A Question of ROW

[Allen Evans]

There is no parry. There is an attack that remains in line, and per Downunder and the last directions from the FIE, it is a line that has to be removed before an attack can commence. You may not like the "rule" (I certainly don't) but the directions are very clear.

The noise you hear is probably "incidental contact" because of the target the left hander is trying to attack.

AE

[Mihail]

I don't fence foil, but what does "attack: NO" mean? I thought that the ending of an attack in foil is not defined.

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).

This seems like a good point to me. What is the argument to this?

[TooLoftheDeviL]

There is no parry. There is an attack that remains in line, and per Downunder and the last directions from the FIE, it is a line that has to be removed before an attack can commence. You may not like the "rule" (I certainly don't) but the directions are very clear.

The noise you hear is probably "incidental contact" because of the target the left hander is trying to attack.

AE

QFT..

[Superscribe]

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).

The arguement to this is edew should not be seperating the establishment from the point in line from the attack. That is to say, our very concept of an attack needs to change.

According to some proponents, an "attack" involves the forward travel of an extending point in an lunge/advance lunge, where it has ROW and maintains until it is removed. There is no window of opportunity for you to take ROW as the end of the lunge merges seamlessly into a PIL, if the arm does not break line.

The lunge/PIL has the same authority as a parry followed by immediate and continous riposte. No amount of remising can stop it.

[catwood1]

you guys have short memories...

Not short, just selective! And considering the look on George K's face when that email was brought up at a morning meeting at San Jose, my plan was to just ignore it until I was told otherwise...

[edew]

I don't fence foil, but what does "attack: NO" mean? I thought that the ending of an attack in foil is not defined.This seems like a good point to me. What is the argument to this?

It was my rebuttal to OROD's comment that a straight arm and blade is a PiL. Again, it requires context.

[notalent]

I don't fence foil, but what does "attack: NO" mean? I thought that the ending of an attack in foil is not defined.

It is not defined, it does end though. Watch womens foil and you will see almost sabre like tempos, If you lunge and dont hit anything you will see me as a ref call attack No. Now that could be followed up with an action by the opp, attack, or by you, redoublement remise etc.

[dberke]

There is no parry. There is an attack that remains in line, and per Downunder and the last directions from the FIE, it is a line that has to be removed before an attack can commence. You may not like the "rule" (I certainly don't) but the directions are very clear.

The noise you hear is probably "incidental contact" because of the target the left hander is trying to attack.

AE

Give the FIE's current track record of releasing videos with incorrect or bogus info is 1-for-1 (see: low line in saber), I'm inclined to take their interpretation with a whole lot of grains of salt. Also, given that I have never seen a US referee (including FOC) call this action in favor of the PiL, I am inclined to discount it's validity.

I believe that there was a lot of discussion about this back in the spring, and the conclusion that people reached was that for a PiL to remain PiL after a lunge, PiL must have existed before the lunge started. That does make sense. But a failed attack turning into PiL doesn't make any sense...

Dan

[TBean]

That's because we've finally all figured ROW out. Turns out that it's actually pretty easy.

Tomas

Sure you do.

[Hauptman]

It was my rebuttal to OROD's comment that a straight arm and blade is a PiL. Again, it requires context.

Eric, I agree that your interpretation is how this situation is usually called, but I agree with OROD in how it should be called.

A PiL is not an action, so it is not a remise. A PiL is a situation that applies with relation to the opponents attack in that if the opponent begins an attack into a PiL then that attack is incorrect and does not have ROW. A jab or a replacement of the blade in line would be a remise, but that requires action.

So in terms of the example, the attack from the right was short, but since the PiL existed (as defined by the straight arm and threatening point) before the attack from the left began then that attack is incorrect. Touch right.

[Hauptman]

I believe that there was a lot of discussion about this back in the spring, and the conclusion that people reached was that for a PiL to remain PiL after a lunge, PiL must have existed before the lunge started. That does make sense. But a failed attack turning into PiL doesn't make any sense...

Dan

I think the problem psychologically is that you want to see it as a "failed" attack, but it could just as easily be a feint or invitation by the fencer on the right. The fencer on the left could have parried, beat, or any number of actions that the fencer on the right could then have responded to, but since the "feint" just drew a straight attack, leaving the PiL was a valid approach.

"Failed" is a subjective term in this case.

[dberke]

I think the problem psychologically is that you want to see it as a "failed" attack, but it could just as easily be a feint or invitation by the fencer on the right.

That would require the referee to attempt to read the intent of the fencer on the right, and the referee really shouldn't be doing that. If they see an attack that ends without arriving, it failed. Whether that was intentional or not doesn't matter.

The fencer on the left could have parried, beat, or any number of actions that the fencer on the right could then have responded to, but since the "feint" just drew a straight attack, leaving the PiL was a valid approach.

"Failed" is a subjective term in this case.

So are you saying that if a fencer has a better sense of distance and is able to make his opponent's attack fall short, he still has to make some kind of blade action to gain RoW? That seems to heavily favor the attacker, because even if they make a mistake (misjudge the distance), they still retain priority with this theoretical PiL.

Dan

[forethought]

So are you saying that if a fencer has a better sense of distance and is able to make his opponent's attack fall short, he still has to make some kind of blade action to gain RoW? That seems to heavily favor the attacker, because even if they make a mistake (misjudge the distance), they still retain priority with this theoretical PiL.

Is it really that hard to beat, or take, the blade before go in?

[Sean Butler]

I love to see consistency. In a different example as described above by dberke:

If a PiL exists and the fencer who is PiL lunges, leaving his PiL, and the other fencer marches onto it, I believe that the normal interpretation is touch for the fencer who is PiL.

The question is, when does the PiL officially exist? Did the right fencer in the training video establish it in mid attack? Or, can a PiL only be established separate from an attacking action?

The USFA does not describe the establishing of a PiL, only what one is, and what is required of an attacker who attacks a fencer who is PiL. And the FOC doesn't really do a better job of it other than to say that the fencer can move around with a PiL. The whole establishment thing is not covered at all as far as I can tell.

My opinion is that if a fencer can establish a PiL while advancing, then shouldn't he be able to do it while lunging or any other footwork action? Wouldn't that be consistent?

[OROD]

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?

That call can be made and was often made with the rationalization that it was how the FIE interpreted such calls. It didnt make any sense, but you heard that called that way. Is there a remise after a short attack which leaves out a line? No. A remise, regardless of how you define it, is an ACTION. If I finish my attack and do nothing, it cant therefore be attack+remise, can it?

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

I understand that Dan wrote supporting the "attack,no-attack-remise" interpretation, and I already stated that this used to be the current interpretation. I believe that this has changed recently. In any case, I hate going against Dan since he's obviously a very successful and well respected fencer. However, there simply is no remise in that series of actions.

I think the key point here is that PiL takes one tempo to be established.

This is just incorrect. A PiL is either there or it's not, and it's not written anywhere that it needs to exist for any duration of time before the opponent is compeled to respect it.

.

[tchwojko]

If they see an attack that ends without arriving, it failed. Whether that was intentional or not doesn't matter.

What is the distinction between an attack that failed (short) and putting out a point in line?

[dberke]

I love to see consistency. In a different example as described above by dberke:

If a PiL exists and the fencer who is PiL lunges, leaving his PiL, and the other fencer marches onto it, I believe that the normal interpretation is touch for the fencer who is PiL.

The question is, when does the PiL officially exist? Did the right fencer in the training video establish it in mid attack? Or, can a PiL only be established separate from an attacking action?

The USFA does not describe the establishing of a PiL, only what one is, and what is required of an attacker who attacks a fencer who is PiL. And the FOC doesn't really do a better job of it other than to say that the fencer can move around with a PiL. The whole establishment thing is not covered at all as far as I can tell.

My opinion is that if a fencer can establish a PiL while advancing, then shouldn't he be able to do it while lunging or any other footwork action? Wouldn't that be consistent?

As Dan Kellner said in his original post about the subject, the convention is that PiL has to exist for a full tempo before it's established. That's not inconsistent with what I wrote above.

If you don't accept that convention, please explain why.

Dan

[OROD]

So are you saying that if a fencer has a better sense of distance and is able to make his opponent's attack fall short, he still has to make some kind of blade action to gain RoW? That seems to heavily favor the attacker, because even if they make a mistake (misjudge the distance), they still retain priority with this theoretical PiL.

So, this is kind of a variation on the argument that I see here every now and then that says that you cant do two actions that grant RoW, one after the other, without somehow first allowing RoW to be "transfered" to the other guy for some amount of time. Sort of the "to be fair, everyone must get a turn to attack" type thing. But, sorry, this is just ridiculous. When you end and attack, RoW doesnt get transfered to the other guy. Likewise, if I establish PiL, you HAVE to deal with it. That's just the way the rules are for PiL, it doesnt really matter if you thing a PiL is fair or not.

.

[edew]

That would require the referee to attempt to read the intent of the fencer on the right, and the referee really shouldn't be doing that. If they see an attack that ends without arriving, it failed. Whether that was intentional or not doesn't matter.



So are you saying that if a fencer has a better sense of distance and is able to make his opponent's attack fall short, he still has to make some kind of blade action to gain RoW? That seems to heavily favor the attacker, because even if they make a mistake (misjudge the distance), they still retain priority with this theoretical PiL.

Dan

Or rather, as the attacker, I'd deliberately make a short attack and finish with the PiL and hope the referee calls it for me (or I'll argue that the post on fencing.net says it should be for me).

[keith]

What is the distinction between an attack that failed (short) and putting out a point in line?

Silly epeeist, don't you realise that only certain footwork actions can be used to establish Pil.