Point in line

[Unmarked]

Here's a little situation involving the point in line in foil which I'm not very sure about.Fencer A launches an attack but lands short.Fencer B does not parry and the blades do not make any contact.Both fencers then pause for a while until B steps forward with his arm bent.Fencer A then extends and derobes fencer B's attempt to take his blade.Both fencers land valid hits.Whose point should it be?

Thanks.

[Teme]

Originally Posted by Unmarked

Fencer A then extends and derobes fencer B's attempt to take his blade.Both fencers land valid hits.

Since B searches for the blade and fails, it's A's point.

[dunastor]

Originally Posted by Unmarked

Here's a little situation involving the point in line in foil which I'm not very sure about.Fencer A launches an attack but lands short.Fencer B does not parry and the blades do not make any contact.Both fencers then pause for a while until B steps forward with his arm bent.Fencer A then extends and derobes fencer B's attempt to take his blade.Both fencers land valid hits.Whose point should it be?

You call this a situation involving the PiL, but nowhere do I read anything about a line being established.
The action before they both pause is irrelevant to the phrase d'armes. After that there is a search from B with a derobement by A, so that's a point for A. There is never a line.

[Craig]

Look at only the final action:

Originally Posted by Unmarked

Fencer A then extends and derobes fencer B's attempt to take his blade.Both fencers land valid hits.Whose point should it be?

Point for A - Fencer B attemtped to take the blade and failed.

There is no point in line anywhere in this situation.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Unmarked

Here's a little situation involving the point in line in foil which I'm not very sure about.Fencer A launches an attack but lands short.Fencer B does not parry and the blades do not make any contact.Both fencers then pause for a while until B steps forward with his arm bent.Fencer A then extends and derobes fencer B's attempt to take his blade.Both fencers land valid hits.Whose point should it be?

Thanks.

Not to knock you down but do you understand the concept of Point In Line? There is no mention of point in line in the above paragraph.

Point in Line takes a fencing tempo to establish. It is not an attack per se and DOES not gain priority as the arm is extending. PIL is not established until the arm is reasonably straight. This can be masked by moving forward at the same time. Some directors require a hair short of elbow lockout, but IMO this is too stringent.

Sooo, if Fencer A is establishing PIL, and Fencer B is attacking and they both hit, Fencer B gets the point because he is one tempo ahead. I'm sure I'll be berated for the oversimplification.

[Unmarked]

Thanks for all the replies guys.Shows how much I still have to learn.So here's another question probably silly but anyways,is the part where A extends his arm after B has taken a step forward with his arm bent considered a PIL?Thanks again.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Unmarked

Thanks for all the replies guys.Shows how much I still have to learn.So here's another question probably silly but anyways,is the part where A extends his arm after B has taken a step forward with his arm bent considered a PIL?Thanks again.

No. Read the rule book for the definition of a point in line.

In practice, the line is not an action, but a state. The line must exist for a unit of fencing time as a state to have priority. Thus, if a fencer is extending they do not have a point in line.

Craig

[Cotlar]

Ok, folks, here's a new twist on the point in line. I've been fencing for over 20 years, and as I age, I've developed a few tricks to compensate. One of them is a slow but well timed "point in line" to low-line as my opponant winds up for their attack. I believe this establishes right of way, as my arm is extended with point threatening target (low). But the only time directors give me this is when there's one light for me. Hence the question: is there such a thing as low line point in line if established prior to the beginning of my opponant's attack?

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Cotlar

Ok, folks, here's a new twist on the point in line. I've been fencing for over 20 years, and as I age, I've developed a few tricks to compensate. One of them is a slow but well timed "point in line" to low-line as my opponant winds up for their attack. I believe this establishes right of way, as my arm is extended with point threatening target (low). But the only time directors give me this is when there's one light for me. Hence the question: is there such a thing as low line point in line if established prior to the beginning of my opponant's attack?

If the directors don't see it, apparently not. As Grey alluded too in another thread, you're not just fencing an opponent. You're also fencing FOR a judge. There are certain actions that just about any but the top rated judges would miss.

[Cotlar]

I gotta agree. No point is worth it unless the director sees what you want him to see.... unless its one light! The move is occasionally worth the cheap touch, though, when successful. You can also do an offensive version when facing someone who's spastically girating their blade.

[Craig]

What you describe is not a point in line but a counterattack.

The line must be a straight arm at shoulder height to be called. Since you only get the point when it's one light, it's not a point in line that's being called for you.

The requirements for a Point in Line are highlighted in this from the Fencing Officials Commission site:

THE POINT IN LINE
The point in line exists as the highest level of priority. If it is established correctly, the opponent must avoid it, remove it, or have the fencer with the point in line to no longer have the point in line.

A point in line exists when a fencer has the following conditions met prior to an opponent’s attack:

• weapon arm fully extended
• a straight line from the point of the weapon to the shoulder
• point aimed at valid target
• no movement of the blade except to derobe the opponent’s attempt to find the blade
• is standing still, moving forward, or moving back

- Craig

Craig

Originally Posted by Cotlar

Ok, folks, here's a new twist on the point in line. I've been fencing for over 20 years, and as I age, I've developed a few tricks to compensate. One of them is a slow but well timed "point in line" to low-line as my opponant winds up for their attack. I believe this establishes right of way, as my arm is extended with point threatening target (low). But the only time directors give me this is when there's one light for me. Hence the question: is there such a thing as low line point in line if established prior to the beginning of my opponant's attack?

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by Cotlar

Ok, folks, here's a new twist on the point in line. I've been fencing for over 20 years, and as I age, I've developed a few tricks to compensate. One of them is a slow but well timed "point in line" to low-line as my opponant winds up for their attack. I believe this establishes right of way, as my arm is extended with point threatening target (low). But the only time directors give me this is when there's one light for me. Hence the question: is there such a thing as low line point in line if established prior to the beginning of my opponant's attack?

Only if your opponent is FAR taller than you and you're short...PIL is a straight line from the shoulder to the tip of the weapon...but it should be parallel to the floor...aiming to a low line would look like you're aiming at the floor.

[Cotlar]

Wow. Excellent and quick responses. Interesting that you can do point in line while retreating. Directors don't seem to like that either in my experience. Guess I'd have to read them rules some day....

[CvilleFencer]

Point in Line seems to be one of the most misunderstood situations in fencing. I am not sure why this is as the rules seem to spell it out and deal with it quite effectively. Nonetheless is seems to cause more confusion that marches, flicks, etc. I think the biggest misconception is that point in line is either an attack or defense, and is noted above it is neither, it is simply a situation that can exist given certain circumstances. PIL is a useful tool to have, but I think it is attempted way to often without a clear understanding of what needs to happen make it so.

Of course the confusion is not just on the part of the fencers. I have seen good refs misapply this rule as well, with such misinterpretations such as you only get one step forward, you can not have it on the retreat, it must be established outside of advance lunge distance (there is a grain of truth to this but it is more a practical truth than a fencing rule as if you are that close most opponents are either already doing something or will not give you the time to establish a line) etc.

I guess I do not really have a point with this post, just an observation, but if you are going to use the PIL you should understand it very well otherwise you will cost yourself points, have a great deal of angst when it is not given to you, and/or feel robbed by the ref when it is not the justified. As to refs, they should make sure they understand it and at least at local tourneys and beginners tourneys I think they should try to make it clear why a fencer does not have it in a situation to help try to dispel some of the misconceptions about it. I know the refs job is not to be a coach and such but it makes our lifes easier as well since the next time we see that fencer they will have hopefully corrected the problem.

[neevel]

Probably the most basic thing about learning to use PIL is that it's very risky to try to "beat an attack to the punch" with it. As everyone else has noted, PIL has to be completely established before the start of your opponent's attack. What this means is that, if your opponent begins to advance in preparation, you stand still or retreat and begin extending to establish PIL, but your opponent then begins an extension for the attack before your arm has become completely extended, your PIL is still late and priority goes to your opponent. Combine this with the fact that in instances where the timing is very tight referees will generally give the benefit of the doubt to the fencer making the attack, and it becomes very clear that trying to just stick out a line into an opponent who is advancing in preparation but ready to start the attack isn't a viable choice of tactics. PIL in that context needs to be set-up with some preceeding manipulations of distance and tempo, so that you can catch your opponent when they're not quite ready to finish.

I'd personally prefer refereeing to move away somewhat from always giving the benefit of doubt to the aggressive fencer in these situations, but that's a moot point when you're on-strip in the here and now.

One other thing to understand about lines is that they're often most useful not as a way to directly score a touch, but rather as a way to force a longer distance on an opponent and make them to be a bit more circumspect in closing the distance. This can then help set up a parry-riposte or a counterattack or attack-in-prep. on your part.

-Dave

[edew]

It's almost oxymoronic to describe a point in line as "well-timed". A point in line is a state and the sooner it's done, the more apparent it is. Getting a point in line out just under the wire is probably not a good idea.

As for establishing a point in line while retreating, the rule is stating that once a point in line has been established, one may advance, retreat stay stationary, or even lunge or attack and still retain a point in line (provided the arm is straight, etc.)

You're (Cotlar) thinking that if opponent is advancing and you're retreating, then maybe during the advance, you can establish a point in line. Well, maybe you can, maybe you can't. Depends on what the opponent is doing. If the opponent is attacking you by making a constant threat and you're retreating to avoid the threat, then any extension of the blade will not constitute a point in line, unless the opponent gives up the threat (makes the multiple advance/threat into just merely advances at the opponent). It's the referee's judgement whether the advancing person is continuously threatening or has relinquished the threat.

[Alain]

This is why I do épée...

[nahouw]

Originally Posted by neevel

Probably the most basic thing about learning to use PIL is that it's very risky to try to "beat an attack to the punch" with it. As everyone else has noted, PIL has to be completely established before the start of your opponent's attack.

PIL in that context needs to be set-up with some preceeding manipulations of distance and tempo, so that you can catch your opponent when they're not quite ready to finish.

One other thing to understand about lines is that they're often most useful not as a way to directly score a touch, but rather as a way to force a longer distance on an opponent and make them to be a bit more circumspect in closing the distance. This can then help set up a parry-riposte or a counterattack or attack-in-prep. on your part.

-Dave

I've excerpted the salient points about PIL that Dave makes. You have to understand the nuances in order to use it -- as well as make it clear to the referee.

Dave is correct that you need to manipulate both the tempo and distance in order for it to be effective. Lulling your opponent into following your slower tempo and then suddenly rapidly pulling the distance is an effective example. Also as Dave states, it is usually not used for its own sake, but rather, to set up your second intention to have your opponent act and then take the parry riposte.

Not understanding these nuances and just trying to "beat an attack to the punch" is NOT a point in line -- it is a counterattack.

[Alain]

Originally Posted by nahouw

I've excerpted the salient points about PIL that Dave makes. You have to understand the nuances in order to use it -- as well as make it clear to the referee.

Dave is correct that you need to manipulate both the tempo and distance in order for it to be effective. Lulling your opponent into following your slower tempo and then suddenly rapidly pulling the distance is an effective example. Also as Dave states, it is usually not used for its own sake, but rather, to set up your second intention to have your opponent act and then take the parry riposte.

Not understanding these nuances and just trying to "beat an attack to the punch" is NOT a point in line -- it is a counterattack.

I'm really sorry but, in English, can anyone explain the difference between a counter-attack and this 'line' thingy? I'm an épéeist - but, for university matches, I always end up doing the other two silly weapons - and to me they both appear to be more or less the same...

Thanks in advance.

[edew]

A point in line that is properly established gives the fencer who makes the point in line the right of way. Meaning, if the opponent attacks without trying to first deflect the point in line blade, and both fencers are hit. Then only the opponent who did the attacking is scored upon (by the fencer who has the point in line).

A counter-attack via attempting to establish a point in line is an action by a fencer to, perhaps, try to establish a point in line, but not being successful because the timing is too late. In this case, if the opponent attacks without first trying to deflect the "point in line" blade and both fencers are hit, the fencer who tried to put out the point in line is scored upon, and not the attacking fencer.