Kolombatovich : Rules of Referees

[dberke]

I think the rules around PiL need to be clarified and tightened up. If I were writing the rulebook, I would require that a PiL is only valid when extending from an upright on-guard position. I would explicly state that if you lunge from a PiL position, it becomes an attack and is subject to all of the usual RoW rules around an attack. Further, if that attack fails to arrive, RoW is lost unless the defender fails to respond in time (as it is called today.)

While I understand the current interpretaion of PiL with regard to lunges, I don't necessarily agree with it. In my opinion, you need to look at the intent of the PiL. As someone who likes to use PiL a lot in foil, my intent is to use it as a "passive defense" in a sense. I put out the line and wait for the attacker to try to take or beat the blade and then I derobe and hit them since most people continue their attack even when their take/beat fails. I rarely do any footwork other than a retreat in this situation.

The intent of a lunge, by comparison, is to deliver the point to the target. In my book, that is the definition of an attack. It is an active offensive action and differs significantly from a PiL.

Just my $0.02.
Dan

[catwood1]

The reason I like the ability to lunge while maintaining Pil is that if the attacker searches, and I derobe, I can close the distance. This effectively gives him only one opportunity to find the blade. Otherwise, the attacker can just retreat and take another shot at finding my blade. If you can't lunge with PiL, it makes it WAY to weak of an action.

[tchwojko]

The intent of a lunge, by comparison, is to deliver the point to the target. In my book, that is the definition of an attack. It is an active offensive action and differs significantly from a PiL.

Just my $0.02.
Dan

What if it's an advance instead of a lunge?

[dcrocket]

My 2¢:

It is more fun to watch these discussions regarding ROW than to actually fence foil.

[peet]

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.

The foundation of ROW weapons is the willingness to impale yourself on your opponent's point when they are making an incorrect action. Even if I parry with the blade, the opponent's point is likely still pointing at my chest.

Yes, ROW goes to the initial offensive action, but it doesn't stay there permanently. The rules provide for various ways to remove ROW. Some of us think that causing an attack to fall short is a valid way to do this, some do not. And that would be what makes the world go 'round! Different people have different opinions about these things.

IMHO, foil is a better game when distance defense is valid. If a failed attack retains ROW via PiL, then that attacker essentially gets a "two for the price of one" action; that is to say, "if I hit, I'm good, if I don't, I'm still good". That's (IMHO) against the spirit of ROW.

I could say lots more, but we already have, here in this forum, over and over.

-p

[dberke]

The reason I like the ability to lunge while maintaining Pil is that if the attacker searches, and I derobe, I can close the distance. This effectively gives him only one opportunity to find the blade. Otherwise, the attacker can just retreat and take another shot at finding my blade. If you can't lunge with PiL, it makes it WAY to weak of an action.

I think that's still permissible under my definition - I would just reprhase it as the PiL derobes the take, maintaining the line. Then, you attack with a lunge that has RoW. However, if that attack is short, even if you kept the line out, you lose RoW. That's what I'm trying to eliminate.

I would liken it to calling an attack on preparation - attacker prepares by searching for the blade, defender avoids the attempt to take and then lunges. In that situation, if the defender who attacks into the preparation fails to hit, they lose RoW and the original attacker probably will get the remise. I don't like the idea that if the identical action takes place, but starts from a PiL position, the PiL is still considered valid after the missed lunge and still has priority over the remise. Something doesn't feel right about that.

What if it's an advance instead of a lunge?

That's fine - an advance isn't an inherently offensive action, at least compared with a lunge. The PiL is already allowed to advance and retreat, so that wouldn't be a change.

Dan

[catwood1]

Foil fencing: Fun to fence, fun to ref, fun to coach.

That said, it doesn't really make any sense, but it's so fun!

[tchwojko]

That's fine - an advance isn't an inherently offensive action, at least compared with a lunge. The PiL is already allowed to advance and retreat, so that wouldn't be a change.
Dan

And then what about a crossover? A long advance? A low half-advance? A ballestra?

I just think it's strange that you have to pay attention to what the fencers' feet are doing to make a distinction.

But like Peet said, that's what makes discussions like this interesting.

[mrbiggs]

The reason I like the ability to lunge while maintaining Pil is that if the attacker searches, and I derobe, I can close the distance.

If timed correctly, this should be attack in prep anyway.

[kuroutesshin]

I think we're getting a little confused here- but that's about par for the course, I suppose.

George says thus:

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.

We have to interpret it thusly: a proper lunge is executed by establishing a point in line, threatening target, and lunging. The PiL is simply the basic position for commencing the attack.

The rules make absolutely no mention of requirements of tempo to establish the line. t.10 gives no preconditions as such. Therefore, even if you have established the line prior to your attack, if your opponent has a line established you must first deflect it.

I think the most important thing we have to remember is that this represents the actual behavior in a duel. The line represents a constant threat to your vital organs. No one in their right mind would willingly attack an opponent while the opponent has a blade pointed at their heart without first attempting to displace the blade so as to minimize the risk to one's person.

I am inclined to say that a derobement or coupe represents a break in the line- because you are reacting to your opponent's action to move your weapon. It makes much more sense to parry or counterparry and then riposte. The action would become, I think, "beat attack is parried, the riposte arrives valid" or some such thing- if PiL is broken it isn't important.

What if it's an advance instead of a lunge?

Then it's not an attack, unless you have either extended you blade or established the line. Simply moving forward doesn't grant priority- you have to be actively threatening your opponent's target to have priority; hence the existence of attacks on preparation.

[tchwojko]

We have to interpret it thusly: a proper lunge is executed by establishing a point in line, threatening target, and lunging. The PiL is simply the basic position for commencing the attack.

Nowhere did it say that point in line is a prerequisite for starting an attack. Where are you getting that conclusion?

[kuroutesshin]

My wording could have been better- what I mean is that the PiL is essentially the basic attacking action, made by extending the arm into line:

t.7 The attack is the initial offensive action made by extending the
arm and continuously threatening the opponent’s target, preceding
the launching of the lunge or flèche.

Granted, this is a quite classical intepretation of the simple, direct attack- which, I suppose, is why t.8 explains in detail the various attacks. But at it's core, the most basic attack is the extension into line. I believe this is why in many cases of a simultaneous action, the attack made with a fully extended arm takes priority over the attack made while the arm is bent.

[catwood1]

If timed correctly, this should be attack in prep anyway.

You are right. However, I'm not aways gonna get that call. If its both a PiL AND an attack in prep, refs usually give me at least one of those 2 calls...

And kuroutesshin, you are allowed to derobe with Pil if someone searches for your blade. If you derobe when they DON'T search then u lose RoW. I don't believe you can coupe, but I'm not 100%. (I can't see why you would want to though.)

It says it in the rulebook, and if I weren't so lazy I would go find the rule.

[kuroutesshin]

Yes, you're quite right- I stand corrected.

t.56, paragraph 7: If the attacker, when attempting to deflect the
opponent’s blade, fails to find it (dérobement), the
right of attack passes to the opponent.

I'm much happier knowing this is the case. We're teaching derobements to the young fencers in the club right now, and I'll make sure to emphasis this point when we get to explaining PiL.

It's the more complex actions like this that give less experienced fencers trouble- a particular member of my club comes to mind, who has a difficult time concieving that the more complex calls against him are correct (largely because he either doesn't understand the terminology or doesn't realize his opponent's actions), and thus blames his every fault on the judge's "faulty" interpretation.

As it is, most people don't even understand the french terms, like doublé, coupé, or dérobement.

[catwood1]

As it is, most people don't even understand the french terms, like doublé, coupé, or dérobement.

Yea. When questioned, I give a very simple explanation for a derobement. "If he has PiL, you have to hit his blade before you hit him. You missed his blade..."

They usually get it.

[MdA]

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

Unfortunately, it has made me want to coach foil less. I am afraid it has had a negative impact on the number of coaches willing to teach foil and take on high level fencers.

Foil has become that ambiguous weapon that is less fun. I have noticed that many old foil fencers no longer compete...and even less are willing to coach ...especially developing foil fencers from scratch.

[tlucente]

My wording could have been better- what I mean is that the PiL is essentially the basic attacking action, made by extending the arm into line:

t.7 The attack is the initial offensive action made by extending the
arm and continuously threatening the opponent’s target, preceding
the launching of the lunge or flèche.

Granted, this is a quite classical intepretation of the simple, direct attack- which, I suppose, is why t.8 explains in detail the various attacks. But at it's core, the most basic attack is the extension into line. I believe this is why in many cases of a simultaneous action, the attack made with a fully extended arm takes priority over the attack made while the arm is bent.

Nowhere does it say that the arm has to be extended "into a line"...it says "extending, not extended. 1mm of extension is an extension.

ROW is not, and should never be called as if it is, a race to see whose arm gets straight first.

[Jason]

The letter which started this thread specifically states that you can both be attacking and have PiL. (right?)

I don't think it does. It states that you can lunge with PiL. It also states that after an attack, if you leave your arm extended, it becomes PiL. Nothing suggests that PiL can be an attack, however.

I don't see anything particularly "new" in the letter. Although I think George is doing US referees a disservice with such a poorly written missive.

[kuroutesshin]

At it's heart, no. The origin of fencing teminology and rules are the direct result of the succesful practices of the schools that prepared one for the duel, and in the classical period the entire point was to keep the opponent's blade as far away as possible- hence one would desire to extend their blade and lunge to cover distance. The PiL derives from this.

In modern interpretation, less so, but the fundamentals are still the same. A classically executed lunge extends fully into line and then lunges. These mechanics are why preparation exists.

[Grasshopper]

The day I see a ref actually award a point for PiL is the day I start doing it. PiL is a forgotten technique and not used frequently enough to be taken seriously or noticed for that matter. Don't get me wrong, I love PiL, but I won't use it.