I know people do not want to call that reprise but I’m part of the common sense school of thought that if someone misses their attack… the right of way does not pass to the adversary automatically. In this case right renewed their attack and was the first to "go for it" to hit left. It was for left to parry or make them miss, instead they went into right’s attack. Correct call. I genuinely think people should be reminded about why the right of way rules exist. On the flip side I agree that most referees would give it to left rather than right.
@@BetterExplanation hard disagree. Regardless of the reason we have to consider the effect that each of these decisions has on the watchablity of the game. So on the flip flip side, if you call it based purely on who starts first then the person with more momentum (the person who was just going forward) will literally always be able to start first and the game would competely fall apart. Why would anyone ever go back on defense again if it isn't as good an option as the attack and you could just choose to keep going after missing? What's stopping someone from lunging over and over again if they can always just use their momentum to start again before their opponent after missing?
@@BetterExplanation Giving reprise like this would completely wipe out distance pull in long attacks. You would never be able to get back en garde faster than the attacker who basically just needs to bring that back foot forward...
Congrats Vlad!!! 🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴
thank you for posting
Haha "I strongly hate that call." How tf is that reprise?
I know people do not want to call that reprise but I’m part of the common sense school of thought that if someone misses their attack… the right of way does not pass to the adversary automatically. In this case right renewed their attack and was the first to "go for it" to hit left. It was for left to parry or make them miss, instead they went into right’s attack. Correct call. I genuinely think people should be reminded about why the right of way rules exist. On the flip side I agree that most referees would give it to left rather than right.
@@BetterExplanation hard disagree. Regardless of the reason we have to consider the effect that each of these decisions has on the watchablity of the game. So on the flip flip side, if you call it based purely on who starts first then the person with more momentum (the person who was just going forward) will literally always be able to start first and the game would competely fall apart. Why would anyone ever go back on defense again if it isn't as good an option as the attack and you could just choose to keep going after missing? What's stopping someone from lunging over and over again if they can always just use their momentum to start again before their opponent after missing?
@@BetterExplanation Giving reprise like this would completely wipe out distance pull in long attacks. You would never be able to get back en garde faster than the attacker who basically just needs to bring that back foot forward...