Fencing.net Instructional Videos - Foil Point in Line

[Fencer X and Y]

I'm assuming he's referring to the situation in which the fencer attacks normally (finishing the extension w/ the completion of the lunge) and leaves the arm extended to establish line. Theoretically if you started an attack that was timed to begin right before the end of the lunge/finish of the extension and still leave the initial attack short your action would have RoW.
Difficulty of doing this: high.
Difficulty in actually seeing that this was done from the POv of your ref: Very very High

That is exactly what I was talking about. However from what Eric has posted it sounds like the PiL is established before the lunge and is just maintained throughout the lunge and the finish of the lunge therefore there is absolutely no point at which the other fencer can score without addressing the blade first. While I understand that this is a tiny tachnicallity which will probably never come up in an actuall bout, but still who is right.

[Tavataar]

PiL - 5

I would actually have called this PiL, touch right. Sure there is some minor blade movement, but the line of the arm is never broken, and I would not call what movement is there to be searching in any degree. I asked a more senior ref this exact question a month ago, and what I posted here is pretty much his answer.

PiL - 15

I was under the impression that any ducking or escriving (spelling?) automatically turns you into the counter-attacker, regardless of what priority you had. So the act of right ducking makes his action the counter-attack.

[erooMynohtnA]

PiL - 5

I would actually have called this PiL, touch right. Sure there is some minor blade movement, but the line of the arm is never broken, and I would not call what movement is there to be searching in any degree. I asked a more senior ref this exact question a month ago, and what I posted here is pretty much his answer.

It doesn't matter if you're searching or not. You're not allowed to move your blade unless it is to avoid a search from your opponent.

PiL - 15

I was under the impression that any ducking or escriving (spelling?) automatically turns you into the counter-attacker, regardless of what priority you had. So the act of right ducking makes his action the counter-attack.

You know what else is a counterattack? Sticking your arm out and standing there; however it's also a PiL.

[telkanuru]

Been waiting for a chance to use this one

[dberke]

PiL - 5

I would actually have called this PiL, touch right. Sure there is some minor blade movement, but the line of the arm is never broken, and I would not call what movement is there to be searching in any degree. I asked a more senior ref this exact question a month ago, and what I posted here is pretty much his answer.

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. I've been told that the only movement you're allowed to make while in-line is a derobment to avoid a take of the blade. Any other blade movement invalidates the line.

PiL - 15

I was under the impression that any ducking or escriving (spelling?) automatically turns you into the counter-attacker, regardless of what priority you had. So the act of right ducking makes his action the counter-attack.

This seems reasonable. If you think about it logically - if you have line, why would you duck? You have priority, so there's no reason to duck. Ducking is generally seen as a way to avoid an attack, so if you duck, that implies that you feel like you're being attacked. And if that's the case, what you're doing is a counterattack.

I could be wrong on that, however. I've never seen someone duck while they have PIL. That's just silly.

Dan

[Jason]

...that implies that you feel like you're being attacked. And if that's the case, what you're doing is a counterattack.

This is incorrect.
What you "feel" has nothing to do with whether or not you established line. The referee only considers whether or not the conditions for line exist, not what the fencer's unusual behavior implies about his thinking.

[OROD]

This seems reasonable. If you think about it logically - if you have line, why would you duck? You have priority, so there's no reason to duck. Ducking is generally seen as a way to avoid an attack, so if you duck, that implies that you feel like you're being attacked. And if that's the case, what you're doing is a counterattack.

I could be wrong on that, however. I've never seen someone duck while they have PIL. That's just silly.

This may in fact be the "current interpretation", I have no idea. However, it goes against the rule of thumb that PiL is independent of what your feet are doing. The rules certainly dont mention any such special case that voids a PiL. I also dont like the whole "I think that he felt" type of arguments, I'd rather just look at what the fencers actually did.

When in doubt I like to go with the "who was the last fencer to do something stupid" rule, which is basically, if you're the last one to do something that violates the principles of RoW then you dont likely get the touch. In this scenario one fencer attacks into a PiL, stupid. The other fencer then ducks, presumably to avoid getting hit, which is not necessarily stupid. Just because you have RoW or PiL or whatever, you dont get any special points if you get yourself killed on someone else's counter-attack. You're still dead. Hitting without getting hit is still a basic principle of fencing, yes? So according to this, the last guy to do something stupid is the one attacking into the PiL, hence touch for PiL.

.

[erik_blank]

You sure you don't mean point AND line?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkjPExr0tJ4

Can anyone say WHO these people are?

[SFfencer]

You sure you don't mean point AND line?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkjPExr0tJ4

It hurts to watch that

[oiuyt]

Can anyone say WHO these people are?

It's included in the expanded text attached to the video:

Expert: Coach Gerry Duran
Bio: Gerry Duran has been coaching recreational sport fencing since 1987 and he attended the United States Fencing Association's (USFA) Coaches College at the Olympic Training Center (OTC), Colorado Spring
Filmmaker: Bob Hunt

[OROD]

Can anyone say WHO these people are?

"Once you put point and line out, you're the attacker."

Ahahahaha.... saber fencers...

.

[Jason]

Ahahahaha.... saber fencers...

No. They're not.

[Tavataar]

It doesn't matter if you're searching or not. You're not allowed to move your blade unless it is to avoid a search from your opponent.

Can you show me in the rule book where it says this? The qualifier for a PiL is:

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.

I can threaten your valid target with the tip of my blade moving.

I only found limited reference to ducking in the rulebook, saying that it was a valid maneuver (t.21).

[dberke]

This is incorrect.
What you "feel" has nothing to do with whether or not you established line. The referee only considers whether or not the conditions for line exist, not what the fencer's unusual behavior implies about his thinking.

This may in fact be the "current interpretation", I have no idea. However, it goes against the rule of thumb that PiL is independent of what your feet are doing. The rules certainly dont mention any such special case that voids a PiL. I also dont like the whole "I think that he felt" type of arguments, I'd rather just look at what the fencers actually did.

As with virtually everything else in fencing, "it depends". While I agree that the conditions for line existed at the start of the fencer's lunge, you can't just ignore what the PiL fencer does. Sure, he has the line out there.... but, just as you watch for him breaking the line in reaction to the attack (which we all agree invalidates the line), a ducking maneuver may just as well be considered something that invalidates the line. As I said, I wasn't certain, since I never have seen or had to call such an action.

When in doubt I like to go with the "who was the last fencer to do something stupid" rule, which is basically, if you're the last one to do something that violates the principles of RoW then you dont likely get the touch. In this scenario one fencer attacks into a PiL, stupid. The other fencer then ducks, presumably to avoid getting hit, which is not necessarily stupid. Just because you have RoW or PiL or whatever, you dont get any special points if you get yourself killed on someone else's counter-attack. You're still dead. Hitting without getting hit is still a basic principle of fencing, yes? So according to this, the last guy to do something stupid is the one attacking into the PiL, hence touch for PiL.

I would say that yes, the attacker did something stupid - he attacked onto a valid PiL. But the final stupid manever was made by the fencer with PiL - he ducked. If he was confident he had the line (and ROW), why complicate the situation for the referee by ducking? By doing so, he turned what should have been a fairly straightforward call in his favor into now a judgment call by the ref. In my mind, that's just stupid.

And no, "hit without getting hit" is not a basic principle of foil. As a foilist, I could care less if I get hit (by a remise, whatever) every time I score a touch when I have ROW.

Dan

[mrbiggs]

Can you show me in the rule book where it says this? The qualifier for a PiL is:

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.

I can threaten your valid target with the tip of my blade moving.

I only found limited reference to ducking in the rulebook, saying that it was a valid maneuver (t.21).

I don't know if it's in the rulebook that you can't move your blade with point in line except to disengage.

I can, however, tell you that current interpretation doesn't allow for stray blade movements during a line except to disengage a search. This was not always the case; in fact disengaging was allowed fairly recently from what I've been told.

What you said about ducking is one of those half-truths you get all the time with right of way calls. It's not true that ducking invalidates right of way. You won't find it in the rulebook and you (probably) won't hear it as an official rule interpretation. That said, ducking does give a huge hint to the referee about who had the attack. So even though ducking does not lose you right of way, the referee is wont to call it your opponent's attack.

Meanwhile, it's harder to perform a convincing attack while ducking as opposed to, say, lunging, which makes it even less likely to get right of way.

These calls tend to be fairly simple in attack-counterattack situations, which is why the "ducking doesn't get right of way" thing has become fairly widespread. The problem is when you get calls where the referee takes priority from something like a riposte because of a duck. PiL is a similar situation, although you're not going to see that much in actual fencing. In any case, don't think of a fencer ducking as losing him right of way.

[mrbiggs]

You sure you don't mean point AND line?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkjPExr0tJ4

I don't like to double post, but can we all pause for a second and really look at how silly this video is?

You can't write this kind of stuff.

[catwood1]

As to 15, it is attack left, counter attack right. If you are ducking, then you are countering. This is a thought that I've heard echoed by multiple FOCs and FIE refs.

If I duck, I didn't attack into prep, I didn't attack, I didn't have point in line, I COUNTER attacked. A body evasion invalidates a PiL is the interpretation I've been told by the FOC.

[Tavataar]

I rescind my comment about video 5. Apparently the other guy I was talking to was in error.

[OROD]

But the final stupid manever was made by the fencer with PiL - he ducked. If he was confident he had the line (and ROW), why complicate the situation for the referee by ducking? By doing so, he turned what should have been a fairly straightforward call in his favor into now a judgment call by the ref. In my mind, that's just stupid.

Every touch in foil where 2 lights come on is a judgment call by the ref. Maybe what he was trying to do is exactly to avoid that, to make it a 1 light situation and not have it be a judgment call at all. In any case, I wouldnt say that an action is stupid just because it's more complicated than it needs to be. We dont know, maybe not ducking would not have yielded a touch at all.

And no, "hit without getting hit" is not a basic principle of foil. As a foilist, I could care less if I get hit (by a remise, whatever) every time I score a touch when I have ROW.

My point is that the foil rules come from a certain set of logical rules for fencing in general. If we look at this action in that light I think the ducking movement is fine and there's no reason why it should void the PiL. If you dont care about that at all and think that the rules are just arbitrary, then ducking or no ducking should be just the same to you, so I dont see why you would care one way or the other. The fact is that the rulebook (arbitrary or not) doesnt prohibit ducking while in PiL.

.

[CvilleFencer]

Most excellent Craig and ToD. Thank you both for putting the time into making these.