A Question of ROW

[dknj]

A Question of ROW
http://www.sofaemployed.com/?p=1052

[visudo]

I think Mr. Kellner is being a little confusing with his phrasing. The author writes (emphasis mine):

... if the fencer on the right makes their opponent fall short and immediately makes a direct, correct lunge, the phrase is, "Touch right."

This implies that the fencer on the right did something to make their opponent fall short, like retreating or leaning back or something. If this is the case, I think "Touch right" could be argued.

The author also mentions that when an attack "ends", right-of-way is transferred to the opponent. Is this true? I've never heard of that rule. (Possibly because I'm quite green.) If that's the case, well, it seems pretty open-and-shut to me: The initial attacker (on the left) attacked, fell short, right of way was transferred to the opponent as soon as his forward momentum ceased, and the fencer on the right scores a touch.

However, in my completely non-expert opinion, threat is constant as long as the initial attacker (on the left) keeps his arm extended, and remains until the fencer on the right parries.

Edit: On closer inspection, Mr. Kellner appears to be a far more reputable source of information about fencing lore than I. That being the case, I have a follow-up question:

When, exactly, does an attack "end"?

[edew]

Technically, the right of way is not transferred to anyone. It's just that no one has ROW at that moment. It's up to either fencer to take the ROW. Usually, by convention, the referee gives the one who made the other lose ROW a reasonable opportunity to take over. That's the "immediate and without delay" part of taking over ROW. The decision of what is considered immediate and without delay is up to the referee.

At the NAC this past weekend, I did a parry with retreat and then slowly extended while my opponent redoubled. We both hit and the refereed gave the touch to the opponent claiming I was holding too long.

In another bout, I did what my opponent did in the above scenario (with a different referee) and the call was for my opponent.

I wasn't happy in either case, obviously, but I understand how it can be called both ways.

But back to the "transfer of ROW", there is no such transfer. The one who made the other lose ROW has to actively take the ROW, if not, either one can do so.

[noodle]

Technically, the right of way is not transferred to anyone. It's just that no one has ROW at that moment. It's up to either fencer to take the ROW. Usually, by convention, the referee gives the one who made the other lose ROW a reasonable opportunity to take over. That's the "immediate and without delay" part of taking over ROW. The decision of what is considered immediate and without delay is up to the referee.

At the NAC this past weekend, I did a parry with retreat and then slowly extended while my opponent redoubled. We both hit and the refereed gave the touch to the opponent claiming I was holding too long.

In another bout, I did what my opponent did in the above scenario (with a different referee) and the call was for my opponent.

I wasn't happy in either case, obviously, but I understand how it can be called both ways.

But back to the "transfer of ROW", there is no such transfer. The one who made the other lose ROW has to actively take the ROW, if not, either one can do so.

to shorten it up (and possibly oversimplify): ROW itself isn't passed, just the opportunity/priority/turn. immediately after your opponent misses, its your "turn" to attack. if you don't attack, you lose your turn and the opponent's remise/PIL/whatever will gain ROW.

[Tomas N]

Dan's interpretation is consistent with how this action has been explained to me, but ... it differs from the new FIE referee DVD, which says that the short attack immediately turns into a PIL and even with an immediate counterattack, it is the PIL's right of way.

Tomas

p.s. The clip I'm referring to is "Action 5: Pointe en ligne de droite."

[Pieter]

Dan's interpretation is consistent with how this action has been explained to me, but ... it differs from the new FIE referee DVD, which says that the short attack immediately turns into a PIL and even with an immediate counterattack, it is the PIL's right of way.

Tomas

p.s. The clip I'm referring to is "Action 5: Pointe en ligne de droite."

I thought that PIL doesn't necessarily establish right of way unless you are outside of advanced lunge distance?

[tdwg83]

The trick is "immediately". An "immediate" attack would have right of way. If that same phrase was written on the referee exam, the absence of "immediate" would indicate the touch is for the left fencer.

[Tomas N]

I thought that PIL doesn't necessarily establish right of way unless you are outside of advanced lunge distance?

I've heard this also, but can't find it in the rulebook. Someone more knowledgeable want to point out where this rule is?

Tomas

[Goldgar]

I thought that PIL doesn't necessarily establish right of way unless you are outside of advanced lunge distance?

I've heard this also, but can't find it in the rulebook. Someone more knowledgeable want to point out where this rule is?

There's no such rule. It's just that, in order to establish point in line, you opponent cannot be attacking you. If you're outside advance-lunge distance, then your opponent can't be attacking you, so the line can always be established regardless of what your opponent is doing. If you're at or inside advance-lunge distance, though, what your opponent is doing matters. Attacking? No PIL. Not attacking (until after the line is established)? PIL is good.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

I've heard this also, but can't find it in the rulebook. Someone more knowledgeable want to point out where this rule is?

Tomas

That's because it's not in the rulebook....timing, not distance, is the requirement for PiL.

[bigdawg2121]

Dan's interpretation is consistent with how this action has been explained to me, but ... it differs from the new FIE referee DVD, which says that the short attack immediately turns into a PIL and even with an immediate counterattack, it is the PIL's right of way.

Tomas

p.s. The clip I'm referring to is "Action 5: Pointe en ligne de droite."

Not having seen this DVD but having read the post by OSO that senior refs and FOC reps seemed to think it wasn't worth much, have you considered that the DVD may not be right?

[fdad]

There's no such rule. It's just that, in order to establish point in line, you opponent cannot be attacking you. If you're outside advance-lunge distance, then your opponent can't be attacking you, so the line can always be established regardless of what your opponent is doing. If you're at or inside advance-lunge distance, though, what your opponent is doing matters. Attacking? No PIL. Not attacking (until after the line is established)? PIL is good.

How about this scenario ...
a) fencer X begins an advance lunge, b) during the lunge, before the front foot lands retracts their weapon arm (presumably to prevent a parry), c) as the lunge lands, quickly extends and lands a touch on fencer Y.
Fencer Y extends a PIL at some point before "c", and also lands a touch on fencer X.

[keith]

How about this scenario ...
a) fencer X begins an advance lunge, b) during the lunge, before the front foot lands retracts their weapon arm (presumably to prevent a parry), c) as the lunge lands, quickly extends and lands a touch on fencer Y.
Fencer Y extends a PIL at some point before "c", and also lands a touch on fencer X.

There's always someone ruining a perfectly good PiL thread with an AiP question

[edew]

I have had reputable referees call such a scenario against me (where I'm the attacker who pulls the blade and the opponent is the one making the PiL). Usually, the opponent makes a full-on attack rather than just putting out a PiL.

And, I've had reputable referees call it my attack and the PiL is late.

Maybe the PiL came out late sometimes and early enough on others. Clearly, I shouldn't be pulling my arm and my opponent shouldn't be extending his (or hers) while I'm attacking with a constantly extending arm. In such a case, everyone knows whose RoW it is at any time.

[Tomas N]

Not having seen this DVD but having read the post by OSO that senior refs and FOC reps seemed to think it wasn't worth much, have you considered that the DVD may not be right?

Yup.

Tomas

[theLuz]

Dan's interpretation is consistent with how this action has been explained to me, but ... it differs from the new FIE referee DVD, which says that the short attack immediately turns into a PIL and even with an immediate counterattack, it is the PIL's right of way.

Tomas

p.s. The clip I'm referring to is "Action 5: Pointe en ligne de droite."

thank God there is logic in foil (if it's called this way). I love this sport.

[bigdawg2121]

How about this scenario ...
a) fencer X begins an advance lunge, b) during the lunge, before the front foot lands retracts their weapon arm (presumably to prevent a parry), c) as the lunge lands, quickly extends and lands a touch on fencer Y.
Fencer Y extends a PIL at some point before "c", and also lands a touch on fencer X.

Did the other fencer really search for the blade? This, like many actions, would need to be seen. Pretty much none of the contextual information that is actually necessary to call it exists...however, the timing of the search then counterattack and the actual finish of the attack are pretty much going to be the keys.

[fdad]

Did the other fencer really search for the blade? This, like many actions, would need to be seen. Pretty much none of the contextual information that is actually necessary to call it exists...however, the timing of the search then counterattack and the actual finish of the attack are pretty much going to be the keys.

No, this fencer has a very long and slow lunge and always retracts the blade, front foot passes the tip going in the other direction, and ends the lunge with a punch/thrust. Any attempt to parry before the final thrust would fail.

It seems to me that this should be preparation until the extension starts, but because the lunger is the obvious aggressor, referees usually give the touch.

[catwood1]

There's no such rule. It's just that, in order to establish point in line, you opponent cannot be attacking you. If you're outside advance-lunge distance, then your opponent can't be attacking you, so the line can always be established regardless of what your opponent is doing. If you're at or inside advance-lunge distance, though, what your opponent is doing matters. Attacking? No PIL. Not attacking (until after the line is established)? PIL is good.

I would disagree with this. If my opponent is attacking me, and chasing me down, I am running away and throw out a PiL. He see's my line and goes "step step step step LUNGE!" Thats NOT his touch...

I established PiL even while I was being attack.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

I would disagree with this. If my opponent is attacking me, and chasing me down, I am running away and throw out a PiL. He see's my line and goes "step step step step LUNGE!" Thats NOT his touch...

I established PiL even while I was being attack.

Well no....you established your PiL during his march....that's not an attack. You and Goldgar agree from what I can tell though.