Eliminate PIL from Right-of-Way?

[IanSerotkin]

Just curious how many of you think it would be a good idea to completely eliminate Point in Line as an action that has right-of-way over an attack.

[keith]

Just curious how many of you think it would be a good idea to completely eliminate Point in Line as an action that has right-of-way over an attack.

... and say that as soon as the arm is fully extended the attack is over?

Excellent idea.

[Sinestra]

... and say that as soon as the arm is fully extended the attack is over?

Excellent idea.

I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and guess you voted no?

Seriously, though, if we're speaking in terms of what an attack is--"the initial offensive action made by extending the arm and continuously threatening the opponent’s target"--then I don't see how it would be reasonable to negate the PIL as an attack...as long as it's done in proper distance/time, and the opponent doesn't take control of the blade, it should have priority like any other attack would.

[catwood1]

I like the PiL because I think it serves as a good defense against the long drawn out compound attack/preparation. The action that some refs call as attack, and some call as prep. If you use a correctly executed PiL, I think most refs will give it to you.

[bunbury]

... and say that as soon as the arm is fully extended the attack is over?

Excellent idea.

PIL is a position, not an attack.

[ACrimsonRapier]

PIL is such a minor thing in the grand scheme of things, I don't feel like it matters that much. It's just another technique that makes fencing more interesting, and makes fencers think more.

[keith]

PIL is a position, not an attack.

Really, I've never heard that before.

Ain't this internet thingy a wonderful learning device.

[bunbury]

Really, I've never heard that before.

Ain't this internet thingy a wonderful learning device.

Yeah? Check out the rule book, you'll learn tons of things.

[arc]

Ummm ... eliminate point-in-line from right-of-way, and essentially encourage people to aggressively impale themselves on an outstretched blade ... right.

I'll admit I'm not a stellar right-of-way fencer, but I always thought the idea of the convention was to teach people how to make *good* attacks in a real fight, not to be suicidal ...

[IanSerotkin]

Ummm ... eliminate point-in-line from right-of-way, and essentially encourage people to aggressively impale themselves on an outstretched blade ... right.

Please explain why standing in place with an outstretched arm while someone attacks me is any less suicidal.

[keith]

Please explain why standing in place with an outstretched arm while someone attacks me is any less suicidal.

Jesus. Are you telling me that the blades we use are sharp

Can't believe I hadn't noticed.

[darius]

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

Point-in-line is great, and not as a scoring action. It creates both offensive and defensive opportunities by slowing an incoming attack on the march (although not as effectively as the timing changes!) There's so much nuance that PIL adds, that I'd hate to see it disappear.

It's true that misinterpretations abound, but by avoiding attempting to score on PIL, rather considering it a preparatory action to set up an offensive or defensive scoring action, you get around most of those.

darius

[Dev]

Ummm ... eliminate point-in-line from right-of-way, and essentially encourage people to aggressively impale themselves on an outstretched blade ... right.

I'll admit I'm not a stellar right-of-way fencer, but I always thought the idea of the convention was to teach people how to make *good* attacks in a real fight, not to be suicidal ...

The idea of the convention is an attempt to restrict "valid" defensive actions against an attack in such a way that offense and defense are clearly delineated, thus enforcing "attack-block-counter" choreography on the fencers. Epee (as mentioned in another thread) has no such restrictions, meaning "defensive" actions include counterattacks and make the fencing look like two guys trying to stick their own lightbulbs into the same socket.

And following Ian's example, please explain to me why the foilist who beats his opponent's PiL, deflecting it enough to gain RoW (which hardly has to be a beat at all) no longer has to care about the fact that it just hit him in the chest when he lunged. Wouldn't he be lunging onto a(n albeit stupid) outstreched arm there, too?

[arc]

Please explain why standing in place with an outstretched arm while someone attacks me is any less suicidal.

I guess because I see it as the guy with the outstretched arm just being killed, while the guy who's actually affirmatively forcing the action is being suicidal.

The idea of the convention is an attempt to restrict "valid" defensive actions against an attack in such a way that offense and defense are clearly delineated, thus enforcing "attack-block-counter" choreography on the fencers. Epee (as mentioned in another thread) has no such restrictions, meaning "defensive" actions include counterattacks and make the fencing look like two guys trying to stick their own lightbulbs into the same socket.

And following Ian's example, please explain to me why the foilist who beats his opponent's PiL, deflecting it enough to gain RoW (which hardly has to be a beat at all) no longer has to care about the fact that it just hit him in the chest when he lunged. Wouldn't he be lunging onto a(n albeit stupid) outstreched arm there, too?

If you'll explain to me why a foilist who's being attacked (without having PiL) only has to deflect his opponent's blade enough to gain RoW (which hardly has to be much of a parry at all) to no longer care about being hit by the continuation of that attack. (The answer, I expect, is "because that's the convention given in the rules!" And the secondary, practical answer in fencing context, is that in both situations, the beating or parrying fencer actually does have to worry about getting hit after they've made blade contact if that fencer misses.) All in all, it's why I, personally, vastly prefer epee (although I do fence sabre occasionally, and use PiL to a frustratingly excessive degree ) ... to each his own.

[Dev]

If you'll explain to me why a foilist who's being attacked (without having PiL) only has to deflect his opponent's blade enough to gain RoW (which hardly has to be much of a parry at all) to no longer care about being hit by the continuation of that attack. (The answer, I expect, is "because that's the convention given in the rules!" And the secondary, practical answer in fencing context, is that in both situations, the beating or parrying fencer actually does have to worry about getting hit after they've made blade contact if that fencer misses.) All in all, it's why I, personally, vastly prefer epee (although I do fence sabre occasionally, and use PiL to a frustratingly excessive degree ) ... to each his own.

Actually, my answer is that it's about the choreography, not the convention. And that's part of what distinguishes the weapon from epee (and partly why debounce timing and upper-arm target area have/will partially break that distinction).

[notalent]

Back away from the crack pipe Ian. PiL is a needed tool, unless you want to see sabre be a game of who has the fastes reaction off the line.
The conventions of ROW rewards actions that that are done correctly, having a PiL out before the counter attack is correct, as it is threatining the opp first. A PiL doesn't have RoW over an attack, the attack starts first,
Which I'm sure Inq will use as a basis for the poll being ...

[jeff]

Leave PiL in, but codify clearly, for once and for all, how it should be judged. The rules are sloppily written and ambiguous, and there's too much room for inconsistency in "interpretation". They are sloppy because One Upon A Time everyone knew what they meant and it would have been a waste of time to spell every detail out in lawyer-language. A bent arm was not an attack, no matter what the feet did, for example. Sadly, that understanding is no longer commonly shared.

That said, I think PiL is a valuable part of the canon. A fencer should be penalized for attacking onto an extended point.

FWIW, I'm of the party that believes that a point attack (but not a cut) that ends short but with the point threatening the opponent's target immediately establishes a line, and that the opponent is wrong if he attacks onto it without a blade taking. Even a small blade taking takes the point out of line, and that's the spirit of not including "mere grazing" as blade takings. BUT - if the unambiguous codification that settled how to call PiL went against MY preference, I would still be satisfied as long as it wasn't ambiguous. Right now, it's a mess.

As long as I'm wishing for impossible things, I also want that ROW as originally intended "in the spirit" of the weapon, became the norm again, instead of "bent arm is okay because that's what the top referees call, except when they don't". And I want a pony for Christmas, too.

[Allen Evans]

Slow day at work, Ian?

[tbryan]

Point-in-line is great....It's true that misinterpretations abound, but by avoiding attempting to score on PIL, rather considering it a preparatory action to set up an offensive or defensive scoring action, you get around most of those.

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.

[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