Kolombatovich : Rules of Referees

[erooMynohtnA]

The situation as presented was right esblishes with a one second pause; left establishes then about a two second pause; and right lunges. Neither fencer breaks his line, and both get hit in the chest.

The three answers I recieved were
"PiL left, because right attacked"
"PiL right, because they established first"
"Attack right, because in a situation of dual PiL, no one can claim RoW so the attack claims it."

[catwood1]

The situation as presented was right esblishes with a one second pause; left establishes then about a two second pause; and right lunges. Neither fencer breaks his line, and both get hit in the chest.

The three answers I recieved were
"PiL left, because right attacked"
"PiL right, because they established first"
"Attack right, because in a situation of dual PiL, no one can claim RoW so the attack claims it."

Lunging does NOT invalidate a line, so it can't be the first one.

The third one is like saying simultanious attacks, so the high line takes RoW, and is not correct.

The second one is the only one that could sort of make sense to me, but I still disagree with it. If its duel Pil, and they are both in time, then no one has RoW.

[bigdawg2121]

Yellow card to both for failing to preserve the character of a frank, courteous encounter. They're both clearly idiots and are actually trying to test my patience.

[mrbiggs]

Lunging does NOT invalidate a line, so it can't be the first one.

Actually, a literal reading of the rules seems to support this view.


Disclaimer: I don't actually think that this is the correct call and I'm making this argument simply for the heck of it. If I were the referee I'd call it simultaneous, which I believe is the commonsense call. I'd like to hear the opinion of knowledgeable referees on it, though.


t.56:

6. 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 fencer on the right initiated the attack, so it was necessary for him to deflect the blade. The fact that the fencer on the right lunged did not invalidate his PiL, but he was still attacking according to this letter. Therefore, when he initiated the attack, his opponent was PiL, and he had to deflect the blade.

His opponent, on the other hand, did not initiate an attack and therefore was not obligated to deflect the blade. So he gets the touch.

t.60 further reinforces this with different wording.

Again, this is a literal reading of the rules and I'm not supporting this call, just pointing out that this is what looking it up in the rulebook seems to imply.

[bigdawg2121]

Ehhh, even an attempt at reading the rules that literally doesn't actually work. It mostly goes something like this:

Fencer A - PiL exists
Fencer B - PiL exists
Fencer A - does something BUT PiL still exists

You can't apply a literal interpretation of "attack" doing or not doing anything b/c in this attack is mostly just descriptive - the fact is that it's something more along the lines of active PiL arrives, passive PiL arrives. Best bets, are either to award the touch to whichever one arrived first with the logic that the other must have missed initially or just go ahead and tell the "attacking fencer" that clearly they wavered, weebled or wobbled and invalidated their line....for the purposes of our wonderful little rules thought experiment though I still like my answer.

[telkanuru]

If FotR initiates PIL first, the onus is on FotL to do something to deflect it. If FotL puts his arm into a PIL position, it's still not PIL. There is no such thing as dual PIL. Use some common sense.

[mrbiggs]

I'm going to abandon my literal rulebook interpretation because it's wrong and I was just pointing it out anyway.

If FotR initiates PIL first, the onus is on FotL to do something to deflect it. If FotL puts his arm into a PIL position, it's still not PIL. There is no such thing as dual PIL. Use some common sense.

I don't think this is true. For example:

FotR initiates PiL first, FotL initiates it after. They both stand there.

At this point, according to your interpretation, FotL does not have PiL.

If FotR then lunges while invalidating his line, wouldn't that then result in a simple attack for him, since FotL only gets line if it was a tempo before FotR? I don't think that call is correct in this situation, so I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion.

[downunder]

If FotR initiates PIL first, the onus is on FotL to do something to deflect it. If FotL puts his arm into a PIL position, it's still not PIL. There is no such thing as dual PIL. Use some common sense.

t.10. The point in line position is a specific position in which the fencer’s
sword arm is kept straight and the point of his weapon continually
threatens his opponent’s valid target


Surely it is very easy for both fencers to be in the point in line position.

[Cerian]

My intuition would be that who ever established first wins out. PiL is supposed to be a threat. Sticking your arm out doesn't do anything to invalidate that already existing threat. Unless PiL doesn't have right of way until it hits, which seems incoherent. If PiL gives RoW, it gives it as soon as it's established, and that RoW has to be removed. Attempting to establish PiL doesn't do anything to get rid of RoW, so it's only an attempt to do PiL, not an actual line... But looking at the rules PoL doesn't really seem to award priority at all and it is only referred to as doing anything in response to an attack. If there's technically no attack, then it seems that technically line can't do anything. Sort of seems wrong to me though, but this might just be because I want to see line as actually doing something, as actually taking priority in a significant way. It might be that I shouldn't, but it seems a little odd to say that it doesn't. So I'd say it's either going to be line on the right because it's first, or nothing done because they both have line - the line exists regardless of footwork, so as long as his arm maintains the position, what fencer right is doing can't be called an attack and therefore can't trigger fencer left's line as having priority.

[erooMynohtnA]

My intuition would be that who ever established first wins out. PiL is supposed to be a threat. Sticking your arm out doesn't do anything to invalidate that already existing threat. Unless PiL doesn't have right of way until it hits, which seems incoherent. If PiL gives RoW, it gives it as soon as it's established, and that RoW has to be removed. Attempting to establish PiL doesn't do anything to get rid of RoW, so it's only an attempt to do PiL, not an actual line... But looking at the rules PoL doesn't really seem to award priority at all and it is only referred to as doing anything in response to an attack. If there's technically no attack, then it seems that technically line can't do anything. Sort of seems wrong to me though, but this might just be because I want to see line as actually doing something, as actually taking priority in a significant way. It might be that I shouldn't, but it seems a little odd to say that it doesn't. So I'd say it's either going to be line on the right because it's first, or nothing done because they both have line - the line exists regardless of footwork, so as long as his arm maintains the position, what fencer right is doing can't be called an attack and therefore can't trigger fencer left's line as having priority.

I agree with you that it seems intuitively fair to award the touch to the guy who first establishes the line. I think it's loose footing to say the left hasn't established a line because the fencer on the right has one already. While semantic, there's a difference between not establishing a line in time and not having a line.

However, I don't see why the lunge can't be the attack. There is an extension of the arm and a lunge. That sounds like an attack to me.

I'm really interested to see what Downunder has to say about all this. Will you come down with a ruling?

[downunder]

As far as I'm concerned both fencers have their points in line and hit correctly with that point in line: This means both fencers are at fault as they failed to displace the line from the opposing fencer. As such I would award no hits. I would be interested to see what someone like Falcon has to say on the issue, as he's done a lot more video replay at a much higher level than me.

In terms of phrasing the action, whilst the 'attacks-simultaneous' signal is perhaps not technically correct, it may do a pretty good job of explaining what i felt happened if this odd scenario was to ever occur.

[Goldgar]

t.56:

The fencer on the right initiated the attack, so it was necessary for him to deflect the blade. The fact that the fencer on the right lunged did not invalidate his PiL, but he was still attacking according to this letter. Therefore, when he initiated the attack, his opponent was PiL, and he had to deflect the blade.

His opponent, on the other hand, did not initiate an attack and therefore was not obligated to deflect the blade. So he gets the touch.

t.60 further reinforces this with different wording.

Again, this is a literal reading of the rules and I'm not supporting this call, just pointing out that this is what looking it up in the rulebook seems to imply.

I *do* think this is the correct call, and think that both the rule book and common sense support it. But we know how uncommon common sense is, so who knows?

The concept of the point in line is based on the idea that you don't throw yourself on your opponent's obviously threatening point to score a touch. In the situation we're talking about, only one fencer has done that.

[garyhayenga]

The situation as presented was right esblishes with a one second pause; left establishes then about a two second pause; and right lunges. Neither fencer breaks his line, and both get hit in the chest.

The three answers I recieved were
"PiL left, because right attacked"
"PiL right, because they established first"
"Attack right, because in a situation of dual PiL, no one can claim RoW so the attack claims it."

The answer *used to be* the first one, because lunging would cause right's PIL to become an attack, and therefore no longer have priority over left's established PIL.

Since they have officially changed the interpretation so that one does not lose an established PIL by lunging anymore, then the answer is the third one.

Since a PIL is not an action, it is a condition, who was first is not relevant. It has either been established or it hasn't. Since both have established PIL and not broken it, and both hit, no touch.

gary hayenga

[D'Art]

As far as I'm concerned both fencers have their points in line and hit correctly with that point in line: This means both fencers are at fault as they failed to displace the line from the opposing fencer. As such I would award no hits.

Even although it's already been said that one fencer established PIL significantly before the other one (and in fencing time, around a second is significant IMO) and the other fencer did nothing to invalidate the PIL?

[Timberwolf_CY]

::anuerisms onto floor, shaking sputtering mess::

[noodle]

this thread is another example of why the rules need to be set in stone, basically as a flow chart, and the interpretation would lie in how the referee sees the actions happening, not in applying the actions to the rules.

[downunder]

Even although it's already been said that one fencer established PIL significantly before the other one (and in fencing time, around a second is significant IMO) and the other fencer did nothing to invalidate the PIL?

I don't see why only one fencer can be in the point in line position and I don't see why having your point in line out 'first' has anything to do with it.

I think the lunge is confusing people. Imagine one fencer extending their arm and then the other a few seconds later. Then one fencer steps in, both hitting correctly in the point in line position. Both fencers are guilty of not deflecting the blade, so no one gets the hit.

At least that's my interpretation.

[Jason]

I *do* think this is the correct call, and think that both the rule book and common sense support it.

You and Mr. Biggs are misreading the rulebook. Fencer on the right is not attacking. No one in this situation is attacking. You cannot be attacking and have PiL. It's one or the other. T.56 does not apply.

[D'Art]

I don't see why only one fencer can be in the point in line position and I don't see why having your point in line out 'first' has anything to do with it.

I think the lunge is confusing people. Imagine one fencer extending their arm and then the other a few seconds later. Then one fencer steps in, both hitting correctly in the point in line position. Both fencers are guilty of not deflecting the blade, so no one gets the hit.

At least that's my interpretation.

The way I interpret it, once one fencer has established PIL they have priority until something happens to remove it, and I haven't read anything to suggest that happened, so would have thought the hit should have gone to the fencer who established first, that's why I was asking for clarification.

[noodle]

double touch imo