Kolombatovich : Rules of Referees

[headcut]

Originally Posted by 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.

I very much agree with downunder. It basically comes down to one fencer attacking into a PiL even though both fencers had established a PiL.

[DanInMI]

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.

When I said this 4 years ago the fencing.net community lambasted me.

[bbower]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't see why there can't be dual PIL. I guess I don't have any common sense.

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by Jason

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.

Who says? Nowhere in the rule book does it say that, and it has been stressed over and over by much higher-level referees than I that point in line is a *situation*, not an action. The situation may exist independent of an attack, certainly, but it may equally exist in the course of an attack.

I may be attacking without having point in line, or I may have point in line without attacking, or I may be attacking with my point in line. Or, of course, I may be defending, or counterattacking, or just standing there getting hit -- in my case, that's altogether likely.

[dekko]

Wow, I am amazed that such a simple topic could be so grossly misunderstood.

I don't want to speak for anyone else's time but is there any chance some of the FOC who lurk here could get with Craig and set up a webinar for this merry band of uneducated folk and set them straight? Trying to read this made my head spin.

[tdwg83]

Originally Posted by Goldgar

Who says? Nowhere in the rule book does it say that, and it has been stressed over and over by much higher-level referees than I that point in line is a *situation*, not an action. The situation may exist independent of an attack, certainly, but it may equally exist in the course of an attack.

I may be attacking without having point in line, or I may have point in line without attacking, or I may be attacking with my point in line. Or, of course, I may be defending, or counterattacking, or just standing there getting hit -- in my case, that altogether likely.

This is what we need FIE to clarify next. Especially with the lack of explicit definition as to action and state of being.

[HDG]

Originally Posted by dekko

Wow, I am amazed that such a simple topic could be so grossly misunderstood.

I don't want to speak for anyone else's time but is there any chance some of the FOC who lurk here could get with Craig and set up a webinar for this merry band of uneducated folk and set them straight? Trying to read this made my head spin.

Wow… condescending…

[wbowman]

Originally Posted by DanInMI

When I said this 4 years ago the fencing.net community lambasted me.

But if you'd said it 40 years ago, you probably would have been right.
What a difference a decimal point makes!

[catwood1]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is Foil Fencing.
NO COMMON SENSE ALLOWED!!!!

But seriously, lunging does not invalidate PiL. Say I'm retreating and I throw out a PiL. My opponent searches, I derobe and lunge, and we both hit. It's still my PiL. Lunging doesn't change anything.

[bigdawg2121]

Originally Posted by Goldgar

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.

Balderdash, I say! Balderdash! There is no reason PiL cannot exist on both sides. In this situation both fencers have undoubtedly thrown themselves onto threatening points. Just your standing there while the other guy moves does not make your point more threatening. To paraphrase Riley from The Trial of Robert Kelly, "If I see a threat coming and I don't want to get hit by it, I move." Both fencers have clearly done something stupid by allowing themselves to get hit by clearly established, threatening PsiL. Why should you reward that? It's dumb; they're both dumb. Fantastically stupid (or both so smart they lost the surefire game of chicken). Bare minimum you should award no points; most likely you should penalize their stupidity for the good of the yourself, the fencers, and all those that may be around...it might be catching.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by noodle

double touch imo

I support the double touch, just because it would make a good question on referee exams.

[catwood1]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

I support the double touch, just because it would make a good question on referee exams.

How bout they both LOSE a touch?

[Cerian]

I'm starting to be more comfortable with the double touch interpretation. The problem is sort of thinking of PiL as an offensive action rather than a condition, at least in my head. If PiL is an offensive action, if it gets established first it should have to be removed before the 'defender' can do anything right. But if it's just a condition, the person without PiL doesn't have any obligation to do anything about it up until they initiate an attack, so if they don't attack and instead also just stick out their arm, no one has any priority or right of way, they're both just standing around threatening each other.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by catwood1

How bout they both LOSE a touch?

Even better!

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by peet

'cause it would seem to confound the distance defense, a.k.a "Parry Zero" that foilists have been doing for some time now.

I love the fact that when a foilist comes over to fence some epee, all I usually have to do is a short lunge and then watch them impale themselves on my point, because they parried 0.

I think the basic premise of right-of-way was meant to go to whomever puts out the threat first. If the threat is still there, deal with it. Just because the point stopped moving towards your chest doesn't mean that you can safely impale yourself on it.

All the convolutions of what a "threat" is in the right-of-way weapons will forever confound me, I'm sure.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Jason

You and Mr. Biggs are misreading the rulebook.

Yes, I was.

Originally Posted by Jason

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.

I don't think this is true anymore. The letter which started this thread specifically states that you can both be attacking and have PiL. (right?)

[dekko]

Originally Posted by HDG

Wow… condescending…

Yeah...I guess, there's a first for fnet because that has never happened before.

You boys and girls have taken a simple action and butchered it beyond belief.

Here's one for all of you to rip apart and play with.

Most PILs are started with a fencer retreating off the line and placing the line. In the rare case where both fencers do this usually there's a quick laugh from the people watching and one pulls the line and advanced forward. What would happen if both fencers did this and one went forward but didn't pull the line? Both maintain the line one standing firm and the other coming forward and both keep the line the whole time? Then the both hit with both lights on. Now what? Since footwork doesn't matter.

Go.....

[headcut]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I don't think this is true anymore. The letter which started this thread specifically states that you can both be attacking and have PiL. (right?)

Actually, if you think about it, how can you make a valid attack without a PiL? Doesn't an attack need to threaten a valid target?... unless of course, you're fencing sabre, and then the cutting edge must be threatening a line.

[Dev]

Originally Posted by dekko

Most PILs are started with a fencer retreating off the line and placing the line. In the rare case where both fencers do this usually there's a quick laugh from the people watching and one pulls the line and advanced forward. What would happen if both fencers did this and one went forward but didn't pull the line? Both maintain the line one standing firm and the other coming forward and both keep the line the whole time? Then the both hit with both lights on. Now what? Since footwork doesn't matter.

Go.....

My call would probably be as follows:

"That's cute. Both have line. Both arrive. No touch. On guard."

[KD5MDK]

PiL by definition has to be threatening valid target.