12-05-2006, 08:08 PM
|
#1 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 1,011
| YouTube is great and here's why
What would you call the action in this video? The ref called it attack in prep, but I was pretty sure I had point in line. YouTube - E and Under 3
I've since ditched the yellow socks. 
__________________
The solution to your problem is to fence another weapon.
| 
|  | | And now for this message... |
| |
12-05-2006, 08:11 PM
|
#2 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posts: 333
| If you are the one with the yellow socks the arm does 'break'.
__________________
Asprin
Blackadder :But I thought we were fighting with swords.
Wellington : Swords! What do you think this is, the middle ages? Only girls fight with swords these days. | |
| | |
12-05-2006, 08:12 PM
|
#3 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Chelmsford, MA
Posts: 1,854
| you did have point in line, but then you withdrew it when your opponent searched, then you hit him in the chest.
the call is right.
-w | |
| | |
12-05-2006, 09:29 PM
|
#4 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Nantes, France
Posts: 694
| Concur with the ref. You're also backing up with PIL. | |
| | |
12-05-2006, 09:35 PM
|
#5 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: NYC
Posts: 832
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Durando  Concur with the ref. You're also backing up with PIL. | What does backing up with PIL have to do with it? I thought you could have PIL whenever given that it was established before you opponents action and that you didn't break the line for any reason but to avoid your own blade being hit.
__________________
Citius, Altius, Fortius
-Olympic Motto
For those non Latin speakers out there:
Swifter, Higher, Stronger
| |
| | |
12-05-2006, 09:46 PM
|
#6 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Nantes, France
Posts: 694
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldfire What does backing up with PIL have to do with it? I thought you could have PIL whenever given that it was established before you opponents action and that you didn't break the line for any reason but to avoid your own blade being hit. | What do I know? Just an épée fencer. As a ref I wouldn't be positively disposed to this action. As far as I understand ROW, backing up with PIL doesn't earn you anything. Aside from the tactical change in bladework you may as well be en garde. I'm sure I'm wrong in about a thousand ways that will presently be explained to me. (Live and learn.)
The way I see high level foilists use PIL: there is always a moment when then stop or even go forward. That moment is clear and easy to identify in the phrase. Anyway, as far as the film goes, Katman clearly loses PIL. To be fair, Left's attack was crap. I'll shut up now. | |
| | |
12-05-2006, 09:49 PM
|
#7 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: NYC
Posts: 832
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Durando What do I know? Just an épée fencer. As a ref I wouldn't be positively disposed to this action. As far as I understand ROW, backing up with PIL doesn't earn you anything. Aside from the tactical change in bladework you may as well be en garde. I'm sure I'm wrong in about a thousand ways that will presently be explained to me. (Live and learn.)
The way I see high level foilists use PIL: there is always a moment when then stop or even go forward. That moment is clear and easy to identify in the phrase. Anyway, as far as the film goes, Katman clearly loses PIL. To be fair, Left's attack was crap. I'll shut up now. | Ah a pesky epeeist  J/k. Well I'm sure we're both wrong in some way or another and someone will soon show us up to be frauds 
__________________
Citius, Altius, Fortius
-Olympic Motto
For those non Latin speakers out there:
Swifter, Higher, Stronger
| |
| | |
12-05-2006, 10:17 PM
|
#8 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,030
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Durando Concur with the ref. You're also backing up with PIL. | PIL exists irrespective of footwork.
__________________
----------
Andrew
| 
| | |
12-05-2006, 10:19 PM
|
#9 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: NYC
Posts: 832
| Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewH PIL exists irrespective of footwork. | Thats what I thought.
__________________
Citius, Altius, Fortius
-Olympic Motto
For those non Latin speakers out there:
Swifter, Higher, Stronger
| |
| | |
12-05-2006, 10:32 PM
|
#10 | | The Judge
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,103
| Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Apostrophe you did have point in line, but then you withdrew it when your opponent searched, then you hit him in the chest.
the call is right.
-w | what he said | |
| | |
12-06-2006, 11:09 AM
|
#11 | | Fencing Expert
Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: CA area
Posts: 6,049
| Attack by the fencer on the right. Is that what the referee also called?
__________________
=)=///
| |
| | |
12-06-2006, 11:22 AM
|
#12 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Pacoima, ca USA
Posts: 5,756
| I would give it to you, but not on a PIL...I think you were too close to properly establish it.
I would've said left attempted to find a blade and you disengaged... | |
| | |
12-06-2006, 11:24 AM
|
#13 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: London
Posts: 317
| Attack from right. As someone said, you had PIL then your broke it when you tried to derobe the attackers attempted taking of the blade. | |
| | |
12-06-2006, 11:46 AM
|
#14 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 809
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Fencer I would give it to you, but not on a PIL...I think you were too close to properly establish it. | If the other guy were attacking, the the distance might be too close. As it is, I think that the PIL was established correctly (well more than 1 full tempo before the guy on the left tried to attack), but then was broken, as others have said. That other recent PIL thread would seem to support this reading - that PIL needs to be clearly before the attack, but can be established in relatively close quarters. | |
| | |
12-06-2006, 11:47 AM
|
#15 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 974
| Clearly, this is the point of the fencer with the attrocious yellow socks. As for the terminology used by the ref it was perfectly okay. You no longer had a line and I would not categorize the action as a derobement (although clearly you avoided the attempted take of the blade by the opponant) because you did it without maintaining an extended arm. Since the opponant is clearly "looking for the blade" the action in this case (short version) is attack from the right, touch right. The long version would be: PIL on the right, preparation on the left (this is more precisely a failed attempt to find the blade, which is in essence, a form of preparation) attack from the right, touch for the right. Pretty good ref. IMO
Once in a while you get good clear footage of an action on video that can be used for discussion. I very much agree that You-Tube can be an excellent tool for such discussions.
__________________
I'm a foil fencer, and I can change, if I have to, I guess.
| |
| | |
12-06-2006, 11:48 AM
|
#16 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Hall School, Wellesely, MA
Posts: 3,756
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Durando ...As far as I understand ROW, backing up with PIL doesn't earn you anything. | yeah, but it doesn't lose you anything either.
-m | |
| | |
12-06-2006, 11:49 AM
|
#17 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 3,177
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Fencer I would give it to you, but not on a PIL...I think you were too close to properly establish it.
I would've said left attempted to find a blade and you disengaged... | My call is similar.
"On the Preparation from the left, Attack right is valid. Touch right." [insert appropriate hand signals]
Left has an established attack, but pauses in the middle of it to look for the blade (no, the point in line was not established in time). When right derobes the attempted take, ROW passes to right. Left should have ignored the blade and finished - this was his mistake. Right did a good job of making left THINK of his blade as being a valid threat, and so when left paused his attack, thats the critical error.
A word of note: I'm not saying that the line isn't valid because of the final position of his hand (he doesn't break the line until AFTER the search as I see it), but because of when it was established.
__________________
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado." - Emiliano Zapata
"Layla, you got me on my knees" - Eric Clapton
Last edited by oso97; 12-06-2006 at 11:51 AM.
| |
| | |
12-06-2006, 11:49 AM
|
#18 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Hall School, Wellesely, MA
Posts: 3,756
| Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Apostrophe you did have point in line, but then you withdrew it when your opponent searched, then you hit him in the chest.
the call is right.
-w | seconded.
-m | |
| | |
12-06-2006, 11:54 AM
|
#19 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Hall School, Wellesely, MA
Posts: 3,756
| Quote:
Originally Posted by oso97 Left has an established attack, but pauses in the middle of it to look for the blade (no, the point in line was not established in time). | Let me guess: It wasn't his turn? 
watch the video again. line goes up on the right, and the fencer on the left takes no fewer than 4 advances BEFORE searching for the blade. line was very clearly established. if, instead of searching, the fencer on the left had lunged and the fencer on the right had maintained line, it would be line correct, touch right.
-m | |
| | |
12-06-2006, 12:20 PM
|
#20 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: West Coast
Posts: 2,352
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Katman What would you call the action in this video? The ref called it attack in prep, but I was pretty sure I had point in line. | Just so I understand, you got the point? On my original reading I thought you were complaining that the fencer on the left received the touch.
It's fairly obvious that your opponent made a huge upwards whiff trying to take your PIL, which you handily disengaged, and scored. Alas, many many refs...especially at the local level get this call wrong ALL THE TIME.
They'll give you the PIL, and then tell you that you broke the PIL and counterattacked, completely missing the failed attempt to take the blade by your opponent.
It was a nifty move by you. Now...did you INTEND to disengage? That's a better question! Quote:
Originally Posted by Katman I've since ditched the yellow socks. | Dude...don't let the Fashion Police talk you out of a spectacular ensemble.
__________________
“Obedience to lawful authority is the foundation of manly character.” Robert E. Lee
| |
| | |
