Kolombatovich : Rules of Referees

[Dev]

It would be kinda new to the US. I personally don't like the idea, 'cause it would seem to confound the distance defense, a.k.a "Parry Zero" that foilists have been doing for some time now. I really like that action, and if we have a thousand refs all over the US trying to call their varied understandings of "residual PIL" after short attacks, it will be really hard to predict what will be called a successful distance defense, and what will be called an attack ending in a valid PiL.

As if the timing changes didn't do enough to pervert the game of foil, let's kick it while it's down!

Speaking practically, I don't think this part of the game is actually going to change that much. A foil attack that actually ends in a valid, unbroken, uninterrupted perfect PiL position is pretty rare. One might see a great many foilists that think their attack ended in PiL position, but there are an awful lot of dipped shoulders, crooked elbows, and cocked wrists at the end of the attack that would make the "line" incorrect unless it's done carefully and deliberately. And hell, if I'm a ref and I see them make that action carefully and deliberately so as to end their short attack in correct line position, then they can have the PiL. But few run-of-the-mill foil attacks are going to end in a decent line.

[Allen Evans]

I don't seem much that hasn't been discussed before, even the PIL after an attack. What I think we will see more often are attacks that end with a bent arm, and the attacker attempting to claim that they have established a PIL by straightening their arm as the opponent's riposte starts.

I predict that a lot of fencers will be howling when their remise is not given "priority".

AE

[seak]

I think that the biggest issue in this post isn't the line or how it affects foil, but the attack short, attack call in saber.

With the new timings in saber parrying can be risky business, but if you make the person fall short in order to launch your attack you need to halt your backwards momentum and change direction. For most people it is significantly easier to continue in the same direction then it is to switch directions. Currently, as long as you don't pause or take unnecessary steps in your direction change, you will get the attack call, similar to an immediate repost. I think that is the best way to call this action. The without pause except to change direction/halt momentum is not something that George K addressed in his post.

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.

[peet]

Speaking practically, I don't think this part of the game is actually going to change that much. A foil attack that actually ends in a valid, unbroken, uninterrupted perfect PiL position is pretty rare. One might see a great many foilists that think their attack ended in PiL position, but there are an awful lot of dipped shoulders, crooked elbows, and cocked wrists at the end of the attack that would make the "line" incorrect unless it's done carefully and deliberately. And hell, if I'm a ref and I see them make that action carefully and deliberately so as to end their short attack in correct line position, then they can have the PiL. But few run-of-the-mill foil attacks are going to end in a decent line.

This is quite true; I've been thinking the same thing. However, I'm still a bit afraid that there will be a big variation in what counts as a valid PiL at the end of an attack, especially with less experienced refs.

I could easily see a new ref hearing someone say "an attack that falls short retains ROW as PiL", and (trying to do as they are told), start to call almost any extended arm a PiL as long as it hits something.

Then on the other end of the spectrum, we'll have you (and probably me) calling it a valid PiL only in cases where it pretty much looks like that's what the attacker was trying to do all along anyway: Not actually hit with the initial attack, but trick the opponent into thinking it was an attack, when really he was establishing a PiL all along.

And then there will be the howling that Allen predicts, with fencers trying to invoke George's email*.

Ugh.

Still, I'm waiting to hear more.
Bill O. is doing a ref clinic up here this weekend. I have a feeling this will be very much a topic of conversation.

-p



*That part happened already this past weekend at our div champs!

[peet]

I think that the biggest issue in this post isn't the line or how it affects foil, but the attack short, attack call in saber.

With the new timings in saber parrying can be risky business, but if you make the person fall short in order to launch your attack you need to halt your backwards momentum and change direction. For most people it is significantly easier to continue in the same direction then it is to switch directions. Currently, as long as you don't pause or take unnecessary steps in your direction change, you will get the attack call, similar to an immediate repost. I think that is the best way to call this action. The without pause except to change direction/halt momentum is not something that George K addressed in his post.

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.

I'm not a saber fencer (nor do I play one on television), but I was thinking that this will be less of an issue in saber, since the majority of attacks are cuts, not points, so a failed cut would (I assume??!!) have a reeeaaaaally hard time finishing in a proper PiL position.

Now, a failed (short) point attack? That'd be right in the same ballpark with the short foil attack.

-p

[seak]

Yeah I don't think that the PiL will be as much an issue in saber (or more accurately I desperately hope not). I was talking about the first part of the email before he starts discussing PiL where he's talking about who has the attack, making the person fall short isn't a parry etc...

[oso97]

Still, I'm waiting to hear more.
Bill O. is doing a ref clinic up here this weekend. I have a feeling this will be very much a topic of conversation.

Get him on video, and post it to U-Tube...

[dberke]

Get him on video, and post it to U-Tube...

We are actually going to try to record the clinic, so we may be able to do just that!

Dan

[peet]

Yeah I don't think that the PiL will be as much an issue in saber (or more accurately I desperately hope not). I was talking about the first part of the email before he starts discussing PiL where he's talking about who has the attack, making the person fall short isn't a parry etc...

Oh, ok. My bad.

-p

[peet]

We are actually going to try to record the clinic, so we may be able to do just that!

Dan

Dependent upon the B-man's permission, of course...

-p

[Timberwolf_CY]

That would be so sweet if you could post that on YouTube or make it available for download or something. I've never been to a ref clinic, I direly need one if I'm going to advance my own fencing and refereeing skills.

[tdwg83]

That would be so sweet if you could post that on YouTube or make it available for download or something. I've never been to a ref clinic, I direly need one if I'm going to advance my own fencing and refereeing skills.

The event that I sent you the link for in October has a clinic Friday and the the tournament Saturday and Sunday. See if you can make a full weekend out of it.

[cbcarey]

Forget about clear masks, we just need clear rules.

[Don Badowski]

As I've said before, the FIE/USFA should post video examples of how the rules are interpreted. That way, we can see just what they meant by an immediate riposte, an extending arm, an attack in prep, etc. But all I ever hear back is that we mustn't codify foil/saber reffing with video, because that would stifle the living, breathing, dynamic, progressive (insert descriptive adjective of your choice) nature of right-of-way. Meaning, if referees don’t have the discretion to call ROW as they see fit, and fencers and coaches can bully, bribe or blacklist refs who don’t call ROW their way (see Emil Beck), the sport will die. I’d like to see it tried just for two years.

[bigdawg2121]

Only problem is that a lot of things aren't black and white. Actions don't occur as scripted in videos and not everyone can be expected to have the same level of perception.

[kuroutesshin]

New question: say the line has been established by Suzie on the right. Mary on the left advances and lunges into Suzie, without first deflecting the established line. There are two valid touches with no displacement of target, covering, or abnormal fencing action. Imagine a textbook lunge and a textbook point in line.

What, specifically, is the phrase to be called by the referee? Is it "Point in line, touch to the right," or is it "Attack. Touch right." or some such thing? The hand signal is the same for indicating PiL as it is for indicating a touch against the opposing fencer... so the referee's vocal call is important as well.

[catwood1]

New question: say the line has been established by Suzie on the right. Mary on the left advances and lunges into Suzie, without first deflecting the established line. There are two valid touches with no displacement of target, covering, or abnormal fencing action. Imagine a textbook lunge and a textbook point in line.

What, specifically, is the phrase to be called by the referee? Is it "Point in line, touch to the right," or is it "Attack. Touch right." or some such thing? The hand signal is the same for indicating PiL as it is for indicating a touch against the opposing fencer... so the referee's vocal call is important as well.

The hand signal is NOT the same. Instead of the entire hand out, its only the pointer finger extended with the arm extended out.

"point in line arrives"
"touch right"

[erooMynohtnA]

New question: say the line has been established by Suzie on the right. Mary on the left advances and lunges into Suzie, without first deflecting the established line. There are two valid touches with no displacement of target, covering, or abnormal fencing action. Imagine a textbook lunge and a textbook point in line.

What, specifically, is the phrase to be called by the referee? Is it "Point in line, touch to the right," or is it "Attack. Touch right." or some such thing? The hand signal is the same for indicating PiL as it is for indicating a touch against the opposing fencer... so the referee's vocal call is important as well.

I believe it's "Point in line from my right arrives, touch right."

Also, the hand signals are not the same. http://www.northeastfencing.net/docu...andsignals.jpg

I have a PiL question that provoked a lot of argument last night with several experienced fencers and refs. Right establishes a line. Left establishes a line. Right lunges. Two lights. What's the call?

[telkanuru]

I have a PiL question that provoked a lot of argument last night with several experienced fencers and refs. Right establishes a line. Left establishes a line. Right lunges. Two lights. What's the call?

Touch right.

[catwood1]

I believe it's "Point in line from my right arrives, touch right."

Also, the hand signals are not the same. http://www.northeastfencing.net/docu...andsignals.jpg

I have a PiL question that provoked a lot of argument last night with several experienced fencers and refs. Right establishes a line. Left establishes a line. Right lunges. Two lights. What's the call?

If they are both valid lines, then I would throw it out. Assuming they are both established a tempo before the lunge, and neither waver, then there is no RoW.

I disagree with telkanuru, just because right established it first, so long as left's line is established in time, then they are BOTH valid PiLs. You can't award a touch.