Ref Camp--Franzie's tale of Woe

My sworn schwertbrudder Jon, a.k.a. "Franzie," just finished attending a referee's seminar back in CA. Some idiot from Los Angeles, an arrogant foilist (wow, there's a shock), presided over the event and surprise surprise was unprepared for Jon's questions. He should have seen it coming, but then, FIE/USFA are the problem, so maybe that is not so surprising after all.

At issue was "right of way." If you don't fence, and none of you do methinks, then this can take some explaining, but here's the gist. Right of way is meant to mimic the logic of combat--if someone attacks you with something sharp & pointy before you have a chance to, then they are "attacking," which means that you ought to think about "defending." This means presenting a threat, a credible threat, something someone would have to defend against, say perhaps like someone attempting to spit you in the chest or slice your head down the middle. Simple, right? There are some subtle issues within this rule that I will not bore you with here, but really, that's pretty much it.

The problem now, as many of us have spent so much time in print arguing, is that fencers and their officials no longer follow this rule. An "attack" now does not require that the blade be extended toward the opponent. My pal Jon, as upset about this as I am, then asked for clarification:

"So, basically, so long as you haven't swallowed the weapon or left it at home you are threatening the opponent?"

Pause.

"Yes."

WOW. Under these terms, one could be running away, back turned, and threatening one's opponent. And they wonder why synchronized lawn bowling might put fencing out of the Olympics...