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

I appreciate Pro posting up some of the basics of fencing, such visual presentation goes a long way for helping both the casual reader and experienced fencer to "pick up" the discussion points.With regards to the Preface put forth, it is agreed on all suggested points.Rebuttals:A note on the picture: a Flick performed on the "rear torso". Such a flick seems to be landing, however, just above the armpit, and snagging the lame (Frenchy sword fighting word for "Jacket"). Such is the nature of flagellating your opponent, and misusing a weapon of a specific purpose. As it stands, the FIE is the governing body on the matter of what stays and what goes in the sport fencing, and they recently adopted various changes to their rules, mostly being how long weapon tip to target must be maintained for a point to be scored (that duration went up), and how long a fencer has to make an "in time" attack in return before the electronic scoring equipment "locks" them out from a touch being scored. The FIE recognized a problem, and took steps to mitigate it, hoping the use of the Flick would disappear: such an attack simply couldn't hold contact long enough to score. To the FIE's credit, such a ruling worked. Mostly. The law of unintended consequences took over, preventing straight forward attacks from scoring, due in part to what nature of what under-armor a fencer might be wearing. Were Con to take a stab (PUN!) at guessing why such a rules change was adopted, I would recommend my opening set of arguments. Con has no disagreement here. Background:"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)." Con has no disagreement here. The Flick can be thrown from any variety of advantageous direct attack, but much like any direct attack, it has Right of Way, provided the extension of the arm is maintained, and the weapons are clearly not Passe (carrying past the target without hitting)."The problem with ruling out flicking as a valid touche, is that it is impossible to fairly and consistently rule."Not necessarily. Again, Con's picture to the "Rear Torso" illustrates this. The attacker's hand is dead level (from the cameraman's perspective) to the defender's shoulder, and the blade has curved back 180 to the attacker. This makes "Point in Line" the arbitrator of what is considered a Flick and what isn't. I feel confident a judge could recognize the obvious problem with keeping the target in focus with such a hand position."Thus with any attack, there is a level of “flicking” involved,"Whoa, full stop. With any attack, there is natural "bendiness" of the weapon. Such is unavoidable. This should not be used interchangeably with a Flick. It was previously stated that a Flick attack is "exaggerated and purposeful", i.e. not natural. C2 Rebuttal:Refereeing a match is quite difficult, however if we are immediately able to define a Flick as exaggerated, it seems to be that this is one immediate action that can be ruled out as an attack, that being it would have right of way only to nothing. That is a simplification, not a complication: one immediate variety of attack can be disqualified. More over, the referee need not consider where the blade landed or how, but where the hand is at the time of the touch. The electronics in a match handle whether or not the touch is in a scoring area. If a referee should notice this exaggerated motion, or should notice the attacker's arm extension is non-existent or reasonably would result in a passe situation, the call becomes much easier to make.C3 Rebuttal:A Flick landing in a match takes quite a bit of practice, however I question on whom and what the attacker in such a circumstance was practicing. I know from mine own club how that prevails, and its not nearly as complimentary as Pro would have us believe. I reiterate: that s*i* hurts when you do it wrong, and typically one will practice until one stops doing it wrong. This means you have spent hours snapping at your fellow club-mates to engage in a feat which the FIE is actively establish rules to dissuade. Even between two skilled opponents, a safety situation may present itself. One need go no further than the photo submitted in the first round. 2 inches higher, and the gentlemen on the picture's right is liable to loose a piece of his hairline around the nape of his neck. Assuming the attacker on the left is expirienced, that is a pretty callous disregard of the opponent to attempt such a thing. Assuming he is not so expirienced... well, novices don't throw Flicks, so I have been told. C4 Rebuttal: This immediately demonstrates that it was a problem, and without a more direct/comprehensive recognition, will continue to be so. Relying on cheap trick, something that the governing body of the sport is attempting to respectfully sweep under the rug, is all the argument that need be made.