So the fencing club webmistress has requested that I add some serious fencing related content to our website. That in and of itself won't be a problem, but I'm not really sure where to start.

Taking a page from myself in high school, "start at the beginning and go from there!"

It's a miracle I survived high school. I was rather insufferable.

Anyway, the kickoff topic for Coachly Thoughts is everyone's favorite thing. Unless you're an epeeist, but hey. Right of Way has been bedeviling fencers since it was created all those years ago. I could tell you when with a little research, but not at the moment.

At its core, RoW is intended to represent in a sport format the bladework of an actual duel. As with all simulations, it does not completely represent that which it's replacing - a good thing and a bad thing, in my opinion. The set of rules that comprise RoW have led fencing down a path where many seriously competitive fencers fence the rulebook and not their opponent.
As a traditionalist in this regard, I find that trend most disturbing. I feel that one of the objectives of fencing is to preserve an aspect of European heritage that very little is known about. As a contrast, look at Asian martial art. Those have remained relatively static over MILLENIA in some cases, whereas in Europe the evolution of warfare was so rapid that dozens of styles and techniques were lost - and never recorded in writing, to boot!

Back to Right of Way. The idea behind it is simple: Self preservation. After all, only the truly insane would throw themselves into someone else's weapon. Correct? In Right of Way, the idea is to either successfully attack first OR successfully defend yourself against attack before launching a counter. This has been modified into both the current ruleset and the new 'fashion' of foil flicking.

As a sporting technique it has a place and a use, and its effectiveness is undeniable. As a practical weapon technique, it's laughable. No sword blade, bent at that angle, could deliver any sort of telling injury to an opponent. Heck, most sword blades would snap long before the typical upside down "U" shape of a flicking foil is achieved.

The other problem that RoW has really isn't its fault. Fencing these days has become so incredibly fast, and the machines so sensitive, that it's very difficult for a referee to call an action without getting bogged down in "counter, counter-counter, counter-counter-counter." This has led to an overabundance of terminology and a rulebook that gets fatter every year, not to mention a certain intellectual laziness in some referees.

Now, all I know is what I've seen, so don't be expecting me to name names or any pseudo-political nonsense. But referees are far more likely to give RoW to the fencer who moves forward aggressively first, be it foil or saber. I should point out here that the rulebook specifically states that RoW goes to the fencer whose ARM extends first in a threatening fashion, not the person whose body goes forward first. This problem has been noted by USFA/FIE, and the fix is a rule which states that the attack must arrive before the front foot hits the ground on the final action, otherwise the attack is considered "Continuation" and not attack.
As an aside, this rule was also created to combat the foil flick and the saber whipover, both of which are notorious for arriving AFTER the foot lands.

Unfortunately, that rule is only observed by more experienced (and traditionalist) referees at many local and even state tournaments. It's also very hard for less experienced referees to observe both fencer's bodies and blades - and I count myself among the less experienced, especially when refereeing faster fencers.

The concept of RoW is like one of those oriental games: Easy to learn, difficult to master. It can be alternately simple and complex, depending on the weapon and the style you fence. At its core, foil is the simplest and most direct of the RoW weapons. Granted, there's only two so the choice is limited. However, when you compare the rulesets for foil and saber, foil is a lot less complicated.

For example, there's no self-parry in foil nor a restricted area on the blade to beat. Now granted, it's some of those rules that set foil and saber apart, but it also makes saber more complex to teach and referee. On the other hand, it can easily be said that fencing cleanly (IE with control and no flailing) eliminates most of those concerns.

Which, as I sit here typing away, strikes me as the core of the matter. Right of way is intended to force clean fencing within certain style-specific guidelines; intended to preserve techniques refined over nearly a thousand years. Unfortunately, as seems to happen with every rule system ever developed, people figure out how to use - and bend - those rules to their best advantage. That sets off a curiously circular chain-reaction wherein classic technique (eg, flank cut) is supplanted by rule-specific technique (eg,whipover), which is then itself supplanted by the backlashed return to classic.

I don't know that I've used the best choice of phrase in that description, so I added examples in the hope that inference will succeed where definition falls short.

Finally, it is very important to note that the definitions of actions will vary from official to official. What one person calls a stop hit in opposition another will call a parry-riposte, for example, and the fencers must understand how the referee defines actions if they are to have any hope of succeeding. Unfortunately, you DO fence the referee as much as your opponent.

Anyway, that's my slightly disjointed take on Right of Way. Stay tuned for the next episode where I take on the parry-riposte.