Eliminate PIL from Right-of-Way?

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

So this is one of the more decisive poll results on FNet....

Does make one wonder what would it would take to get a result that's more lop-sided than the current 3-63 (and growing, all 3 "Yes" votes were in the first 9, if not earlier).

Perhaps "Should (intentionally) kicking puppies during a bout result in bonus points?"

-B

This is a *flawed* poll question! You need to specify what *breed* of puppies, and is this a linear scale? One point per puppy kicked, or 1 point for the first one and two for the second, etc.

gary hayenga

[notalent]

Originally Posted by tbryan

OK. Do you think that you could effectively use PIL as a preparatory action if it didn't have priority over an attack executed against that PIL? Or do you think that the overriding priority of the PIL is needed to create the opportunities that you're looking for?

Edit: I kind of thought that was Ian's point. If no one can count on having the PIL called correctly, then maybe we just take it out of ROW calls. It's a position that's useful as a preparatory action, but the fencer who's using the PIL will just use it to set up some other action to score. As a bonus, we get away from the confusion about whether and how PIL is established at the end of an attack.

As a fat 40+ sabre fencer I do a fair amount of PIL as a means to get points, granted I do use it to break tempo as well. Any fencer under the age of 30 is likely to see PIL as my first point atempt, you have to prove to me that you know how to fence before I'm going to expend all the ATP needed for me to chase you down the strip.

[darius]

Do you think that you could effectively use PIL as a preparatory action if it didn't have priority over an attack executed against that PIL?

No.

Or do you think that the overriding priority of the PIL is needed to create the opportunities that you're looking for?

Yes.

PIL needs the overriding priority. Otherwise, it's useless; the opponent can come running in, guns a-blazin', and the defender has left his blade out to be taken, to boot.

Edit: I kind of thought that was Ian's point. If no one can count on having the PIL called correctly, then maybe we just take it out of ROW calls. It's a position that's useful as a preparatory action, but the fencer who's using the PIL will just use it to set up some other action to score. As a bonus, we get away from the confusion about whether and how PIL is established at the end of an attack.

It honestly doesn't matter whether you can count on it or not. Fencers know that a line has priority and behave accordingly; it's not used as a scoring action enough to test every ref's knowledge of how it actually works. Even if only 25% of refs "get it", the fencers have to behave as if everybody does. If they don't, they risk getting hit on it.

darius

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by darius

PIL needs the overriding priority. Otherwise, it's useless; the opponent can come running in, guns a-blazin', and the defender has left his blade out to be taken, to boot....Fencers know that a line has priority and behave accordingly;

Well, sure. That's why I answered "no."

I still thought that it was an interesting enough question/poll that I had to stop and think about it for a moment.

[arc]

Originally Posted by notalent

As a fat 40+ sabre fencer I do a fair amount of PIL as a means to get points, granted I do use it to break tempo as well. Any fencer under the age of 30 is likely to see PIL as my first point atempt, you have to prove to me that you know how to fence before I'm going to expend all the ATP needed for me to chase you down the strip.

Hear, hear. Having learned from such notables as Carlos Fuertes (and having fenced in his lame in the early days of electric sabre) ...

[foillion]

Originally Posted by darius

Just because American refs can't correctly parse an action doesn't mean it should be eliminated! *ducks*

darius

Dammit I missed! Just because fencers can't execute it correctly doesn't mean we should have to call it....correctly.

Ok nvm. On a more serious note PiL is what makes right of way more fair to the person on the defensive. We have the beat/parry argument which goes to the attacker and we have the never ending long prep/attack in saber and foil thanks to the new timings. While the second is slowly but surely getting fixed, these are issues to the defender who needs to make a good parry, or counter-attack like a ho and make the attacker miss. PiL gives a much needed additional option to those of us who are extremely out of shape and need a sec to breathe, think and slow their opponent down.

As a final note the one thing about PiL that drives me absolutely bat$#!^ is the fact that people constantly bring up the notion of distance being required to set it up. UNTRUE! PiL is a tempo and timing action. So long as it is established before the advance lunge of your opponent or in Line in a full tempo before an attack it is valid.

Example A:

Fencers on their en garde lines. Fence is called. One steps forward and attempts to establish PiL at the same time the other advance lunges. Both hit. This goes to the advance lunger because PiL wasn't established before the opponents advance lunge.

Example B:

Fencers on their en garde lines. Fence is called. One steps forward and establishes PiL. The other takes a small slow first step to see what opponent is doing. Sees the same action as the last touch and finishes first slow advance......then advance lunges. This touch is awarded to the line.

Example C:

Fencers on their en garde lines. Fence is called. One steps forward and establishes PiL. The other takes a huge first advance and gets right next to the other fencer just out of reach. For whatever reason neither moves. They check their watches, look at butterflies, and then the fencer without line decides the ref is incompetent and lunges onto the point. This touch is awarded to the line.

These are 3 examples all played out in the exact same distance but with differently timed actions. It's the timing and tempo, not the distance, which are important in determining PiL.

-P

[foillion]

The last thing I wanted to mention about distance and line is this. I beat Darius' blade and begin an attack. Darius attempts to establish line and retreats while staying within advance lunge distance. I chase his sorry butt all the way down to the end of the strip and finish with a flawless jump lunge......I am a tool.

Just because I was in distance doesn't mean line wasn't established after I finished my second step of that long attack. Darius was playing with me and running out the clock knowing I was a tool and would finish onto his line. Once line is put up you have 1 MORE step left in your attack. If you're mid advance you get to finish that advance and lunge. That's it. If you start another advance then lunge you better pray for a bad ref cuz you just messed up. Again distance is not an issue for PiL. Distance is a crutch for the fencer if you have a bad ref who can't see when a valid line is established.

-P

[downunder]

Originally Posted by foillion

Example A:

Fencers on their en garde lines. Fence is called. One steps forward and attempts to establish PiL at the same time the other advance lunges. Both hit. This goes to the advance lunger because PiL wasn't established before the opponents advance lunge.

What is the difference between attempting to establish point in line and attacking?

Surely to a third party (or a referee) this situation would look like two fencers extending together?

[notalent]

Originally Posted by downunder

What is the difference between attempting to establish point in line and attacking?

Surely to a third party (or a referee) this situation would look like two fencers extending together?

Determining that is why they pay you the big bucks

[noodle]

the real question is if we should eliminate Right-of-Way from PIL?

[foillion]

Originally Posted by downunder

What is the difference between attempting to establish point in line and attacking?

Surely to a third party (or a referee) this situation would look like two fencers extending together?

Not really. If you ref the sport long enough you can see the difference between these actions the same way you see the difference between a beat attack/parry riposte. Or the difference in foil between an attack no, counter-attack, remise call and a continuous attack pending on when and where the foot lands.

This past weekend at USACFC's I had a referee argue with me that the attack in foil ends with the front foot. I wanted to pick up a weapon, or brick, or other blunt and heavy object and brain him. He's an excellent fencer but good fencers don't always make good refs. Another ref who is an excellent fencer and normally extremely solid ref was missing attack no, remise calls in the final pool. Refs are paid what they are paid to know the rules and differentiate among actions that hopefully they have watched 1000s of times before while either reffing or studying video. Am I saying they are paid well, or on time? Of course not, but that's not the reason we ref. We ref for one of three reasons.

1. We're poor and it's the only way to pay for fencing.
2. We love the game and want to participate in any way we can.
3. We HATE seeing other refs blow calls.

I started off a while ago for reasons 1 and 2 alone. Now that I've been doing this a while 3 is starting to seriously override all of them.
*Helps that I got a job too*

-P

[foillion]

Originally Posted by noodle

the real question is if we should eliminate Right-of-Way from PIL?

No. Of course not. Nor should we eliminate PiL from Right-of-Way.



-P

[notalent]

Originally Posted by foillion

The last thing I wanted to mention snip......I am a tool.

-P

I've cleaned up your post for you

[foillion]

Originally Posted by notalent

I've cleaned up your post for you

wow......I walked into that one. Damn.

-P

[downunder]

Originally Posted by foillion

Not really. If you ref the sport at all you can see the difference between these actions the same way you see the difference between a beat attack/parry riposte.

Please explain the different between an attack made with an extension or extension step and an attempt at point in line.

So long as the arm/hand/shoulder finishes in the right position surely they should look pretty identical on our hypothetical replay?

[foillion]

Originally Posted by downunder

Please explain the different between an attack made with an extension or extension step and an attempt at point in line.

So long as the arm/hand/shoulder finishes in the right position surely they should look pretty identical on our hypothetical replay?

In a hypothetical replay, sure, you could have one fencer with the intention of attacking "completely" extend their arm and step lunge. Whilst your other fencer has the intention of establishing point in line "completely" extend their arm and step lunge. What's the difference? Who yells louder? Who smacks themselves in the head with their blade after the action? etc etc. The only thing I can say is that "usually" (please notice the quotations) one doesn't attempt to establish line while advancing into a threat. Every time I've attempted to put up line it's from a stationary garde or with a slight retreat (for the benefit of those refs I believe to be less than stellar or for my own peace of mind) At the same time one doesn't usually begin an attack with their arm fully extended without the idea of taking a counter riposte. I realize this is being wishy-washy but in the true referee fashion I'd just have to say, "I'd have to see the action."

-P

[bigdawg2121]

Seriously bro, you have this lovely fencing expert title up and you have so much to contribute when you want to- why do you have this fixation on derailing discussions by being a pedant?

It's fairly obvious that the situation Pat describes is a fencer stepping forward and establishing a line while an opponent made a direct advance lunge. Perhaps the establishment of the line looks like an attack with a step forward but it also looks like an attack that stopped and ended with the establishment of a line. That action would not have ROW over the opponent's correctly executed initial attack. We should all be able to agree upon this; it's uncontrovertial. Why must you try to make it otherwise?

[jeff]

Originally Posted by foillion

wow......I walked into that one. Damn.

-P

Walked into it?

Ergo, PiL exists. QED