The "Flick" attack should be continued as a valid touch

I thank Con for instigating this debate. I can tell this is going to be fun.SourcingIn my research for my round, I found it surprisingly difficult to find sources on anything I am going to claim. Thus much of my rounds are constructed from personal experience – much like Con’s is. I don’t expect Con to disagree with many of the claimed facts (such as the 2005 timings lead to significantly lower levels of flicking), even though it is virtually impossible to find a good source which verifies that claim. So I will let Pro contest from his own experience any factual claims which may be false, and I largely intend to do the same to his.PrefaceThe resolution appears to be a shared BoP, for while I am on the positive end of the case, Con is arguing against the status-quo. I don’t foresee this being an issue since we have our own positive contentions either way, but just to make a note. Also, it is clear from the resolution that the negation of the resolution would be to invalidate flicking, or prohibit it on some level, such a notion can only be achieved pragmatically by changing the fencing rulings, to which I don’t believe Pro will disagree. Thus, this debate is about whether or not we should change the rules on what points are valid or not. Such a change is presently only executable by the Federal Instutute of Escrime (F.I.E) – this the resolution narrows down further on whether or not F.I.E. should change the rulings regarding flicking.Also, given that the fencing community is relatively small, and the literature is relatively thin regarding fencing (e.g. the ranked list of sabruers in the UK contains less than 500 people), I anticipate that a lot of my evidences will be from forums, anecdotes, and personal know-how. Which given Con’s opening argument, seems to be a fair setting for this debate regardless.BackgroundT3h Fl1ckThe flick in fencing, which can be done in any weapon is where the weapon is launched in a “whipping” motion, with the natural “bendiness” of the weapon causing the weapon to hit with a “significant” curve – often effective in avoiding parries, or hitting target areas not otherwise accessible (such as the back of the torso, or the extreme sides). See below image of such a flick performed on the rear torso: See below for diagram of the valid target area for hitting in foil, any hits outside the orange area do not score a point: Note that the flick can accomplished from many different circumstances, while the flick can be performed as a direct attack (used instead of the traditional “lunge with point-in-line”), it can also be used in a parry reposté (one of the most standard & common defensive manoeuvres in foil fencing), with feint/compound attacks, and also in “beat”-attacks (another form of compound attack).C1. Defining a “flick” is subjectiveThe problem with ruling out flicking as a valid touche, is that it is impossible to fairly and consistently rule. The reason for such is that foils whip and bend all over the place all the time, even during normal lunching motions (please see video #1 for a slow-motion replay, watch the motion of the foilist’s blades in even traditional motions).[ ] Such actions are difficult to see, but unmistably there, and a “flick” is simply an exaggerated and purposeful version of this.Thus with any attack, there is a level of “flicking” involved, this is especially relevant where is comes to compound attacks (where a feint, of a “dummy” attack is thrown, and the blade is moved and launched from a different angle/manner) and parry-ripostes (where the natural parrying motion, especially parry six, or a “beat” naturally stores some elastic energy within the blade).Thus, because even basic actions entail a level of “flicking”, and there being no way to both objectively AND pragmatically (more on this in a later section) distinguish between a “legal” flick and an “illegal” flick, that introducing regulations for such is unwise. Furthermore, because of blades flicking around anyway, especially when there is blade contact, then there are a large number of “accidental flicks” in any bout as well, especially in electrical foil. When a blade is parried, the very force of the parry causes the attacker’s blade to bend, and can often “whip around” the parry to land a flicking hit. This frequently happens in sabre, but also happens occasionally in foil.These are: 1. Virtually impossible to confidently rule as a flick/standard hit 2. Will cause serious disruption if they were ruled to be invalid on the grounds of an unsound flick call C2. Increases refereeing difficultyRefereeing in fencing is ****ing hard and stressful as it is.[http://www.fencingforum.com...]In foil fencing, referees have a role of comparable importance to judges of a dancing competition, where points are rewarded or lost because entirely on referee’s decision at times (referees calls are required to separate out “simultaneous” hits), and given an already low contingency for mistakes (only one referee per match, and only two video replays challenges, if any) on the referee’s part – the last thing we need is to introduce yet more difficulty into a stressful, difficult and unrewarding job that is the fencing referee.Referees are primarily charged with determining which fencer had “right of way”, which requires simultaneous attention to movement, footwork, and timing of arm extensions and judgement of blade contact – just to name a few. To outrule flicking would require the referee to also pay attention to the precise manner in which the blade landed.C3. Flicks have a high skill barrier to be effectiveEspecially since the introduction of the new fencing timings, flicks require a high level of skill to connect. Merely whipping the blade and hitting is insufficient to score a hit, since the tip needs to be depressed on its target for a minimum of 13-15 milliseconds (as opposed to the old 1-5 milliseconds pre-2005) to register on the electronic equipment. To execute an effective flick, one needs to factor in the built-up tension within the blade, where your opponent is going to be on the flick, and matching up the timing of where the tip will be when approaching the opponent. Unlike the traditional point-in-line attack, where one could lunge with their eyes closed and be guaranteed to be aiming at target area, far more factors come into play with successfully landing a flick attack in foil.Thus, novice fencers, those are most liable to cause the most safety issues, seldom use it as a hitting technique (since it is completely ineffective and hence a losing manoeuvre). This is akin to a novice tennis player attempting to perform a backhand slice/dropshot, or an overarm power-serve – they will lose unless they attain a high level of skill with either technique – a far higher level of skill than is required for more traditional maneuvers (underarm serve, backhand return).Furthermore, because it is a high level fencing technique, then prohibiting it would deprive high skilled fencers of a valuable tool of their repertoire that they have rightfully earned with sufficient practice.C4. Flicks are a solved problemIn foil fencing, the vast majority of hits are still not flicks, which even with its ability to evade parries, or to hit previously inaccessible target area, is a testament to the difficulty of the technique and also the efficacy of more traditional fencing techniques. Since the 2005 change in fencing timings the effectiveness of flicking dropped to such a level that previously world champion fencers were struggling to stay within the top 100.