Point in Line Clarification

[Cal Fencer]

I was fencing tonight and this situation came up and I'd like some
experienced input: in saber with a point in line, is priority lost if the
person leans forward to make the touch? The situation was the defender
established a point in line and the attacker's first attack fell short but
he did not impale himself. After a pause, the defender responded by leaning
forward to make the touch as the attacker remised. I though by leaning
forward priority was lost but am unsure. I remember reading that stepping
forward does forfeit one's priority with a point. Correct? But the leaning
forward is another kettle of fish.

On another point, how do these situations affect foil?

Thanks
Cal

[R. Mattes]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:14:50 +0000, Cal Fencer wrote:

> I was fencing tonight and this situation came up and I'd like some
> experienced input: in saber with a point in line, is priority lost if the
> person leans forward to make the touch? The situation was the defender
> established a point in line and the attacker's first attack fell short but
> he did not impale himself. After a pause, the defender responded by leaning
> forward to make the touch as the attacker remised. I though by leaning
> forward priority was lost but am unsure. I remember reading that stepping
> forward does forfeit one's priority with a point. Correct? But the leaning
> forward is another kettle of fish.
>
> On another point, how do these situations affect foil?

Hmm, if the defender (let's call her/him B) stood point-in-line than the
attacker (A) didn't really attack, or? A would first have to clear the
line (that's the whole point of a beat/glide attack). Or was the line
established _after_ A's attack?

Now, when A fails to hit and B doesn't parry the question boils down to:
who started the next attack? (no parry, no right of riposte).
If B leans forward this is not a point-in-line any more but a straight
thrust. Who started first, B with the thrust or A with the remise?

Ralf Mattes

> Thanks
> Cal

[Fencerbill]

In article <_h_kd.887891$Gx4.397300@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Cal
Fencer" <ehlee_74@yahoo.net> writes:

>I though by leaning
>forward priority was lost but am unsure. I remember reading that stepping
>forward does forfeit one's priority with a point. Correct?

Not correct. It is my understanding that point in line is considered like a
condition. I have heard that you can retreat, advance, even lunge. So leaning
would not cause loss of right of way.

Bill Hall

[R. Mattes]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:33:13 +0000, Fencerbill wrote:

> In article <_h_kd.887891$Gx4.397300@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Cal
> Fencer" <ehlee_74@yahoo.net> writes:
>
>>I though by leaning
>>forward priority was lost but am unsure. I remember reading that stepping
>>forward does forfeit one's priority with a point. Correct?
>
> Not correct. It is my understanding that point in line is considered like a
> condition. I have heard that you can retreat, advance, even lunge. So leaning
> would not cause loss of right of way.

Well, you surely can do all of that but, AFAIK, it has to be "passive",
i.e. one can think of PIL as a defence (which it really is). Leaning
forward sonds more like an active attack (but it's hard to judge a bout
only by a written description). Even if this is active, i'd consider this
a straight thrust from PIL which needs to be parried properly (and a
remise doesn't count as a parry). So:

- A does a remise against a PIL and runs into the blade - A's fault
(shoud have first cleared the PIL by beat or glide).

- B starts before A's remise. Then this is B straight thrust. A has to
pary, not remise, _unless_ A stood in PIL (which technically _is_
possible).

Just my 0.02$

Ralf Mattes

> Bill Hall

[Chris Aher]

Bill is correct.

There was a fair amount of confusion on this point back in 1998-1999. At
the NAC in New Haven in 1999, George K. (Then to chair of the FOC here in
the US) clarified the subject at the Ref's meeting.

Regards,
Chris


"Fencerbill" <fencerbill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041112123313.12265.00000129@mb-m28.aol.com...
> In article <_h_kd.887891$Gx4.397300@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Cal
> Fencer" <ehlee_74@yahoo.net> writes:
>
> >I though by leaning
> >forward priority was lost but am unsure. I remember reading that stepping
> >forward does forfeit one's priority with a point. Correct?
>
> Not correct. It is my understanding that point in line is considered like
a
> condition. I have heard that you can retreat, advance, even lunge. So
leaning
> would not cause loss of right of way.
>
> Bill Hall

[Cal Fencer]

Thanks for all the impute. I'll have to reread my rules about forward
movement w/ the point. If you're right, and I think you are, there were a
lot of erroneous calls when I fenced in college. How did this perception
about not being able to move forward or lunge and still retain priority get
started?




"Fencerbill" <fencerbill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041112123313.12265.00000129@mb-m28.aol.com...
> In article <_h_kd.887891$Gx4.397300@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Cal
> Fencer" <ehlee_74@yahoo.net> writes:
>
> >I though by leaning
> >forward priority was lost but am unsure. I remember reading that stepping
> >forward does forfeit one's priority with a point. Correct?
>
> Not correct. It is my understanding that point in line is considered like
a
> condition. I have heard that you can retreat, advance, even lunge. So
leaning
> would not cause loss of right of way.
>
> Bill Hall

[Harold Buck]

In article <1Zlld.14593$7i4.9042@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Cal Fencer" <ehlee_74@yahoo.net> wrote:

> Thanks for all the impute. I'll have to reread my rules about forward
> movement w/ the point. If you're right, and I think you are, there were a
> lot of erroneous calls when I fenced in college. How did this perception
> about not being able to move forward or lunge and still retain priority get
> started?


The old rule was a point in line was no longer valid if you lunged or
fleched (it became a counterattack). This changed, what, about 8 years
ago?

IIRC, an advance with PIL was still legit.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson