can somebody explain Fencing Right of Way to me?

[freiman the minstrel]

Guys,

I will be a position soon where I will need to understand fencing Right of way.

I have always found this to be almost incomprhensible.

If somebody here understands it, please explain it to me.

freiman

[Winterfell]

In modern fencing terms, "Right of way" is when the attacker extends his/her arm to thrust or lunge. If the arm is bent you do not have right of way.
If your opponent extends his arm out first for a thrust, you may regain right of way, by parry and riposte.
Right of way is one of the aspects used by judges when determining the validity of a touch, when both fencers have struck at the same time. This is mostly for "dry fencing". Electric fencing scores are determined by machine and are more acurate, allowing for better judgements.

As for why there is Right of Way in the first place. In the 18th and 19th centuries as the small sword, the forrunner of the modern foil and epee, become common, right of way was established for practice, to avoid excessive injuires. This was at a time when fencing helms were not worn.
So what was essentially a safety issue, that became moot when protective masks came into use, was now tradition, which has continued to this day.

[Jehan de Pelham]

You're in Germany, Freiman, you ought to check out some traditional Prussian schlager university-style fencing sometime...insane.

Jehan

[Winterfell]

I have seen Mensur duelling. I would not call itcombat per se as more an act of lunacy.
Standing on a box less then three feet away, no foot movement, nothing but cuts and parries until one gets exhausted or slips up and then bam! nice cut across the face, no helm, just goggles and a nose protection.
Whoohoo

[Cunian]

If someone initiates an attack, you are obligated to defend - either parrying or getting out of the way. You can't get credit for a touch if his was initiated first, because by initiating an attack he gained "right of way". After you parry, "right of way" automatically passes to you.

Cunian, typing for Gunnar

[IainMcClennan]

Right of way wasn't just a practice safety issue so much as a staying alive issue. In a real duel the overriding concern is to hit without being hit. If your opponent has created a threat, you must deal with it before attacking him. You can't just counter attack and hope you get your touch in first. If it were real you could both end up dead.

The proper way to attack is to move your weapon first, then your feet. This way your weapon comes into range first, presenting a threat, before your body. If you move your feet first you bring your body into range of his weapon where he can hit you before you have begun to attack him.

Right of way enforces proper technique by not recognizing an attack until the sword has begun to move (extension of the arm), and then requiring the other fencer to ensure his own defense before making his counter attack. The rule can seem annoying and unnecessary in a sporting context, but it's needed to give the bout some semblance of a sword fight in the absence of fear of injury.

Iain

[Chris Gilman]

To quote Ted Cassidy's character from "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid":

"RULES!!??... IN A KNIFE FIGHT?"

Right of way: I have my rapier stuck in any part of you body, I have right of way, regardless of what you did before I stuck you.

[Winterfell]

You mean, voiding the attack, by stepping off line and thrusting into your opponent is not proper? Boy have I been an improper fencer lately.

Seriously though, a duel is very different than strip fencing.
And while the overriding concern is to hit without being hit, there are a multitude of ways of doing so without the riposte. But then again it all depends on:
The era.
The weapons.
The intent.

Right of way wasn't just a practice safety issue so much as a staying alive issue. In a real duel the overriding concern is to hit without being hit. If your opponent has created a threat, you must deal with it before attacking him. You can't just counter attack and hope you get your touch in first. If it were real you could both end up dead.

The proper way to attack is to move your weapon first, then your feet. This way your weapon comes into range first, presenting a threat, before your body. If you move your feet first you bring your body into range of his weapon where he can hit you before you have begun to attack him.

Right of way enforces proper technique by not recognizing an attack until the sword has begun to move (extension of the arm), and then requiring the other fencer to ensure his own defense before making his counter attack. The rule can seem annoying and unnecessary in a sporting context, but it's needed to give the bout some semblance of a sword fight in the absence of fear of injury.

Iain

[Jon Barber]

Definition of right-of-way varies depending on the context. In modern strip fencing (USFA/FIE rules) the description given below is pretty much spot-on. In a more 'classical' fencing context right-of-way changes hands through the checking of an attack. Voiding is a legitimate method . As is a stopthrust or cut in time to the attacking arm, or any of a bunch of methods that are familiar to SCA rapier folks. But the concept is basic - you need to deal with your opponent's attack before you can safely launch your own. How you go about this is less important than it happening. The original intent of right-of-way was to prevent foolish, messy double hits resulting from poor technique.

Double Kills Are Bad (tm).

John Patrick

You mean, voiding the attack, by stepping off line and thrusting into your opponent is not proper? Boy have I been an improper fencer lately.

Right of way enforces proper technique by not recognizing an attack until the sword has begun to move (extension of the arm), and then requiring the other fencer to ensure his own defense before making his counter attack. The rule can seem annoying and unnecessary in a sporting context, but it's needed to give the bout some semblance of a sword fight in the absence of fear of injury.

Iain

[freiman the minstrel]

In modern fencing terms, "Right of way" is when the attacker extends his/her arm to thrust or lunge. If the arm is bent you do not have right of way.
If your opponent extends his arm out first for a thrust, you may regain right of way, by parry and riposte.
Right of way is one of the aspects used by judges when determining the validity of a touch, when both fencers have struck at the same time. This is mostly for "dry fencing". Electric fencing scores are determined by machine and are more acurate, allowing for better judgements.

OK, I'm not very smart. I am still not getting this. I have just read it out loud to myself three times, and nothing.

It must be me.

If you would care to try again (and I realize that such a thing is above and beyond) I would appreciate it.

If not, thank you for trying.

I mean that. Thank you.

f

[Dagonet]

Basically whoever begins their attack first has right of way. If you are attacked you must parry their attack before you can counterattack. There are a few acceptions, but that is the nut shell. The timing and action of which competitor has right of way is called by a director. He/she decides ultimately who had it and/or if they lost it, and who gets the touch.

Acceptions are attack into preperations, point in line, parry with distance, or if the attack simply misses right of way is lost. Also, if you begin your hand forward and gain right of way, if you pull it back at all you lose right of way. These are finer points to the grander scheme. Hope it helps.

Dagonet

[Stefan ap Llewelyn]

I have never fenced but this sounds to me like a cure to the scenario where A attacks B. Being as there is no threat of injury B ignores the attack because he thinks he can land one either quicker or at the same time.

But fencing is meant to simulate a real duel and in a real duel it would not be natural to do this. A perons would not dive into a potentially lethal attack because he thinks there is a chance he can touch his opponent first.

This right of way rule seems like a way to enforce the spirit of combat over exploitation of the rules.

It would be nice at times if we had a similar think in LARPing and re-enacting.

[Morgan]

Since when is fencing meant to simulate a real duel?

[Marshal]

Not since about 1895....

BTW, even with the scoring box a referee is still needed to determine right of way.

[Chris Gilman]

My FM style can beat your AM style!

[corbin skarlocke]

Fence Epee' - no right of way

[Lynxicanus]

As simplified as I can make it:

Right of Way: Right of way signifies that between 2, 3 (or more) people, 1 of them is allowed to proceed while the others must wait. The person who can proceed has 'right of way'. The others must wait until he has excecuted his motion before they can go.

In Fencing:
Imagine I thrust. AND you thrust. We both hit one another. Thus we are both dead. To solve this (and for the many other reasons stated above) the idea of fencing right of way was established. When one fighter fully extends their arm, (or undertakes the action which grants them right of way) they are deemed to have right of way. At this point the other fighter can not simply do as they wish. They can not 'attack' in the same manner as the individual with right of way. They must either parry, or repost in some accepted manner.

Thus right of way limits what the defending fighter is allowed to do when he is attacked. What he is limited to is subject to the rules you play under and can vary significantly. In this way you must decide exactly what right of way allows one to do/not do.

Also, ROW could be used to determine the 'winner' in a simultaneous hit. "they hit one another at the same time, but fighter A had his arm extended, so he had right of way and his hit counts."

I hope this helps. If it does not, tell us exactly what part of this you are having troubles we could try and be more detailed in that respect.


DISCLAIMER: I'm certainly no expert and prior to reading this posting I did not have a great understanding of right of way in fencing. Thus my opinion is derived from what I read here and could be in error or not fully developed.

Cheers,
Mike