Established lines

[LUDICROUS]

Whats the best way to deal with them? Say if Fencer A establishes line. Fencer B looks quizzically at Fencer A, then beat attacks, and both fencers hit at the same time. Is that a good thing to do in terms of ROW? Does fencer B get the point? Are there better ideas?

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Fencer b definately should get the attack. It doesn't matter how long the line is out there, once established A has attack. The same holds true however for Bs beat attack, it doesn't matter how long he stares at it, once he beats he get RoW. There are a few ways to deal with PiL, beating the line being the most obvious and often used method. In sabre you can also attack above and below the bell. Or if you really have no idea what to do against it put out your own....it will make the other fencer do something, hopefully. Then you can have a stare down.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by LUDICROUS

Whats the best way to deal with them? Say if Fencer A establishes line. Fencer B looks quizzically at Fencer A, then beat attacks, and both fencers hit at the same time. Is that a good thing to do in terms of ROW? Does fencer B get the point? Are there better ideas?

Ways of dealing with a point-in-line:

• Take the blade - beat attack gains priority
• Wait it out - They'll drop their arm eventually
• Feint the search so that they attempt to attack-in-prep and then you parry/riposte

[Welted 24/7]

The easiest thing to do is just beat attack. However, you kinda have to expect that if someone throws a line out, that they aren't stupid enough to sit there and let it get taken. I mean, if they are, great, but don't just charge in and think "YAY FREE TOUCH!" Keep your eyes open.

[achilleus]

Craig gave a textbook answer on the technical ways to deal with a line.

Tactically, however, dealing with a line depends on what the person with line is attempting to do.

For example, many times I'll put out line just to make it easier for me to parry. I'll let the person find my blade, and just take the retreat and make the riposte. Against better fencers, this requires more work, and sometimes I'll have to deceive the first take, and let my blade get taken on the second one.

Other times, it's to mess with my opponent's timing on the attack

And other times it's because I feel I can actually just deceive their takes and score.

But really line has a million and one uses, and tactically one must use the appropiate response. For example, making a simple beat attack against a fencer who's using line like I describe in the first scenario above is a sure way to get hit on the riposte.

[KD5MDK]

I suppose another use of line is to delay the touch if it's almost out of time. Then again, the time they're most likely to look at it quizzically is sabre (huh? point?), which is usually not timed.

[smeric28]

i have heard some people argue that point in line can only be made in a high line with the palm up. but if you read the rules you could easitly argue that you could also make a point in line threatening a low line.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

In sabre your line must be established paml down...not palm up.

[whtouche]

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

In sabre your line must be established paml down...not palm up.

There is nothing in the rules that states the position of the hand has to be in for a line to be valid. Only that you be fully extended, in high line, etc etc.
The reason it's commonly done palm down with the bellguard pointed out to the side is that is the easiest position to disengage from or attack out of.
Though some refs might see an unusual hand position as not an establishment of line.

[oiuyt]

From the British Fencing "REFEREE’S COMMITTEE GUIDANCE FOR REFEREES"
http://www.leonpaul.com/download/rules/Refs.htm

The “point in line” is defined in the Rules [t.10] However the FIE Referees Committee have adapted the definition which should now be applied as follows:

“The point in line is when a fencer has a straight arm with the point of the weapon threatening the valid target of the opponent in the high line. The arm must not bend, otherwise the point in line loses priority. At Sabre the fencer must hit with the point and not the edge of the blade. The point in line is valid if the fencer is standing still, going backwards or going forwards. To stop the point in line having validity the opponent must deflect the opponent’s blade (beat, parry, prise de fer).”

-B :)

[smeric28]

In the usfa rule book t.10 also defines point in line. In the latest revision the text is as follows
"t.10 The point in-line position is a specific position in which the fencer's sword arm is kept straight and the point of the weapon continually threatens his opponent's valid target."
Now imagine this, I straighten my arm toward the floor and bend my wrist back to threaten the 7 or 8 line. Isn't this point in line too?

[smeric28]

Ok i misunderstood oiuyt's reply. So in that case why are the refere's using a definition contrary to the rules?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by smeric28

In the usfa rule book t.10 also defines point in line. In the latest revision the text is as follows
"t.10 The point in-line position is a specific position in which the fencer's sword arm is kept straight and the point of the weapon continually threatens his opponent's valid target."
Now imagine this, I straighten my arm toward the floor and bend my wrist back to threaten the 7 or 8 line. Isn't this point in line too?

The section I quoted explicitly mentions that the text isn't the same as what is in the rulebook. The document I'm quoting from is an official attempt by British Fencing to put, in written form, what the current FIE interpretations of the rules are and how those rules should be applied. To claim that the way the top referees in the world call actions is wrong because the FIE/USFA rulebook is written in such a way that intentional misinterpretation is possible is just stupid. Simply put, no, that ISN'T "point in line too".

What's in the rules is a starting point. Knowing how things are actually called is significantly more important. I'm glad the BFA publishes the guideline and am appreciative of the work that Keith Smith and Mike Thornton put in on it. I would like to see it updated again for changes in the past couple of years (and the fact that it hasn't means that it is just a starting point and a guideline, rather than something which can be considered hard and fast rules), but it's still useful.

Here's the text from the CFF (Canada) referee manual:

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 the 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 dérobe the opponent's attempt to find the blade

Note: The fencer who has established the point in line can be standing still, moving backward, moving forward, or lunging.

-B :)

[oiuyt]

Just noticed that the CFF document is nearly identical to the USFA Referee Handbook, which I believe was written by George K. If I'm correct and GK originally wrote it then the CFF borrowed our text. Anyway, except for some formatting changes the above quoted text is the same in the two documents.

-B :)

[smeric28]

well as someone who doesn't fence at the world class level. how am i supposed to know how to interpret a phrase unless i read the RULES. Not that i disagree with the staight line between sholder and tip. but if the fie really wanted point in line called this way why isn't it in the rules?

[SamIam]

Trial and error. If the referee calls it as your line then you're doing it "right". if not then try again. Getting hit concentrates the mind.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by smeric28

Ok i misunderstood oiuyt's reply. So in that case why are the refere's using a definition contrary to the rules?

In addition to what Oiuyt mentions above...

t.10 which you quote, is but one line in a large rulebook. For instance, the section t.10 is under is titled:

B.EXPLANATION OF SOME TECHNICAL TERMS COMMONLY USED IN THE JUDGING OF FENCING1

You'll notice that the 1 is a footnote. The footnote reads:

1 It is stressed that this section in no way replaces a treatise on fencing and is only included in order to help the reader to understand the Rules.

So, the definitions presented in the rulebook ain't the whole story.

[KD5MDK]

The CFF definition contradicts the BFA about high line vs valid target. If shoulder means the same thing to them it does to me, the CFF says I can do point in line aiming at the groin. The BFA says I can't.

Hmm... the part about sabre must hit with point. What if the attacker uses his arm to hit the edge of the blade while simultaniously scoring with the attack? The touch isn't scored with the point then...

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by smeric28

well as someone who doesn't fence at the world class level. how am i supposed to know how to interpret a phrase unless i read the RULES. Not that i disagree with the staight line between sholder and tip. but if the fie really wanted point in line called this way why isn't it in the rules?

Additional sources of information:
Coach(es)
More experienced fencer(s)
Referee seminar(s)
The various referee guides/handbooks (such as the three I've cited here)
Video tapes
fencing.net and fencingforum.com
experienced referee(s)
and, as mentioned by SamIAm, empirical evidence during tournament bouts

-B :)

[Mauler]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Hmm... the part about sabre must hit with point. What if the attacker uses his arm to hit the edge of the blade while simultaniously scoring with the attack? The touch isn't scored with the point then...

Then the light was from counterattack, not point-in-line, provided the referee sees that. With the new timing, however, the situation you describe is more likely to result in one light.