Fencing.net Instructional Videos - Foil Point in Line
Here in the office, we've been discussing using our youtube channel to post some video blogs, or at least some supplementary material with our articles on topics including coaching and refereeing. Here are some select samples of some videos we took concerning everyone's favorite RoW question, Point-in-Line:
This is great, save for one detail.. is there a description or explanation (by the makers) of who has right of way in each video, and why? (Edit: Or will there be one attached on the YouTube channel, once the refs here have their say?). Or are these videos purely for discussions on who should/shouldn't have ROW in each case?
__________________
"Close only counts in horseshoes and trebuchets."
I can provide our answers. For some 'official' videos we hope to provide 'official' calls on matters of refereeing. In the meantime, feel free to add what you believe the calls should be and why
Code:
Attack Left PiL Right
1
4
5
7
9
__________________ Destroy everything you touch today
Destroy me this way
Anything that may desert you
So it cannot hurt you
What I thought of the videos here (before I saw the answer key, I promise )
Video 1 - Point Right: PIL Established and maintained throughout.
Video 4 - Point Left: ROW from PIL lost when Left beats and displaces the PIL
Video 5 - Point Left: The motion of the arm invalidates the PIL, since it is not for a derobement
Video 7 - Point Right: PIL established, derobement around the attempted beat
Video 9 - Point Right: Lunge from the right ends, PIL is maintained
__________________
"Close only counts in horseshoes and trebuchets."
Don't take what I posted as 'the answer key.' I certainly hope I provided the correct calls for each, and those were the actions they we were purposefully trying to demonstrate, but ours is not the end-all be-all word on these matters. We welcome opinions and discussion.
__________________ Destroy everything you touch today
Destroy me this way
Anything that may desert you
So it cannot hurt you
Even though point in line is a very, very small minority of the touches ever scored in foil bouts, there seems to be a lot of discussion and misunderstanding of how to call point in line actions.
What we tried to do was to go through a catalog of point in line actions in a controlled environment and be able to provide video examples of the touches. They don't look exactly as they would "in the wild", but it's a first step.
The next step is to take each of these videos and provide an explanation as to which fencer should be awarded the touch and why. A paragraph on each video should be enough and we should write one up even if the touch is painfully obvious. (Because what is painfully obvious to some is a mystery to others.)
We just used the video recording function of the in house Kodak digital camera, so some of it came out choppy.
If this is well received, we'll get some better "bouting scripts" together to make more of these.
I am repping TotD several times for this thread. I encourage the same from everyone else. Way to be the someone in the phrase "someone should do that."
Okay I'll guess I'll start the discussion. In video 9 shouldn't there have been more of a wait from left in order for right to establish PiL (or retake the ROW for that matter). I understand that it's a static representation but I've always thought that the fencer that is responding to the end of the attack should be given not one but one and a half tempos because it is so hard to switch the momentum and doing otherwise would be giving an advantage to the attacker. True or False?
And thank you very much for doing this. The videos are very helpfull. It's really a great idea.
Okay I'll guess I'll start the discussion. In video 9 shouldn't there have been more of a wait from left in order for right to establish PiL (or retake the ROW for that matter). I understand that it's a static representation but I've always thought that the fencer that is responding to the end of the attack should be given not one but one and a half tempos because it is so hard to switch the momentum and doing otherwise would be giving an advantage to the attacker. True or False?
And thank you very much for doing this. The videos are very helpfull. It's really a great idea.
Based on the rule, the line never went away. Line is line regardless of the footwork. You are referring to a distance parry, which we know does not exist.
Based on the rule, the line never went away. Line is line regardless of the footwork. You are referring to a distance parry, which we know does not exist.
Craig
So it there a point at which you'd be able to counter-attack a finished attack in which the attacker leaves the blade out and actually get the touch? Is the PIL establised as soon as the attack is over, or do you still need that one tempo pause?
So it there a point at which you'd be able to counter-attack a finished attack in which the attacker leaves the blade out and actually get the touch? Is the PIL establised as soon as the attack is over, or do you still need that one tempo pause?
Point in line is established as defined in the rulebook. (Arm extension and such...you know the drill.) The fact that the fencer on the right was attacking is irrelevant to the point in line.
In other words, you shouldn't say "the PIL is established as soon as the attack is over" because the attack is not a relevant part of the call.
It's worth mentioning that even though 9 is now a textbook call for the fencer on the right, this is not a universal call yet and you'll find that it won't always be called that way at tournaments, especially lower-level ones.
Your life will be easier if you stop trying to think in terms of "tempos". Something is either happeneing or it isn't. If one thing is happening first then something else must be second.
If you insist upon thinking about a "tempo" then a tempo should really be defined as a unit of time during which you cannot distinguish between what happened first and what happened second.
__________________ I now dangle to the left....my tassle. Get your minds out of the gutter.
"Martin was not an optimist; he was a prisoner of hope." Optimism is about assuming there's evidence that justifies your outlook while hope is about creating the evidence and procuring your own happiness or vision of the world. - Professor West
Find the place in the rules where a "one-tempo pause" is needed. The attack is no, but that's irrelevant. At the point in time that the attack from the left begins, there is a pre-existing condition of PiL, which means the PiL has priority.
I've reproduced George K's essay on this in its entirety right here:
Quote:
First, please do not argue with this material. This is all instructions given by the FIE to referees in seminars, at all referee meetings before Grand Prix World Cups and all World Championships. This is the way it is. Our fencers
and coaches need to understand that they must be pragmatic in how they
fence and in how they teach.
There has been an extensive discussion about "Distance Parry" and "Mal
Parré" (bad parry) and priority. The two terms are incorrect, even though
too many coaches and referees use them. (If you can have a "Mal Parry,"
why don't we have "Mal Attack," "Mal Remise," or any number of things? If
an action is insufficient, then it does not exist.) Some of the concepts of
priority that have been given could be called "Mal Concept."
If I make a parry or a beat, do I get the right of way? The answer is "No." It
is a very important concept that it is the offensive action that gives one the
right of way. A parry only stops the opponent's offensive action; the riposte
gives the right of way. A beat is only a preparation; the offensive action
after the beat is what can give the priority.
If I make a parry or cause my opponent to miss me or fall short, do I get the
priority? Again, the answer is "No." Remember, it is the offensive action that
gives one the priority. All a parry or making your opponent miss you or fall
short does is to momentarily stop your opponent from having the priority.
This problem very often comes up in sabre. Sue makes a cut and is short.
Mary waits a second or two, and then starts moving forward with her guard
down by her hip. Sue attacks and Mary then sticks out her arm with both
hitting valid target. All too often the referee calls it "Attack by Sue, No.
Riposte by Mary. Point for Mary." Another example is when after Sue's first
cut is short, Mary does nothing, and Sue makes a new offensive action which
arrives as Mary counter-attacks. There are at least two problems here. One
is that there cannot be a riposte unless there is a parry, and there was no
parry here. Rule t.7 includes the following two definitions:
• "The riposte is the offensive action made by the fencer who has parried the
attack."
• "The parry is the defensive action made with the weapon to prevent an
offensive action arriving."
The other problem exists because some coaches and some referees believe
that since Sue's attack was "No," and, even though there was no action by
Mary, Mary now has the priority. An action, not a movement, is what is
important in determining priority. What we have in the first example, after
Sue's attack being short, is Mary advancing down the strip without making
any fencing action whatsoever and while that is going on Sue makes an
attack and Mary makes a counter-attack. Point for Sue. In the second
example we have Sue making a remise, a reprise, or a redoublement; again,
point for Sue.
Obviously, if Sue had not started her offensive action before Mary started
her offensive action, Sue would not have had the priority.
Even if one were to incorrectly think of making your opponent fall short as a
“distance parry,” Rule t.79 (sabre) and Rule t.57 (foil) state: The parry gives
the right to riposte; a simple riposte may be direct or indirect, but in order
to annul any subsequent movement by the attacker, it must be carried out
immediately, without any hesitation or pause.
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.
Something that had confused almost everyone was the very brief period
where an action from the low line was not being given the same degree of
priority that was given to actions from the high line. Fortunately, that entire
concept was unanimously voted out by the FIE Refereeing Commission.
George Kolombatovich
President of the Refereeing Commission, Fédération Internationale d'Escrime
Note that from a real-world coaching perspective, making an opponent fall short and then attacking is still a valid action. Most of the time, an opponent that falls short will either attempt to recover, pump their arm, or attempt to evade when trying to re-establish line. This means that their action is a counterattack into the valid attack.
So it there a point at which you'd be able to counter-attack a finished attack in which the attacker leaves the blade out and actually get the touch? Is the PIL establised as soon as the attack is over, or do you still need that one tempo pause?
Start at 7 seconds in:
Right attacks, breaks arm, then reestablishes line.
Left attacks.
Call is attack right no, Attack left touch.
Right attempts to either keep the line established or establish a line after the failed attack, but there is a break in the arm. Left makes an attack before right can establish a proper point in line.
Find the place in the rules where a "one-tempo pause" is needed. The attack is no, but that's irrelevant. At the point in time that the attack from the left begins, there is a pre-existing condition of PiL, which means the PiL has priority.
one-tempo pause is, i believe, a holdover from when interpretation gave priority to the new attacker (fencer A) after an attack (from fencer B) falls short but is left in residual line (attack from B is no, attack from A arrives, instead of PiL from B). i was very explicitly told that this was the "correct" call several years ago by FIE A's, using the exact terminology of "one-tempo pause". i even still have a copy of the exchange in my inbox.
one-tempo pause is, i believe, a holdover from when interpretation gave priority to the new attacker (fencer A) after an attack (from fencer B) falls short but is left in residual line (attack from B is no, attack from A arrives, instead of PiL from B). i was very explicitly told that this was the "correct" call several years ago by FIE A's, using the exact terminology of "one-tempo pause". i even still have a copy of the exchange in my inbox.
I heard the one-tempo pause thing from Derek Cotton at one of his seminars a couple of years ago (three or four I don't remember) He was also the one who said that practically that pause can even be longer in order to allow the fencer to switch tempos. I did not know that the rules have explicitly changed, so thank you for that information.
I heard the one-tempo pause thing from Derek Cotton at one of his seminars a couple of years ago (three or four I don't remember) He was also the one who said that practically that pause can even be longer in order to allow the fencer to switch tempos. I did not know that the rules have explicitly changed, so thank you for that information.
yeah, the interpretation has changed. its a very rare action, though, and in most cases, when a fencer misses and keeps their arm out, its not going to be a valid PIL.
Linear Mode
