for training refs too ?
    cheers
    mark

  13. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Warwick uni
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by plenty View Post
    no chance Savin
    as a senior tournament organiser and referee ( and main BF subcontractor ) , its pretty important dont you think ?
    perhaps you can at least confirm you ok with above because from your response in the thread it was clear that you not interpreting ref conventions correctly ...
    maybe it was misunderstanding and is clearer now ?

    arent you in some way responsible for training refs too ?
    cheers
    mark
    Show some goddamn respect. You were talking about sabre refereeing, and what you said was hilariously incorrect. This is not the first time you've spoken like this to people better placed to comment than yourself

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lincolnshire
    Posts
    1,567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by plenty View Post
    as a senior tournament organiser and referee ( and main BF subcontractor )

    mark
    Mark. You missed the bit ‘and ex international fencer’. Other than gaining coaching qualifications and sniping at others in the fencing community, what actual fencing experience do you have again? I agree with others, you need to show some respect to those actually involved in developing the sport in the U.K.

  15. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Lancashire/London
    Posts
    423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick E View Post
    Mark. You missed the bit ‘and ex international fencer’. Other than gaining coaching qualifications and sniping at others in the fencing community, what actual fencing experience do you have again? I agree with others, you need to show some respect to those actually involved in developing the sport in the U.K.
    Quote
    Show some goddamn respect. You were talking about sabre refereeing, and what you said was hilariously incorrect. This is not the first time you've spoken like this to people better placed to comment than yourself

    I must say as a watcher of this.
    Firstly debate about refereeing will always spur different answers.
    Plenty asked a perfectly good question about FOIL. Not sure who could possible think he was talking about Sabre.
    Secondly who is anyone to think they are better placed to have a better opinion than someone else. Being an experienced fencer does not ensure you are a good ref.

    That kind of in a good fencer shut up attitude has kept Fencing back for years.
    Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.
    Winston Churchill

  16. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander View Post
    Quote
    Show some goddamn respect. You were talking about sabre refereeing, and what you said was hilariously incorrect. This is not the first time you've spoken like this to people better placed to comment than yourself

    I must say as a watcher of this.
    Firstly debate about refereeing will always spur different answers.
    Plenty asked a perfectly good question about FOIL. Not sure who could possible think he was talking about Sabre.
    Secondly who is anyone to think they are better placed to have a better opinion than someone else. Being an experienced fencer does not ensure you are a good ref.

    That kind of in a good fencer shut up attitude has kept Fencing back for years.
    Yup, gotta back Plenty on this one. He was talking about foil and i’m not quite sure how anyone would think he was talking about sabre. Yes, he referenced sabre (crudely) but I don’t think he was talking about it.

    And he was asking questions in good faith albeit in a blundering and sometimes belligerent way.

    It appears that he got annoyed when a couple of forum regulars tried to derail the conversation by publicly using an inside joke (?). It comes across as pretty pathetic when you do this because you’ve got people on here who are genuinely taking an interest in the sport and trying to facilitate debate.

    I also stress that just because someone never competed doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t have a voice. If Plenty has become a coach and got even one young person into fencing it should be applauded. Our numbers are down and if we don’t encourage coaches to engage future fencers then you’ll be left in a position where it’s only you three on the site..... making private jokes to each other..... showing everyone how established you are in your 12 person community.

    Let’s be constructive.

    (I appreciate I have had a poor attitude such as the above in the past but i’m turning over a new leaf so there)

  17. #37
    Senior Member JackSparrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Shipwrecked
    Posts
    391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander View Post
    Being an experienced fencer does not ensure you are a good ref.
    True ...but Alex Savin is a very good ref.

    Mark, they discuss the situation you describe on this thread:
    https://www.fencing.net/forums/threa...n-line.141981/

    It's a different situation to the original post in this thread.
    Savvy!

  18. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Warwick uni
    Posts
    209

    Default

    The quote Savin replied to was specifically referencing sabre. Mark's response was disrespectful and implied greater knowledge. If one is going to openly suggest someone is not qualified for their position, they better have a strong backing in fact. Mark's assertion on SABRE refereeing being similar, that drew Savins reply, was patently wrong.

  19. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sabeares View Post
    The quote Savin replied to was specifically referencing sabre. Mark's response was disrespectful and implied greater knowledge. If one is going to openly suggest someone is not qualified for their position, they better have a strong backing in fact. Mark's assertion on SABRE refereeing being similar, that drew Savins reply, was patently wrong.
    I think I would go for oversimplified rather than patently wrong. Sabre refs do look at the feet to see who establishes priority, amongst many other things .

    I think he was trying to point out that foil reffing is now quite similar to the reffing of the sabre marching attack, hence the reference to feet.

    Yes, so he was belligerent, and probably misguided in his personal attack but the response: ‘show some goddamn respect’ hardly warranted and pretty pathetic.

    There are few people who command ‘respect’ in the UK fencing community in the way you have implied here.

    Perhaps Savin is one of them but there are more tactful ways of dealing.

  20. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Warwick uni
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FencingMove View Post
    Perhaps Savin is one of them but there are more tactful ways of dealing.
    Potentially, but I think any person deserves more respect than was shown there. Were it the first time, I may agree with you, but Mark has disrespected many people on here many times. It's not good enough, and not acceptable

Posting Permissions

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