Fencing.net Instructional Videos - Foil Point in Line

[Stormbringer]

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, it seems like the obvious solution would be to ask which FOC rep(s) and FIE ref(s) Catwood1 heard these statements from.

That, I should think, would 1.) add some additional weight to his arguments, 2.) give at least some of us a primary source to independently pursue/verify, and 3.) if each category consists of more than one individual, give a very rough indication of where this interpretation could be expected to be encountered, and how prevalent it might be.

Or, perhaps better yet, if Catwood1's source(s) have FDN accounts, perhaps they could come online and add their explanations/clarifications to the debate...?

[fdad]

Or, perhaps better yet, if Catwood1's source(s) have FDN accounts, perhaps they could come online and add their explanations/clarifications to the debate...?

Once he names the FOC member I'd be happy to register an account with a name that looks like theirs if that will help resolve this issue.

[bigdawg2121]

Well, it seems like the obvious solution would be to ask which FOC rep(s) and FIE ref(s) Catwood1 heard these statements from.

That, I should think, would 1.) add some additional weight to his arguments, 2.) give at least some of us a primary source to independently pursue/verify, and 3.) if each category consists of more than one individual, give a very rough indication of where this interpretation could be expected to be encountered, and how prevalent it might be.

Or, perhaps better yet, if Catwood1's source(s) have FDN accounts, perhaps they could come online and add their explanations/clarifications to the debate...?

Outside of the fact that this wouldn't necessarily be that helpful due to reasons previously mentioned, have you bothered asking your local FOC rep what they think? Considering you have access to someone who is both an FOC member and easily one of the best 2 or 3 foil refs in the country I think you'd be a great candidate to get the ball rolling.

[Stormbringer]

Outside of the fact that this wouldn't necessarily be that helpful due to reasons previously mentioned, have you bothered asking your local FOC rep what they think? Considering you have access to someone who is both an FOC member and easily one of the best 2 or 3 foil refs in the country I think you'd be a great candidate to get the ball rolling.

Good point.

I'll look into doing just that...

[KShan5[PrFC]]

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.

I'm not saying you shouldn't call it as the FOC says. I'm just saying I've never heard any FOC state one way or the other on the issue seeing as how unlikely it is to happen. Ducking will definitely lose you an attack, but I've never heard ducking with PiL discussed, let alone answered.

[Stormbringer]

Outside of the fact that this wouldn't necessarily be that helpful due to reasons previously mentioned, have you bothered asking your local FOC rep what they think? Considering you have access to someone who is both an FOC member and easily one of the best 2 or 3 foil refs in the country I think you'd be a great candidate to get the ball rolling.

Good point.

I'll look into doing just that...

... And do that I did.

So, I asked my local FOC rep (bio), and she stated that ducking would not invalidate a PIL, provided:

1.) the line continued to threaten the valid target
2.) the arm remained horizontal (parallel to the plane of the piste)
3.) the line was otherwise properly maintained (not withdrawn by fencer, blade not taken by opponent, no unnecessary disengage-like motions, etc.)

[catwood1]

I'm not saying you shouldn't call it as the FOC says. I'm just saying I've never heard any FOC state one way or the other on the issue seeing as how unlikely it is to happen. Ducking will definitely lose you an attack, but I've never heard ducking with PiL discussed, let alone answered.

To clarify, we were talking about PiLs, while spinning / squirming, not ducking. All the same rules would apply though, IMHO.

Thanks for asking the FOC, storm. Although it seems impossible to hit high line target while keeping the arm parallel to the strip...

[KShan5[PrFC]]

I thought we were talking about ducking, seeing as how that's what is in the video. Also, there's this too:

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..."

[bigdawg2121]

... And do that I did.

So, I asked my local FOC rep (bio), and she stated that ducking would not invalidate a PIL, provided:

1.) the line continued to threaten the valid target
2.) the arm remained horizontal (parallel to the plane of the piste)
3.) the line was otherwise properly maintained (not withdrawn by fencer, blade not taken by opponent, no unnecessary disengage-like motions, etc.)

This is in fact exactly what I expected her to say. Note that anyone competent could mostly maintain whatever interpretation they want based on this explanation (outside of the possibility that someone actually makes a Craig/Toolofthedevil style uber slow/controlled action...which would probably fall under the heading 'collusion').

[fdad]

To clarify, we were talking about PiLs, while spinning / squirming, not ducking. All the same rules would apply though, IMHO.

Thanks for asking the FOC, storm. Although it seems impossible to hit high line target while keeping the arm parallel to the strip...

Is it the opinion of this FOC that PiL can't exist against a fencer whose entire target is below the armpit of the "PiLer"? (arm must be parallel to the piste)

Also, catwood, your statements imply that you believe, based on conversations with an FOC member, that ducking implies a counter attack (i.e. forfeits ROW from what might otherwise have been an attack). Since PiL is a fencing action that is not an attack, but has ROW over an attack, then perhaps you mis-applied the opinion about ducking to a non-attacking situation?

[Tavataar]

Storm,

Thank you for getting that information. I was hoping that we would be able to get a pretty definite answer on this.

[Craig]

To clarify, we were talking about PiLs, while spinning / squirming, not ducking. All the same rules would apply though, IMHO.

Ah. I misread that drift. I was only referring to the ducking. As to spinning/squirming, it is more likely that the arm will move, but I guess we could find some examples to show it.

I will agree with everyone who says that the PIL while ducking is almost never going to occur. We tossed that in when we were done with the more serious setups. I'll move on now to comment on those.

Craig

[Stormbringer]

Is it the opinion of this FOC that PiL can't exist against a fencer whose entire target is below the armpit of the "PiLer"? (arm must be parallel to the piste)

I asked the general question WRT the general situation of the fencer with PiL being the one who was ducking, and got an answer.

Interestingly, one of the clubs I fence at does have a very tall foilist (6'6"-ish) and a rather short foilist (5'-ish). Your question is, what happens if the former is relatively upright and establishes a PIL, and the latter ducks and lunges (or even "bunny-hops") underneath it, yes?

I would imagine it would be called "attack arrives", as the former would either have his line miss (as the relatively high PIL was avoided), or would have to break the line, turning it into a counter-attack against the attack made against the (now-defunct) PIL.

Though, that's an extreme example, and most other examples would have to be seen and judged on an individual basis, yes?

[CMiner]

... And do that I did.

So, I asked my local FOC rep (bio), and she stated that ducking would not invalidate a PIL, provided:

1.) the line continued to threaten the valid target
2.) the arm remained horizontal (parallel to the plane of the piste)
3.) the line was otherwise properly maintained (not withdrawn by fencer, blade not taken by opponent, no unnecessary disengage-like motions, etc.)

Quick question about the bolded interpretation: From the Ref Handbook it only specifies that there must be a straight line maintained from the point of the weapon to the shoulder. Which would seem to mean that if a taller fencer extended his arm with the weapon pointed down at their shorter opponent's belly, with no break in the line between the shoulder and tip, that it would be a proper PIL despite the fact that the blade was not parallel to the piste. Yes/no?

Now if the they were saying that a PIL that was established horizontally had to remain horizontal to retain ROW, that makes sense.

[bigdawg2121]

What you'll find, practically, is that there's a range of what consititutes PiL from ref to ref and fencer to fencer. If the fencers are both within' a reasonable height range then the PiL should be horizontal and parallel to the strip. If one opponent is significantly taller/shorter then the line might be allowed to point up or down to some degree. What an indicidual ref's ideas of "horizontal" and "parallel" are vary from person to person as well. I, for one, am very likely to say that someone presented an invitation and not a line if it's a little 'wonky' looking kinda thing. Many will still award the line as long as there was something pointing in your general direction, that stayed there and made you look stupid as you attacked on to it. Mostly the only real way to know is either to have an in depth discussion with your ref about their perceptions or to try it once and see.

[OROD]

1.) the line continued to threaten the valid target
2.) the arm remained horizontal (parallel to the plane of the piste)
3.) the line was otherwise properly maintained (not withdrawn by fencer, blade not taken by opponent, no unnecessary disengage-like motions, etc.)

The point of PiL is that it threatens your opponent, or, "valid target" as we call it. It's entirely possible that my opponents valid target doesnt intersect the plane horizontal to the piste passing through my shoulder. I suppose that maybe the FOC is saying that you should have your arm be horizontal and your blade angled down or up. Is that it? I've never heard of such a rule nor is it in the rulebook, nor does it even make any sense.

.

[Stormbringer]

The point of PiL is that it threatens your opponent, or, "valid target" as we call it. It's entirely possible that my opponents valid target doesnt intersect the plane horizontal to the piste passing through my shoulder. I suppose that maybe the FOC is saying that you should have your arm be horizontal and your blade angled down or up. Is that it? I've never heard of such a rule nor is it in the rulebook, nor does it even make any sense.

.

Well, when I asked (which included demonstrating what I was asking about), I was told that the PiL had to be "horizontal". Though, I did notice that I did lift my arm a good bit (mainly for balance on my part), which might have prompted the comment about the arm being horizontal...

As I understood it, the arm would have to be more-or-less horizontal (where being "absolutely horizontal" is defined as "being parallel with the plane of the piste"); being in a ducked position with the arm at, say, a 45-degree angle (in order to threaten the opponent's chest, for example) from the plane of the piste probably wouldn't pass muster.

As far as it making sense...

I would think it's similar, in that respect, to the "blade and the arm forming an obtuse angle of about 135 degrees" rule in sabre (t.77.2, in case anyone's interested); how close is "about"? Is a 134-degree angle close enough? How about a 130-degree angle? 125 degrees? 120 degrees? 115 degrees? 110 degrees? How far off from the 135-degree ideal is "too far"?

Or, for a more foil-centric example: why was it that, when the more extreme flicks were in vogue, one could have their arm cocked back, with the guard closer to the opponent than the point (and sometimes with the inside-side of the guard facing the opponent), and still be considered to be "threatening the valid target"?

As Bigdawg2121 pointed out, there is a practical range for what constitutes "horizontal" (so that we don't have to carry precision inclinometers and protractors around).
As it happens, the plane of the piste (and all parallel planes) merely provides something handy against which one could measure.

EDIT:

Actually, another good example is the (infamous) wording of t.7, which doesn't specify *which* arm has to be extending to constitute an attack, though it's "commonly understood" to be a reference to the weapon-bearing arm; similarly, I should imagine that a proper PiL is similarly "commonly understood" to be within a reasonable range of "horizontal"...

EDIT 02:

And then, if you really want to get into technicalities and minutiae...
- If a fencer has their blade canted inward and downward (which, it seems, most do), would they need to bend their wrist outward and upward in order to establish a truly straight point-guard-elbow-shoulder line, with a failure to do so not being considered a PIL, even if all of the other required conditions are met?
- In the foil-specific rules, t.46 explicitly states that "The foil is a thrusting weapon only." Shouldn't that mean that anything that is not a thrust (where the primary means of displacement is a linear translation along the length-wise axis of the blade) should be discounted?

The point I'm making with those is, to quote/paraphrase Bigdawg2121 again, "What you'll find, practically, is that there's a range... the only real way to know [what that range is, for any given ref] is either to have an in depth discussion with your ref about their perceptions or to try it once and see".

[OROD]

As far as it making sense...

Your examples have to do with actual rules in the rulebook and how they are interpreted. The rulebook doesnt say anything about what angle the arm has to be in relation to the ground, only that it has to be straight. If I'm a short fencer and fencing someone who is much taller than me and I have to point my arm up at 30 degrees to aim at their chest, somehow that is not PiL? I'm not talking 5 or 10 degrees, so surely according to the "horizontal to the piste" rule this is not a PiL, nor can this fencer ever establish a PiL unless the taller fencer squats down or something.

Sorry, this still doesnt make sense.

.

[Stormbringer]

As far as it making sense...

Your examples have to do with actual rules in the rulebook and how they are interpreted. The rulebook doesnt say anything about what angle the arm has to be in relation to the ground, only that it has to be straight. If I'm a short fencer and fencing someone who is much taller than me and I have to point my arm up at 30 degrees to aim at their chest, somehow that is not PiL? I'm not talking 5 or 10 degrees, so surely according to the "horizontal to the piste" rule this is not a PiL, nor can this fencer ever establish a PiL unless the taller fencer squats down or something.

Sorry, this still doesnt make sense.

.

Your point about the PIL being horizontal not being explicitly stated in the rulebook is a true one.

And perhaps it was really just a (now overblown) personal comment made regarding my poor execution of the action while attempting not to outright flail or fall over...?

Though, the infamous t.7 example, among others, demonstrates that the rulebook (and other documents), most unfortunately, occasionally omits small (sometimes insignificant, sometimes crucial) details.

Still, I would imagine that, in terms of practicality, a valid PIL should both "threaten the valid target" (which, for PIL, usually corresponds with "the point is both the closest part of the fencer's weapon to the opponent, and that the point is between the two fencers, such as it is not 'passe' (an implied condition following from something like t.70(b), which doesn't seem to have an explicit equivalent in the general or foil-specific rules)", yes?) and fit the schemata of PIL held by most referees (or, at the very least, the one who happens to be officiating whatever bout one happens to be in at the time), and I would think it's rather difficult to do that with a vertical (by which I mean "orthagonal to the plane of the piste") "fully-extended PIL-like thing", or one that is more closely aligned with the lateral, rather than length-wise, axis of the strip (that is, a "fully-extended PIL-like thing" aimed at the box or referee, or one that implicitly requires one to be across the lateral boundary of the strip).
Wouldn't you agree?

[pinkelephant]

Or, for a more foil-centric example: why was it that, when the more extreme flicks were in vogue, one could have their arm cocked back, with the guard closer to the opponent than the point (and sometimes with the inside-side of the guard facing the opponent), and still be considered to be "threatening the valid target"?

Because there was a lot of BAD refereeing about, and instead of making the referees ref properly, we got the timing changes as an attempt to fix the problem.