coupé with PIL? and how would you honestly call this situation.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
Well, sure, you no longer have PIL, but you have maintained your right of way by successfully derobing from a search. What do you do with that right of way?

In sabre, if you have successfully couped, you're in a fine position to finish with a head cut, flank or the dreaded nipple-ectomy chest slash. (Don't laugh, thats what some of the kids at the club actually call it)
.

In sabre, I'll buy that interpretation. The original question, I believe was about foil. For foil, refer to EDEW's previous post:

Originally posted by edew
.In practice, B makes and attack that would cross swords with A's point in line, if A's PIL does not move. If A makes just disengages, the PIL remains valid. If A makes a coupe or bends the arm or wrist in any significant way, then the PIL is lost and any subsequent action by A, given what B is most likely doing under reality sense, would be considered a counter-attack (unless A makes an attempt to parry). A PIL has to constantly threaten the target, so a coupe, unless it's a very small one, would take it outside the target.

A flick would definitely not be part of the PIL. (It may be part of an attack into preparation if B is too eager during the search. I do that sometimes: I search to furtively for the blade and my opponent tires of disengaging and attacks me with a flick. But it's clear that I'm not attacking him in any way, otherwise, it's my attack and his counter-attack.)

In other words, most likely the call would go against the person who had PIL then broke, unless the attacker hits late or doesn't hit.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Ok, I think we are essentially saying the same thing, but let's try to clear it up, because to my understanding, the rules should be the same in both sabre and foil.

Fencer "A" has a valid PIL. "B" searchs unsuccessfully for the blade, and continues in. "A" performs a coupe, and successfully avoids the search. "A" no longer has a PIL, but still has ROW. (Although, "A" could drop the point back down and finish the attack with the point) "A" hits with direct attack of choice, "B" hits on the continuation of attack after the unsuccessful search.

I think the semantic point we're hanging up on here is that after "A" disengages the search with the coupe, he is not "required" to hit with or re-establish the PIL in order to get the touch. The successful derobement allows him to commit any direct attack he choses, as long as he doesn't pull the arm back or wait so long that he loses the measure of time.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
Fencer "A" has a valid PIL. "B" searchs unsuccessfully for the blade, and continues in. "A" performs a coupe, and successfully avoids the search. "A" no longer has a PIL, but still has ROW. (Although, "A" could drop the point back down and finish the attack with the point) "A" hits with direct attack of choice, "B" hits on the continuation of attack after the unsuccessful search.

Touch for B. attack/counter-attack.

For a succinct, accruate analysis, check out our webmaster's post:

For this action, A abandons the point in line and attempts an attack on preparation instead. In order for the attack on preparation to be valid, it must arrive before the attacker (B) has begun the final movement of the attack. (cf US Fencing Rules, t.59) In this case, (since you describe both hits arriving at the same time) I would award the touch to B.

[Agent_V]

quote:Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
Fencer "A" has a valid PIL. "B" searchs unsuccessfully for the blade, and continues in. "A" performs a coupe, and successfully avoids the search. "A" no longer has a PIL, but still has ROW. (Although, "A" could drop the point back down and finish the attack with the point) "A" hits with direct attack of choice, "B" hits on the continuation of attack after the unsuccessful search.



Touch for B. attack/counter-attack.

For a succinct, accruate analysis, check out our webmaster's post:

For this action, A abandons the point in line and attempts an attack on preparation instead. In order for the attack on preparation to be valid, it must arrive before the attacker (B) has begun the final movement of the attack. (cf US Fencing Rules, t.59) In this case, (since you describe both hits arriving at the same time) I would award the touch to B.
---------------

achilleus, didn't you read t.59? That deals with the timing of a stop hit, not attacks in preparation! An attack in prep is called only to clarify for the fencers that the other fencer was in preparation for an attack and had not started his attack yet. In this example which Cp. Slo-mo has described yet again, Fencer B is NOT ATTACKING. A search for the blade is not an attack, nor even part of an attack, it is a preparation. While B is preparing, A derobes using a coupe and does a simple direct attack. Read t.56, 7. again.

"If the attacker, when attempting to deflect the opponents blade, fails to find it (derobement), the right of attack passes to the opponent."

That's all there is to it.
If you are still confused about this, I suggest you contact one of the good FOC reps.
-Alexander

[angrylemur]

thanks, guys.

I asked a ref and this was the response I got:

"If the attacker searches for the blade in any way and does not find it because of dérobement, right of way passes to the defender. However, in the case you have described, the defender does not have a valid point in line. They still have right of way, though, but by dérobement rather than point in line."

that was about the case with coupé

[edew]

Care must be taken when considering whether an attack includes an attempt to take the blade. As I mentioned above, most fencers will make an attack where the blade moves in such a way that if the PIL remains as is, will be intercepted. But it's not an attempt to take the blade: it's an attack.

However, if fencer A has established a PIL, fencer B makes an attack as described above, and fencer A moves the point (not via a coupe) without breaking the PIL, the PIL still has right of way.

If A does not have PIL (i.e., ROW), and fencer B makes an attack again as described above, and A disengages and makes a hit, the attack by B has priority. A is attempting to counter-attack into an attack. In the view of A, B's blade motion may resemble an attempt to take the blade. In the view of the referee, B is just making a simple attack (which, as mentioned above, if A does not move the blade, would be intercepted by B). This situation is perfectly normal and allowed (and taught to death). At no time is B deliberately attempting to take A's blade. If there is blade contact, B gets priority for a pris de fer, if there is no blade contact, it's B's attack.

What should A do about this? Retreat; allow the contact to be made and parry; set up a false counter-attack; draw the attack (by B) to conclusion, and parry riposte; don't put the blade in such a precarious location.

[Agent_V]

Edew: I definitely agree with you in the case where B is making an attack and the changing of lines could become a prise-de-fer, but the original problem stated here is when B is searching for the blade. This is a problem of intent. If the referee sees B making an obvious or even a not-so-obvious search with the intent of finding A's blade, and fails, then I hope you agree that A now has the right to attack. When the search is not so obvious, most referees are hesitant to take the risk that they might have seen it wrong and so they simply call it an attack. The majority of people watching the bout either would not notice the preparation, or they would think "well, it was a very subtle call, and very few people really see those kinds of actions anyways, so ok". However, the top directors who are absolutely confident in their ability will call it correctly.
-Alexander

[Capt. Slo-mo]

As much as I hate to crawfish away from any previous position, this exact scenario came up last night at the salle as we were working on point in line drills. My partner attempted to take the PIL with an upward sweep from low line (we're fencing sabre, remember)

I think: "Cool...this is just like the discussion on the board!"

I execute a flawless coupe, avoid his blade and smite my partner on the head...(with great gentleness of touch, of course)

He takes off his mask, and says: "What was that? You broke the line!) I call over the fencing master and we go over the situation.

His take: "by the book" a coupe to avoid a search on PIL keeps your ROW, but loses the line, just as discussed earlier in this thread.

HOWEVER: his contention is, that virtually no referee will call it as such...if they see you lift the blade, the ref will assume you're breaking the line IN RESPONSE to the attack, and are now countering into your opponent.

Therefore, his recommendation is to merely disengage under the sweep, and maintain the PIL all the way...that way, you don't give the director an excuse to make an erroneous call.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo


HOWEVER: his contention is, that virtually no referee will call it as such...if they see you lift the blade, the ref will assume you're breaking the line IN RESPONSE to the attack, and are now countering into your opponent.

I believe that's the contention of many on this board. Well, myself at least.

[pkt]

All,

whether there is a PIL or not is insubstantial.
As far as the question is stated:
1. fencer A does an attack,
2. fencer B parries.
3. Fencer A starts retreating, and
4. fencer B pursues with a bent arm.
5. A puts out PIL, and after several more steps,
6. B makes a single search for the blade and attacks.
7. A makes a succesful dérobement and the touch with PIL.
8. double light. "
the only thing as a ref has to look at was in the final action from B, B looked for the blade, did NOT find it, then the Row passes to A. It does not matter how A scored the hit.

Everything else is inconsequential.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BTW, there is no such thing as an 'attack on a preparation'.

What is a preparation? It is not one of the 19 terms approved by the FIE. It is therefore, a nothing.

It certainly is not an attack as defined in the rules. If it was, it should be called : attack, counter-attack.

So one should just say 'Attack' in stead of 'Attack on preparation'.

PK

[Agent_V]

Well, you're right about the attack in preparation not being anything, but when we call it as such, we are informing the fencer who initially attacked that he was not attacking while the other fencer initiated his offensive action. It's just for clarification only, so that the fencer doesn't say "Wasn't it MY attack?"
-Alexander

[pkt]

that's where the hand signals come in

Educating the next generation...

But not in a tourney situation.
Display your hand signals again...

PK