A Question of ROW

[dberke]

Sorry Eric, you're dead wrong here.

Sorry, but I have to agree with edew on this one. I've always seen this action called the way he called it.

Dan

[Dev]

Actually, OROD, look at the video again:

That's not a line. Right is never in line. His arm is never straight. It's always crooked at the elbow.

Attack right, no; attack left, arrives.

[Tomas N]

To anyone who actually has that DVD:

Does it come with some sort of booklet, leaflet, or on-disc follow-up segments identifying and explaining the correct call for each example?

All your questions are answered here:

Referee Study Guide DVD

And not to belabor the point, but the voiceover on the DVD agrees with OROD.

Tomas

[Tomas N]

Actually, OROD, look at the video again:

That's not a line. Right is never in line. His arm is never straight. It's always crooked at the elbow.

Attack right, no; attack left, arrives.

I honestly don't see the crooked arm. But let's assume it's straight throughout. Does your call change?

Tomas

[oiuyt]

To anyone who actually has that DVD:

Does it come with some sort of booklet, leaflet, or on-disc follow-up segments identifying and explaining the correct call for each example?

Here's the same clip put up on YouTube by FP with the voiceover description:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edp325urYyM

-B

[Dev]

I honestly don't see the crooked arm.

Look at his hand. It's consistently higher than his shoulder throughout the entire action.

But let's assume it's straight throughout. Does your call change?

Honestly, right at this moment? No. If I am explicitly told to call it that way by someone in authority, I will--but that better be the most perfect line that ever existed, or it's not getting the call.

The above-cited action does not qualify.

[catwood1]

I would not have called it as a line. The guy on the left doesn't wait long enough for the line to be established.

That said, if people in charge say its a line, its a line.

[OROD]

Actually, OROD, look at the video again:

That's not a line. Right is never in line. His arm is never straight. It's always crooked at the elbow.

Attack right, no; attack left, arrives.

I looked at it again, and then again for good measure. Sorry, it's a line. If you look at the top part of his arm you can convince yourself it's not, but that's only because the muscles of his arm and shoulders create a curve on the top part of the arm, whereas the bottom is fairly flat. You can even see when the fencer on the left attacks into it that he causes the arm of the fencer on the right to be raised uniformly up... he's clearly holding is straight.

.

[OROD]

I would not have called it as a line. The guy on the left doesn't wait long enough for the line to be established.

I dont think you really want to go there.

The fencer on the right makes a lunge that ends with his arm and blade extended in PiL. Then, the fencer on the left makes his action without in any way removing the threat, he just impales himself on it.

The PiL is either there or it's not, no time is needed to "establish" it.

.

[peet]

No matter what that video says, anyone who calls that touch for the PiL at a NAC is going to have no buttocks left after their a$$ gets chewed out by all the coaches, half the fencers, and a fair number of the FOCs in the place (with the exception of GK).


Ascribe to that what importance you will; I'm just saying....


-p

[edew]

Jus' sayin....

I can see if GK makes that call and no one will complain. I can see Andy Shaw making such a call and no one will complain (or would, back in the day). But if Joe Schmoe made such a call with Emik or Wes or Simon or Greg M or a bunch of other coaches standing nearby, that poor Schmoe will get his head ripped off with the screaming. Gary Copeland would do a quiet facepalm, Bucky will rip the ref a new one, Michael Petin would head to the FOC table.

On the other hand, I can see plenty of the top refs call that action for the guy on the left.

Now, if the FIE wants this to be called for the right, I have no problem with that, and I'm more than happy to incorporate such an action into my little packet of actions. But I'm sure as heck ain't going to be the first to try with any random referee.

Heck, I'll try it at the next competition I attend. I'll see what the call is. I'm willing to lose a point for some experimental data.

[Superscribe]

personally, i wouldn't immediately adopt this new interpretation, because people have made mistakes. Wasn't there video made about what constituted a threat in sabre? There were some italians, french, and the coach of the Chinese women's sabre team. In the video it was clear that if you had your arm hanging down and the point was pointed lower than your opponents target area, it wasn't threatening? Later they decided that it DID threaten target area?

People are wrong all the time. Even if they're European.

For sure fencer on the left's touch in most tournaments. The description of what would happen to a ref calling it opposite is probably true:

[OROD]

Look, personally I dont care (much) whether the "current interpretation" is one way or the other. I do care to the extent that trying to parse a single action into two actions just doesnt make sense. Eric, you basically agreed that the action ends in PiL, so I think we agree on this. However, saying that it's an attack followed by a replacement (or remise, whatever) is just incorrect and really only amounts to a rationalization of what someone at the FIE says is the "correct" way to call it.

I will also admit that for a long time it's been called like that. Attack from right, no. Attack from left arrives. But, my understanding is that the latest current interpretation gives the RoW to the PiL in this scenerio. At least, that's what I remember from what Alex Kutznetsov told me. I may have misunderstood what he said, but it makes sense since I believe that the PiL in general gets more priority these days than in the past.

In any case, if I'm directing one of your bouts you can bet that if you attack into a PiL, I'm not going to give it to you. Dont really care how quickly after the PiL was established before you decided to impale yourself. Unless, that is, someone can actually show that this is the way the FIE is currently seeing this action.

.

[dberke]

Look, personally I dont care (much) whether the "current interpretation" is one way or the other. I do care to the extent that trying to parse a single action into two actions just doesnt make sense. Eric, you basically agreed that the action ends in PiL, so I think we agree on this. However, saying that it's an attack followed by a replacement (or remise, whatever) is just incorrect and really only amounts to a rationalization of what someone at the FIE says is the "correct" way to call it.

I will also admit that for a long time it's been called like that. Attack from right, no. Attack from left arrives. But, my understanding is that the latest current interpretation gives the RoW to the PiL in this scenerio. At least, that's what I remember from what Alex Kutznetsov told me. I may have misunderstood what he said, but it makes sense since I believe that the PiL in general gets more priority these days than in the past.

In any case, if I'm directing one of your bouts you can bet that if you attack into a PiL, I'm not going to give it to you. Dont really care how quickly after the PiL was established before you decided to impale yourself. Unless, that is, someone can actually show that this is the way the FIE is currently seeing this action.

.

Since you accept the PiL interpretation as correct, could you explain how this call could ever be made:

Attack from the right is no (it falls short).
(Immediate) Attack from the left arrives, remise right. Touch left.

If an attack falls short, what criteria would you use to judge their next action as a remise? Or, is there no such thing as a remise after a short attack, so long as the fencer's arm remains straight?

I don't know why this is even open to interpretation. From what Dan Kellner wrote on his blog:

Even though an attack that ends in an extended arm is a point-in-line, the rules of right of way (ROW) indicate that when an attack ends, right of way is transferred to the opponent. Referees use the convention that a line must be established a full fencing tempo before the new attack is started for the line to be valid.

I think the key point here is that PiL takes one tempo to be established. In the video above, since the fencer on the left attacked immediately, the PiL did not have time to be established, thus it wasn't a PiL (or, one could say, it was late.)

Dan

[downunder]

you guys have short memories...

From Kolobatovich's points of emphasis:

"Distance Parry" and "Mal Parré" ..... The two terms are incorrect

The point in line has the highest level of priority ....
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.

and how this applies to the real world from a Grand Prix referee:

These points of emphasis are nothing new. There are many things that need to be considered when refereeing though. To maintain a line when lunging the arm must stay straight and in line with the shoulder. The honest answer is that often when lunging the hand falls out of line with the shoulder and this is seen clearly on video hence the end of the line.

The video is there as a test, not to replicate real world situations. Obviously the fencer on the right leaves out point in line, and this means it is his hit.

The only way you could get caught out here is the noise that makes it sound like a parry as the fencer on the left does move his wrist as well. That made me do a double take first time.


and finally to quote George again:

"do not argue"

[Tomas N]

you guys have short memories...

What, you mean for us to remember this document that was sent out all the way back in February?

http://www.fencingofficials.org/Docu...20Referees.pdf

Or this 350 post thread that accompanied it?

Kolombatovich : Rules of Referees

This is why we should all go out and buy the video. We'll have some definitive answers to how to call certain actions.

Tomas

[Sean Butler]

Whatever the clanking sound is, it is not enough to displace right fencer's point.

Tomas

True, I think it is simply that the left fencer flicked his tip down on the counter-attack and his blade hit the bellguard of the right fencer's weapon.

One of the few things that is unclear about the action is that the left fencer makes a parry-6 motion as the right fencer finishes his short attack. This made me wonder if he was actually PiL since there was no derobement by the right fencer and yet there was no blade contact by the left fencer as he made his parry motion. It leaves me wondering if from this straight-on from the side angle we can really see if the point is actually in line with the target.

It would be nice if these actions were filmed from 2 or 3 angles so that we could be certain of distances, blade actions and blade contact. That clank is mysterious without being able to see where it came from and it places momentary doubt in your mind so that you want to watch the action multiple times. If they are going for absolute clarity, they should avoid stuff like that as much as possible.

[Superscribe]

Look, personally I dont care (much) whether the "current interpretation" is one way or the other.
.

Do you just not care about being a fencer, or are you completely indifferent to developing as a competitor? Staying in tune with "current interpretation" of ROW is as crucial to getting points as as working on your footwork and point control, man.

[Mac A. Bee]

...left fencer makes a parry-6 motion as the right fencer finishes his short attack...wondering if from this straight-on from the side angle we can really see if the point is actually in line with the target...That clank is mysterious

As a foilist, from the camera's angle I see a parry.

Oiuyt, Would you call it a pris-de-fer?

[edew]

A PiL cannot be called as such if the opponent has already started the attack. If I'm slowly extending at the same time my opponent starts an advance-lunge and I finish my extension prior to the lunge and my opponent hits me with a straight attack and impales himself on my extended blade, I DO NOT HAVE A PIL, even though it's straight out from the shoulder, no wobblies and all that. The call would be a classic attack, counter-attack (with me doing the counter-attack).