Foil ROW Question

[NSXER]

On the "sharp point" subject...weren't the original fencing rules & right-of-way system founded on that premise?

This thread could go for years...... but the thing that puzzels me is how the
evolution of these rules interpretations get changed without anything being written in the rule book?

So your local Seattle ref sees/hears some prominent ref at the nationals (who saw it at a world cup etc etc etc) make a call then all of of sudden this is the way the rule will be called until further notice with no change in the rule book? What a crock of B$!

This sport will never progress in popularity with spectators & sponsers if
it stays on the same track it's on right now ....it's already too tough and inconsistent for both fencers and refs IMO. Just try to get a non-fencing friend to attend their second fencing tournament for entertainment.....my friends would rather mow the lawn than watch fencing!

[Insipiens]

Have you ever seen how LBW is determined in cricket?

LBW in cricket is much more factual and objective than ROW and PIL.
It is just a simple set of questions
1. Did the ball hit the batsman's pads/body?
2. If yes to 1, did he hit it with the bat before then? (if no to 1, not LBW)
3. If no to 2, would the ball have gone on to hit the stumps? (if yes to 2 not LBW)
4. If yes to 3, did it pitch outside leg stump? (if no to 3, not LBW)
5. If no to 4, did it pitch outside off-stump? (if yes to 4, not LBW)
6a. If yes to 5, was the ball outside the line of off-stump when it hit the batsman's pads? (if no, go to 7)
6b. If no to 6a, LBW.
6c. If yes to 6a, was the batsman attempting to hit the ball?
6d If no to 6c LBW. (if yes to 6c not LBW)
7. If no to 5, LBW
easy

[peet]

On the "sharp point" subject...weren't the original fencing rules & right-of-way system founded on that premise?

This thread could go for years...... but the thing that puzzels me is how the
evolution of these rules interpretations get changed without anything being written in the rule book?

So your local Seattle ref sees/hears some prominent ref at the nationals (who saw it at a world cup etc etc etc) make a call then all of of sudden this is the way the rule will be called until further notice with no change in the rule book? What a crock of B$!

A: All rules have to be interpreted. No rulebook in any sport is absolutely explicit about every possible occurrence.

B: Like real-world laws, the rules are written to allow for referee discretion so that the referee can fairly take into account the peculiarities of the situation at hand.

C: The game changes. The officiating has to change to keep up with it. If we had to wait for explicit language changes in the rulebook, the officiating would never be able to keep up with the game.


(IMHO).

-p

[NSXER]

A: All rules have to be interpreted. No rulebook in any sport is absolutely explicit about every possible occurrence.

B: Like real-world laws, the rules are written to allow for referee discretion so that the referee can fairly take into account the peculiarities of the situation at hand.

C: The game changes. The officiating has to change to keep up with it. If we had to wait for explicit language changes in the rulebook, the officiating would never be able to keep up with the game.


(IMHO).

-p

If tennis rules were as vague as fencing rules there would be nobody playing or watching tennis......their rules are pretty easy to follow and interpret even though there are a lot of them. Although I don't consider golf to be anywhere close to fencing as a physical sport per se their rules are very specific and there are a ton of them too.....not a lot of rule improvising in those two sports & when the rules are changed it's goes in the new rule book right now!

[Dev]

If tennis rules were as vague as fencing rules there would be nobody playing or watching tennis......their rules are pretty easy to follow and interpret even though there are a lot of them. Although I don't consider golf to be anywhere close to fencing as a physical sport per se their rules are very specific and there are a ton of them too.....not a lot of rule improvising in those two sports & when the rules are changed it's goes in the new rule book right now!

That's because in golf, it's you against the ball (and the course). In tennis, it's you against the ball and the court (and secondarily, the other player; whatever you "do" to the other player has to be transmitted through the ball and the court). Since the ball, court, and course are roughly static and do not act of their own accord, pretty much every "instance" of the rules follows the following convention:

1) Was it in bounds?
2) Was it struck legally?

That about covers it.

Why does boxing have to have subjective judges in the absence of a knockout? Because it involves two players acting chiefly against each other, in the absence of a subjective mechanism to show what "really" happened. Fencing is the same way; the scoring box merely assists the action. It doesn't dictate it.

[NSXER]

That's because in golf, it's you against the ball (and the course). In tennis, it's you against the ball and the court (and secondarily, the other player; whatever you "do" to the other player has to be transmitted through the ball and the court). Since the ball, court, and course are roughly static and do not act of their own accord, pretty much every "instance" of the rules follows the following convention:

1) Was it in bounds?
2) Was it struck legally?

That about covers it.

Why does boxing have to have subjective judges in the absence of a knockout? Because it involves two players acting chiefly against each other, in the absence of a subjective mechanism to show what "really" happened. Fencing is the same way; the scoring box merely assists the action. It doesn't dictate it.

Good point.....how many judges/referees are there for an individual boxing match? I have never seen a boxing rule book - is it complicated?

[Joe biebel]

A: All rules have to be interpreted. No rulebook in any sport is absolutely explicit about every possible occurrence.

Absolutely true, IMO. All the more reason for the logic of something like ROW to be clearly spelled out. This I think is quite possible, but not being done.

B: Like real-world laws, the rules are written to allow for referee discretion so that the referee can fairly take into account the peculiarities of the situation at hand.

Agreed, I see this as further evidence that we must rely on a system of logic for ROW in addition to technical rules.

C: The game changes. The officiating has to change to keep up with it. If we had to wait for explicit language changes in the rulebook, the officiating would never be able to keep up with the game.

Yes, the game changes, but the underlying logic and physics do not. The fencers will adapt to the refererees at least as much as the referees adapt to the fencing. This part we are in disagreement on. No fencer that trains to win will go against how referees call actions. Example: I do not agree with the status quo on the interpretation of PIL, yet, I only need to have it called against me once, okay maybe twice, to realize right or wrong this is how it's going to be called.

If I saw me attack and leave a line at the end of it and my opponant retreated out of reach, and without a pause attacked at the finish of my Attack/PIL, I would call it for my opponant. Why? Because as dumb as it seems, as arbitrary as it is, it must be consitant with other referees. A goodly portion of the time when I am pressing a retreating opponant, PIL, with no intention of attack, they will reverse their direction and impale themselves on my pre-existing line. This is still often called Attack no, Attack yes, against me. Here is where Pete's "B" should come into play. Since there is no interpretation du jour on this exact case. The call is almost always "blown". We bind (blind) our refs with too much opinion, and interpretation and not enough logic.

[Dev]

Good point.....how many judges/referees are there for an individual boxing match? I have never seen a boxing rule book - is it complicated?

There is one referee; the referee ensures that the rules vis a vis low blows, clinches, head-butts, ear-biting, etc. are followed (think a fencing asesseur watching for target-covering or cross-overs[sabre]). Three judges (at the scorer's table outside the ring) are responsible for scoring each round in the favor of one fighter or another, based on subjective analysis, punch counts, "power shots" (up to judges' discretion), and the like.

[Hauptman]

A: All rules have to be interpreted. No rulebook in any sport is absolutely explicit about every possible occurrence.

B: Like real-world laws, the rules are written to allow for referee discretion so that the referee can fairly take into account the peculiarities of the situation at hand.

C: The game changes. The officiating has to change to keep up with it. If we had to wait for explicit language changes in the rulebook, the officiating would never be able to keep up with the game.


(IMHO).

-p

I agree with you in many ways. It is not possible to be perfectly explicit and cover every eventuality, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for that goal. Our rules system is unnecessarily vague and imprecise. There is enormous room for improvement that is unfortunately either negelected or avoided for political reasons.

[Cerian]

I completely agree with this, the PiL is a condition and not an action. That's why I dont buy the whole "you get 2-for-1" argument. There's no such thing, you get 1 (an attack) and at the end you finish in a condition (you arm is extended, etc) which according to the rules is exactly how the condition known as PiL is described.

.

PIL is a condition, but the establishment of PIL is an action. The question is whether the extension of the arm and the tempo of an attack can be double counted as the necessary preparation for establishing PIL...

[erooMynohtnA]

PIL is a condition, but the establishment of PIL is an action. The question is whether the extension of the arm and the tempo of an attack can be double counted as the necessary preparation for establishing PIL...

I've been staying out of this, because I don't have the refereeing experience most people in this thread do.

However, that makes no sense whatsoever. What's the hand signal for the action establishing PiL? There's no "attempted PiL" or "halfway PiL" just "PiL that was too late." There isn't even an incorrect PiL, it's just not called anything at that point.

If you've lunged and straightened your arm and fallen short, it may or may not be a PiL, but if you just sit there and wait for a couple seconds, it definitely is. There was no difference in the preparation. It's just clear the PiL existed before the counterattacker's window of opportunity.

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. But, the way PiL is called, I guarantee I can find directors who agree and disagree on every point I've put forth, and that's the real problem, not the logic behind it.

[OROD]

PIL is a condition, but the establishment of PIL is an action. The question is whether the extension of the arm and the tempo of an attack can be double counted as the necessary preparation for establishing PIL...

Yes, but in fencing the only thing that matters is that PiL exists, or it doesnt exist. The action your talking about is just extending your arm, which in and of itself doesnt mean anything.

Now, we can all mostly agree that PiL is a condition. What I just dont understand is how some people can believe that PiL doesnt exist, but then you wait a second and without anything else changing now somehow PiL exists. How does that work? All the rulebook says in regards to PiL and timing is that if PiL is attained AFTER the opponent begins the attack, then the attack has RoW. But, it says nothing about how long you have to have PiL in order for it to be valid. This is where I have a problem, when people try to infer that somehow such an amount of time is needed.

Consider the situation where I dont move, I just begin extending my arm and conclude with PiL. Immediately afterwards my opponent attacks, two lights on. Who gets the touch? Obviously, I do, since I had my PiL before the attack came. However, there was no amount of time that I held it, I just established it and the attack followed right after. But now somehow if the same action happened, but I lunged at the same time, now the PiL isnt valid??? That just doesnt make sense, especially when we consider how everyone is always says how footwork doesnt matter to a PiL... which it shouldnt.

.

[peet]

But now somehow if the same action happened, but I lunged at the same time, now the PiL isnt valid???

Your PIL is not invalid, it just didn't exist. If you extend & lunge at the same time, you are attacking*, not establishing PIL. The lunge makes a difference. Personally, I'm really happy that it does, too: If "extend & lunge" were an establishment of a PIL, then it would acquire ROW only after the arm is fully extended, not at the beginning of the extension, as an attack does. And how much would that s**k? A lot.

That just doesnt make sense, especially when we consider how everyone is always says how footwork doesnt matter to a PiL... which it shouldnt.

When people say that, what they're saying is after PIL is established, one can advance or retreat and maintain ROW (whereas some time ago, folks used to say that a PIL had to be standing still). That's not the same thing as saying that if you lunge while extending, you still have a line immediately afterward.

-p

* depending on the distance, what the other guy is doing, etc., of course.

[RPI Epeeist]

Consider the situation where I dont move, I just begin extending my arm and conclude with PiL. Immediately afterwards my opponent attacks, two lights on. Who gets the touch? Obviously, I do, since I had my PiL before the attack came. However, there was no amount of time that I held it, I just established it and the attack followed right after. But now somehow if the same action happened, but I lunged at the same time, now the PiL isnt valid??? That just doesnt make sense, especially when we consider how everyone is always says how footwork doesnt matter to a PiL... which it shouldnt.

.

Your first situation where you assume to have PIL is incorrect. You do not have PIL in that case. An extension is an attack. Only by holding your extension into the beginning of a new tempo (whether caused by a break in distance or time) can create a PIL. So if you extend, you've attacked, allowing your opponent (if immediate, such as your example) to counterattack with ROW. Attack no, counterattack yes.

There are tempos in fencing. Whether you intend to make an action or not (by extending your arm to establish your PIL) you are (its an attack... same thing goes in saber... the swinging of an arm is an attack whether or not you intended it to be). Intent does not dictate ROW, actions do.

[Cerian]

I've been staying out of this, because I don't have the refereeing experience most people in this thread do.

However, that makes no sense whatsoever. What's the hand signal for the action establishing PiL? There's no "attempted PiL" or "halfway PiL" just "PiL that was too late." There isn't even an incorrect PiL, it's just not called anything at that point.

If you've lunged and straightened your arm and fallen short, it may or may not be a PiL, but if you just sit there and wait for a couple seconds, it definitely is. There was no difference in the preparation. It's just clear the PiL existed before the counterattacker's window of opportunity.

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. But, the way PiL is called, I guarantee I can find directors who agree and disagree on every point I've put forth, and that's the real problem, not the logic behind it.

I never said anything about half-way PiL or attempted PiL. Conceptually, these do exist from the subjective stand point of a fencer, though. If I decide I want to establish line and while I start extending you attack I have 'attempted a PiL'. This obviously doesn't matter to the referee, and I'm not saying there is any reason to ever call this, but it might matter to the fencer. As far as the director is concerned there is PiL and not PiL (probably a counterattack, or remise, depending on the situation...). As a right of way call, sure, PiL just appears out of nowhere. As something that fencer's DO, there is quite obviously 'attempting' and 'being half way done with.' There is no call for someone 'attempting' a parry, or being half-way done with their riposte (when a remise, perhaps, times them out); one might, however, want to bring things like that up as far as informing a fencer, pedagogically, of what they're doing and why it's not working... That a referee doesn't say it happens doesn't mean it does not happen...

Yes, but in fencing the only thing that matters is that PiL exists, or it doesnt exist. The action your talking about is just extending your arm, which in and of itself doesnt mean anything.

Now, we can all mostly agree that PiL is a condition. What I just dont understand is how some people can believe that PiL doesnt exist, but then you wait a second and without anything else changing now somehow PiL exists. How does that work? All the rulebook says in regards to PiL and timing is that if PiL is attained AFTER the opponent begins the attack, then the attack has RoW. But, it says nothing about how long you have to have PiL in order for it to be valid. This is where I have a problem, when people try to infer that somehow such an amount of time is needed.

Consider the situation where I dont move, I just begin extending my arm and conclude with PiL. Immediately afterwards my opponent attacks, two lights on. Who gets the touch? Obviously, I do, since I had my PiL before the attack came. However, there was no amount of time that I held it, I just established it and the attack followed right after. But now somehow if the same action happened, but I lunged at the same time, now the PiL isnt valid??? That just doesnt make sense, especially when we consider how everyone is always says how footwork doesnt matter to a PiL... which it shouldnt.

.

Except just extending your arm does mean something, when that extending results in being extended in line. Being extended in line completely is a loose area. Initiating an attack is a loose area. You can logically reduce them to the second the arm reaches full extension or the second the arm begins to extend, respectively, but that's never how a PiL or an attack is going to be called. Things happen in tempos, in fencing time, not in instants. That's why the establishment of line requires some non-definable moment of empty time in which another action has not begun. If what it looks like is a failed attack and an immediate counter-attack, you don't get to transport the establishment of line back in time to the process of the attack because they are separable, distinct actions that do not overlap... It has to be attack, nothing, PIL established. Just because that nothing is nothing, doesn't mean it correspondingly takes up no time... (how Heidegger...).

The precise issue is the 'AFTER the attack', and the 'AFTERWARDS the opponent attacks. You aren't dealing with a bunch of clearly separated instants, but a series of contextually overlapping motions and actions. Your standing still full extension could be a feint, a presentation, or a PiL, or the beginning of some inept classical fencer attack, we don't know. The referee finds out over time, not in the instant it happens in your mind.

[noodle]

Your PIL is not invalid, it just didn't exist. If you extend & lunge at the same time, you are attacking*, not establishing PIL. The lunge makes a difference. Personally, I'm really happy that it does, too: If "extend & lunge" were an establishment of a PIL, then it would acquire ROW only after the arm is fully extended, not at the beginning of the extension, as an attack does. And how much would that s**k? A lot.





When people say that, what they're saying is after PIL is established, one can advance or retreat and maintain ROW (whereas some time ago, folks used to say that a PIL had to be standing still). That's not the same thing as saying that if you lunge while extending, you still have a line immediately afterward.

-p

* depending on the distance, what the other guy is doing, etc., of course.

good explanations

[daBub]

Before I say anything, I will state that I have little to no experience in foil fencing so everything following is only based on my brand of logic and my interpretation of the rules. I just find this discussion interesting and would like to put in my two cents and see what you guys make of it.


1. A tempo of fencing is not defined by an exact length of time in seconds or what not but rather by actions.
2. An attack maintains row for the entire tempo of the attack.
3. Evading an attack does not immediately grant row to the evader, only a parry will grant immediate row (and essentially end that tempo of fencing immediately).


To further explain what I mean by (3), if fencer A extends and lunges at fencer B, fencer B leans back slightly so that fencer A falls short by an inch, all fencer A has to do to finish the attack is lean slightly forward 1 inch to hit. If during this whole leaning business, fencer B extends his arm and hits at the same time, it would be fencer A attack, fencer B counterattack and point awarded to fencer A right? If instead, fencer B leans back slightly and then leans back forward again and impales himself on the point while in turn extending and hitting the attacker, would you guys interpret that as a successful evasion and then an attack? I would think that in either case it would be judged to be a failed evasion/counter attack into a valid attack. What if this is carried out over a period of 10 seconds rather then just a second (leaning in slow motion), would it still be interpreted the same way?

The way I see it, that particular tempo of fencing is not over until the attack clearly misses (with the point going past the opponent's target) or is clearly evaded (again with the point going past the opponent) in which case the row passes to fencer B. To me, just backing up slightly within one tempo of fencing does not give you row automatically as the opponents point is still within inches of your target and is most definitely still a threat.

If however, fencer B retreats a good two or three steps so that fencer A's still extended arm is now clearly no longer a threat and fencer A's attack is now clearly missed and over, there is no possible way that fencer B is able to make an immediate and direct riposte and in fact, can it even be called a riposte if there was no parry? I would imagine this should be called a completely new action and the slate would be wiped clean.

If that is the case however, then you must also say that the PiL has been established by fencer A and fencer B would be obligated to beat or deflect the PiL.

I see a lot of discussion on when the line between the attack and the new phrase is drawn but it seems to me that it doesn't really matter where you draw the line as on one side of the line, fencer A has the valid attack and thus the row unless fencer B parries. On the other side of the line, the PiL has been established and fencer B is obligated to beat the attack.

I know my interpretation has probably nothing to do with the reality of how foil is judged so I am just throwing this out here to see what you guys make of it.

[noodle]

1. A tempo of fencing is not defined by an exact length of time in seconds or what not but rather by actions.

kind of. it is also defined by inaction, and in that inaction, time does play a part. how long does it take for an "immediate" action? if one waits too long, they can lose tempo, even when doing actions.

2. An attack maintains row for the entire tempo of the attack.

kind of. provided it is correctly executed, yes.

3. Evading an attack does not immediately grant row to the evader, only a parry will grant immediate row (and essentially end that tempo of fencing immediately).

...

I would think that in either case it would be judged to be a failed evasion/counter attack into a valid attack. What if this is carried out over a period of 10 seconds rather then just a second (leaning in slow motion), would it still be interpreted the same way?

when an attacker's attack misses, fails, it doesn't matter, the OPPORTUNITY to obtain ROW goes to the defender, the one that was being attacked. in both examples, of the attacker who leans, and the attacker who doesn't lean, both touches would go to B, as the attack from A initially fails and B makes an immediate attack. if there was a 10 second pause, as you said, the immediacy is gone and it goes to A's remise or PIL, depending on the example.

if A's attack fails/misses, it doesn't matter how far apart A and B are.

[Hauptman]

My take would be that instead of looking at how you establish the PIL, look at it from the other side. Did you start an attack into a PIL without removing that threat? SO for the original example, fencer A attacks and falls short, fencer B, regardless of tempo, attacked into a threatening point in line and impaled himself.

Some would argue that fencer B gets the touch, and that's the way fencing is, but some would argue that fencer A gets the touch and that is the way fencing was supposed to be. Personally I would like fencing to keep some of it's heritage, and as someone who likes using PIL I think it adds something to the game. Of course, that's also why I fence epee.... people impale themselves on my point all the time and no referee is going take that away!

[keith]

My take would be that instead of looking at how you establish the PIL, look at it from the other side. Did you start an attack into a PIL without removing that threat? SO for the original example, fencer A attacks and falls short, fencer B, regardless of tempo, attacked into a threatening point in line and impaled himself.

no they didn't - try reading the rules (or Peet's posts).

If you want different rules go play in someone else's sandbox.