Glad you enjoyed!

I admit that my comment was intended to be a little provocative 😄, but I do feel that the issues I raised are real and easily fixed. Especially if referees would be taught that you cannot invite an attack in prep or counterattack without ceding right of way to an attack in preparation. I would define it as not accelerating towards the touch, or accelerating after the start of the attack in prep. And perhaps my main point is that people practice inviting the attack in prep/counterattack in order to simply finish, and do it at the highest levels. Even according to what Chris Lennon said, this shouldn’t be happening. Anyway, I completely agree that talking about it hopefully will improve the consistency of the call to the point that everyone understands the difference between prep and attack enough that disguising prep as attack no longer becomes a viable strategy. Also point in line, i think you are right that it is called more, thank goodness. It used to be a dead action.

😄 That great! Glad you found the video useful

well at least you're aware of the bias, that's promising

Thank you! Chris is really doing the heavy lifting here lol 😅

Great to hear, glad you liked it! Chris knocked this one out of the park, no question 😂

Great to hear John! 🙂

Perhaps the thing I'm missing is the timing. If the marching fencer is ready to finish and starts right after their opponent begins their counter, I'd wager it looks different than many of these examples, where there's often a relatively clear gap between the attack in prep and the marching fencer's attempt to finish.

And does the attack on a marching attack "start" on the last advance before the lunge?

I'm not Chris, so I don't know what he would answer. Looking at your comment, ("assume the attack into the marching attack is a full confident lunge with no body evasion, blocking out, etc") it is a bit confusing. Which person is attacking? There is no such thing as a marching attack specifically, something is either an attack or it isn't. If someone makes an attack into a march, then by definition they have priority.

@@OlympicFoil What I meant is, one fencer is advancing in a march with their point not on target. The other fencer is retreating. Then, the fencer who is retreating stops retreating and launches a lunge with no body evasion or attempt to block out afterwards, and hits. In reaction to the beginning of his opponent's lunge, the fencer who was marching lunges and hits. This is the sort of action that gets called as an attack for the marching fencer all the time, even though his finishing of the attack is often a reaction to his opponent's action. Basically what I'm trying to figure out is, if attacking into a march gives you the right of way, why are marching attacks as powerful as they are, and why are they awarded by refs so often when the whole concept of a marching attack is to wait for your opponent to counter before you finish?

@@alexthegreat38 To quote Confucius, "It does not matter how slowly you go, so long as you do not stop". Confucius would have made a good foil ref lol 😊. An attack can be slow, but it can't stop, otherwise it doesn't exist.

Thanks Shrek!, glad to see you're still enjoying the channel :)

@@OlympicFoil :) yup

Yeah some of these calls are sooo tiiiiiight 😃 Hope you found the video useful!

@@OlympicFoil It's a keeper.

That's your opinion based on your interpretation of the word "extension". When I look at the touches, I see that the fencers do extend their sword arms. (otherwise how did the point hit the target?)

@@OlympicFoil I commend t.83 in its entirety, to your attention. Note the attack is required to be made by fleche or lunge and the extension to precede their initiation (t.83.2a, b, c.. Actions made with a bent arm are to be considered preparation (t.83.2.d). I've shared a link to the relevant rules. Let's just accept that casuistry is unnecessary here, as referees and fencers are generally, fully aware they are not enforcing the rules as written and quite happy with the situation. Ask yourself how often t.84.3 is enforced.

@@johnrohde5510 The attack can also be made with a step forward lunge, or step forward fleche. The words "lunge" and "fleche" are not defined in the rulebook, so it is left entirely to the referee to determine what they are and indeed when they may or may not begin. t.83.2 is a great section. You'll notice that it begins as listing these factors to be "considered" by the referee in judging the correctness of the attack, and so I'm sure they were duly considered, such as at 39:00 for example. That doesn't mean it is the only determining factor, and the rules do not say it is the only determining factor. a, b, c.. Actions made with a bent arm are to be considered preparations ..... then continues "laying themselves open to the initiation of the offensive or defensive/offensive action of the opponent". What's a bent arm? what is "the straightening of the arm"? Who should receive the point if two fencers make actions with their arms in a position deemed by the referee to meet the criteria of bent? All things are determined by the referee (alone), based on the convention. I disagree with the way you're making your point - to say "oh they're not enforcing the rules, because abc it says here xyz but c'est la via, that's the status quo, etc." . That's just your personal interpretation of what the rules say. It's better for fencers to to hear oh here are the rules, and they are interpreted according to the convention, which is as follows: and then you give explanations, show them this video, etc. and so on.

@@OlympicFoil with all due respect, you're not taking my original point, which was precisely to ascertain how referees currently are defining the attack. Instead we're descending into a rabbit hole of casuistry. The full rules do indeed state that they do not describe what a lunge is, anymore than they define what are the lines of defence. That's meant to have been taught by the beginner's coach. Referees have been deciding what to call by an unpublished, rolling consensus for a long time, which is why your videos are useful and why I wanted to know what they are calling re the extension. We both know what a lunge is and what a fleche is - and if we have any doubt as to whether successive fleche-like cross-steps constitute fleching, rule T.84.3 makes it clear they are not. Affecting not to know what basic terms of fencing mean isn't necessary to defend modern foil but generates a post-truth environment that isn't healthy. Foil has been evolving away from the rules for many decades. The FIE has made periodic attempts to take it back to the classical form and failed. Referees and fencers proving impervious to persuasion, Roch introduced the (now no longer) new timings to try to restore foil to something like the style envisaged in the rules and according to the layperson's preconceptions. For a while, traditional direct attacks on preparation and counterattacks were effective against bent arm attacks. There was an inevitable adaptation when fencers overcame the lockout by sprinting forward and suddenly extending at the last minute, after the counter had begun but generating enough speed to the target to beat the lockout. It seems pretty clear, referees and fencers at the top level don't want the rules enforced and are happy to let the sport evolve, year by year as a sort of fashion.

​@@johnrohde5510 Yeah apologies John I've been very crabby, difficult week. The channel's been quite dead, but I'm planning to make a video similar to this but instead for point in line, which I hope you'll enjoy. I do dislike saying the refs don't enforce the rules as written largely because that's the group that knows the rules so well. That they make calls according to the rolling convention is a mark of skill, ability, and experience. I want to avoid the narrative that they willfully ignore the rules (might it have its own harmful post truth effect on students?) over the implication that they agree on an interpretation/convention. It might be a stretched interpretation at times but it's not as disheartening for a fencer to hear that, instead of "the refs don't enforce the rules" imo. The definition of the attack as only at maximum as step lunge for example is absolutely key for the convention's logic. Anyway practical stuff, for the arm, in preparation extending is not considered as strongly as some other factors except in situations where everything else is almost the same (e.g. 30:00 ) But I would say specifically pulling the arm back can be an key factor, especially in the season we're currently in. So a lack of extension is different from actively pulling if you get me. This vid is a bit outdated. Hopefully this makes sense in text: attack into preparation has been made a bit stronger than it was with the tokyo calls, by heightening the weighting given to arm preparations done by pulling the arm. (some of these touches would go the other way 2023 most likely) So holding the arm bent won't do it, but pulling the arm back will more now than before, since around the paris world cup this year. Found a good example, the touch at 6-6 here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jZaJZ5Vnvrq3oKs.htmlsi=NT0JKxt--IYWJl7E&t=471 I like it personally, think it's a nice way to strengthen the attack into preparation but in a subtle way that doesn't disturb the rest of the balance.

I don't disagree with much of your comment, but I don't think it's as bad as all that. In my opinion there has been a noticeable increase in attack in prep, and things have changed a little bit. To share from the experience of making this video - back in 2020, it was very hard to find the examples, but if I were to try to make this video today I think it would be much easier - because people try it more, as confidence in the call in increasing 😃 Similarly with my point in line videos, even if you think the referee is vacillating in the video my hope is that just by discussing the call it makes it a bit more likely and a bit more known with every new view.