A Question of ROW

[the ancient one]

Love seeing those sections of the rules posted.

So in short:

PIL begins at the end of a proper PIL style extension.

Attacks begin at the beginning of an extension.

Seems clear enough.

[Sean Butler]

- 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.

So, if I flip someone the bird just as they establish a point in line, I can attack at will? I like that idea!

Seriously, I think it's better to use the word "attack" when you mean attack. There are lots of offensive actions which are not attacks and do not change priority. Further, as clear as you think you have outlined it (I think it's clear too by the way), words have this way of being used by people in whatever way they see fit.

In the end, there are myriad interpretations which spin from even the simplest of descriptions of a PiL. Example: Right begins a PiL as Left attacks. Left lands short but leaves a PiL, Right advances onto his PiL and they both hit with their PiL.

The problem with all this crazy crap is that no one cares about it most of the time. If there is an interpretation like any of these discussed, 9/10 of the fencers here on this board who are aware of the vagaries of it will avoid those situations or at best experiment with them to see how they get called.

The FIE and even GK might as well have said: "don't do this action or the results will be unpredictable". But then, we all knew that already.

[Inquartata]

Heh. Foilists is funny.

[Inquartata]

In the end, there are myriad interpretations which spin from even the simplest of descriptions of a PiL. Example: Right begins a PiL as Left attacks. Left lands short but leaves a PiL, Right advances onto his PiL and they both hit with their PiL.

That would be...a bitter PiL to swallow.

Wasn't the whole idea of ROW to replace the self-preserving caution which is supposed to have infused fencing with sharp weapons with a system imitative of it? That is, now you parry because it gives you the opportunity to seize ROW, rather than because it wards off that sharp point. So it makes perfect sense that you would not lunge onto a blade left out pointing at you if it had a sharp point, and the ROW system imitates that by making you not do it by awarding a touch against you...

Unfortunately, under the ROW philosophy it also makes perfect sense to say that your ROW ends when the attack does. There is a conflict there which no amount of viewing that video will resolve. Maybe that's a failing of this sort of instructional material. If the essential conflict is not resolved by a clear statement in the rules and a consistent following of one position by all referees, the stuff is not very useful.

[Hauptman]

Unfortunately, under the ROW philosophy it also makes perfect sense to say that your ROW ends when the attack does. There is a conflict there which no amount of viewing that video will resolve. Maybe that's a failing of this sort of instructional material. If the essential conflict is not resolved by a clear statement in the rules and a consistent following of one position by all referees, the stuff is not very useful.

There may not be a conflict with your thought here that ROW ends with the attack.

In the example, fencer on the right attacks, ends short, but maintains PiL. PiL in of itself doesn't necessarily give ROW.

You could look at it that fencer on the left then attacks, has ROW, but because his attack is executed incorrectly by not deflecting the PiL, ROW then passes back to the fencer on the right.

[mrbiggs]

Honestly, we can argue about the rules until we're blue in the face but that doesn't make one call more correct than all the others. High level referees haven't decided what to call this yet, and until they do, as a fencer I'm going to assume that referees are going to call it more or less arbitrarily as far as I'm concerned. So for God's sake (and the referee's), if your opponent's attack falls short and he attempts an immediate line, take his blade.

As a referee I'm taking the same side as Dan--attack no, counterattack, assuming the counterattack was correct and immediate. This is because I think that this call is more in line with the rest of RoW, because it's how I was taught to call it and I'm not changing until there's a consensus on this, because I feel that it's the more standard call--the call fencers are more likely to be familiar with, and because I think that calling it the other way leads to stupid and confusing actions. (You're basically giving a fencer RoW for just hanging out, motionless, after he finishes a lunge. That can be, and is fairly often, done poorly and/or by accident). But I can see how others would disagree with one or all of those points.

[Superscribe]

There may not be a conflict with your thought here that ROW ends with the attack.

In the example, fencer on the right attacks, ends short, but maintains PiL. PiL in of itself doesn't necessarily give ROW.

You could look at it that fencer on the left then attacks, has ROW, but because his attack is executed incorrectly by not deflecting the PiL, ROW then passes back to the fencer on the right.

There are some fundamental things we need to address here.

A PiL in of itself gives the HIGHEST LEVEL of ROW once it's established (this crap about it either exists or doesn't exist is a silly way of thinking about it)

Not deflecting a PiL once it's established has nothing to do with the criteria of a correctly executed attack. Not "delining" the point in this case may be called an error in judgement, but not error in execution.

[Dev]

Wasn't the whole idea of ROW to replace the self-preserving caution which is supposed to have infused fencing with sharp weapons with a system imitative of it? That is, now you parry because it gives you the opportunity to seize ROW, rather than because it wards off that sharp point. So it makes perfect sense that you would not lunge onto a blade left out pointing at you if it had a sharp point, and the ROW system imitates that by making you not do it by awarding a touch against you...

I think RoW exists more to attach rules to the concept of choreography. The thing that keeps RoW weapons from looking like epee (i.e., boxing with sticks) is that the rules and the referee encourage the fencers to think in a "my turn, your turn, my turn" sequence of explicitly offensive or defensive actions, in theory.

Proponents of an attack ending in PiL kind of want to say, "my turn, my turn, my turn." I picture them doing this in a high-pitched, agitated voice while stamping their little feet.

[edew]

[...]
In the end, there are myriad interpretations which spin from even the simplest of descriptions of a PiL. Example: Right begins a PiL as Left attacks. Left lands short but leaves a PiL, Right advances onto his PiL and they both hit with their PiL.
[...]

Eeh, what a head scratcher. I'd say "remise, remise, can't tell RoW, no touch."

As written, I'd say right gets the point.

Suppose Right extends first to create a PiL. Left extends second. Both retreat to their respective ends of the strip and then march forward at each other, holding the extended blades in a PiL fashion. They both continue to advance at each other and hit. Other than bonking them on the head for being doofuses (doofi?) what would a referee do?

[Sean Butler]

Eeh, what a head scratcher. I'd say "remise, remise, can't tell RoW, no touch."

As written, I'd say right gets the point.

Suppose Right extends first to create a PiL. Left extends second. Both retreat to their respective ends of the strip and then march forward at each other, holding the extended blades in a PiL fashion. They both continue to advance at each other and hit. Other than bonking them on the head for being doofuses (doofi?) what would a referee do?

Quit the sport probably.

[IanSerotkin]

ENOUGH ALREADY.

You know when the point-in-line is valid in this situation? When I say so.

No, I don't mean me as the referee of the bout. I mean me, Ian Serotkin, anytime. I always know.

If you are refereeing a bout and this situation happens, please call my cell phone and give me a brief description of the situation. I'll tell you who to give the point to. If I'm not available, my voicemail greeting will indicate who you should give the point to*.

Now everyone please SHUT UP.


*Dan Kellner's opinion will do in a pinch. And he was right. So, suck it.

[Sean Butler]

Why does that post make me feel like making an "offensive action"?

[Hauptman]

Not deflecting a PiL once it's established has nothing to do with the criteria of a correctly executed attack. Not "delining" the point in this case may be called an error in judgement, but not error in execution.

Hmmm... the rule quoted in an ealier post clearly states that if you attack you "must" deflect the PiL. If you attack without ROW and lose the touch, I would call that an incorrectly executed attack.

But that's obviously just my opinion.

[ysbadadden]

When I was beginning to learn foil fifty years ago, my friends and I were much better at arguing about the rules than we were at fencing. We came up with exactly the question under discussion, debated it for a satisfyingly long time, then asked our coach and were told it was a grey area. Then we went on debating.

Very little has changed.

[Superscribe]

This is simply a debate on what an attack is and what you mean by execute. No need for arguement.

... and how did SABRE get away scot-free from this ridiculous argument? What if the same thing happens in sabre?

Dan Kellner, get Tim Morehouse to start the same thing concerning sabre row.

[Inquartata]

... and how did SABRE get away scot-free from this ridiculous argument?

"I love it when a plan comes together."

[NGV]

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.

If the FIE's "interpretation" is incorrect, who exactly gets to decide what the correct interpretation is? Is there some higher fencing authority out there that I'm not aware of?

[Joe biebel]

In the video. Fencer on the right makes an attack, clearly finishing his extension and threatening the valid target in so doing. The "position" is point in line. The fencer on the left begins his attack after the line exists. Touch for the right.

Some would say the fencer on the left made the attack miss (be short) and that is a possibility. On the other hand, perhaps the fencer on the right was making a false attack in order to get the opponant to impale themselves. A false attack ending in a line. Whether that was the intent or not is immaterial. One has only to ask themselves "did the line exist when the attack was made from the other fencer?" If yes, the line is correct.

Sadly, several posters have said that they would be influenced not just by whether the line existed or not, but by which coaches and FOC personell were present.

I very much like to make use of PIL when I fence. It is a great tool. It seems very strange that I must "test" an official at the risk of losing a touch to find out their sensibilities on the PIL. Some see it and give it. Some see it and "give a turn" to the fencer that has retreated, even though they did not parry. Some see it but make excuses like your arm wobbled while advancing (retreating, etc) or you had a small angle at your wrist.

I like the interpretation/clarification by GK and the video. I would still like it if the information were different. What I like about it is, it is a step to getting everyone on the same page.

[dberke]

If the FIE's "interpretation" is incorrect, who exactly gets to decide what the correct interpretation is? Is there some higher fencing authority out there that I'm not aware of?

I agree that the FIE's interpretation should be the final say. However, as we saw with the saber video last year, it was released under the FIE name but really was just one person's opinion.

For a standards board to have credibility, it has to speak with one voice. If there is dissent within the ranks of those making the rules, they need to resolve that internally and not allow the FIE's name to be put on anything other than approved, official communications.

The same goes for the FOC, where there are also some internal differences of opinion. For example, other FOC members disagreed with George K's email earlier this year. If there had been some internal discussion among the FOC about the topic, maybe they would have reached an agreement on what the FOC's official interpretaion was.

Of course, all of this may be a bit of a pipe dream - the FIE has to deal with all of the internal politics that exist between the national federations.

Dan

[bigdawg2121]

If the FIE's "interpretation" is incorrect, who exactly gets to decide what the correct interpretation is? Is there some higher fencing authority out there that I'm not aware of?

See below--->

I agree that the FIE's interpretation should be the final say. However, as we saw with the saber video last year, it was released under the FIE name but really was just one person's opinion.

For a standards board to have credibility, it has to speak with one voice. If there is dissent within the ranks of those making the rules, they need to resolve that internally and not allow the FIE's name to be put on anything other than approved, official communications.

The same goes for the FOC, where there are also some internal differences of opinion. For example, other FOC members disagreed with George K's email earlier this year. If there had been some internal discussion among the FOC about the topic, maybe they would have reached an agreement on what the FOC's official interpretaion was.

Of course, all of this may be a bit of a pipe dream - the FIE has to deal with all of the internal politics that exist between the national federations.

Dan

1) The "problem" is that there are many members of the FIE and of the arbitrage commission. In the case of the FIE videos, some of those members act without the support of other members. Truth be told there seemed, at least to me, to be almost unanimous agreement on the contents of the letter of clarification. The problem is that it's hard to be 100% certain of what someone's take on a fencing action is based on something that's written.

2) Last I checked, while Ioan Pop is very high up in the FIE and while he was a successful fencer (saber, no?) in his day, he isn't on arbitrage and doesn't really ref. If Kramer can release a video that's been almost totally disavowed why is it hard to believe that Pop could too?

In the video. Fencer on the right makes an attack, clearly finishing his extension and threatening the valid target in so doing. The "position" is point in line. The fencer on the left begins his attack after the line exists. Touch for the right.

Some would say the fencer on the left made the attack miss (be short) and that is a possibility. On the other hand, perhaps the fencer on the right was making a false attack in order to get the opponant to impale themselves. A false attack ending in a line. Whether that was the intent or not is immaterial. One has only to ask themselves "did the line exist when the attack was made from the other fencer?" If yes, the line is correct.

Sadly, several posters have said that they would be influenced not just by whether the line existed or not, but by which coaches and FOC personell were present.

I very much like to make use of PIL when I fence. It is a great tool. It seems very strange that I must "test" an official at the risk of losing a touch to find out their sensibilities on the PIL. Some see it and give it. Some see it and "give a turn" to the fencer that has retreated, even though they did not parry. Some see it but make excuses like your arm wobbled while advancing (retreating, etc) or you had a small angle at your wrist.

I like the interpretation/clarification by GK and the video. I would still like it if the information were different. What I like about it is, it is a step to getting everyone on the same page.

Outside of 1 person I don't recall anyone saying that they would change their interpretation based on which coaches/FOCs happened to be around, two if you count my noting that the only time I'd make that call is if I were testing for my FIE license assuming the same expectations from the examiners. There's no guessing involved - in an honest-to-goodness, real-life bout I can think of no referees that are actually going to call that a line for the right.