Sabre ROW

[ParryRiposte]

I have a question about sabre ROW with point in line:

At fence, both fencer X and Y establish point in line. Fencer X charges Y, Y keeps arm extended and doesn't do anything. Two lights result.

Who gets the touch?

[sabreur]

No one as long as X attacks directly and hits with the point.

If X changes lines and hits with the edge, it is probably Y's touch, but I would have to see the action to be sure.

[ParryRiposte]

No lines are changed. It is a straight attack.

[sabreur]

No lines are changed. It is a straight attack.

Then it is nothing done.

Down Under can probably tell us what the "official according to the FIE" call would be.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

I agree that no touch should be awarded....advancing with PiL has the same priority as standing still or retreating with PiL.

[whtouche]

One wrinkle nobody has discussed yet is, what exactly is the fencer who is "charging" doing?

If it's just advance lunge off of fence, both fencers arms extended, I would be inclined to him the touch to that person, because neither had PiL established in time. Therefore, fencer X is just making a goofy attack into fencer Y's goofy counter attack.

[jeff]

(informal reasoning alert) Just to be contrarian, an old way to think about it is "who caused the double touch?". They are both holding lines, that's fine, but one of them takes it upon himself to impale himself onto the valid line. Touch for the person who maintained the line... (go ahead, take shots at it...) Or, just literally read t.80 2(a). Yup, he initiated his attack when his opponent had his point in line.

"PiL" often becomes "PITA". It's so frequently a topic of grey area, confusion, and disagreement that the relevant rules should be completely rewritten for clarity. Like that'll ever happen...

[sabreur]

Jeff--there you go being logical again!

But the PIL is a condition, not an attack. According to the current interpretation of the rules, once you establish the PIL, footwork is irrelevant--you can advance, retreat, lunge, fleche, etc., and as long as you don't break it, the condition of having the PIL still exists.

Fencer Y has impaled himself on a valid line just as much as Fencer X has--it is just that he has done it in a more passive manner.

[jeff]

Yup, I hear you, and don't disagree! On the other hand, I wouldn't want to place bets on this being called consistently. Not what you want to try at la bell touche!

[garyhayenga]

Yup, I hear you, and don't disagree! On the other hand, I wouldn't want to place bets on this being called consistently. Not what you want to try at la bell touche!

I would disagree with him.

Both fencers have point-in-line, but neither has priority. One can make an attack without *losing* priority gained by a previously established point-in-line, but it's still an attack.

But in this case Fencer X does *not* have priority as both of them have a point-in-line. And if Fencer X makes an attack onto a line that was established prior to him beginning his attack, or prior to his coming into distance, then he is wrong and his opponents line has priority.

gary hayenga

[larkmaj]

Yup, I hear you, and don't disagree! On the other hand, I wouldn't want to place bets on this being called consistently. Not what you want to try at la bell touche!

Here's a better one to place bets on, which way would it more commonly go? I would say fencer X as he's the one moving.

Of course I agree that it's no touch, but another question is, does it matter if both lines were established at the same time in this situation? I would guess no, but some may say that the first to establish the line has it.

[mrbiggs]

I would disagree with him.

Both fencers have point-in-line, but neither has priority. One can make an attack without *losing* priority gained by a previously established point-in-line, but it's still an attack.

But in this case Fencer X does *not* have priority as both of them have a point-in-line. And if Fencer X makes an attack onto a line that was established prior to him beginning his attack, or prior to his coming into distance, then he is wrong and his opponents line has priority.

gary hayenga

He wasn't making an attack, he was point in line. Once you're in the point in line position, you can only break it by breaking the line or having your blade beat.

X never did either. Therefore, he was not attacking, he was point in line. That's how I understand it, anyway.

[Inquartata]

I agree that it's a push. But I suppose that an argument could be made that if a PIL hits on a lunge or advance against a passive line, the first becomes an attack with point.

I am certainly seeing a lot of stuff at Richmond which gives me pause. With some referees it seems that you can do just about anything with the hand and blade so long as you are moving forward...and since few refs seem to catch the "attack end at the finish of the lunge of an advance-lunge" cue, well...

Perhaps they are trying to vitiate the new timing with directing interpretations or something? I don't know...

[jeff]

So, there you have it: experienced fencers can argue for each possible outcome (for X, for Y, for neither). Frankly, I would want to use t.80 2(a) and say that the person who held the line was right and the other guy was wrong for initiating an attack onto it. An official answer would be nice, and we can still all argue this over drinks afterwards.

My conclusion is that the rules are a mess, this being one of the best exampls. There are plenty "boundary conditions" where rules intersect in ambiguous ways. I don't mind there being a little wiggle room here and there, but the root cause of the problem is that many of the rules are poorly expressed in the first place.

[downunder]

since footwork has no effect on point in line, then logically no hit would be awarded. Perhaps instead we shoot both fencers for fencing badly enough to provide this situation?

[KD5MDK]

Call non-combativity as both fencers are clearly not intending to score by not taking away their opponent's priority.

[Phaeton]

ROW threads on f.net scare me....

[ParryRiposte]

Thanks, everyone. The situation didn't surprise me - this was an epeeist fencing sabre...

[Coldfire]

Thanks, everyone. The situation didn't surprise me - this was an epeeist fencing sabre...

God...the bout must have taken forever....We can't let the epeeists take over our beloved weapon. Then again they're too slow and we'de see them coming

[swordsen]

I like Downunders solution......