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

Imagine my surprise when a debate topic so esoteric as this gets snapped up so quickly, and by some one whom so (by the numbers) out-classes me. Thanks to my contender, and I hope to make a good read. For the Laymen, here. https://en.wikipedia.org... Fencing harkens back to a different time to find its roots; one that doesn’t need electricity to determine a winner. The winner was found by whom is not in a pile of blood on the floor. Through the ages, with the advent of technology, fencing was able to move from definitive winner via pulse to subjective winner with judges. Then, the aid of further technology enabled for even more precision regarding scoring without the unfortunate side effect of death. Currently, “Sport” fencing, or “Olympic” fencing consists of making use of small amperages and voltages to make or break circuits through the “touch” of a simulacra weapon to establish scoring. This descriptor is important: what each fencer holds is a weapon, not some silly scoring device. In its roots, this was a rapier, a proverbial three foot long needle with casual edges at the tip to allow for cuts at range at the wielder’s preference, in addition to the raw piercing power of focusing the attacker’s lunge into one scant hair-sized point. A “touch” was what could reasonable score blood. With the desire to not die, different simulation weapons were adopted. I say all that because there is indeed a spirit of the game. Fencing is not electronic tag. Fencing is a deadly game of deception, aggression and martial prowess. With is current state, it has fallen to us to make use of rule-sets to ensure that the former martial art of sword finesse holds true while making sure that opponents engage in a safe, but ultimately skill based sport. The “Flick” breaks all that. A Flick needs mechanical advantage, withdrawing of the attack to create the “whip” of the Flick, and violates the spirit and potential safety of the opponent. To start, the obvious problem is Safety. The Flick, by its nature, is designed to strike in a place where the attacker is not immediately aiming. A fencing mask protects the wearer from front attack, and side attack. Enclosing the head wholly makes for a variety of new complications, and current rule-sets that allow for the Flick do not consider the back of the skull for concerns. Off target Flicks, have the immediate capacity to strike an opponent where no protective gear is present. A traditional point in line attack, however cannot do this, unless gross incompetence is engaged in by both opponents. This reason alone, I feel, should be the immediate disqualifier for such attack to be able to score, or reasonably thrown to begin with. A Flick requires surrender of Right of Way. Right of way for an attack is established by a threatening posture of the attacker. Quite literally, extending the arm and pointing the weapon at the opponent is considered an attack (usually known as “Point in Line”), and if an opponent should get tagged by such a basic attack while engaging in a counter attack, the action is halted in favor of the person whom first established Right of Way. It is incumbent upon the defender to defend from the attack. If a touch can be made without a parry (blade contact to represent a block of the attack), so be it, however the Flick, because it needs a withdraw of Point in Line to be thrown to be effective, negates itself as an attack, and as such, need not be parried for a counter attack, no matter how slow to the “Time” (explained next) of the match, to be effective. The Flick is “Out of Time”. When fencers engage in flurried or repetitious attacks, a measured beat can be established. An “In Time” attack, parry, or riposte (counter attack from a block) is one that occurs reasonably close to how those beats (attack/parry/riposte) are falling. This is highly subjective, however that is the nature of judging a match: needing to find the in-time strikes and in the case of the Flick, appropriate counter attack. To throw a Flick, the opponent must aim off target, the nature of such indicating no right-of-way, and make use of mechanical advantage and not skill to land a successful touch (score). There is no riposte to a Flick, and that is the point, it evades timing and skill of the opponent through alternate means. The Nuts and Bolts of a Flick: The thrower of the “Flick” is not aiming at the opponent. At all. Sure, the intent is to land the tip of the weapon on the opponent, but that is not the aim. In reality, the thrown attack is some place (any place!) out in space past reasonable parry distance of the opponent, with the hopes that alteration of the arm further to a further out of line stance will then bend the blade in such a fashion it curves “around” the opponent. Ideally, the goal is to distort the current weapon beyond its “spirited” means to score a touch through mechanical advantage. In such a case, its no longer about “Point in Line”. Its about how metallurgically stable your blade can be with attempts to turn a needle into a whip. With regards to a “spirit” of the event, by now, I don’t think I need to belabor it. The initial concept was to run the opponent through, to put your blade, via aiming it, feinting it, and misdirecting the opponent, through the opponent in order to achieve victory. Judges, after the “death” portion of the show was mitigated, were looking to whom would be dead first, this was established by whom attacked first. The rapier is not a whip. Its not a metal device intended to be slung in a circle in order to establish priority. There are far superior weapons for that. The core, the heart of fencing, were two people with appreciation of their lives. They looked each other in the eyes and set about to devise a way in which to skewer each other. The men were separated from the boys for countless centuries based on that ability. I, personally, find it hard to believe that we have devolved in the manner of both prowess and sport to rely not on ability, but on versatility and availability of equipment to demonstrate such. Anecdotal That *h*t hurts when you do it wrong. I have been on the receiving end of it, many times. I have judged it at my local fencing club, many times. A Flick that lands wrong and on a person has now converted a 3 foot long piece of spring steel into a rat trap, with whatever bits of flesh to snap on as were available as physics indiscriminately chooses. A person that engages in a Flick is hoping beyond hope that the person they deliberately missed on their attack won’t throw an immediate attack in return, AND hopes the judge won’t notice the unsubtle arm and wrist withdrawl needed to complete the attack (which then negates it as an attack). To me, it seems as though the opponents safety is callously disregarded. This part of my argument is solely anecdotal, but I highly doubt is isolated. To learn to "Flick" in which you land where you needed to land, your opponents well being was disregarded. I am confident that while "dry" fencing, my opponent is mindful, and I am confident that my opponent in this debate is equally skilled and mindful of those they practice with and on, that is the nature of skill. I, however, have no desire to use my fellow club fencers as a literal whipping post in order to develop a technique that rely on how well my weapon becomes not the weapon as intended. That attempts to circumvent my fellow club members as fencers, and teaches them nothing, and gives them nothing as a bench mark to clear.That is a reprehensible example to set, and the Flick will have no part in my repetoire because of it.