sabre question : line-in

[george100]

Here are two scenarios. Please answer honestly.

1) you plan to do an attack, but are not in motion yet, so you haven't started your attack yet. Your opponet does a line-in and stays still.
question : What's your plan ?
- option a: you stay, stare, think, than move foreward, beat the blade and finalize with a cut
- option b: without to loose time thinking, move foreward, beat the blade and finalize
- option c: imediatelly you do a line-in and attack
- option d: you pretend to attack, hopping that your opponent will remove the line-in, and than finalize
- option e: you tease your opponent beating the blade a few times, than finalize
- option f: you avoid your opponent's blade and you do a gentle cut on the forearm of the sword arm

2) you just started your attack, you are in motion, but your opponent does a sudden line-in
question: how do you react?
- option a: you beat the blade while moving foreward, than finalize
- option b: you don't touch the blade, stop and do one of the options from #1 above


george100

[AndrewH]

Situation 1: option A. Once the line comes out while I'm in obvious preparation, I know I need to remove it. No sense in rushing in. I'd take my time and launch an attack as soon as I found the blade. Rushing into that situation leaves you defenseless if your initial beat attempt misses.

Situation 2: You forgot option C: ignore the PIL and finish your attack. The PIL has no right of way if it is established after the attack begins (which occurs when I extend my arm).

[rcmatthews]

For option 1, it kinda depends on the situation. I can take a line fairly quickly, so sometimes i will come straight for it. However, most times I play it more textbook and advance, take the line, lunge and hit. I never stand there and stare at it though. That is the mark of someone who doesn;t know what to do about it.

For option 2, finish the attack. Usually to the wrist, since its close, but sometimes not.

[KD5MDK]

If line is established, the thing to do is not hesitate, but either take it immediately, or feint to see if they'll counterattack and setup a countertime action.

If line is attempted to be established, chase them down and hit them, being mindful of the lockout time.

[Inquartata]

I assess the individual situation and act accordingly. I have done all of those things, depending on the opponent and the score at the time.

[Ordway]

Good responses above. I'd just add that the move being discussed is generally called "point in line" rather than "line-in." Everyone here knew what you were talking about, but in future discussions you'll probably avoid some befuddlement by using "point in line" rather than "line-in."

(Note to clarify: really, I am not being snide or anything. As an English professor, I value clarity in language and try to encourage it.)

[george100]

I apologize for my bad English. I agree that “point in line” is the correct way of saying, but “line-in” is shorter to say & type. I think English in general, is mutating towards a “practical re-definition”, because is used by people that care more about communicating in a fast way, rather than using proper expressions, specially here in north america.

Coming back to the original topic, I would like to ask: what is the motivation for the two scenarios, that I mentioned initially:
1) Why would anybody do a line-in when his/her opponent is not in motion yet?
2) Why would anybody do a line-in right after his/her opponent started the attack?

[RoninX]

Originally Posted by george100

I think English in general, is mutating towards a “practical re-definition”, because is used by people that care more about communicating in a fast way, rather than using proper expressions, specially here in north america.

After all typing wierd shorthand and then having to spend a paragraph explaining one word is certainly more effecient than typing the 6 extra characters needed to properly express yourself in the first place.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by george100

but “line-in” is shorter to say & type.

So is "PiL", and more people here will understand it more easily.

Originally Posted by george100

Coming back to the original topic, I would like to ask: what is the motivation for the two scenarios, that I mentioned initially:
1) Why would anybody do a line-in when his/her opponent is not in motion yet?
2) Why would anybody do a line-in right after his/her opponent started the attack?

1)
* Because they know their opponent freaks when they see PiL
* Because they're setting up a 2nd intentional action for after their opponent takes the clearly visible line
* Because they believe that they can be successful with it even when their opponent has time to think
* Because they believe they'll be even MORE successful with it when their opponent has time to think
* To get their opponent thinking about how to deal with PiL just in time for something else to start to occur
* etc., etc.

2)
* To set up a 2nd intention action
* Because many fencers will search for a line even when it's unecessary
* Because they believe their opponent will make an error when presented with even a late line
* to sow doubt in the mind of the opponent with a valid attack, which, in turn, increases the odds of an exploitable error in what would otherwise have been correctly executed action
* Because referees aren't perfect and some have consistent errors that can be exploited -- giving too much precedence (or too little, but that's not useful here) to PiL is a common one
* etc., etc.

-B

[rcmatthews]

That pretty much sums it up. I would add, to make your opponent stop his attack, like a feint in tempo.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by george100

\ I agree that “point in line” is the correct way of saying, but “line-in” is shorter to say & type. I think English in general, is mutating towards a “practical re-definition”, because is used by people that care more about communicating in a fast way, rather than using proper expressions, specially here in north america.

The problem is that when talking about refereeing and the determination of priority, jargon is involved, and jargon always has precise technical meanings. To me, "line-in" means the unamplified input of an audio device like an amplifier or receiver. "Point-in-Line" (or PiL, to use the accepted shorthand) means having the arm extended in a straight line from shoulder to weapon tip, in the opponent's high line (roughly), without unnecessary movements, and established a tempo before their opponent's offensive action. Anything else is not "Point in Line", it's just an extension, attack, counterattack, etc.

[iTouchallover]

Originally Posted by AndrewH

Situation 1: option A. Once the line comes out while I'm in obvious preparation, I know I need to remove it. No sense in rushing in. I'd take my time and launch an attack as soon as I found the blade. Rushing into that situation leaves you defenseless if your initial beat attempt misses.

Situation 2: You forgot option C: ignore the PIL and finish your attack. The PIL has no right of way if it is established after the attack begins (which occurs when I extend my arm).

i would probably do this too

[george100]

I apologize again. I'll stick with PIL.

[george100]

Originally Posted by george100

Coming back to the original topic, I would like to ask: what is the motivation for the two scenarios, that I mentioned initially:
1) Why would anybody do a line-in when his/her opponent is not in motion yet?
2) Why would anybody do a line-in right after his/her opponent started the attack?

1) I think there are only two reasons to do PIL when the opponent is not in motion.
a) the opponent is a "perfect attacker". That means that he/she is that type of person that always scores when attacks. This could be due to speed, or long hand, or perfect stretching or whatever. The point is that allowing him/her to attack is a high risk, so PIL MIGHT delay his/her attack, so I can be the first to initiate the attack.
b) to try a "rotating PIL" (let me know if there is another name for this move ). This means to rotate the blade & finalize, when opponet is trying to beat it

2) The reason for PIL right after opponent starts moving foreward is that I seen, very common for people (at least once in a while), to start moving foreward without being prepared for a PIL. Just run a video tape in slow motion, recorded in general or even with yourself. I bet you'll see that many attackers have the sword arm "un-stretched" on the FIRST STEP foreward.
This calls for one little trick : "invite" your opponet to attack by doing a step backwords, than right after he/she started, do a stretch with a PIL or eventually a "rotating PIL".

[KD5MDK]

When you say "rotating PiL", do you mean a disengage around your opponent's search for the line, or a parry riposte setup by the PiL and exercised against your opponent's direct attack?

[george100]

By "rotating PIL" I mean this :
- arm stays stretched
- blade is rotated from wrist when opponent trys to engage
- step foreword or lunge after the rotation of the blade, unless the opponent moves foreword and lands in my blade

[keropie]

I.e., AoP against the search for the line.

Edited so as not to have two posts in a row:

And there are plenty of reasons to put up a line against someone who is not moving, and plenty of reasons not to do it against the beginning of someone's movement. I'd say about as many reasons for each as different pairings of types of officials, fencers, and moon phase (cause clearly a significant number of saber fencers and officials are lunatics

I might agree that from your tactical set against the fencers that you tend to fence with the officials you are used to, there are only two main reasons for PiL against an immobile saber fencer (what's that?), and plenty of reasons for PiL against the beginning of someones attack.

[george100]

Originally Posted by AndrewH

Situation 2: You forgot option C: ignore the PIL and finish your attack. The PIL has no right of way if it is established after the attack begins (which occurs when I extend my arm).

Actually I described the situation incorrect. Instead of "you just started your attack", I ment "you just started to move foreword". So the "sudden" PIL would occur on the first step foreword, when the sword arm may not be extended yet.

[keropie]

Originally Posted by george100

Actually I described the situation incorrect. Instead of "you just started your attack", I ment "you just started to move foreword". So the "sudden" PIL would occur on the first step foreword, when the sword arm may not be extended yet.

I'd say that if the opponent can finish an extension before you can recognize it and begin to extend, you're probably in trouble in a variety of ways. As it is, all you have to do to invalidate the line is begin extending before it is completed, and finish that attack (i.e., convince the official that you in 2 or fewer pieces of footwork continuously threatened the valid target and hit it).

[Craig]

Originally Posted by george100

By "rotating PIL" I mean this :
- arm stays stretched
- blade is rotated from wrist when opponent trys to engage
- step foreword or lunge after the rotation of the blade, unless the opponent moves foreword and lands in my blade

The word you are searching for is "derobement"