Fencing.net Instructional Videos - Foil Point in Line

[CvilleFencer]

A body evasion invalidates a PiL is the interpretation I've been told by the FOC.

So, a body evasion like a retreat? You know, like taking a step back to make an attack fall short? The body moves to evade the touch after all. Not really arguing with you. I have not been out to a NAC this year and this is one of those rules whose interpretation seems to change with the seasons, but the last set of instructions I was given was that movement of the feet/body is irrelevant to the PIL so long as the arm is straight and valid target is continually threatened. If someone could comment, I would appreciate it.

[mrbiggs]

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.

Even with point in line? Even with a riposte?

You talk to more FOCs than I do so I'll take your word for it, I'm just having trouble reconciling this with the interpretations I've heard as well as the rulebook. I haven't heard this from a high-level source, even secondhand, in a long time.

[catwood1]

So, a body evasion like a retreat? You know, like taking a step back to make an attack fall short? The body moves to evade the touch after all. Not really arguing with you. I have not been out to a NAC this year and this is one of those rules whose interpretation seems to change with the seasons, but the last set of instructions I was given was that movement of the feet/body is irrelevant to the PIL so long as the arm is straight and valid target is continually threatened. If someone could comment, I would appreciate it.

By body evasion, I mean a: Duck, spin, squirm, flail, etc. Advancing, retreating, lunging is fine. (Lunging will often break the line unless you do it perfectly)

The reasoning is exactly the same as the interpretation for attack in prep. If you are trying to avoid being hit, then you don't have RoW, and the ref should not assign you priority when analyzing the phrase.

For example, if I'm marching down the strip with my hand by my hip not extending and you lunge then I extend, it should be called preparation attack. However, if I do the EXACT same thing, and the timing is IDENTICAL but this time you spin and we both hit, the call should be attack counter attack in my favor. I am of two minds about this interpretation, because it goes into the trying to read the fencers minds type stuff.

It was basically described to me as a "can't have your cake and eat it too" type thing.

[keropie]

I've heard this 'theory' too, but it seems to be more of a rule of thumb rather than anything supported by the rules. By the rules, yes, that should be PIL as I recall it. It's not an action that I would coach to an athlete to expect to be called for him, but it does appear to be a technically correct action.

[CMiner]

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).

From the referee handbook on fencingofficials.org:

"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"

The line only has to be maintained between shoulder and tip, which is why it can still exist during/after a lunge, but can't move the blade except to avoid a parry.



As far as an attackers evasion attempts invalidating any ROW they might have had, I can't agree with that.. The example that Catwood gave, I would still think it was the attacker's right of way. The desire of the attacker to avoid being hit himself, regardless of whether or not he believes he has ROW, does not mean that his attack suddenly wasn't made before his opponent's reaction. As has been said on here before, what a fencer intended or thought is irrelevant in determining ROW, only what he -did- is considered.

I haven't been able to find anything in the rulebook, or on the fencing official's site, that says anything about body evasion related to ROW (if I'm missing something though, someone please point it out to me,) and I don't agree with the reasoning behind that interpretation.

However, I haven't talked to any FOCs or FIE refs about it as Catwood has, and the Ref Handbook and Points of Emphasis letter only specifically mention advancing, retreating and lunging as actions that do not invalidate PIL, so...

[Craig]

A body evasion invalidates a PiL is the interpretation I've been told by the FOC.

A line is a line.

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

Now, the last bullet does not account for ducking, but since that was one of our "this will not really happen in a bout" actions I'm not surprised.

I can say that once line is established, it has to be taken away, either by the opponent beating the blade or by the fencer breaking their arm or searching.

Craig

[keith]

A line is a line.

Until it's not

[keropie]

The only substantiantion of the idea that ducking would possibly invalidate a line that I can see is...

From the referee handbook on fencingofficials.org:

"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"

the combination of the two bolded ones. If the line is a straight line from point through blade to shoulder, and must threaten valid target, it is possible that by ducking and keeping the line straight, if an official feels that you are clearly no longer threatening valid target, then perhaps you do not have a line.

Now, I understand that a line does not have to hit valid target, and I understand that threatening valid target as far as an attack in concerned is very loosely interpreted, but I can see this as a potential line of reasoning for deciding that a line which ducks is no line at all.

For whatever that's worth.

[Tavataar]

From the referee handbook on fencingofficials.org:

"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"

Thanks for pointing that out for me. I had only been looking at the 2008 USFA Rules.

[pinkelephant]

It looks to me as if the duck is simply to ensure that the PIL actually arrives, by keeping it pointing at the descending target. It's still a line.

[Tavataar]

The only substantiantion of the idea that ducking would possibly invalidate a line that I can see is...

From the referee handbook on fencingofficials.org:

"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"

the combination of the two bolded ones. If the line is a straight line from point through blade to shoulder, and must threaten valid target, it is possible that by ducking and keeping the line straight, if an official feels that you are clearly no longer threatening valid target, then perhaps you do not have a line.

Now, I understand that a line does not have to hit valid target, and I understand that threatening valid target as far as an attack in concerned is very loosely interpreted, but I can see this as a potential line of reasoning for deciding that a line which ducks is no line at all.

For whatever that's worth.

I would also think that the last line is important. It states that you may be moving moving forward or backwards, it does not say that you may be escriving or making some other defensive movement. If they go out of their way to say what you are allowed to do, you would think they would include all of the movements allowed.

[mrbiggs]

It looks to me as if the duck is simply to ensure that the PIL actually arrives, by keeping it pointing at the descending target. It's still a line.

If the referee decided that the movement was to dodge the point and not to keep it pointed at the descending target, assuming that all requirements for point in line were kept, would it still be a line?

[telkanuru]

"If we list the set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no longer."

[Stormbringer]

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.

Let's consider:

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.

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

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.

Above, we have, together, each reference to PiL across each of these three documents.

Each of the three states, rather clearly, that PiL is a condition whose primary defining criterion is the state of the weapon arm. Two of the three explicitly make a point of the fact that footwork (provided it does not observably affect the state of the weapon arm) does not affact the validity of the PiL.

Moreover,

t.21
Displacing the target and ducking are allowed even if during the action the unarmed hand comes into contact with the strip.

t.22
In foil and saber, it is forbidden to protect the target area or to substitute another part of the body for the target area, either by covering or by an abnormal movement (cf. t.114, t.116, t.120); any touch scored by the fencer at fault is annulled.
- If, during the fencing phrase, there is protection or substitution of a valid surface, the fencer at fault will be penalized as specified for offences of the 1st group (cf. also t.49, t.72)
- If, during the fencing phrase, as a result of protection or substitution of a valid surface, a touch correctly given is registered as not valid, the fencer at fault will be penalized as
specified for offences of the 1st group (cf. also t.49, t.72) and the touch will be awarded by the referee.

It's possible that some (mis-)interpretations of the quoted section of t.22, taken in isolation, could be seen to penalize the act of ducking (on the grounds of substituting the valid target on the chest/belly with the invalid target of the face), but the quoted section of t.21 - which explicitly states that ducking is allowed - should address that.

So, the question is:
How, when and why would ducking invalidate a correctly-established-and-maintained PiL, and not do so for a correctly-executed attack, riposte, or counter-riposte... and where/when/by-whom is this stated to be the case, assuming it *is* the case?

As to the video...

In the video, the FotR did not, in fact, attack FotL; FotR established a PiL, and ducked as FotL attacked... an attack that was made while the opponent (FotR) was in a (correctly established and maintained) point-in-line position (see t.56(foil)/t.76(sabre) and t.60(foil)/t.80(sabre)).

[Tavataar]

Let's consider:
So, the question is:
How, when and why would ducking invalidate a correctly-established-and-maintained PiL, and not do so for a correctly-executed attack, riposte, or counter-riposte... and where/when/by-whom is this stated to be the case, assuming it *is* the case?

Ignoring the part about the PiL, I do not think that there is any debate that a duck will remove the priority from any attack, riposte, or counter-riposte. As catwood said, this is an interpretation given by many high level and experienced referees.

The way I have heard it phrased is that ducking and escriving will remove any priority, no matter what type it is. It is a defensive maneuver and someone can not have priority while they are being defensive.

Given that, since you can not be attacking while moving backwards, but you can have a proper PiL while moving backwards, maybe it is still possible to maintain a PiL even with a misplacing of the body.

[Stormbringer]

Ignoring the part about the PiL, I do not think that there is any debate that a duck will remove the priority from any attack, riposte, or counter-riposte. As catwood said, this is an interpretation given by many high level and experienced referees.

On the contrary, I would think that the fact that all of the openly-available authoritative documentation (primary sources) seem to fail to give either explicit or implied support for the notion that ducking universally causes one's actions to lose priority - an argument that, so far, been supported only with second-hand testimonies (a secondary source) - is reason to pursue clarification/confirmation.

At least a few of the FOC members (including, hopefully, those you heard this interpretation from) have FDN accounts and post on the forum; perhaps they could weigh in on the issue and, presuming that the "ducking cancels ROW" argument is the preferred interpretation, expound on how it is addressed/supported in relation to the quoted documents/statements?

The way I have heard it phrased is that ducking and escriving will remove any priority, no matter what type it is. It is a defensive maneuver and someone can not have priority while they are being defensive.

And what of a very deep lunge? Or an attack with passata-sotto, executed against an opponent who is *not* attacking? Or a jumping-forward attack (again, executed against an opponent who is *not* attacking) that ends in a ducking position?

Given that, since you can not be attacking while moving backwards, but you can have a proper PiL while moving backwards, maybe it is still possible to maintain a PiL even with a misplacing of the body.

Again, what I, for one, would like to see is an authoritative primary source that supports the notion that one cannot maintain ROW if one makes a vertical, legal ducking motion while in a correctly established and maintained PiL position...

[CvilleFencer]

As much as I would love to hear from any of the FOC on F.net, or even some of the higher rated usual NAC suspects, I have this feeling that they see a PIL thread on F.net and run for the hills.

[catwood1]

Rulebook or not, I dont really care. What I care about is the interpretation. You can quote rules all effin day long, and NO ONE CARES. What the FOC thinks, and what the FIE thinks is what matters, not what the RB says.

That said, an FIE ref has stated its PiL. This conflicts what I've been told by some FOC who are also FIE refs. I'll ask some FOC at SNs, but other than that, I don't really see what all the *****ing and moaning is over...

[KShan5[PrFC]]

I can see where a duck will lose you ROW on an attack. However, I can't see why you'd lose it w/ PiL. A line is a line is a line. If all the attributes of line are there as described in the Rule Book and all the other cited documentation I just don't see why it would not be a line. The important thing though is that this will almost never happen, and if attempted, will probably not be executed properly.

[fdad]

Rulebook or not, I dont really care. What I care about is the interpretation. You can quote rules all effin day long, and NO ONE CARES. What the FOC thinks, and what the FIE thinks is what matters, not what the RB says.

That said, an FIE ref has stated its PiL. This conflicts what I've been told by some FOC who are also FIE refs. I'll ask some FOC at SNs, but other than that, I don't really see what all the *****ing and moaning is over...

The problem with your approach is that you seem to be basing your interpretation on your most recent encounter with some member of the FOC. I'd guess that for some interpretations you'd get different answers from different members of the FOC. We need a written authoritative interpretation that can be referenced by all referees (and fencers) - even those that have not run into an FOC member lately. Actually, it seems like you'd be better off only ever speaking to one FOC member lest you get contradicting responses.

Personally, I think clarifying the rule in the rulebook would be the best approach. The rulebook is, after all, the only authoritative source available to all fencers and referees. An alternative could be a wiki, managed by the FOC, where answers to these questions can be posted (and debated by the FOC if necessary).

The status quo, where some referees disagree with the written rules, is the source of much confusion and widely varying interpretations by different referees, even those at the same event.