Kolombatovich : Rules of Referees

[downunder]

sounds pretty fair to me... although I'm operating on very little sleep.

[noodle]

It's been enforced for a while now at world level. It seems quite sensible to me. Point in line is point in line, regardless of footwork.

i think the issue that most people have is that the rulebook says different things, but doesn't clarify on how to prioritize those things. and it just plain leaves out some things.

[Utility Man]

Tempo/distance was never a requirement. Just a rule of thumb that was taught a lot. Here you must be careful. Switching from a cut to a PIL is not quite as clean as it sounds. It doesn't usually hang there. A cut usually has either a little bit of bounce or follow thru. It will take a little bit of thought and time to then establish PIL after a cut. What this ruling says is a line is a line is a line. Taking a line before a lunge and remaining in the line gives it priority. Some fencers and some refs believed falsely that because there was a lunge it makes it an attack and ends when the foot hits the floor. This is incorrect because the line is completely independent of the footwork and still MUST be defeated.

What this is going to change is the following sequence.

Two attacks-two lights - simul no touch.
Attack left, right step back so attack misses, counter. - one Light - right touch.
Attack left with point remains in position so PIL, right step back so PIL is short, counter.- two lights - left touch.

All, the key point to the PIL attack is this. If I attack (lunge, etc) with an already established PIL then and only then do I still have a PIL after my attack falls short. If I do a normal attack (arm extending) and fall short I have a failed attack and no longer have ROW. I believe that if you will read George's post you will see this is what he is saying. This is not new. When they decided to allow any footwork combination with a PIL then a lunge is not a point attack it is an advancement of the PIL with a lunge! (one way to look at it). This is all the same in saber and foil. I think George's original post was not clear on this and if reread could now make sense.

This is at least the way I have been calling this and how I have been instructed to call it.

JB

[oldguy31]

Would Downunder or any other FIE refs please clarify - does any attack in foil, ending in a straight arm extension, retain priority by becoming "point in line"? For example: A attacks with a lunge and then freezes in the lunge, maintaining her straight arm. B attacks immediately after A's front foot hits the floor, hitting with a one tempo action. Whose point?

The interpretation of this action has swung back and forth a few times over the last 10 years...I think GK's spiel seems to favor A??

Plus, what is conceived as the necessary technique for point in line in sabre (hand has to be pronated, or any action in which the point is maintained on target? Any cut or point wobbling still invalidates the line? The line still has to hit with the point???)

Thanks

[peet]

Two attacks-two lights - simul no touch.
Attack left, right step back so attack misses, attack. - one Light - right touch.
Attack left with point remains in position so PIL, right step back so PIL is short, attack.- two lights - left touch.

Small fix for you.

-p

[peet]

there is no such thing as a 'defence distance'. If the attack ends with a valid point in line it must be deflected, regardless of how much or little you evade the attack.

Yeah, well maybe not, but there has been up to now, at least in the US, and I kinda liked it..


-p

[peet]

i think the issue that most people have is that the rulebook says different things, but doesn't clarify on how to prioritize those things. and it just plain leaves out some things.

QFT.




(characters)

[headcut]

This for me is the key.
If I lunge (foil, high sixte line), fall short, and stay in the lunge, I'm maintaining my PIL.
If I waver, my hand wobbles or my arm bends, no line.
The key is how strictly the referee watches your arm and hand position, no?

Obviously the ref is key, whether he/she is right or wrong according to the rules. My understanding of the rules is that if you lunge (and I'm assuming that you have the RoW to begin with and your arm is extended) and your attack is short (end of first tempo), you may keep your PiL by maintaining your point at a valid target. The line exists whether you waver, wobble, or bring the hand back. As long as the point consistently threatens a valid target, there is a PiL which must be dealt with by the opposing fencer. If you move the point off target (i.e. trying to generate some response from your opponent, baiting), you have just lost the PiL and now adds a new tempo. In which case, your opponent can attack with the RoW.

[peet]

I think I could live with this:

A makes PiL.
After PiL is established, A makes an attack with it (lunge, advance lunge, whatever).
B retreats.
A's attack falls short, but ends in the proper position for PiL.
B makes attack.
Two lights.
Touch for A.


As long as we still had this:

A makes a "regular" attack, without establishing PiL first.
B retreats.
A's attack falls short, but ends in the proper position for PiL.
B makes attack.
Two lights.
Touch for B.



Note that I'm not asserting this is correct interpretation, I'm just throwing out ideas I could live with. This way, I figure the folks who say "a line is a line is a line, no matter what footwork I make with it" can live in the same world as the folks who say "an attack that falls short has failed, opening the attacker to an immediate attack from the opponent".



Too bad for me I'm not in charge of these things...

-p

[KD5MDK]

The line exists whether you waver, wobble, or bring the hand back. As long as the point consistently threatens a valid target, there is a PiL which must be dealt with by the opposing fencer.

No. If the hand is withdrawn, Point in Line no longer exists.

[annacattiva]

Obviously the ref is key, whether he/she is right or wrong according to the rules. My understanding of the rules is that if you lunge (and I'm assuming that you have the RoW to begin with and your arm is extended) and your attack is short (end of first tempo), you may keep your PiL by maintaining your point at a valid target. The line exists whether you waver, wobble, or bring the hand back. As long as the point consistently threatens a valid target, there is a PiL which must be dealt with by the opposing fencer. If you move the point off target (i.e. trying to generate some response from your opponent, baiting), you have just lost the PiL and now adds a new tempo. In which case, your opponent can attack with the RoW.

Absolutely not. Wavering, wobbling, or not having your arm extended are not part of the PiL.

Anna

[headcut]

Absolutely not. Wavering, wobbling, or not having your arm extended are not part of the PiL.

Anna

Then I stand corrected. Thank you.

[swordsen]

I think part of the point of this missive is to drive a stake through the heart of this concept of distance parry. A parry is an action done with a blade. A riposte follows a parry. Leaping backwards then attacking is not a riposte, it is a counter attack. (or perhaps just an attack depending on how far back one goes and how quickly one comes forward again.) If you want to be sure you have the ROW after backing out of range, take the blade when you come back.

[NSXER]

i think the issue that most people have is that the rulebook says different things, but doesn't clarify on how to prioritize those things. and it just plain leaves out some things.

Amazing.......this subject comes up mainly from those of us who have been fencing for 20+ years. We never were able to comprehend how the rules could be interpreted/manipulated around to where the PIL's right of way would become invalid because the defender jumped back out of distance or some other crazy reason .....the point must be removed from line before the defender has the right to attack period! Dream whatever you want, but whoever taught you did not understand right of way.

[garyhayenga]

I believe after reading George K's explanation, if you parried then at the same time, you immediately riposted and your opponent immediately remised (same time), the RoW goes to you because your opponent is obligated to parry your riposte. If your opponent actually starts the remise before the riposte, then that may constitute a pause after the parry by you in which you lost the tempo after the parry to take the RoW.

If your opponent starts the remise before you start the riposte than your riposte was *not* immediate. If your riposte begins immediately then he *can't* start a remise before you start your riposte.

I don't think referees actually have a problem calling this.

The difficult call is when the the defender parries and makes a slight pause before riposting. Then the question becomes did the remise start before the slightly delayed riposte began.

In most cases if the remise isn't *obviously* ahead of the riposte the riposte will get the benefit of the doubt.

With some referees the only way to make it obvious is to actually get the light to go off during the pause in the riposte.

And with some referees even that isn't enough, if there are two lights then the riposte gets it anyway.

That last one is what I think this clarification is supposed to help prevent. I wish it luck.

gary hayenga

[peet]

Amazing.......this subject comes up mainly from those of us who have been fencing for 20+ years. We never were able to comprehend how the rules could interpreted/manipulated around to where the PIL's right of way would become invalid because the defender jumped back out of distance or some other crazy reason .....the point must be removed from line before the defender has the right to attack period! Dream whatever you want, but whoever taught you did not understand right of way.

It's true that "distance defense" is a more recent concept, which evolved somewhere in the last 5 to ten years. It's kinda cool, 'cause it adds a dynamic, athletic dimension to the game.

Just 'cause it hasn't always been that way doesn't make it wrong. ROW changes.

And, uh, I guess sometimes it changes back.

Though I have to say, I'm reserving judgment on just how to interpret all this until I can talk to some of our FOC types about this.


-p

[catwood1]

I think this thread has become a microcosm of every RoW argument in the past year...

Maybe only most of them...

[jeff]

The value of George K's directive will be reduction of ambiguity.

I've been distressed by RoW in recent years because of the variation of interpretations and frequent "this is the way it's done by high level refs (regardless of what the rules say)". This has made me want to fence less (yeah, yeah: fence to what the referee calls, and get that one-light touch, but still, it reduces the fun), and certainly to referee as as infrequently as I can manage.

It has seemed to me that without recourse the rules, and without basis in some form of logic related to, you know, sharp pointy things you should not impale yourself on, that much of recent interpretation has been a house of cards. "We do this because this is what we do". Circular reasoning.

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! But whether my preference becomes observed again or not - clarity is valuable, and an unambiguous description of how to call it is welcome and long overdue.

[catwood1]

I very much agree with this PiL interpretation. I think it goes with the rules, and also, it doesn't create an undue burden to the defending fencer.

In the words of a very high level coach I saw strip coaching a very low level fencer: "for gods sake, PARRY!!!!!!"

And I think everything about the riposte remise thing is a clarification of what is already called. The parry doesn't necessarily give RoW, but it gives the opportunity to take RoW. If you don't immediately take it, then its up for grabs.

I watch high level foil, and one thing I consistently see from one fencer who is in the top 30 in Junior is that he parries, and basically waits while looking for the best line to riposte in. However, as he is waiting, he is very slowly extending, so there is no hesitation. Its not that complicated, and it works.

[jeff]

I agree with you 100%, and:

he is very slowly extending, so there is no hesitation. Its not that complicated, and it works.

A riposte that is immediate, simple, and indirect as described in t.8. Sounds very nice...