Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 29 of 29

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
    867

    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
    867

    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
    867

    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
    6,026

    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
    252

    Default

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

Posting Permissions

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