A Question of ROW

[notalent]

I very much like to make use of PIL when I fence..

Yes you do and as long as you dont use Mormando's version I will continue to give it to you

[Jvanhousen]

Last year about this time that ROW video appeared that was quickly discredited. At that year's NAC C I'm waiting to do the final bout in the MF50 and I see George K standing nearby, so I ask him this question as it related to the video:
Left advance lunge attack lands short, never waivers, remains inline like a statue. Right immediately attacks, and is impaled while landing. Very simple, no tricks, just attack/ends/new attack. George's comment:
"It's just like it's always been. Nothing has changed! You can't attack into this threatening line. It's always been this way."
So during the next bout I figure this is what the doctor ordered, make the move, my opponent takes the bait and hits me while he runs my point into his bib. Ref gives him the point. I protest, explaining the conversation w/ G.K. moments before. (the ref and I both agreed that the action unfolded as described above.)
Later the ref explained that to establish a line a tempo had to elapse, and the opponent was entitled to an immediate repost.
So, the moral is: you better ask the ref before you assume anything.
Terry, I'll start w/ you, thank you.

[NGV]

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.

The post I was responding to seemed to be questioning the authoritativeness of "The FIE" rather than Ioan Pop specifically. But even if we make that distinction, it doesn't really answer the fundamental question - if this video doesn't provide authoritative interpretations, where exactly can those authoritative interpretations be found?

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.

Well, if you scroll back through the thread, it seems that there's one FIE qualified ref agreeing with the call of point-in-line for the right (unless there's some subtle sarcasm in downunder's post that I'm missing).

[OROD]

Later the ref explained that to establish a line a tempo had to elapse, and the opponent was entitled to an immediate repost.

I remember back in the day when you had to make a parry in order to then make a riposte.

This thread makes OROD sad.

.

[keropie]

So, given the postulate that a pre-existing point line scores a touch against a direct attack (assuming the attack does not remove the line), there are a limited number of cases:

(We will assume A is the original attacker in each case)

i) A attacks in preinitiative tempo (full extension, <advance> lunge) and maintains his extension, but is short. B attacks, both hit. Touch for A as a line (the line position is created before the attack, maintains through the attack, and never changes).

ii) A attacks with initiative tempo (extension begins before the advance ends (if adv-lunge), or before the lunge begins and finishes before the lunge ends (lunge)), maintains his full extension after the attack ends, finishes the attack, then B attacks. We now have two tempos in this phrase: the original tempo (attack, falls short), and the second tempo (attack from B). At the end of tempo 1, we have a PIL. Touch for A, as his PiL exists in a tempo before B's attack begins.

iii) A attacks with initiative tempo, B begins a counter attack. A's lunge finishes (front foot hits), and A has not hit yet. A maintains his extension, B finishes his action, both hit. There is only one tempo in this phrase, in which A attacks and B counterattacks. A did not have a complete PiL before B's action began, so the touch cannot be given to the PiL. Depending on your feeling regarding when an attack ends in foil (which is not defined within the rule book nearly as well as it is in saber), then it is a touch for B (that's my feeling, btw), or a touch for A on his attack.

iv) A attacks, finishes his attack without hitting, B begins his attack, A finishes his extension reaching PiL position, both hit. A's attack, no, B's attack yes. The PiL position was reached after B's action began, so the PiL does not prexist B's action, and there for has no relevence.

v) Here's a fun one: A adv, begin extension; B adv, begin extension; A lunge, land short, maintain 'PiL'; B lunge, finish, both hit. I'd call it for B, (assuming I could see it, and that A's attack did not hit), as B's action again began before A's 'PiL' was established, and hit.

Those seem to be the line type situations to me (obviously there are actions that aren't listed, as if A hits with his attack, the whole PiL is moot, etc.).

I will say that I haven't seen that call often (leaving the line out and getting the call), but I've also taken about a year off, so...

[erooMynohtnA]

The post I was responding to seemed to be questioning the authoritativeness of "The FIE" rather than Ioan Pop specifically. But even if we make that distinction, it doesn't really answer the fundamental question - if this video doesn't provide authoritative interpretations, where exactly can those authoritative interpretations be found? Well, if you scroll back through the thread, it seems that there's one self-described "FIE qualified ref" agreeing with the call of point-in-line for the right (unless there's some subtle sarcasm in downunder's post that I'm missing).

Downunder is an FIE ref. He's not sarcastic about his input, he's just as brusque as he can be to avoid debating "what the definition of is is" with retards and have a more monolithic and helpful input as to how things will be called at elite European events.

As such, he is largely ignored.

[NGV]

Downunder is an FIE ref.

Edited my post to remove the "self-described" and the quotation marks - it sounded like I was questioning his credentials, which wasn't my intent.

[erooMynohtnA]

It's good to avoid going around spouting that someone's an FIE ref just because they say so. I was just clarifying.

[ysbadadden]

Let's take a look at keropie's analysis, and then go back to the video. In the video, R leaves PIL and L attacks onto it. Touch R. In other possibilities, L is extending before R finishes his attack; therefore R has not established PIL and is hit.

Look, if I extend, and you attack onto my extension, it's my PIL, and you're hit -- it's not that my attack failed.

Same if I extend and retreat.

Same -- and this is the point of the video -- if I extend and lunge, leaving a PIL.

If you were retreating out of distance and counterattacking, then you hit me. If I bait you into attacking onto my established point in line, then I hit you. The ref doesn't determine intention here, only who did what first.

[notalent]

I remember back in the day when you had to make a parry in order to then make a riposte.

This thread makes OROD sad.

.

You still do.

[notalent]

Terry, I'll start w/ you, thank you.

In an infinite universe its possible you could successfully pull it off. I havent seen it yet but im not going say its impossible.

[downunder]

I don't see the confusion. The video is part of an exam. They are testing you for point in line. There is no question that the fencer on the right has point in line before the fencer on the left starts his action. There is no doubt who gets the hit.


If anyone had actually read my previous post it has a Grand Prix referee saying that this is very rare in real life as it is nearly impossible to keep the hand in the right position during and after the lunge for a point in line. The video replay makes whatever outcome very clear.


This rubbish about a tempo needed before point in line is simply rubbish. If point in line is established at any stage before the attack starts from your opponent it is very clearly stated that the point in line has priority.

[OROD]

This rubbish about a tempo needed before point in line is simply rubbish. If point in line is established at any stage before the attack starts from your opponent it is very clearly stated that the point in line has priority.

Like I said, it's sad that there are people here who should know better propagating this kind of stuff.

.

[jeff]

Word smithing rather than rules lawyering: If a PiL is established before the attack is started then by definition it has been established in an earlier tempo. To me sounds like two ways of saying the very same thing.

[Hauptman]

I don't see the confusion. The video is part of an exam. They are testing you for point in line. There is no question that the fencer on the right has point in line before the fencer on the left starts his action. There is no doubt who gets the hit.


If anyone had actually read my previous post it has a Grand Prix referee saying that this is very rare in real life as it is nearly impossible to keep the hand in the right position during and after the lunge for a point in line. The video replay makes whatever outcome very clear.


This rubbish about a tempo needed before point in line is simply rubbish. If point in line is established at any stage before the attack starts from your opponent it is very clearly stated that the point in line has priority.

This is correct .... it seems obvious to me as well, based on the rules as written. When the attack from the left starts the point is already in line from the right. Attack into a PiL and you must deflect the blade first. Very simple.

[Inquartata]

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?

Yes. His name is Mr. Referee Consensus. His opinions are even superior to the actual rules.

Downunder is an FIE ref. He's not sarcastic about his input, he's just as brusque as he can be to avoid debating "what the definition of is is" with retards and have a more monolithic and helpful input as to how things will be called at elite European events.

Which of course does not mean that he cannot be wrong.

Whether or not he is on this occasion I do not know, because it concerns foil, and neither do I care, because, again, it concerns foil.

[downunder]

Which of course does not mean that he cannot be wrong.

Whether or not he is on this occasion I do not know, because it concerns foil, and neither do I care, because, again, it concerns foil.

Same applies in sabre mate

[keropie]

Word smithing rather than rules lawyering: If a PiL is established before the attack is started then by definition it has been established in an earlier tempo. To me sounds like two ways of saying the very same thing.

The difference here is that, as stated, existing in an earlier tempo and existing for a tempo before the attack are not the same.

There seems to be a feeling that a PiL must exist for the entirety of a tempo alone before it can be valid (though that it is difficult, at best, to measure).

[Inquartata]

Same applies in sabre mate

Which part?

[downunder]

Which part?

The part about point in line after a lunge, with the caveat as above:

If anyone had actually read my previous post it has a Grand Prix referee saying that this is very rare in real life as it is nearly impossible to keep the hand in the right position during and after the lunge for a point in line. The video replay makes whatever outcome very clear.