Kolombatovich : Rules of Referees

[Stormbringer]

If FotL kept their extension, they maintain priority. If they pumped their arm, then yes, the redoublement and attack from the right are simultaneous (given the ref determines the extensions started at the same time).

The standard is extendING, not exendED. Left cannot just leave his arm out, recover to guard and then lunge again and retain ROW. ( In sabre, anyway. )

I think that forethought might be referring to the passage from George Kolombatovich's letter:

Another "new" thing is really an old thing. The point in line has the highest level of priority; it always has been this way. If the point in line is correctly established before an offensive action by an opponent, it has the priority. Rule 56.6 states: "If the attack is initiated when the opponent is 'point in line' (cf. t.10), the attacker must, first, deflect the opponent's blade." The priority of the point in line is retained whether one advances, retreats, or lunges. With all this in mind, it is obvious that the referees are correct when one fencer finishes an attack that is short in the position of point in line, that fencer continues to have the priority, and the opponent must deflect the opponent's blade.

So, it would seem that as long as FotL leaves their arm in the point-in-line position, they retain priority until:
1.) the opponent makes a successful action against the fencer's blade, then immediately initiates an offensive action
2.) the fencer withdraws, or otherwise bends the joints in, their arm (thus invalidating the PIL)
3.) the opponent steps in past the point of the fencer's weapon (such that the PIL is no longer threatening the target)

So, let's now consider the following passages from the rule book:

t.8, part (d)
Other offensive actions
1. The remise
A simple and immediate offensive action which follows the
original attack, without withdrawing the arm, after the opponent
has parried or retreated, when the latter has either quitted contact
with the blade without riposting or has made a riposte which is
delayed, indirect or compound.
2. The redoublement
A new action, either simple or compound, made against an
opponent who has parried without riposting or who has merely
avoided the first action by retreating or displacing the target.
3. The reprise of the attack
A new attack executed immediately after a return to the on-guard
position.

t.54, part 5
If touches are registered simultaneously on both sides of the
apparatus, and the Referee cannot establish the priority
with certainty, he must replace the competitors on guard.

t.60, part 3
The Referee must replace the competitors on guard each
time that there is a double touch and he is unable to judge
clearly on which side the fault lies.

t.80, part 3
When there is a double touch (coup double), and if the Referee is
unable clearly to judge from which side the fault has come, he
must replace the competitors on guard.

So, WRT bigdawg2121's senario:

1.) If FotL's lunge ended with their weapon-arm in the PIL position and redoublement is executed as a remise (where the weapon-arm is *NOT* withdrawn) where FotL maintains the PIL and FotR elected to do nothing about FotL's PIL, then it is FotL retains priority (as indicated by the passage from George Kolombatovich"s letter).

3.) If FotL's lunge ended with their weapon-arm not in the PIL position or if FotL's lunge ended with their weapon-arm in the PIL position and FotL failed to maintain the PIL or the redoublement is executed as a reprise and FotL's and FotR's offensive actions begin (as indicated by the initiation of extension of each fencer's weapon arm) simultaneously (as perceived by the referee), then the action judged to be simultaneous, and neither fencer is awarded priority (in accordance with t.54/5, t.60/3, and t.80/3).

On the other hand, one can also take the following into consideration:

1.) If FotL's lunge had ended with their weapon-arm in the PIL position and redoublement was executed as a remise (where the weapon-arm is *NOT* withdrawn) where FotL maintained the PIL and FotR successfully made an action against FotL's blade and/or managed to get past the point without being hit, then it is FotR would have been awarded priority.

2.) If FotL's lunge had ended with their weapon-arm not in the PIL position or if FotL's lunge had ended with their weapon-arm in the PIL position and FotL failed to maintain the PIL or the redoublement was executed as a reprise and FotL's and FotR's offensive actions *DID NOT* begin (as indicated by the initiation of extension of each fencer's weapon arm) simultaneously (as perceived by the referee), whichever fencer the referee perceived to initiate their extension first would have been awarded priority (in agreement with bigdawg2121's explanation of his theory regarding referee perception).

All of this is equally true in both sabre and foil, yes?

[forethought]

The standard is extendING, not exendED. Left cannot just leave his arm out, recover to guard and then lunge again and retain ROW. ( In sabre, anyway. )

I was talking about foil. I care not for saber, at least not nearly enough to get involved in a saber RoW discussion.

And what you've described sounds like a reprise, not a redoublement.

[D'Art]

Can we let this thread die now please?

[tchwojko]

Can we let this thread die now please?

We can, but it'll just get reincarnated.

[Allen Evans]

And because it's been a "bad thread" it will be reincarnated in its next life as a question about point in line.

AE

[Stormbringer]

Can we let this thread die now please?

Well, it was on the verge of moving on to page 2, but someone decided to start posting in it again...

Well, as long as it's here, again:

1.) Would anyone be willing to refute (with rationale), or lend support to, the points/conclusions made in post 341?

2.) Would anyone be willing to refute (with rationale), or lend support to, the points/conclusions made in post 260?

[Inquartata]

I might have a go from the sabre side, but it will have to wait until one of those long nights in the hotel at Nationals ( when the porn gets boring ).