Well, then its no longer a "first hit" type of rule set. The point is many rule sets are first touch with no after-blows etc.
Yes, it is so. And that is exactly what makes them too abstract. We can take Kendo as an example: one of the fighters hits another a couple of milliseconds before he is also hit and gets his Ippon. That's why Kendo fighters are extremely fast (I really envy their speed every time I see Kendo sparring) but in a real fight, they would be both dead.
As you can see, I do not advocate this kind of rules. They are not what makes a fight interesting or realistic. Luckily we have a lot of other rulesets to take inspiration from.
Following a rule of priority does help one start to get out of their own head and paying attention more to the opponent. You are now looking for specific things on which to capitalize.
I do not see it this way. I've never been an Olympic fencer but we have a club in our town and I visited them to see what we can learn. I have to admit, they are extremely impressive in their technique and have a great methodological advantage over HEMA but as with Kendo, their attacks are suicidal. I could not stop thinking that if those guys were to fight with sharp swords they would be instantly dead.
To make this post a bit more balanced I can say that "right of the way" is not a modern invention. It was used as early as in the Early Renaissance period in the first unarmoured fencing tournaments we have a data of. The rules of that tournaments were as abstract as of the modern foil fencing if not more. For example, a winner of the previous match had a huge advantage (written into the rules) in the following fights. So, I can imagine that this discussion is as old as the fencing itself
.
"Judges, help! He violates the "right of the way" rule!"