Sabre PIL question...rule quibbling highly likely, enter at your own risk

[Welted 24/7]

Okay, I remember reading something about this in a recent topic, but I don't think it got answered. Let's say fencer A establishes line and fencer B, for some reason, decides to attack into it. The point of A's sabre misses, A does NOT break line, and the flat of the blade tags B at the same time B's attack arrives.

What exactly just happened here?

[knave]

I've had the action where I was fencer A. I establish a line. B stops. B attacks onto line and lands valid. My line lands flat. Obviously, two lights.

A level 4 referee said my line was no. Then the attack, then the remise. Touch for B. But, he had just lunged onto my line. The referee who was presiding over the bout said my line arrived.

[keropie]

POINT in line fails, attack arrives, remise of POINT in line. Touch to the attack.

[noodle]

they missed with the point, they missed the PIL. attack arives, counterattack from A. point B.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Indeed, you will likely hear: "Point in line is passe...attack from right arrives."

Just out of curiosity, what is the silent referee signal that indicates a PIL has gone passe? As opposed to PIL withdrawn, excessive de-robing, or "pitiful rendition of the Mormando PIL Hoedown Dance"?

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

Indeed, you will likely hear: "Point in line is passe...attack from right arrives."

Just out of curiosity, what is the silent referee signal that indicates a PIL has gone passe? As opposed to PIL withdrawn, excessive de-robing, or "pitiful rendition of the Mormando PIL Hoedown Dance"?

You give the point in line signal. Then instead of announcing a touch scored, you give the "naughty naughty" finger waggle fails sign. Then the attack signal from the other side, arrives signal and then award the touch.

Straightforward.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

That's always been one of my pet peeves about directors and PIL. Often they won't even acknowledge you had it out...which leads you to wonder: Was it established too late? Did I break the arm? Did I go passe? Was the elbow fractionally too bent? Was there blade contact sufficient to pass the "graze" test?

Without any qualification of WHY the PIL wasn't awarded, it's hard to successfully fence the director.

[noodle]

i would just not call the PIL, calling it attack from fencer B.

[KD5MDK]

If Point in Line is properly established, I'd call it, to avoid looking like I missed it completely.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

If Point in Line is properly established, I'd call it, to avoid looking like I missed it completely.

And because it's very useful information that, as a referee, one ought to be providing to the fencers.

Similar to making different calls for "attack no, counter-attack" and "preparation, attack". They aren't the same, and the call/signals should reflect the difference. If referee just awards a touch (or worse, says "one light, touch"), they are cheating both fencers out of vital information for later in the bout.

-B

[I_luv_saber]

I would call it Fencer A's PIL lands passe (though I'm sure I'd just say flat). Attack by B, counterattack by A, point B. But B's point certainly.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Welted 24/7

Okay, I remember reading something about this in a recent topic, but I don't think it got answered. Let's say fencer A establishes line and fencer B, for some reason, decides to attack into it. The point of A's sabre misses, A does NOT break line, and the flat of the blade tags B at the same time B's attack arrives.

What exactly just happened here?

This shouldn't promote much quibbling. it's cut and dried.

line is passe, attack arrives, then the remise. touch for B.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

I would call it Fencer A's PIL lands passe...

how does something "land passe"?

It can be passe and then a remise can land, but it can't "land passe".

-m

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

This shouldn't promote much quibbling. it's cut and dried.

Originally Posted by epeemike81

how does something "land passe"?

It can be passe and then a remise can land, but it can't "land passe".

Heh. Especially in back-to-back posts... :)

-B

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

how does something "land passe"?

It can be passe and then a remise can land, but it can't "land passe".

-m

good point... my mistake, I was posting quickly. Like I said though, I would probably just say PIL landed flat.
<----- Not an actual ref, just reffing in the club, hehe

[Inquartata]

I'd have to agree with Noodle. In competitions I don't use the PIL hand signal unless it arrives valid.

Brad, change things a bit. PIL is established, B attacks and hits but in the process runs right onto the point, ie it is NOT passé. Do you still call attack by B, no, or do you just sign PIL arrives, touch, point?

The ref's job is not, as I understand it, to "provide useful information to the fencers". They are presumed to know the rules and what they are about. I mean, we are not there to help a fencer correct his deficiencies on the strip---that's coaching, no?

[downunder]

In this circumstance, if the point in line was correctly executed but initally missed then you have to signal and phrase as such, followed by the counterattack.

[sabreur]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

The ref's job is not, as I understand it, to "provide useful information to the fencers". They are presumed to know the rules and what they are about. I mean, we are not there to help a fencer correct his deficiencies on the strip---that's coaching, no?

You have to provide them with enough information so they understand why you called the action--otherwise, you could just say point left or point right and leave the poor things to suss it out entirely for themselves.

In the case of a PIL being established, unless it is given up prior to the final phrase, I think it is something that should be included in the ref's description of the action.

Those of us who are old enough remember that in the days of steam sabre, the ref would parse the entire final phrase first, then start the process of asking the side judges what happened for each action within the phrase.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Brad, change things a bit. PIL is established, B attacks and hits but in the process runs right onto the point, ie it is NOT passé. Do you still call attack by B, no, or do you just sign PIL arrives, touch, point?

The ref's job is not, as I understand it, to "provide useful information to the fencers". They are presumed to know the rules and what they are about. I mean, we are not there to help a fencer correct his deficiencies on the strip---that's coaching, no?

I would signal the PiL and stop there as I've arrived at the touch. Much the way in an attack vs counterattack situation I would signal the attack and not signal the counterattack. In an attack vs counterattack with a single light for the counterattack I MUST signal the attack, no before I signal the counterattack or I am, by implication, providing false information to the fencers (mainly that I saw the counterattack as an attack). If I don't signal a failed PiL I am similarly telling the fencers that I didn't see it as an action that failed, but rather than I, for whatever reason, didn't consider it established at the time of the attack.

In part it's about providing useful information, in part it's about not providing false information (by implication, if not explicitly), in part it's about making sure that everyone knows what the referee is (or isn't) seeing (which, assuming the referee is competent and doing a good job, will increase the confidence of all involved and lead to a considerably better and cleaner bout, which, among other things, makes the referee's job easier and improves the experience had by the fencers).

I certainly don't agree with referees doing things that can be construed as coaching (which happens WAY too often at the local level ("it's a learning opportunity") in too many locales). This is not that. This is correctly using the minimal accepted vocabulary (verbal and/or handsignals) to call the action up to the point of the awarded touch. Not calling the failed PiL is wrong.

-B

[bigdawg2121]

Just as a note, there is a signal that is specifically for passe; it's not the finger wag. Technically anyway.