Point in line

[OROD]

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

Maybe it is, as many things in foil are, but it shouldnt be this way. The rules are vague, but at least we should have a clear ruling by the FIE/USFA on what the current official interpretation is. Otherwise we have chaos.


.

[Mr Epee]

I'm going with Achilleus on this one, because that is what I have been taught, told, and congratulated when I made the call. It's also spelled out in the guidebook.

Unless you're sleeping on the job, it's pretty hard to miss a properly executed line. People look pretty funny when they are hit by PIL.

It's and action with a fairly high level of difficulty for execution, and making a lot of movements with the feet make it much much more difficult to maintain.

[achilleus]

Maybe it is, as many things in foil are, but it shouldnt be this way. The rules are vague, but at least we should have a clear ruling by the FIE/USFA on what the current official interpretation is. Otherwise we have chaos.


.

Yeah, and the FIE shouldn't force it's members to wear unsafe masks, but what are you gonna do?

Really, I think the best example was from Barry, IIRC. He posted a anecdote from a world championship meeting, where three officials wanted a ruling on the distance parry (the Italians want the parry, while the French want the line), and the FIE heads basically dismissed the question and told the refs to enforce that the fencer's socks were pulled up all the way.

The thing to realize is that certain actions, especially line are low percentage shots. Use them at your own risk or when you know how the director is going to interpret the action...

[fencinman89]

I really fail to see the point of this argument...it's hardly useful as an academic excercise. In the end, whether you want to call it an effect of tempo and fencing time or if you just acknowledge that really a point in line stops being a point in line once you decide to execute a simple attack with it, if A establishes a line, lunges with it, misses upon the completion of the lunge, get's hit by B's counterattack, and then redoubles the lunge...B gets the touch, all day long. To call it any other way would be asking to have your head mounted on a pike by any decent foil/saber fencers, and probably the person examining you. If you're in the habit of calling it the other way, for whatever reason, even if you say you do so and are a "national referee", I'd like to know what the last final bout you were given in any right of way weapon was at a national event, and whether point in line came up as an action.

What would be an interesting discussion though would be one relating back to Keropie's mentioning that some referees won't give line if a fencer suddenly starts going back. The reasoning given for this generally relates back to the afforementioned FOC handbook, which states that the fencer is standing still, moving forward, or moving backward. Basically the argument is that if I want to establish line I have to either be a) still b) moving forward (i.e. moving forward at a more or less constant pace, not attemptimg to change distance and timing, which would make it more of an offensive setup than a PiL) or c) moving backward (same idea as b, except this time the idea pertains to backward motion, and turning the PiL into an active counteroffensive action)...

[Mihail]

AND as longas you don't do a disengage if there's no attempt to beat the blade...

If only...

Unfortunately, NYFC sabre fencers have decided that you can make movements with the blade as long as it remains pointing at target area and you still keep RoW, regardless of whether the opponent is searching for the line or not.

It gives a ridiculous amount of advantage to the line, but since they are at the top of the points standings, national refs have adapted to their preference and call it incorrectly.

[achilleus]

What would be an interesting discussion though would be one relating back to Keropie's mentioning that some referees won't give line if a fencer suddenly starts going back. The reasoning given for this generally relates back to the afforementioned FOC handbook, which states that the fencer is standing still, moving forward, or moving backward. Basically the argument is that if I want to establish line I have to either be a) still b) moving forward (i.e. moving forward at a more or less constant pace, not attemptimg to change distance and timing, which would make it more of an offensive setup than a PiL) or c) moving backward (same idea as b, except this time the idea pertains to backward motion, and turning the PiL into an active counteroffensive action)...

Um, what discussion do you want to have on this? The FOC Handbook leaves very little to discuss unless you want to question whether you can infer the bold in your quotes above. After all the Handbook makes no mention of these qualifications to movement. Bill Oliver made a statement, but it is not something that is universally held at the FIE level. Especially since many refs will tell you 'a line is a line is a line, regardless of footwork'.

[Eduardo]

I have a quick question. One of the women I fenced recently at a tournament established Point in line, but then retreated while maintaining it. I attacked and scored a touch, but she argued that as long as her arm is out in PIL, it shouldn't matter if she's retreating. Is that true?

My beginner's question: does it matter? Even if her arm is in PIL and she has the right of way, if you attack and score, isn't it your point all the same? However, if you attack and hit valid target but her blade lands off target on you, then it's an off target call and if you attack and both touch each other in valid areas, then isn't it her point?