Right of Way Problem

Right of Way Problem

Post by John E Mas » Sat, 04 Mar 1995 09:27:06


I don't know if this particular issue has already been addressed. I haven't
been keeping up with all the discussions in the newsgroup lately. But here
is my question on right of way:

Fencer A and B are within lunge distance of each other. Fencer A steps
forward, B steps back, thus intiating atack and processing right of way.
However, fencer A makes a large sweeping movement, with his step, to find
B's blade. Now B has two choices: he could derobe and hit A, but if A
hits him, it will be ruled as A's attack - B's counter; or B could parry
A, then attack. But there is a problem with the second choice. If the
judge hears a beat, let's say the beat occurs along the middle part of
both fencers' blades, then he sees both fencers attack and hit valid, who's
right of way is it. A's because he started looking for B's blade first,
or B's because A initates attack and didn't avoid B's parry.

I got into the silly habit lately of derobing and doing the counter
attack, which needless to say his cost me dearly in recent competitions.
However, if I parry and then attack. It will probably look simulaneous
and ruled as such. The reason why I wouldn't necesarily parry with the
strong part of my blade, in this case, is that the other fencer could do a
flick in which case I perfer to parry early as opposed to being chased
down the strip waiting for the other fencer to finally attack.

Is my thinking at all correct, or am I really confusing myself,
John

 
 
 

Right of Way Problem

Post by Morgan Bur » Sun, 05 Mar 1995 03:41:48


|> Fencer A and B are within lunge distance of each other. Fencer A steps
|> forward, B steps back, thus intiating atack and processing right of way.

Steps alone should not earn right of way.

|> However, fencer A makes a large sweeping movement, with his step, to find
|> B's blade.

This is a preparation by A.  Still no right of way, although you are
about to be attacked.

|> Now B has two choices: he could derobe and hit A, but if A
|> hits him, it will be ruled as A's attack - B's counter; or B could parry
|> A, then attack.

B could derobe _before_ A finds his blade, but not once A finds his
blade.  You can't really parry a taking of the blade, but perhaps B could
take it back, or beat A's blade on A's preparation.  Alternatively,
allow A to take the blade, and then parry the subsequent attack.  All
of these would give B right of attack - which is still not right-of-way
unless B returns the attack immediately.

|> But there is a problem with the second choice. If the
|> judge hears a beat, let's say the beat occurs along the middle part of
|> both fencers' blades, then he sees both fencers attack and hit valid, who's
|> right of way is it. A's because he started looking for B's blade first,
|> or B's because A initates attack and didn't avoid B's parry.

Ref's judgement.  If A initiates the action and B lets him find his blade
and doesn't convincingly take it back, then the ref will lean towards A.  
If B definitely takes it back, or derobes A's attempt to take his blade
and _then_ takes/beats A's blade, then B gets it.  If both fencers try to
beat/take each other, and neither dominates, then simultaneous is probably
the best call.

|> I got into the silly habit lately of derobing and doing the counter
|> attack, which needless to say his cost me dearly in recent competitions.

If your opponent was definitely trying to take your blade, then he is in
preparation and your counter is actually the attack and should have
priority.  Since this didn't happen, either your ref was baked or
you were misjudging the opponent's action.

|> However, if I parry and then attack. It will probably look simulaneous
|> and ruled as such.

Again, don't try to parry a taking of the blade -- it won't work.  Either
take it back (eg. bind, envelop, oppose, disengage-beat, counter-beat), or
delay your parry until the taking turns into an attack.  Sometimes you
must allow your opponent to take the right-of-way in order for you to
clearly take it back (ie. second intention).

-- Morgan Burke