Fencing.net Instructional Videos - Foil Point in Line

[pinkelephant]

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?

Yes, it would.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

This seems eerily familiar to the people who said you couldn't advance/lunge/retreat w/ line....

[Inquartata]

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 will serve you well...right up until the time someone appeals a call made on that basis. And then if no justification can be found according to the rulebook about which you don't care, you'll be reversed. Why court that? Apply the rules, not what some self-appointed tinpot god tells you. This is not the Zulu army, where you march off a cliff if your king tells you to do so.

[bigdawg2121]

You'd be very hard-pressed to find a situation in which you could both call him on it and get him to admit it. Him or any other ref worth their salt.

[catwood1]

Am I on stupid pills?!?!?! This doesn't make any sense!

So you think everyone should interpret the rules themselves, and go off of that, NOT what the FOC say? That makes no sense! If we have 500 refs read the rule book and base their reffing off of that, we'll have 500 COMPLETELY different refs. If the FOC train the refs instead, everyone will be much more consistent. Would you rather I just make my own choices, and say eff the FIE convention, I'll call it how I think the rulebook means it.

This is also an incredibly stupid argument. It won't happen. And if it does, the ducker will almost definitely bob their hand. And even if ALL of that happens, and I make the call, I won't let you catch me in an appealable phrasing of it.

"Attack arrives."
"Why no Point in Line?"
"You broke your line."
"wahhhhhh."
"engarde..."

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Am I on stupid pills?!?!?! This doesn't make any sense!

So you think everyone should interpret the rules themselves, and go off of that, NOT what the FOC say? That makes no sense! If we have 500 refs read the rule book and base their reffing off of that, we'll have 500 COMPLETELY different refs. If the FOC train the refs instead, everyone will be much more consistent. Would you rather I just make my own choices, and say eff the FIE convention, I'll call it how I think the rulebook means it.

This is also an incredibly stupid argument. It won't happen. And if it does, the ducker will almost definitely bob their hand. And even if ALL of that happens, and I make the call, I won't let you catch me in an appealable phrasing of it.

"Attack arrives."
"Why no Point in Line?"
"You broke your line."
"wahhhhhh."
"engarde..."

So are you saying, that even if you did see someone keep a line, you'd call it against them anyways and make up a reason for it?? Why?

[notalent]

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.

There is that the problem with these videos are they are not real. They are contrived acts that are almost impossible to produce in a real competitive bout.

[notalent]

That will serve you well...right up until the time someone appeals a call made on that basis. And then if no justification can be found according to the rulebook about which you don't care, you'll be reversed. Why court that? Apply the rules, not what some self-appointed tinpot god tells you. This is not the Zulu army, where you march off a cliff if your king tells you to do so.

Not really, you wont have anything to appeal as the call was a statement of fact that you didnt have line. In portland, Matern vs Lichten, L made an attack and left the strip M parries and begins his reposte before L leaves the strip, and the hit arrives, eventually. I made the call reposte no remise yes no touch. M asked why no touch I repeated my call, at this point his teammate told him to appeal it. I reminded M that I had made a statement of fact. Realizing that he put his mask on and resumed fencing.

[mrbiggs]

This is also an incredibly stupid argument. It won't happen. And if it does, the ducker will almost definitely bob their hand. And even if ALL of that happens, and I make the call, I won't let you catch me in an appealable phrasing of it.

This situation is unlikely, but I don't think that it's useless to get a correct answer for the call. And furthermore, the implications for other, more common calls (ducking in other circumstances) are worth discussing as well.


You seem disproportionately upset here...

[keith]

So are you saying, that even if you did see someone keep a line, you'd call it against them anyways and make up a reason for it?? Why?

No he is saying he will call actions the way the FOC tells him to.

If the FOC/arbitrage says you cannot keep line with evasion, guess what?

[Superscribe]

You cannot keep line with evasion?

[keith]

You cannot keep line with evasion?

Well catwood is the only poster who has volunteered 'what the FOCs say today'*.

It would be nice to get a more rounded set of second hand chitter chatter







*guaranteed for 24 hours only.

[Craig]

Well catwood is the only poster who has volunteered 'what the FOCs say today'*.

It would be nice to get a more rounded set of second hand chitter chatter

Well, I've got one of those trump cards also, but since we're not naming names it really doesn't add up to much does it?

[keith]

Well, I've got one of those trump cards also, but since we're not naming names it really doesn't add up to much does it?

Well I've not played trump cards since I was a little boy.

I do find it funny that these threads always degenerate into 'my FOC says'.

Perhaps you could arrange a FOC knife fight at summer nationals to resolve some of these issues? A pay-per-view opportunity perhaps.

[noodle]

my FOC can beat up your FOC

[bigdawg2121]

Problem is that often the agreement amongst the FOCs is much greater than you would expect. Even if some explain things using rules of thumb that can easily be twisted/corrupted, especially when taken out of context.

Threads on FNet = great arguments in favor of morning seminar with invite lists so secret even the people on it don't always know about it

[keith]

Threads on FNet = great arguments in favor of morning seminar with invite lists so secret even the people on it don't always know about it

Maybe longer morning seminars, with extended periods of metronomic chanting, are in order? Just so everyone gets the talking points right.

[Craig]

Is "My (unnamed) FOC Rep Says" in a right of way discussion the fencing.net equivalent to Godwin's law?

[notalent]

Is "My (unnamed) FOC Rep Says" in a right of way discussion the fencing.net equivalent to Godwin's law?

Only a Godwin Nazi would make that assertion

[catwood1]

You seem disproportionately upset here...

Maybe I am a little disproportionally upset. It just seems ridiculous to me that I'm getting criticized for making calls in keeping with what the FOC say.