Eliminate PIL from Right-of-Way?

[IvorDarcy]

I thought the question was.."eliminate PIL from ROW?" I think the video makes a good argument for keeping PIL.
I may have missed the point here (no pun intended ) but I have noticed that the original question often gets taken on another tangent and folks end up talking about something entirely different from what was originally asked.
My apologies for any misunderstanding.

[Medinilla]

Absolutely no!

[ViewtifulMisho]

Originally Posted by IvorDarcy

I thought the question was.."eliminate PIL from ROW?" I think the video makes a good argument for keeping PIL.
I may have missed the point here (no pun intended ) but I have noticed that the original question often gets taken on another tangent and folks end up talking about something entirely different from what was originally asked.
My apologies for any misunderstanding.

The video simply tries to explain how to call point-in-line. Now, obviously the "maestros" interviewed are fans of it, but they don't exactly make arguments for keeping it.

Also, the FIE told us to ignore the video.

[Joe biebel]

I like the video a lot. Not just because it describes PIL priority and a few permutations, but because numerous maestros elude to the fact that various actions, PIL included, need to "make sense". I've seen a lot of posturing on this forum, that points at opinions that are based on right of way making sense, as a negative, or quaint old fashioned or just plain wrong concept. That in itself is a wrong concept.

PIL needs to be. When it exists, it needs to be seen and recognized properly. A lot of folks seem to think that it needs to be there for some period of time before it has right of way. I say it only needs to exist, for even the briefest period (enough to be perceived by the referee and the opposing fencer) before an offensive action starts by the opposing fencer in order to have right of way. The only quaint, old-fashioned ideas relating to PIL have to do with retreating out of reach (distance parries) and then attacking onto a line. Closely followed by my favorite bad call, when a retreating fencer establishes a PIL while the opponent jogs down the strip, step after step not attacking and then when the PIL fencer stops, having the "jogger" awarded and attack. This action can and does have wild variations as to how it is called by referees.

While I would very much like every action to be seen and called just the way I think they should be, it is probably not going to happen. I do think that perhaps we can agree that something so basic should be called the same way by all refs. This is the main reason I think that "right-of-way" should be based on the "logic" of the weapon. In this the maestros are right.

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by Joe biebel

<snip> A lot of folks seem to think that it needs to be there for some period of time before it has right of way. I say it only needs to exist, for even the briefest period (enough to be perceived by the referee and the opposing fencer) before an offensive action starts by the opposing fencer in order to have right of way. <snip>

I suspect that this interpretation would simply result in same amount of arguing and "bad calls", only in the opposite direction. I had a teammate twenty years ago that would insist that every late counter-attack he made was actually a "point-in-line" based on some imaginary error in his opponent's attack. Much hilarity usually ensued at competitions he was a part of, but only among the spectators.

I felt that the FIE video mixed a certain amount of logic with a lot of personal bias against certain types of attacks -- along the lines of the old myth of not attacking below the bell in saber due to some supposed equine sensitivity. When anyone -- including famous fencing masters -- attempt to formulate policies with little or no basis in the reality of the weapon, they stand on shaky ground.

Allen Evans