Point in line

[remise]

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?

[keith]

yep, as long as the PiL is established and then maintained no movement by the fencer forward or backward affects its priority.

[esskreemr]

There is nothing in the rules concerning footwork when establishing a point in line. Once it is established, unless subject to a beat or parry or the fencer breaks the line, it has priority. You can go forward or backward, side to side as long as the line is maintained.

[sabreur]

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?

Yes.

You can advance, retreat, lunge, fleche, etc. with a PIL, and as long as you don't break it, and your opponent doesn't beat it, it remains valid.

[jessicasimpson]

Yes.

You can advance, retreat, lunge, fleche, etc. with a PIL, and as long as you don't break it, and your opponent doesn't beat it, it remains valid.

if they lunge or fleshe and miss, wouldn't the p.i.l. then lose r.o.w. in the next tempo?

[Purple Fencer]

Yes.

You can advance, retreat, lunge, fleche, etc. with a PIL, and as long as you don't break it, and your opponent doesn't beat it, it remains valid.

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

[Mauler]

It's been that way for many many years.

[remise]

Thanks everyone. That clears up a debate we were having.

[KD5MDK]

if they lunge or fleshe and miss, wouldn't the p.i.l. then lose r.o.w. in the next tempo?

Why should it? The opponent hasn't removed the line, and we're assuming the fencer didn't dislodge it as well. In fact, I think the Referee's handbook specifically mentions establishing PiL with a lunge.

[keropie]

Why should it? The opponent hasn't removed the line, and we're assuming the fencer didn't dislodge it as well. In fact, I think the Referee's handbook specifically mentions establishing PiL with a lunge.

I would think it would, if for no other reason than the fact that you would be unable to distinguish between PIL + lunge and a preinitiative attack with lunge. Additionally, my perspective is somewhat different: a PIL is essentially a passive threat. So the 'improvement' of the line with lunge or flesh is, in my mind, an attack from that position. Agreed, it maintains priority unless removed via beat/parry/etc., but if this attack misses, there is a tempo in which it does not have priority.

As an example, if fencer A were to establish PIL and then later lunge and redouble against fencer B's counterattack, and fencer A's initial lunge were to fail, where would you award the touch? If you give it to A, please let me know where you referee, so I can avoid it, but if not, then clearly there is more than one tempo fencer A's action, so not all of these tempos are PIL.

For what it's worth, in the NC division there are definitely officials who will remove the priority of the PIL if they feel the fencer with the line is responding to the other. The example: A establishes PIL. B attacks. A retreats in response to the attack, and both hit. If a line is a line is a line, then the retreating line should be awarded. But some officials here will award B's attack as A 'reacted' to it. I'm of mixed opinions on that one. Most officials here will allow the line if the FW mixed with it is patterned, or essentially is not connected to what the other fencer is doing.

[keith]

For what it's worth, in the NC division there are definitely officials who will remove the priority of the PIL if they feel the fencer with the line is responding to the other. The example: A establishes PIL. B attacks. A retreats in response to the attack, and both hit. If a line is a line is a line, then the retreating line should be awarded. But some officials here will award B's attack as A 'reacted' to it. I'm of mixed opinions on that one. Most officials here will allow the line if the FW mixed with it is patterned, or essentially is not connected to what the other fencer is doing.

.....any foil ref who refuses to give a retreating PiL priority (assuming it is maintained properly) should be flogged. Frequently you will see people take a couple of steps back with PiL to try and get the opponent to build up a head of steam so when they stop (or just slow) the opponent does a panic search making the derobe easier.

Of course if the retreating fencers is flinching/disengaging in the absence of a search then fair enough.

[Purple Fencer]

As an example, if fencer A were to establish PIL and then later lunge and redouble against fencer B's counterattack, and fencer A's initial lunge were to fail, where would you award the touch?

Presuming both fencers land valid at the same time (A on the redouble and & on his counter attack), I would award it to B....A establishes PIL, then lunges and misses...PIL is gone, as is his attack...B's counter takes priority.

[achilleus]

As an example, if fencer A were to establish PIL and then later lunge and redouble against fencer B's counterattack, and fencer A's initial lunge were to fail, where would you award the touch? If you give it to A, please let me know where you referee, so I can avoid it, but if not, then clearly there is more than one tempo fencer A's action, so not all of these tempos are PIL.

I would give line to A. I ref nationally, sectionally, and locally, although most likely not you're local area.

A line is a line is a line. If A establishes line, A is able to move anyway they choose and the line remains valid until it is removed (by a beat) or withdrawn.

[Araznal]

As an example, if fencer A were to establish PIL and then later lunge and redouble against fencer B's counterattack, and fencer A's initial lunge were to fail, where would you award the touch? If you give it to A, please let me know where you referee, so I can avoid it, but if not, then clearly there is more than one tempo fencer A's action, so not all of these tempos are PIL.

According to the rules (I mean, the real rules, not the fake ones), this is A's as long as his line is never broken. However, there are hardly any referees who will call this correctly. This is because of this ridiculous "distance parry" crap that coaches are teaching. It's most apparent in sabre, where, apparently, a fencer who breaks distance can sit around a do nothing while their opponent re-establishes ROW. Yeah, sure....

[OROD]

Presuming both fencers land valid at the same time (A on the redouble and & on his counter attack), I would award it to B....A establishes PIL, then lunges and misses...PIL is gone, as is his attack...B's counter takes priority.

Once you establish line, nothing you do with your feet can turn it into an attack. As long as your arm is straight and you dont do any unnecessary searching then you still have PiL, no matter how many lunges or other footwork you do.


.

[keropie]

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? Because that excessively stretches common sense and credibility. But, if a line is a line is a line, it's the same line unless the hand/point position changes. I'm not buying. Just my 2 cents, and my clearly not humble at all opinion (I was never real good at humble )

Mind you, I can still see where the other opinion is coming from. I just don't agree ^^

[Araznal]

Mind you, I can still see where the other opinion is coming from. I just don't agree ^^

Please read t.55-60 and then t.74-80. Repeat until you agree .

http://www.fencingofficials.org/Rule...s_09-05_ed.pdf

[Purple Fencer]

Once you establish line, nothing you do with your feet can turn it into an attack. As long as your arm is straight and you dont do any unnecessary searching then you still have PiL, no matter how many lunges or other footwork you do.


.

I disagree....a point it line is a defensive action....you stick it out and wait for your opponent to impale himself.

A lunge is an offensive action....so if you're standing there with a clearly established defensive PIL and then make a direct attempt to put the point on target by means of an offensive action and you miss, you MISS.

What's the differance between this and doing an advance lunge and falling short? Neither the PIL nor the advance itself are attacks...it's the lunge that's the attack.

[OROD]

I disagree....a point it line is a defensive action....you stick it out and wait for your opponent to impale himself.

A lunge is an offensive action....so if you're standing there with a clearly established defensive PIL and then make a direct attempt to put the point on target by means of an offensive action and you miss, you MISS.

What's the differance between this and doing an advance lunge and falling short? Neither the PIL nor the advance itself are attacks...it's the lunge that's the attack.

This link was posted in the other point-in-line thread:

http://www.fencing.net/content/view/43/35/

"A line is a line is a line. It exists irrespective of footwork."

The main thing to remember is that the rules only define a line in terms of the arm and blade, so as long as you have a line, whatever you do with your legs you still have the line.


.

[achilleus]

I disagree....a point it line is a defensive action....you stick it out and wait for your opponent to impale himself.

A lunge is an offensive action....so if you're standing there with a clearly established defensive PIL and then make a direct attempt to put the point on target by means of an offensive action and you miss, you MISS.

What's the differance between this and doing an advance lunge and falling short? Neither the PIL nor the advance itself are attacks...it's the lunge that's the attack.

PF,

You are incorrect.

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

Stated in the FOC handbook is a perfect example. A fencer extends their arm and lunges, and the handbook states that their are several possibities of actions that the fencer just executed. One is line, another is an attack.

While yes, a lunge is the primary method of delivering an attack, it can also be a counter-offensive, or even a defensive action.

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