The concept definitely makes sense, but in practice is incredibly frustrating. Everything in fencing is subject to referee review, but attack in preparation feels like the most subjective thing and is incredibly inconsistent in how it is called from ref to ref. With some referees, you can fully break distance (so it would take several tempo just to get to you), not be chased with any urgency at all, charge full tilt, and have the other person get the attack call because at the last second (or sometimes even after you already hit them) they said "oh I guess I'm supposed to stick my arm out now." Or they only feel safe calling it when it's one light.
Yep, I completely agree. The thing to remember, though, is that refs generally try to be consistent, even if they make a mistake. So in this case, next move would be to break distance and rush in *as an invitation* to set up parry riposte (for example).
For me, attack on preparation is when you are punishing a badly done attack for example: the attacker walk with to big step or isn't "ready". So for me, in this case if both hit then the one originally attacking should have the point. If that make sense. But writing it make me wonder where to put the line between counter attack and attack on preparation.
The concept definitely makes sense, but in practice is incredibly frustrating. Everything in fencing is subject to referee review, but attack in preparation feels like the most subjective thing and is incredibly inconsistent in how it is called from ref to ref.
With some referees, you can fully break distance (so it would take several tempo just to get to you), not be chased with any urgency at all, charge full tilt, and have the other person get the attack call because at the last second (or sometimes even after you already hit them) they said "oh I guess I'm supposed to stick my arm out now." Or they only feel safe calling it when it's one light.
Yep, I completely agree. The thing to remember, though, is that refs generally try to be consistent, even if they make a mistake. So in this case, next move would be to break distance and rush in *as an invitation* to set up parry riposte (for example).
For me, attack on preparation is when you are punishing a badly done attack for example: the attacker walk with to big step or isn't "ready". So for me, in this case if both hit then the one originally attacking should have the point. If that make sense.
But writing it make me wonder where to put the line between counter attack and attack on preparation.
attack in prep sus