A Question of ROW

[dberke]

Folks, go back and read this post by Jerry Benson during the initial thread that discussed this whole residual PiL thing back in June. I think Jerry's explanation makes sense:

Originally Posted by Jerry Benson ("Utility Man")

All, the key point to the PIL attack is this. If I attack (lunge, etc) with an already established PIL then and only then do I still have a PIL after my attack falls short. If I do a normal attack (arm extending) and fall short I have a failed attack and no longer have ROW. I believe that if you will read George's post you will see this is what he is saying. This is not new. When they decided to allow any footwork combination with a PIL then a lunge is not a point attack it is an advancement of the PIL with a lunge! (one way to look at it). This is all the same in saber and foil. I think George's original post was not clear on this and if reread could now make sense.

This is at least the way I have been calling this and how I have been instructed to call it.

JB

Dan

[fdad]

Originally Posted by edew

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).

I think you'd be better off arguing that the FIE says it should be for you.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by dberke

Folks, go back and read this post by Jerry Benson during the initial thread that discussed this whole residual PiL thing back in June. I think Jerry's explanation makes sense

So a point in line cannot be established mid-lunge? Can it be established during other footwork?

I'm trying to discern the physical difference between extending the arm to create the point in line, and extending the arm as part of an attack. As you said before, intent should not be a criterium.

[notalent]

Originally Posted by dberke

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

Dan that statement is incorrect.

[bigdawg2121]

Originally Posted by OROD

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.

Gotta call bull****. The concept of tempo does matter here and the concept of fencing time exists for a reason. If an attack and the establishment of a PiL occur within the same tempo then the attack should have priority. Otherwise fencers could just wait for their opponent to finish their attack and simply extend into that attack claiming, "This is PiL and I have RoW, thus sayeth the FIE! Surely goodness, grace, and god will follow my ****ty actions all the days of my life."

If we're going to award the PiL to the fencer making the lunge in this action, who is extding their arm and completing that extension with the completion of the lunge and not award the attack to the fencer on the left who has started their attack within the same tempo then we're either:

A) Just plain wrong.

or

B) Claiming that what we want is for our referees to see the particular window of time, during which the extension is actually completed and the attack from the left starts as being a unit of fencing time.

Situation B would be tragic, I'd hate to see what fencing would like or be called like under that scenario. Situation A is much more likely. I'll call it that way when I take my FIE exam if the people administering said exam still desire it to be that way but I'll be damned if I ever call it that way in a real event or meet someone (good) who does.

[dberke]

Originally Posted by notalent

Dan that statement is incorrect.

Ok, now I'm confused...

Is there, or is there not, a time component involved with PiL? If there is, in what way are they related?

If there is no time component, meaning that PiL is established the instant that the arm is straight, then shoudln't a PiL put out during someone's attack be considered valid? (Not that I'm saying it should be!)

Dan

[Tomas N]

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

If an attack and the establishment of a PiL occur within the same tempo then the attack should have priority.

If the PIL is out there before the attack starts, then the PIL is established. Are you saying that if the PIL is out there first and then an attack starts but you as the referee deem them both to be within the same fencing tempo, then you give ROW to the attacker?

Otherwise fencers could just wait for their opponent to finish their attack and simply extend into that attack claiming, "This is PiL and I have RoW, thus sayeth the FIE!

No, that's the exact opposite of what the video is suggesting. If the attacker's PIL is established, you can't just extend into it. If the original attacker's attack fails and then he pulls back his arm and the opponent attacks into that, well, that's a good fencing action for the opponent. I guess I don't understand your critique.

Tomas

[Tomas N]

Originally Posted by dberke

Ok, now I'm confused...

Is there, or is there not, a time component involved with PiL? If there is, in what way are they related?

If there is no time component, meaning that PiL is established the instant that the arm is straight, then shoudln't a PiL put out during someone's attack be considered valid? (Not that I'm saying it should be!)

Dan

I don't think anyone has suggested that a PiL established during an attack has ROW. The rulebook states that if the "attack is initiated while the opponent is PiL..." The key word is "initiated."

Tomas

[bigdawg2121]

Originally Posted by Tomas N

I guess I don't understand your critique.

Tomas

Gross understatement.

[edew]

Originally Posted by fdad

I think you'd be better off arguing that the FIE says it should be for you.

No one believes what the FIE says. But f.net is gospel.

[OROD]

It's very discouraging to see people who should know better arguing that an attack that begins after a PiL is established has RoW, or that it has to exist for X amount of time to be valid, or that it's somehow related to what your feet are doing at the time. This thread almost makes me wish I fenced epee.

.

[Tomas N]

Originally Posted by OROD

thread almost makes me wish I fenced epee.

.

Hey, that's why I DO fence epee. I only ref foil so I can get yelled at and be made fun of by strangers once in a while. It builds character.

Tomas

[Dev]

Originally Posted by OROD

This thread almost makes me wish I fenced epee.

This thread definitely makes the rest of us wish you fenced epee.

[notalent]

Originally Posted by dberke

Ok, now I'm confused...

Is there, or is there not, a time component involved with PiL? If there is, in what way are they related?

If there is no time component, meaning that PiL is established the instant that the arm is straight, then shoudln't a PiL put out during someone's attack be considered valid? (Not that I'm saying it should be!)

Dan

Ofcourse there is a time component, before is the time component. How long is a full tempo? You dont know, because its a variable period of time, so how does something exist for an undefined period of time. I havent see the video so I have no idea if the action being disscussed is valid or not. I just want you to understand that a line just has to out before begining of the attack.

[notalent]

Originally Posted by Dev

This thread definitely makes the rest of us wish you fenced epee.

No, His FENCING does that

[edew]

Originally Posted by Dev

This thread definitely makes the rest of us wish you fenced epee.

No, no! I just wish he fences as he speaks. It's like stealing candy from a baby.

[OROD]

Oh, man, I knew I should have stayed in bed this morning.

.

[Tomas N]

OK, so on the it's-not-a-PiL side of this debate are a host of people who's opinions I respect: Dan K, Dan B, Eric, Peet, Sean B, some others. On the other side of the debate are a host of people who's opinions I respect: George K, Downunder, OROD, Hauptman, Ioan Pop, some others. At this point the weight of opinion in my mind is on the side of the latter group, but I'm willing to call it any way that I'm told. My position is that maintaining a strict PiL after a lunge is a remarkably vulnerable position to put yourself in, and it's not going to happen enough to get all agitated about. Somebody get George K on the phone, give him a link to the youtube video, and have him tell us definitively what the right call is. This thread is making my head hurt, and there are plenty of other actions on the dvd that we need to analyze to death.

Tomas

[erooMynohtnA]

Just to throw in my two cents (not that I'm anybody), I side with OROD in this debate, but on the strip I would absolutely not call it that way because I wouldn't want my head torn off (because I'm nobody). I think Edew touched on this several pages ago, in this instance it's not just the call, it's who's making it and at what level.

[Stormbringer]

To also throw in a couple of cents...

From a post I made some time ago, in which I pulled out each reference to PIL from the rulebook, the Referee's Handbook, and the "Points of Emphasis" letter:

Originally Posted by The Rulebook

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 (cf. t.56, t.60, t.76, t.80).

t.17
When placed on guard during the bout, the distance between the two competitors must be such that, in the position 'point in-line,'the points of the two blades cannot make contact.

The fencers must come on guard correctly and remain completely still until the command 'Fence' is given by the Referee. In foil and saber fencers may not come on guard in the 'in line' position.

t.56 (and t.76)
To judge the priority of an attack when analysing the fencing phrase, it should be noted that:
5. If the attack is initiated when the opponent is not 'point in line' (cf. t.10), it may be executed either with a direct thrust, or by a disengage, or by a cut-over, or may even be preceded by a beat or successful feints obliging the opponent to parry.
6. If the attack is initiated when the opponent is 'point in line' (cf. t.10), the attacker must, first, deflect the opponent‘s blade. Referees must ensure that a mere grazing of the blades is not considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent‘s blade (cf. t.60/2a).
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.

t.60 (and t.80)
1.) Only the fencer who is attacked is counted as touched:
(e) If, having his 'point in line' (cf. t.10) and being subjected to a beat or a taking of the blade (prise de fer) which deflects his blade, he attacks or places his point in line again instead of parrying a direct attack made by his opponent.
2.) Only the fencer who attacks is counted as touched:
(a) If he initiates his attack when his opponent has his point in line (cf. t.10) without deflecting the opponent‘s weapon. Referees must ensure that a mere grazing of the blades is not considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent‘s blade.

Originally Posted by The Referee's Handbook

THE POINT IN LINE

The point in line exists as the highest level of priority. If it is established correctly, the opponent must avoid it, remove it, or have the fencer with the point in line to no longer have the point in line.

A point in line exists when a fencer has the following conditions met prior to an opponent’s attack:
Ø weapon arm fully extended
Ø a straight line from the point of the weapon to the shoulder
Ø point aimed at valid target
Ø no movement of the blade except to derobe the opponent’s attempt to find the blade
Ø is standing still, moving forward, or moving back

Originally Posted by Points of Emphasis

Another “new” thing is really an old thing. The point in line has the highest level of priority; it always has been this way. 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. 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.

From the above, I think it seems that we can draw certain conclusions that fall into two broad classes:

1.) Definition/Mechanics of PIL
- The "point in-line position" is exactly that - a position, a state-of-being, not an action.
- The existence of the PIL is determined by, and dependent upon, the existence of a specific set of characteristics (rulebook, t.10; ref's handbook)
- A valid PIL exists when, and only when, all of the required conditions are met; failure to meet any one of the conditions at any time will invalidate the line.
- The existence of the PIL position is a binary value - it exists, or it does not. If one is in the act of establishing the PIL position, then one does not (yet) have a line (as all of the required characteristics have not yet been achieved).
- The PIL position is linked to the position/orientation of the weapon and the weapon-arm; footwork (be it advancing, retreating, lunging, recovering from the lunge, or the footwork from Lord of the Dance ) that does not affect the position/orientation of the weapon and the weapon-arm does not affect the validity of the PIL.
- There is no explicitly-stated "minimum distance" or "maximum distance" for establishing a PIL.
(However, an implied minimum distance can be considered to be just outside of extension distance, since an attempt to establish the PIL position from within extension distance will result in an attack that either arrives or misses the target. An implied maximum distance can be considered to be the length of the strip, with both fencers at their respective end-lines, as a greater distance penalized one or both fencers for being off of the strip.)
- If the fencers are replaced on-guard (not at the guard lines), the distance between them is to be equal to the combined reach of the fencers' PIL positions.

2.) Rights/Limitations of PIL
- In foil and sabre, fencers are not allowed to come on-guard in the PIL position.
- If the process of establishing a line is completed while the opponent is not attacking (i.e. is in preparation, etc.) and/or before the opponent initiates an offensive action, the line is to be considered valid.
- If a fencer attempts to establish the PIL position while an offensive action made by the opponent is underway, the line is not considered valid.
- A valid, fully-established PIL position holds the highest level of priority.
- An attack against a fencer who does not already have a fully-established PIL - even if the fencer in question is in the process of attempting to establish a PIL - holds priority.
- The integrity of a valid PIL may be voided by the the fencer who established the line through extraneous movement or withdrawal of the weapon arm. The fencer may, however, move the line temporarily - while retaining priority - in order to avoid an attempted search/blade-taking by the opponent.
- A fencer whose opponent has established a valid PIL position can negate/disrupt the PIL through taking the opponent's blade (deflection by blade contact), closing on the opponent while simultaneously avoiding the point, and/or causing the opponent to move the line in such a way as to disrupt the integrity of the line (deflection without blade contact).
- A line that is re-established after being negated/disrupted by the fencer or the opponent is not valid if the opponent immediately initiates an offensive action (that is, the offensive action is initiated before the line can be properly re-established).
- When a fencer finishes an initial ROW-holding attack that is short in a correct PIL position, that fencer continues to have the priority, and the fencer's opponent is obliged to deflect and/or avoid the fencer’s blade. (explicitly stated in "Points of Emphasis")

What do you think, and why?