Point in line

[achilleus]

So from the last three posts I'm assuming that if you were officiating circa-1990 and the person with the line (fencer A) were to lunge, not hit, get hit by a counter attack, and fleche with three steps still hitting before the absurdly long blocking timing (2 seconds back then, I think), that it's still the line arrives?

No.

In the early 90's, it was still understood that one could not lunge and and retain line. The interpretation changed in the mid 90's to allow one to lunge.

In addition, there is also something called fencing time. If the line is late, it is out of time, and therefore not valid.

[keropie]

No.

In the early 90's, it was still understood that one could not lunge and and retain line. The interpretation changed in the mid 90's to allow one to lunge.

In addition, there is also something called fencing time. If the line is late, it is out of time, and therefore not valid.

But if 'a line is a line is a line,' then it has a single tempo that continues until it hits, or halt is called for some other reason. After all, a line isn't a remise of the line or a continuation of a line, it's a line. This is where I feel the argument is flawed, because indeed the line can be out of time, even when established correctly. So if you choose to call fencer A (w/ PIL) lunging still the line, but it fails to hit, and a counter hits immediately from B, then A redoubles, in order to award fencer A the touch, the line had a single tempo for both lunge and redouble. Which means if we can somehow make lunge-redouble-redouble-redouble with the same line, get hit after lunge, and still turn both lights on, it should still have one tempo. Which I find ludicrous, and no reading of the USFA rules is likely to change my opinion. Yes, I did reread them, and will continue to feel that the interpretation of the rules is ALWAYS more relevant than the writing, in our sport. And I find nothing in the written rules that disallows my interpretation from being possibly valid.

As long as you're the official when you call it, you're right. Afterwards or before, I'll disagree

[Fencing Jesus]

But if 'a line is a line is a line,' then it has a single tempo that continues until it hits, or halt is called for some other reason.

Maybe people should type slower when responding to you.

You need to settle down.

[keropie]

I don't intend to sound angry or unsettled... honestly. Perhaps my 'haste' is just some excitement, as there are relatively few people around with whom I can debate such things. I hope I haven't offended anyone.

[achilleus]

But if 'a line is a line is a line,' then it has a single tempo that continues until it hits, or halt is called for some other reason. After all, a line isn't a remise of the line or a continuation of a line, it's a line. This is where I feel the argument is flawed, because indeed the line can be out of time, even when established correctly. So if you choose to call fencer A (w/ PIL) lunging still the line, but it fails to hit, and a counter hits immediately from B, then A redoubles, in order to award fencer A the touch, the line had a single tempo for both lunge and redouble. Which means if we can somehow make lunge-redouble-redouble-redouble with the same line, get hit after lunge, and still turn both lights on, it should still have one tempo. Which I find ludicrous, and no reading of the USFA rules is likely to change my opinion. Yes, I did reread them, and will continue to feel that the interpretation of the rules is ALWAYS more relevant than the writing, in our sport. And I find nothing in the written rules that disallows my interpretation from being possibly valid.

As long as you're the official when you call it, you're right. Afterwards or before, I'll disagree

I've actually heard and seen 'remise of the line'. Look, if a fencer attacks into a line, and the line misses, then the attack scores. If the fencer with line hits late, the line is considered out of time. Footwork is not relevant to a line being out of time. For example:

Fencer A establishes line
Fencer A advances without hitting
Fencer B immediately attacks as soon as A finishes the advance.
Both hit in the same tempo.

Would you say that the line missed?
I wouldn't.

And yeah, the rules are open to interpretation. Currently, a line is a line is a line, regardless of the footwork.

Currently, 'distance parries' work, and are given RoW. These may change, since they've changed in the course of my fencing career, but right now, this is how they are interpreted.

[Fencing Jesus]

I don't intend to sound angry or unsettled... honestly. Perhaps my 'haste' is just some excitement, as there are relatively few people around with whom I can debate such things. I hope I haven't offended anyone.

Yes, but you are arguing with people who have already told you they are certified referees. These people don't get to make up the rules. They enforce the rules that are handed down to them.

You can debate until your face turns blue, but you are just wasting peoples time. Write a letter to your FIE rep. and your congressman.

[achilleus]

I don't intend to sound angry or unsettled... honestly. Perhaps my 'haste' is just some excitement, as there are relatively few people around with whom I can debate such things. I hope I haven't offended anyone.

You, know, to me you don't sound angry or unsettled. You actually seem to be more reasonable in your RoW discussions than most I've seen/heard/read.

[keropie]

Yes, but you are arguing with people who have already told you they are certified referees. These people don't get to make up the rules. They enforce the rules that are handed down to them.

You can debate until your face turns blue, but you are just wasting peoples time. Write a letter to your FIE rep. and your congressman.

t.56(a)4. Actions, simple or compound, steps or feints which are executed with a bent arm, are not considered as attacks but as
preparations, laying themselves open to the initiation of the offensive or defensive/offensive action of the opponent (cf. t.8).

t.56(a)7. If the attacker, when attempting to deflect the opponent’s blade, fails to find it (dérobement), the right of attack passes to the
opponent.

Both of the these rules are essentially dead in foil. t.56(a)4 is clearly dead, as I can deliver an attack with a bent arm and for the vast majority of officials (local, divisional, sectional, national, NCAA) be awarded the attack against a counter attack. Maybe if we change 'bent arm' to 'withdrawing arm,' but even then, maybe not.

7 is only alive if a line is established initially (not clearly defined here) or if there is a delay in the delivery of the attack. If fencer A searches for the blade, fencer B avoids it and lunges, and A continues with his search and finishes the 'attack,' he will generally receive the touch.

So while the rules are set by the FIE and the USFA, the interpretation of these rules is what we actually fence by.

EDIT: For the sake of argument, I am also a certified foil official in all but name... did the session and written with Alex Beguinet, did the practical with John Moss... somehow just never got recorded somewhere.

[achilleus]

Both of the these rules are essentially dead in foil. t.56(a)4 is clearly dead, as I can deliver an attack with a bent arm and for the vast majority of officials (local, divisional, sectional, national, NCAA) be awarded the attack against a counter attack. Maybe if we change 'bent arm' to 'withdrawing arm,' but even then, maybe not.

7 is only alive if a line is established initially (not clearly defined here) or if there is a delay in the delivery of the attack. If fencer A searches for the blade, fencer B avoids it and lunges, and A continues with his search and finishes the 'attack,' he will generally receive the touch.

So while the rules are set by the FIE and the USFA, the interpretation of these rules is what we actually fence by.

EDIT: For the sake of argument, I am also a certified foil official in all but name... did the session and written with Alex Beguinet, did the practical with John Moss... somehow just never got recorded somewhere.

If I had the time, I could easily debate those examples...

Unfortunately, I don't...

And your summation is correct, the application and interpretation of the rules are the key.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

A lunge is not an offensive action and PiL is not a defensive action..

Except when it is. I'm standing there with a saber PIL established. My opponent keeps creeping up to within range. I lunge with the PIL-and clearly miss.
My opponent cuts to my head , I perform an immediate remise, without ever breaking the arm. Both lights go on. I suspect there isn't a director on the planet that won't call that a "premier attack no, riposte, remise."

Look at the wording:

2. Respect of the fencing phrase
t.75 (a) Any attack properly executed (cf. t.7) must be parried, or
completely avoided, and the phrase must be followed through.
(b) The attack is correctly carried out when the extending of the
arm, with the point or the cutting edge continuously threatening
the valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge.
1. An attack with a lunge is correctly carried out:
— in a simple attack (cf. t.8) when the arm is extended with
the lunge and the touch arrives at the latest when the front
foot touches the strip;

This would seem to me to indicate that if you lunge with a PIL, and miss, your attack (and right of way) is over.

PiL, is neither an attack, nor a defense and is valid regardless of footwork.

While I also believe footwork is immaterial to a PIL, where is this stated in the rules? And where is it outlined that an active attempt to touch the opponent with a PIL that fails is considered anything but an attack carried out incorrectly?

[achilleus]

Except when it is. I'm standing there with a saber PIL established. My opponent keeps creeping up to within range. I lunge with the PIL-and clearly miss.
My opponent cuts to my head , I perform an immediate remise, without ever breaking the arm. Both lights go on. I suspect there isn't a director on the planet that won't call that a "premier attack no, riposte, remise."

No disagreement. Even in foil, except for the wording. It's not attack, no. It's 'Line, no.'

I stated as much in a previous post regarding the tempo of the hits.

Look at the wording:

2. Respect of the fencing phrase
t.75 (a) Any attack properly executed (cf. t.7) must be parried, or
completely avoided, and the phrase must be followed through.
(b) The attack is correctly carried out when the extending of the
arm, with the point or the cutting edge continuously threatening
the valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge.
1. An attack with a lunge is correctly carried out:
— in a simple attack (cf. t.8) when the arm is extended with
the lunge and the touch arrives at the latest when the front
foot touches the strip;

This would seem to me to indicate that if you lunge with a PIL, and miss, your attack (and right of way) is over.

I won't pretend to understand the finer points of saber officiating, however the section you mention is regarding attacks. Not line. A line is not an attack, and therefore not covered by the section above.

While I also believe footwork is immaterial to a PIL, where is this stated in the rules? And where is it outlined that an active attempt to touch the opponent with a PIL that fails is considered anything but an attack carried out incorrectly?

The rules do not mention footwork to line. The FOC Handbook, as well as the FIE clearly mention that movement, forward or back is irrelevant to a line.

[OROD]

This would seem to me to indicate that if you lunge with a PIL, and miss, your attack (and right of way) is over.

Just one small problem there... a lunge with PiL is not an attack. It's PiL.

While I also believe footwork is immaterial to a PIL, where is this stated in the rules?

Uhmmm, are you serious?


.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

I'm not disputing it...I've just never seen a specific reference to it in the PIL sections. So, if you're at a meet...and the director says: "You stepped forward/retreated/mailed a Publisher's Clearing House entry, which negates your point in line" exactly what rule number would you cite in your appeal to the Bout Committee?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

however the section you mention is regarding attacks. Not line. A line is not an attack, and therefore not covered by the section above.

Maybe we're just engaging in sophistry, but it would seem to me you can turn a line into an attack quite easily, simply by lunging in an attempt to hit an opponent. Perhaps the line itself is not an attack...but you can attack with it, and thus become subject to ROW rules.

To quote the FOC's Bill Oliver:
If a line becomes active, it turns into an attack. (snip)
As to the attack that ends in an extended arm, the arm is, indeed, a line. However, the principles of right of way indicate that once the attack has ended, the right of way passes to the opponent.

[achilleus]

I'm not disputing it...I've just never seen a specific reference to it in the PIL sections. So, if you're at a meet...and the director says: "You stepped forward/retreated/mailed a Publisher's Clearing House entry, which negates your point in line" exactly what rule number would you cite in your appeal to the Bout Committee?

You can ask the ref to quote you the rule that says because you moved you lose line.

FOC Handbook Link

Read up on line...

[achilleus]

Maybe we're just engaging in sophistry, but it would seem to me you can turn a line into an attack quite easily, simply by lunging in an attempt to hit an opponent. Perhaps the line itself is not an attack...but you can attack with it, and thus become subject to ROW rules.

To quote the FOC's Bill Oliver:
If a line becomes active, it turns into an attack. (snip)
As to the attack that ends in an extended arm, the arm is, indeed, a line. However, the principles of right of way indicate that once the attack has ended, the right of way passes to the opponent.

No. Bill is talking about when an attack ends with an extended arm. On this point, I agree, when the attack is over, there is a tempo where the opponent can take over RoW.

However, if a fencer establishes line and it meets the following requirements:

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

It's line. Not an attack.

[KD5MDK]

I attended a local referee clinic tonight, for the education of it. Got to help with the demos. etc. I am already a rated referee, although merely sectional level.

I asked this specific question, and the answer was that you cannot redouble a line. I didn't wish to make a nuisance of myself, so I didn't press further, but that was the ruling from the FOC examiner I got. (Gary van der Wege)

[OROD]

I asked this specific question, and the answer was that you cannot redouble a line. I didn't wish to make a nuisance of myself, so I didn't press further, but that was the ruling from the FOC examiner I got. (Gary van der Wege)

That's probably because a redoublement is an attack. Since PiL is not an attack, you obviously cant redouble it. However, if you have line, then lunge, lunge again, whatever... it's still PiL! Why, because you havent done anything to negate the line.


.

[KD5MDK]

Well, I'll see him again in under two hours, so I guess I'll ask for clarification.

[achilleus]

I attended a local referee clinic tonight, for the education of it. Got to help with the demos. etc. I am already a rated referee, although merely sectional level.

I asked this specific question, and the answer was that you cannot redouble a line. I didn't wish to make a nuisance of myself, so I didn't press further, but that was the ruling from the FOC examiner I got. (Gary van der Wege)

Interesting....

Goes against everything I've been taught recently about line.

Then again, when does anyone really establish line, lunge, then redouble?

I'll ask around as well. One thing I noticed is that in Bill's text, he specifically mentions, 'my perspective' and that 'there isn't much written' on the subject.

So, this could be something that just varies from ref to ref. The 'distance parry' does.