Rules & Referees - American Fencing

[Capt. Slo-mo]

But...but...it's absolute!

[Purple Fencer]

It all depends on what "the other guy" does after making the attack fall short.

If he immediately launches a counterattack into the attacker's still extended arm, then yes, his touch.

If he stops, waits, collects himself, and then comes forward before starting an attack (while the opponent has fallen short and immediately attempted to establish PIL), well then it's doubtful. A good referee would recognize that while the initial attack was short, the other fencer did nothing to take the RoW while the PIL was established.

Well yeah....but the requirement to immediately start your attack after making your opponent miss has always been there....it's the same as if you're attacked and make a good parry....you have to immediately riposte -- you can't stand there and admire the fact that you parried ...you gotta go!

The real issue here is if a PIL can be established if one falls short in a lunge...my understanding has always been that you cannot...you've made your attempt to land and didn;t quite make it....so unless you immediately beat the blade or make some other action to retake ROW (like a redouble while your opponent is standing there), you're done.

[AndrewH]

The real issue here is if a PIL can be established if one falls short in a lunge...my understanding has always been that you cannot...you've made your attempt to land and didn;t quite make it....so unless you immediately beat the blade or make some other action to retake ROW (like a redouble while your opponent is standing there), you're done.

Ok, here goes.

If I establish PIL properly, then some other stuff happens, then I end up lunging WITH the PIL (remember it exists irrespective of footwork), I miss, but the PIL is still correct, and the opponent immediately counterattacks, then it is my touch because the PIL was never removed.

If I attack with a cut and miss, what happens next depends on the opponent's actions.
1) I miss and immediately attempt to establish a PIL, while the opponent starts his attack. My PIL gets out but then the opponent hits. Touch against me, because the PIL was not fully established BEFORE the opponent STARTS his attack.
2) I miss and immediately attempt to establish a PIL. The opponent stops, thinks about what he's going to do next, and comes forward with his hand at his waist. Then, seeing my PIL, he attacks into it. Touch for me, because the opponent did nothing to reclaim the ROW while I established PIL.

[garyhayenga]

But if the attacker falls short by a small distance and is hisself attacked...it's the other guy's touch.

Distance hasn't got anything to do with it, only tempo is relevant. And if the attacker falls short by a small distance and is attacked himself immediately then, unless he had a point-in-line before he attacked, the resulting point-in-line has not been established for a full tempo before the second fencers attack.

If it *is* established for a full tempo before the second fencers attack then it is a point-in-line and does have right-of-way.

gary hayenga

[Inquartata]

As long as the subject of Mr. Bukantz's articles has come up...

He also wrote, from a position of authority, in the USFA's official organ, that a crossover in sabre earns a card even if it occurs after the touch. So although I disagreed with that interpretation, I began calling on that basis in practice. Lo and behold, at Richmond I find that no one is carding for this, and confused a couple of highly ranked referees whom I respect just by mentioning it. I queried the FOC and was told that the article "overstepped". The official position is still that the halt stops the action and that crossing after that is NOT carded.

Is it possible to have these pronouncements vetted BEFORE they are published in American Fencing as authoritative dicta?

[Rick Shellhouse]

I see it as affecting a couple of things...

1. It is no longer a "hey its my ROW I can take as long as I want to start an attack"

2.The attitude of "It doesn't matter if the other fencer retreats to the other end line before I move its still my ROW cause I parried with distance no matter what he does" won't work anymore

3. It wont be "taking turns" anymore which at least I see a lot of in US fencing but will force a return to actual parries and blade work


Where I see issues will be the varying amounts of time refs will grant the other fencer leanency in starting their attack.

Dry Sabre originally was a very equal mixture of footwork and blade work ie watch Westbrook old tapes the man danced down the strip and had blade work that was outstanding...then it went electric ....then they changed the timing and sabre became very footwork orientated and blade work became a far second for numerous reasons.

R

[Schiavona]

I would like to propose a rule change to the FIE. How about we freaking get rid of point in line since there seems to be maybe 4 people on the planet that really understand it. I can't count the number of PIL calls I see blown even by good refs and this latest crap from the FIE is only going to muddy the waters, at the C and under level especially. So yeah, why don't we just nix the PIL altogether. Okay, end of rant...

'Cause it's FUN! No, no it really IS. Ask Allen Evans to explain it next time you see him. I'm having a blast reading people argue over PIL the same way we did 30 years ago.

Can't have a 'hanging PIL', meaning that when your attack fails, or ends, leaving your arm straight out doesn't give you PIL. Of course, a fencer can establish PIL before the other fencer attacks-if the other fencer hesitates thereby giving up ROW, which they gained by evading the attack in the first place. Simple, right?

You can't attack with PIL, if you are attacking, you have ROW by attacking. No double ROW for you! The having PIL "regardless of footwork" was put in to lay to rest the big PIL arguement of the '70s-can you have PIL while retreating? The answer is (now) yes, you can.

PIL is best thought of as an environmental condition, just like the end of the strip. Cross the end with both feet-touch for your opponent. Attack into a straight arm-touch for your opponent.

Really, what's so hard?

[edew]

Well, there was a long discussion already about PIL if the attacker keeps their arm extended, and I'm not going to go there again!

I have another question though, how do you know when an attack has ended? IF there is an obvious pause by the initial attacker, well, then it's obvious.... but what if there is no pause? For example, the initial footwork ending in a lunge is short, but the fencer immediately recovers forward for a second lunge or continues with a fleche?

Does it matter whether the point was in line through next footwork? Was the attack continuously moving forward? How do you determine that the attack has stopped if there is no clear pause? And aren't the high level fencers fast enough to make that even more difficult to determine?

Basically any action that takes two efforts is an action that, well, took two efforts. The first effort failed (ended) and the second preceded immediately after. The opponent has a chance to get his RoW between the two efforts. Again, there's some leeway for the opponent, but not too much. That's up to the referee to decide.

[foillion]

As long as the subject of Mr. Bukantz's articles has come up...

He also wrote, from a position of authority, in the USFA's official organ, that a crossover in sabre earns a card even if it occurs after the touch. So although I disagreed with that interpretation, I began calling on that basis in practice. Lo and behold, at Richmond I find that no one is carding for this, and confused a couple of highly ranked referees whom I respect just by mentioning it. I queried the FOC and was told that the article "overstepped". The official position is still that the halt stops the action and that crossing after that is NOT carded.

Is it possible to have these pronouncements vetted BEFORE they are published in American Fencing as authoritative dicta?

Ok..so. As far a crossing over and carding in saber is concerned; If someone makes a flunge in saber, hits and lands on the lead foot then crosses over this is not a card. The card is awarded if the crossover was necessary to make the touch, a.k.a.: out of control, unbalanced, falling forward during the action. Now while this is technically after the halt, the action that the card is being awarded for occurred before the halt. This is no different then awarding a red card for a bellguard to the mask. I made the mistake, in a rd of 32 at a Div I epee event, of not awarding a red card to a fencer, who after hitting on a fleche and getting a light, subsequently hit his opponent in the mask with his bellguard. Note that the light had come on and halt had been called. None the less, the action that turned on a light also resulted in a cardable offense. The halt and the time at which halt is called and the reason for the halt is one of the essential decisions that referees are required to make. There are innumerable actions that the timing of the halt by the referee affects. corps-a-corps in epee and a light thereafter, passing and a reposting action, one vs two feet off the strip and a light thereafter, etc. etc. It is the job of the referee to sort out when the halt was, what it is for, and what actions are valid and what are not. Read your rulebook.

[fencerbill]

Basically any action that takes two efforts is an action that, well, took two efforts. The first effort failed (ended) and the second preceded immediately after. The opponent has a chance to get his RoW between the two efforts. Again, there's some leeway for the opponent, but not too much. That's up to the referee to decide.

I liked your prior comment about a coupon that expires immediately.

With all the back and forth recently, I have stopped (after an attack fails because of distance) calling what follows a riposte but instead using the following:

"Attack (for example, from the right) No"

"Attack (from the left) without hesitation"

If there was any hesitation then I would consider that right could have a remise, or even attack in preparation.

To me, it almost makes a difference how far left moved back to avoid the attack. If it was a single jump and then they could reach with an advance attack, shouldn't they have right of way?

If they took several steps back, it's different. Should you say the initial attacker is embargoed from any offensive action? Particularly if they established PIL before left stopped moving backward.

Words are rather inadequate to cover all of the possibilities. "You have to see the action to call it."

[Inquartata]

Ok..so. As far a crossing over and carding in saber is concerned; If someone makes a flunge in saber, hits and lands on the lead foot then crosses over this is not a card. The card is awarded if the crossover was necessary to make the touch, a.k.a.: out of control, unbalanced, falling forward during the action. Now while this is technically after the halt, the action that the card is being awarded for occurred before the halt. This is no different then awarding a red card for a bellguard to the mask. I made the mistake, in a rd of 32 at a Div I epee event, of not awarding a red card to a fencer, who after hitting on a fleche and getting a light, subsequently hit his opponent in the mask with his bellguard. Note that the light had come on and halt had been called. None the less, the action that turned on a light also resulted in a cardable offense. The halt and the time at which halt is called and the reason for the halt is one of the essential decisions that referees are required to make. There are innumerable actions that the timing of the halt by the referee affects. corps-a-corps in epee and a light thereafter, passing and a reposting action, one vs two feet off the strip and a light thereafter, etc. etc. It is the job of the referee to sort out when the halt was, what it is for, and what actions are valid and what are not. Read your rulebook.

This is the way I have always understood it. However, the wording of the rule ( surprise! ) supports Bukantz's interpretation equally well. Hence my with his trying to change the prevailing or consensus call to his personal understanding of it, by publishing it in an official organ.

[tdwg83]

I have seen several comments that seem to express such rigidity in rules and refereeing. However when learning how to be a referee I hear things like feeling the intent and observing every bit of the action closely. It takes a lot of effort and understanding to see where an attack begins. This makes it difficult for me to visualize this "taking turns" action, specifically the timing. It seems that once an attack falls short the "easy thing" to do is look at the opposing fencer for a response. The "right thing" to do is to consider both fencers for the next phrase of the bout and to call as is appropriately. We have talked about the attack falling short as a parry, what about intentially falling short for the purposes of second intention. Is this complex game play nonexistant in saber?

[KD5MDK]

Not as a way to retain priority.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

We have talked about the attack falling short as a parry, what about intentially falling short for the purposes of second intention. Is this complex game play nonexistant in saber?

2nd intention is big part of the saber game...but it doesn't trump the rules of ROW. If you come forward, and stop short deliberately, you're looking for the return attack with a parry in mind, or you're trying to provoke a hesitation.

You're not looking to counter-attack into the attack launched by your opponent after your first attack stopped.

Part of the problem a lot of us had with the FIE DVD interpretation of the "distance parry" concept was they seemed to be saying; even if you made a specific action (making the attacker fall short) that thwarted your opponent's attack, and then chased them all the way down the strip, as long as they began moving their arm even a fraction of a second before you did, it was now their attack.

And that seemed to fly in the face of how nearly every ref from the NACs to the World Champs was calling it.