Kolombatovich : Rules of Referees

[Inquartata]

I welcome a return to the prior practice that says you can't impale yourself on a line created when an attack ends with an extended, threatening, straight arm. That makes martial sense to me. If you want to take over RoW, beat the damned blade and remove the threat - just as you would if it were sharp!

I have to disagree with this logical derivation of fencing priority...because where does it end?

OK, so I attack with a cut, and fall short, then throw out a line. "Beat the blade", you say, because that point threatens you and "if it were sharp" you wouldn't throw yourself onto it. But if I just replace the line, there you are in the same situation again. What to do? Beat a second time, to remove the dreadful point? And if I replace it again? How long must this go on ere we allot you ROW?

Same with cuts, too. I make a cut and you parry it. Well, if you make an attack in turn while I remise, my "if it were sharp" edge now threatens your health. Do you stop and parry the remise, too?

We end up with epee, where neither party will attack for fear of being hit...and we're constantly tapping at each others' blades, just to make sure we get that last action of yours parried. Ugh.

This is a rule-based sport. IMO we have to accept that there is no longer any connection to its duelling ancestry, and relinquish any further wistful references to "if it were sharp".

I can see his post being interpreted such that the immediate redoublement will take precedence over an as quickly as possible direction switch/attack. because it can be executed quicker. This would make me sad.

Fortunately, that was exactly how I interpreted the "Official FIE Video" of a few months back. Inasmuch as it's been repudiated by the FIE, and with George being the bearer of that repudiation to the USFA, I think we can relax on that score.

Yeah I don't think that the PiL will be as much an issue in saber (or more accurately I desperately hope not).

Well---but it is. As I have related before, I watched Wes Glon award precisely this action---attack no, immediate PIL, touch. In a Div I NAC gold medal bout.

If that interpretation gains currency, watch out, because you are going to see it all the time. As Peet notes below, it offers a "two for one"...and who's going to turn that down? The PIL will proliferate monstrously.

If a failed attack retains ROW via PiL, then that attacker essentially gets a "two for the price of one" action; that is to say, "if I hit, I'm good, if I don't, I'm still good". That's (IMHO) against the spirit of ROW.

I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I have some hope that George did not mean this, but was just summarizing incompletely. As I said before, it wants some expatiation.

t.7 The attack is the initial offensive action made by extending the
arm and continuously threatening the opponent’s target, preceding
the launching of the lunge or flèche.

Extending. Once the arm stops extending, the attack is over.

This the difference between attack with point and PIL: The attack requires continuous extension and stops when the extension stops, while PIL requires the end of extension before it can exist. Eg it is the opposite of an attack in respect of the arm.

you guys might find this useful. It's from a British referee who is going to the Olympics this year:

My question regards this:

"If there is any blade contact on the line it is no longer valid."

How does this comport with t.78.2: "In an attack by beating on the blade, when the beat is made on the forte of the opponent’s blade, i.e. the one third of the blade nearest the guard, the attack is badly executed and the beat gives the opponent the right to an immediate riposte."

So I can beat the opponent's forte and it's not "badly executed" so long as it's against a PIL?! The rule doesn't look to say that...

[Hauptman]

Would it help to make a clear distinction between establishing PiL in foil versus saber?

In saber you can attack with a cut or a point whereas in foil you can only attack with the point. Any attempt to recognize PiL after the end of an attack must recognize this difference.

So in foil you can easily establish the PiL before the end of the failed attack (PiL could almost be seen as required for a proper attack; extending and threatening) whereas a saber cut/attack could not begin to establish PiL until after that cut/attack ends.

I am strictly a foil/epee fencer, and so I view these discussions strictly from a foil point of view which is obviously very different from saber. Should the rules view this issue for each weapon separately too?

[telkanuru]

My question regards this:

"If there is any blade contact on the line it is no longer valid."

How does this comport with t.78.2: "In an attack by beating on the blade, when the beat is made on the forte of the opponent’s blade, i.e. the one third of the blade nearest the guard, the attack is badly executed and the beat gives the opponent the right to an immediate riposte."

So I can beat the opponent's forte and it's not "badly executed" so long as it's against a PIL?! The rule doesn't look to say that...

What the rulebook says is that if you beat your opponent's forte and he hits you, it's technically parry-riposte (If I read the last sentence correctly, and the translation holds). So yes, you break your opponent's line, but not to your advantage.

[forethought]

I have to disagree with this logical derivation of fencing priority...because where does it end?

OK, so I attack with a cut, and fall short, then throw out a line. "Beat the blade", you say, because that point threatens you and "if it were sharp" you wouldn't throw yourself onto it. But if I just replace the line, there you are in the same situation again. What to do? Beat a second time, to remove the dreadful point? And if I replace it again? How long must this go on ere we allot you ROW?

Until you beat the blade like a man and actually get the point out of line, and then start extending your arm and lunge like you actually want to hit your opponent. It's not hard to beat a blade completely out of line, it just takes proper distance, a quick flick of the wrist, and choosing the proper point of contact on the opponent's blade; then they will be the ones looking like idiots by trying to replace a line against a clearly established incoming attack.

This is a rule-based sport. IMO we have to accept that there is no longer any connection to its duelling ancestry, and relinquish any further wistful references to "if it were sharp".

What do you think draws people into this sport? Seriously, I would love to see figures as who takes up fencing just because they want to excel in an athletic activity, as opposed to wanting to be able to "play with swords" (or some variant association with swordplay). I'm not saying we need to change this sport into the SCA, but "tag with metal sticks" really doesn't quite have the same appeal.

If that interpretation gains currency, watch out, because you are going to see it all the time. As Peet notes below, it offers a "two for one"...and who's going to turn that down? The PIL will proliferate monstrously.

I remember my coach asking at one point (can't remember if it was addressed to me, or another fencer), "Really, is it that hard to beat the blade before you go in?"

Really, for all this extra dynamic layer of athleticism we've added to this sport, I think it's given fencers an excuse to be tactically lazy, but that's just my humble opinion, and on the internet, probably not worth squat.

[noodle]

What do you think draws people into this sport? Seriously, I would love to see figures as who takes up fencing just because they want to excel in an athletic activity, as opposed to wanting to be able to "play with swords" (or some variant association with swordplay). I'm not saying we need to change this sport into the SCA, but "tag with metal sticks" really doesn't quite have the same appeal.

i've found that almost everyone who, when you ask them "why did you come to try fencing?", responds with "i like swords" or some variation of that, ends up quitting.

the sport is not about the 'swords', and if you think it is, you'll be disappointed and quit.

I remember my coach asking at one point (can't remember if it was addressed to me, or another fencer), "Really, is it that hard to beat the blade before you go in?"

Really, for all this extra dynamic layer of athleticism we've added to this sport, I think it's given fencers an excuse to be tactically lazy, but that's just my humble opinion, and on the internet, probably not worth squat.

"tactically lazy"? isn't that just ROW? if you have a problem with impaling yourself while attacking when you have ROW according to the rules, perhaps fence epee.

[tchwojko]

Until you beat the blade like a man

You're wearing knickers, dressed all in white with a thin whippy stick. Masculinity isn't exactly the hallmark of this sport.

'm not saying we need to change this sport into the SCA, but "tag with metal sticks" really doesn't quite have the same appeal.

I get enormous pleasure in tagging arms while my opponent tries to beat my blade like a man. In fact, I greatly enjoy depressing the tip just barely enough to get that light to go on.

I'm also not at all interested in pretending it was sharp, or in any way dangerous.

[Inquartata]

It's not hard to beat a blade completely out of line, it just takes proper distance, a quick flick of the wrist, and choosing the proper point of contact on the opponent's blade; then they will be the ones looking like idiots by trying to replace a line against a clearly established incoming attack.

Yeah...that works great, as long as the opponent cooperates by not moving. Or, you know...doing ANYthing.

I have a clubmate who uses PIL a lot, and you just have to hit his arm whilst avoiding his point. If you try to beat, he moves a little toward you and you land on his guard or forte, and then he hits you.

If only things were as simple in practice as they seem in theory.

What do you think draws people into this sport?

Relevance?

A lot of guys start playing football because it helps them get chicks, but that doesn't mean that the rules should be based on what chicks like...

[telkanuru]

A lot of guys start playing football because it helps them get chicks, but that doesn't mean that the rules should be based on what chicks like...

When the rules are based on what chicks like, we call it "marriage"...

[jeff]

I have to disagree with this logical derivation of fencing priority...because where does it end?

OK, so I attack with a cut, and fall short, then throw out a line. "Beat the blade", you say, because that point threatens you and "if it were sharp" you wouldn't throw yourself onto it. But if I just replace the line, there you are in the same situation again. What to do? Beat a second time, to remove the dreadful point? And if I replace it again? How long must this go on ere we allot you ROW?

Same with cuts, too. I make a cut and you parry it. Well, if you make an attack in turn while I remise, my "if it were sharp" edge now threatens your health. Do you stop and parry the remise, too?

We end up with epee, where neither party will attack for fear of being hit...and we're constantly tapping at each others' blades, just to make sure we get that last action of yours parried. Ugh.

De gustibus, Inq.

I'm traditional enough to believe that the sport of fencing, which reasonably enough has conventions and rules, derives those conventions and rules on the activities from which the sport originated. I'll also be good and damned if I encourage lending credence to the spoutings of Evangelista and his ilk, that modern fencing is a game of tag with flexible automobile antennas. Why make his rantings accurate? Feh. On what basis should ROW conventions and rules be made if not connected to things once done with swords? Then we would move from partially arbitrary and contrived to completely arbitrary and contrived. Feh again.

As far as "where does it end?" goes - it ends wherever the rules say they end. Good ideas don't have to be rejected because the lead to foolish situations if taken to absurd extremes. We don't have to throw out baby and bath water.

ROW gives simple answers to the examples you raise: in each case a threat is made and removed by a blade taking, and the person who takes the blade immediately makes a threat before his opponent - who now has the responsibility of clearing that threat before making his new offensive reaction. The remise is made when there is already a threat that should have been, in turn, removed. To my mind, and to many others (since this is a very traditional reading), that's a reasonable way of modeling the "real" activity within the constraint of a sport. It can't be 100% accurate, and we know there are always going to be things you do in sport that would be foolish with sharps, but we can live with that imperfection. We can't completely model the nature of sharps while fencing, but we don't have to completely divorce it from its origins.

[forethought]

You're wearing knickers, dressed all in white with a thin whippy stick. Masculinity isn't exactly the hallmark of this sport.

That is true, and sarcasm is a hard thing to convey sometimes in text, I guess I should've put an emoticon, or layered it up a bit more

I get enormous pleasure in tagging arms while my opponent tries to beat my blade like a man. In fact, I greatly enjoy depressing the tip just barely enough to get that light to go on.

I said "like a man", not "like an idiot". If you use anything other than your wrist to execute a beat, you deserve to get hit (epee/saber) or derobed.

[tchwojko]

That is true, and sarcasm is a hard thing to convey sometimes in text, I guess I should've put an emoticon, or layered it up a bit more

I said "like a man", not "like an idiot". If you use anything other than your wrist to execute a beat, you deserve to get hit (epee/saber) or derobed.

Fair enough.

[MdA]

This thread is a perfect example of why foil is becoming the least popular weapon in most parts of this country. The foil timing changes followed by the recent re-emphasis on the PIL and ROW written rules is killing foil in my opinon. Foil has once again become that weird, esoteric weapon that no average person cares to understand.

This discussion reminds me of the days when I started fencing in Chicago 73-77. The Midwest was very isolated and great referees were few and usually imported. People spent a lot of time digging the interpretation of ROW and PIL out of the AFLA rule book...which had not been updated for years.

It seems that just when we thought we had it figured out (82-04), someone in the FIE throws us back into a state of confusion...in an effort to clarify the written rules. I have to agree with another in this forum and wonder who these changes or clarifications are designed to favor. If the goal is to make fencing more television friendly, I am afraid we have taken some giant steps backwards (at least in with foil).

I don't think these ROW and PIL re-clarifications are such a big issue in sabre

[bigdawg2121]

The timings changes have mostly killed foil. Blaming RoW or PiL interpretations seems disengenuous.

[headcut]

OK, so I attack with a cut, and fall short, then throw out a line. "Beat the blade", you say, because that point threatens you and "if it were sharp" you wouldn't throw yourself onto it. But if I just replace the line, there you are in the same situation again. What to do? Beat a second time, to remove the dreadful point? And if I replace it again? How long must this go on ere we allot you ROW?

Same with cuts, too. I make a cut and you parry it. Well, if you make an attack in turn while I remise, my "if it were sharp" edge now threatens your health. Do you stop and parry the remise, too?

We end up with epee, where neither party will attack for fear of being hit...and we're constantly tapping at each others' blades, just to make sure we get that last action of yours parried. Ugh.

This is a rule-based sport. IMO we have to accept that there is no longer any connection to its duelling ancestry, and relinquish any further wistful references to "if it were sharp".

Fortunately, that was exactly how I interpreted the "Official FIE Video" of a few months back. Inasmuch as it's been repudiated by the FIE, and with George being the bearer of that repudiation to the USFA, I think we can relax on that score.


Well---but it is. As I have related before, I watched Wes Glon award precisely this action---attack no, immediate PIL, touch. In a Div I NAC gold medal bout.

If that interpretation gains currency, watch out, because you are going to see it all the time. As Peet notes below, it offers a "two for one"...and who's going to turn that down? The PIL will proliferate monstrously.

I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I have some hope that George did not mean this, but was just summarizing incompletely. As I said before, it wants some expatiation.

Extending. Once the arm stops extending, the attack is over.

This the difference between attack with point and PIL: The attack requires continuous extension and stops when the extension stops, while PIL requires the end of extension before it can exist. Eg it is the opposite of an attack in respect of the arm.


My question regards this:

"If there is any blade contact on the line it is no longer valid."

How does this comport with t.78.2: "In an attack by beating on the blade, when the beat is made on the forte of the opponent’s blade, i.e. the one third of the blade nearest the guard, the attack is badly executed and the beat gives the opponent the right to an immediate riposte."

So I can beat the opponent's forte and it's not "badly executed" so long as it's against a PIL?! The rule doesn't look to say that...

If you attack short and end up holding the blade PiL, then your opponent beats your blade and your point moves off target and s/he immediately attacks and hits, point should be against you. Reason being that your opponent beat your blade in the preparation moving your point off target (you lose PiL) and your opponent is given the RoW by attacking immediately. You are now obligated to parry or get out of the way. Same thing in sabre.

I don't believe that an attack stops at the end of an arm extension unless that is the only action of your attack. It ends at the end of your fleche or lunge or advance or other forward motion (when combined with an extension in single tempo) whatever that may be. It also ends if your attack is parried (when your blade is taken off target).

As for contact with the blade that is PiL, I have always understood that if you beat or find the blade but do NOT take the point off target, that point is still valid to hit and you are attacking into a PiL.

When a fencer beats on the forte part of a blade, s/he is essentially parrying his/her own attack. The quote "If there is any blade contact on the line it is no longer valid." needs to be qualified imho. I think it needs to include taking the point off target. From my own experience, just touching the blade was not enough to gain RoW.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

IF someone has PIL and you touch there blade ever so slightly and then launch an attack and get hit with their point it is your touch. I don't see why people keep thinking the point has to be deflected off target.

[tchwojko]

IF someone has PIL and you touch there blade ever so slightly and then launch an attack and get hit with their point it is your touch. I don't see why people keep thinking the point has to be deflected off target.

Because that would be a rational rule? Point in line is established as a threat, why would grazing the blade invalidate that threat?

[Stormbringer]

IF someone has PIL and you touch there blade ever so slightly and then launch an attack and get hit with their point it is your touch. I don't see why people keep thinking the point has to be deflected off target.

t.56, part 6 reads:
"If the attack is initiated when the opponent is ‘point in
line’ (cf. t.10), the attacker must, first, deflect the
opponent’s blade. Referees must ensure that a mere
grazing of the blades is not considered as sufficient to
deflect the opponent’s blade (cf. t.60/2a)."

The referenced t.60/2a reads:
"Only the fencer who attacks is counted as touched:
If he initiates his attack when his opponent has his
point in line (cf. t.10) without deflecting the
opponent’s weapon. Referees must ensure that a mere
grazing of the blades is not considered as sufficient to
deflect the opponent’s blade."

I suspect that's why people think it should/does take more than a slight contact/"mere grazing" to invalidate a line...

[mrbiggs]

t.56, part 6 reads:
"If the attack is initiated when the opponent is ‘point in
line’ (cf. t.10), the attacker must, first, deflect the
opponent’s blade. Referees must ensure that a mere
grazing of the blades is not considered as sufficient to
deflect the opponent’s blade (cf. t.60/2a)."

The referenced t.60/2a reads:
"Only the fencer who attacks is counted as touched:
If he initiates his attack when his opponent has his
point in line (cf. t.10) without deflecting the
opponent’s weapon. Referees must ensure that a mere
grazing of the blades is not considered as sufficient to
deflect the opponent’s blade."

I suspect that's why people think it should/does take more than a slight contact/"mere grazing" to invalidate a line...

I think that this is an example of where the rules explicitly contradict reality.

[forethought]

I think that this is an example of where the rules explicitly contradict reality.

Please enlighten us as to why you think this is the case.

[TooLoftheDeviL]

Please enlighten us as to why you think this is the case.

Because he fences foil? :P

No really, though. I've never ever ever ever ever been told, hey guy, I saw you made some blade contact on that there PIL... but it was kinda grazing and all, so I'm feeling the PIL is still good.

It juts never happens that way.