Kolombatovich : Rules of Referees

[downunder]

you guys might find this useful. It's from a British referee who is going to the Olympics this year:

Dear All,

Once agin i see that the subject of point in line has reared its ugly head.

Few things to take into account.

First technically you can attack (lunge step forward etc) with out you losing right of way according tot eh fie. However in slow motion it is almost impossible to keep a straight arm when lunging and so the line becomes invalid.

As a simple rule of thumb, the line is established before your opponent starts his attack it is valid. In most cases it is sensible to step back with the line to make sure that the referee has noticed ithas been established, standing still may not be enough.

Once the line is established (straight arm in line running parallel to the floor) shoulder to wrist it must stay on target in the high line. (some movement of the point is allowed) This is up to the referee.

If there is any blade contact on the line it is no longer valid. You can only disengage or derobe with the line if it is looked for assuming it does not leave the target area of the body. (for a line to be valid it must always threaten the target)

If you bend your elbow or wrist the line will be invlaid. (however again this is determined by the referee)

Finally point must hit.

The risk with the line is the experience of the referee. In experienced or bad referees go in two directions ignoring it or misunderstanding it. Reasonable referees try and give it to much to show they know what they are doing.

Good referees will usually give a line about 50% of the time if that. It is rare that a line is given more than that. There are some fencers which are good at it but in general stay away from the line unless you are sure you know what you are doing.

[downunder]

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.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=oabDaMB1MyI

Montano does a PIL for his 3rd or 4th hit

[catwood1]

Thanks downunder! Thats awesome to read.

Also, don't forge that there are MANY uses of PiL other than going for the PiL itself. Its a great way to set up counter-riposte for example. Also good for halting or slowing compound attacks.

[Grasshopper]

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=oabDaMB1MyI

Montano does a PIL for his 3rd or 4th hit

I was talking about foil. Show me an example in foil and I will very impressed.

[TooLoftheDeviL]

For my own comfort, can anyone direct me to where it is specified that PIL must threaten a high-line target?

The parallel to the floor requirement seems to contradict common sense in a situation where one fencer is 7 feet tall and his opponent is closer to 5.

[kuroutesshin]

For my own comfort, can anyone direct me to where it is specified that PIL must threaten a high-line target?

The parallel to the floor requirement seems to contradict common sense in a situation where one fencer is 7 feet tall and his opponent is closer to 5.

The rules make no distinction about it being parallel to the floor-

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.

If the arm is straight and in line with the should and elbow, and the point is threatening target... etc.

[noodle]

The rules make no distinction about it being parallel to the floor-

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.

If the arm is straight and in line with the should and elbow, and the point is threatening target... etc.

his point is, can someone explain why you can't have PIL to low-line target? rulebook doesn't say anything about it, but the FOC ref guide says you can't and no referee will call it that way.

using the same logic behind the rulebook doesn't say you can't advance/retreat/lunge with PIL, so should you also be able to point your arm at any target and maintain it, right?

[TooLoftheDeviL]

The rules make no distinction about it being parallel to the floor-

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.

If the arm is straight and in line with the should and elbow, and the point is threatening target... etc.

The parallel to the floor comment came from downunder's quote from the olympic referee. My real concern is about finding the rule that requires PIL to threaten a high-line target.

[rudd]

The parallel to the floor comment came from downunder's quote from the olympic referee. My real concern is about finding the rule that requires PIL to threaten a high-line target.

There isn't a rule but it's the interpretation that has been applied pretty much at every level for a long time.

[catwood1]

Trust the Olympic ref...
Trust the Olympic ref...

[tchwojko]

There isn't a rule but it's the interpretation that has been applied pretty much at every level for a long time.

Where by "interpretation" you mean "stuff made from thin air".

[jeff]

At least it's been in "thin air" for at least 35 years: I saw that applied at the Martini & Rossi in 1971 (against Axelrod, who protested it to no avail). You would think that after all this time somebody would trouble themselves to put it into the darned rules book if it in fact is a rule! As has been remarked many times (including by me) the rules are hopelessly ambiguous in many places, and PiL is one of the worst-described.

For the "2 lines established, one person attacks, both hit" scenario: What I want to do is smack both fencers for getting into such an ambiguous situation. My other impulse it that the person who held the line should receive the touch. An ancient rule of thumb for referees was "penalize the person who provoked the double touch". I think this was more keenly felt when we awarded "touches against", but the idea is "Idiot, you just had to lunge onto an extended point without deviating it first. Touch against you".

To some degree, my conclusion is the opposite of Peet's (sorry, Peet!). Even a light blade taking removes the point from line, and it has to be replaced in line in order to re-threaten target. RoW gives the attacker the right to continue the attack even if the defender replaces the blade after a beat (Old School - even for foil - had parries and ripostes with opposition, but that is almost extinct now, which I think a pity. One light actions remove all doubt); or a defender to make the line even though both will be hit.

MdA: my sentiments exactly.

[TooLoftheDeviL]

There isn't a rule but it's the interpretation that has been applied pretty much at every level for a long time.

No doubt, it's been by understanding that it is that way. This seems like an odd one though. If any footwork movement, lunge included, is being allowed with PIL because it doesn't say you CAN'T lunge from PIL... why is it exactly that PIL is required to threaten the high line target when if there is no rule that says you cannot?

Again, not that I disagree that this is in fact the interpretation, but it seems like it really should be specified if that's the way it is.

[aamct2]

his point is, can someone explain why you can't have PIL to low-line target? rulebook doesn't say anything about it, but the FOC ref guide says you can't and no referee will call it that way.

using the same logic behind the rulebook doesn't say you can't advance/retreat/lunge with PIL, so should you also be able to point your arm at any target and maintain it, right?

At a refereeing seminar in March, I was told that the Point-in-Line had to be parallel to the ground. I believe this comes from an interpretation of "The Handbook for Referees" from the FOC website (which is naturally yet another interpretation). In it a Point-in-Line must be "a straight line from the point of the weapon to the shoulder". Depending on how your interpret the shoulder part, when fencing normally your shoulder is parallel to the ground and thus so must be your weapon.

But even with this interpretation, you can still have it threatening the low-line. Take, for example, the use of a Point-in-Line in a deep lunge position.

[peet]

To some degree, my conclusion is the opposite of Peet's (sorry, Peet!). Even a light blade taking removes the point from line, and it has to be replaced in line in order to re-threaten target. RoW gives the attacker the right to continue the attack even if the defender replaces the blade after a beat (Old School - even for foil - had parries and ripostes with opposition, but that is almost extinct now, which I think a pity. One light actions remove all doubt); or a defender to make the line even though both will be hit.

I'm not sure which post of mine you're referring to.

-p

[peet]

No doubt, it's been by understanding that it is that way. This seems like an odd one though. If any footwork movement, lunge included, is being allowed with PIL because it doesn't say you CAN'T lunge from PIL... why is it exactly that PIL is required to threaten the high line target when if there is no rule that says you cannot?

Just a guess, but:

Maybe the thinking is that the weapon should point straight at the opponent's high line, because a weapon (and arm) pointing at low line could also be used to close off one's own lines, thereby making the PiL also defensive?

It's important to the main principle of RoW that the action be either offensive or defensive, not both...


-p

[jeff]

Yours yesterday #145 at 519pm 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.

My position doesn't contradict you as much as have a difference in emphasis. Literally, everything you said in the quoted material is correct; I'm just applying it from the other direction, and adding that even light parries remove the point. I don't think we're seriously at odds - just looking at different parts of the same critter.

[noodle]

At a refereeing seminar in March, I was told that the Point-in-Line had to be parallel to the ground. I believe this comes from an interpretation of "The Handbook for Referees" from the FOC website (which is naturally yet another interpretation). In it a Point-in-Line must be "a straight line from the point of the weapon to the shoulder". Depending on how your interpret the shoulder part, when fencing normally your shoulder is parallel to the ground and thus so must be your weapon.

But even with this interpretation, you can still have it threatening the low-line. Take, for example, the use of a Point-in-Line in a deep lunge position.

right, and again, this entire thread and the email sent out is totally contradicting what is in the Referee Handbook. thats the point of what we're saying.

[noodle]

Just a guess, but:

Maybe the thinking is that the weapon should point straight at the opponent's high line, because a weapon (and arm) pointing at low line could also be used to close off one's own lines, thereby making the PiL also defensive?

It's important to the main principle of RoW that the action be either offensive or defensive, not both...


-p

what does PIL have to do with offense or defense? its a situation, after all, so it shouldn't matter if it closes off lines or points at the opponent's hip, or if you lunge or advance with it

[tchwojko]

I'm just guessing, but coming from Chicago, my first thought is, which group of foil fencers does the latest "interpretation" benefit? It's got to be a political thing. If it were a true attempt to clarify the rules, then they'd just clarify them and be done with it.

I have to go read some ref materials. I'd like to see a philosophy behind the rules. In fact, it would be nice if the rule books incorporated some intent and context.

For example, "Rules x.1 to x.10 describe the characteristics of a legal weapon. These rules are to insure that the weapon is not too flexible, to avoid whipovers, but not too stiff to avoid injury."

The rulebook right now is purely a mechanical reference, but giving context as to the purpose of each rule helps both the refs and competitors understand the gist of things. It also would help argue against Inquarta-esque playing with words and overly literal or overly liberal interpretations.

I enjoy all sorts of games and sports, and whenever I encounter a new game, I try to figure out the balance of the game. Most rules are either for safety, balance, or to prevent cheating or stretching of other rules.

The rules are football and baseball are rather arcane, but if you figure out why they're there, they can make sense. Why only one man in motion? Why can't anyone move on the offense until the snap, but the defense is allowed to jump all over the place? Why are the bases 90' apart?

Documenting intent when the rules are written would go a long way to resolving a lot of questions.