Source of a Refereeing Convention

[Inquartata]

Last weekend in a tournament pool I was told by the referee that if I have established PIL and the opponent searches for my blade and does not find it I can only score with the replaced line---that is, with the point and not a cut. I have heard this "interpretation" once before this season, but not in all the years I've been fencing sabre before that.

Can anyone point me toward the rule or rules which support this? I don't distrust the competence of the 2 referees involved, but in Reagan's words, "Trust, but verify". I'd like to understand the why of it.

[eac]

Haven't we established recently and at length that you can't actually do this and any connection between the true rules and the written rules is just post-rationalization?

[haroldbuck]

Last weekend in a tournament pool I was told by the referee that if I have established PIL and the opponent searches for my blade and does not find it I can only score with the replaced line---that is, with the point and not a cut. I have heard this "interpretation" once before this season, but not in all the years I've been fencing sabre before that.

Can anyone point me toward the rule or rules which support this? I don't distrust the competence of the 2 referees involved, but in Reagan's words, "Trust, but verify". I'd like to understand the why of it.

This is certainly true in foil. I don't know why it would be true in saber.

[Bonehead]

This is certainly true in foil. I don't know why it would be true in saber.

I have very *very* rarely seen someone score with a cut in foil...

It's weird, because presumably, in sabre, if you are enguarde without a line, and someone searches for your blade, and you derobe and make a cut, you would be given priority.

[Fechter1]

Last weekend in a tournament pool I was told by the referee that if I have established PIL and the opponent searches for my blade and does not find it I can only score with the replaced line---that is, with the point and not a cut. I have heard this "interpretation" once before this season, but not in all the years I've been fencing sabre before that.

Can anyone point me toward the rule or rules which support this? I don't distrust the competence of the 2 referees involved, but in Reagan's words, "Trust, but verify". I'd like to understand the why of it.

The rationale that I have heard for this is that by establishing the line (or rather the point in line), you establish a threat with the point, not the 'edge'. Thus, if the point does not make contact with the target area, then you are considered to have essentially missed (this applies to a point attack as well), and any subsequent contact between the edge and the target would then be considered a remise.

This does not meant hat you cannot score with a cut, only that the cut would be considered a remise, and thus would have lower ROW priority that a potential counter-attack (which could be following the failed search)...

Then again, I might be completely off base on this...

[Goldgar]

There are two different things that you might be describing. In one, you have point in line, derobe the opponent's search for the blade, and passively hit with the edge. This should be called as a remise or counterattack, since the point in line did not hit, so if the opponent hits you with the continuation of his attack, the point should go to him.

In the other situation, you actively attack immediately after derobing the opponent's search for your blade. In this case, the rules say your attack should have priority. However, it had better really look like an attack in preparation, and not just an attempt to hit with the point in line; otherwise, the referee is bound to view it as the first situation.

[Bonehead]

There are two different things that you might be describing. In one, you have point in line, derobe the opponent's search for the blade, and passively hit with the edge. This should be called as a remise or counterattack, since the point in line did not hit, so if the opponent hits you with the continuation of his attack, the point should go to him.

In the other situation, you actively attack immediately after derobing the opponent's search for your blade. In this case, the rules say your attack should have priority. However, it had better really look like an attack in preparation, and not just an attempt to hit with the point in line; otherwise, the referee is bound to view it as the first situation.

This makes sense. I know jack-**** about sabre reffing (and jack left town). I'm glad this is the case.

[sabreur]

I posed this question to Bill Oliver years ago, and his answer was that a search for the blade that misses passes ROW to the other fencer.

So if you have a PIL and the other guy searches for it, and you derobe and hit him with the edge, you should get the point.

And in the truly antique days of steam sabre (early 80s), I used to use this action all the time--I would often come engarde with a PIL (which you also can't do any more).

Sadly, for the last decade, referees have been making all kinds of silly errors with PIL (remember the "you can't advance or lunge with a PIL?).

I think that restoring this call would do a lot for sabre, but it would rely first and foremost on refs seeing and calling PIL correctly--I'm pretty well trained to derobe and hit with the point with good form, and I usually try it about once in a bout, have the ref make a bad call (most of them can't see an attempt to take), and give it up for the duration.

Cheers, MR

[haroldbuck]

I posed this question to Bill Oliver years ago, and his answer was that a search for the blade that misses passes ROW to the other fencer.

I'm going to be picky here and point out that the missed search doesn't give priority to the fencer, it just gives them the opportunity to seize it by making an attack. This is a subtle but important point, I think, since most of the time the fencer will attack, but if they don't they are vulnerable to the remise.

[jeff]

(snip) but it would rely first and foremost on refs seeing and calling PIL correctly (snip) ... most of them can't see an attempt to take (snip)

I think you hit on it there - the issue is refs seeing (or calling) searches for the blade in order to call a derobement of the attempted taking, whether PIL or not. This issue is not limited to sabre, either. Too bad, as it makes it hard to use what used to be an effective and IMO elegant action.

[edew]

There are two different things that you might be describing. In one, you have point in line, derobe the opponent's search for the blade, and passively hit with the edge. This should be called as a remise or counterattack, since the point in line did not hit, so if the opponent hits you with the continuation of his attack, the point should go to him.

In the other situation, you actively attack immediately after derobing the opponent's search for your blade. In this case, the rules say your attack should have priority. However, it had better really look like an attack in preparation, and not just an attempt to hit with the point in line; otherwise, the referee is bound to view it as the first situation.

That's exactly the sense I get from the possible mis-interpretations by the referees and/or Inq.

If you have a PiL and derobe and leave it as a PiL, but hit with the edge, then you didn't hit with a PiL, so your opponent's immediate attack after a failed search has priority. If you have a PiL (or not, even), your opponent searches, you successfully derobe and then make an attack, either with thrust (point hitting) or cut (side of blade hitting), then you have RoW as a failed search allows the opponent (you) to initiate an attack with RoW.

[Fechter1]

There are two different things that you might be describing. In one, you have point in line, derobe the opponent's search for the blade, and passively hit with the edge. This should be called as a remise or counterattack, since the point in line did not hit, so if the opponent hits you with the continuation of his attack, the point should go to him.

In the other situation, you actively attack immediately after derobing the opponent's search for your blade. In this case, the rules say your attack should have priority. However, it had better really look like an attack in preparation, and not just an attempt to hit with the point in line; otherwise, the referee is bound to view it as the first situation.

You're absolutely right, I did leave out that possibility. My mistake.

I blame my Epee-ness. :-)

[edew]

I posed this question to Bill Oliver years ago, and his answer was that a search for the blade that misses passes ROW to the other fencer.

[...]

I think a better phrasing is, "when a fencer attempts to search for the opponent's blade and fails, the right to attack passes to the opponent." Important note here is that the opponent's blade need not be threatening the fencer. Heck, I could be pointing behind my back. As long as my opponent is (vainly) searching for my blade, I can initiate the attack anytime (usually, once the opponent gives up the search and tries to make a counter or AIP). Of course, I have to initiate immediately once the search ends. Otherwise, I would lose RoW.

[Stormbringer]

Last weekend in a tournament pool I was told by the referee that if I have established PIL and the opponent searches for my blade and does not find it I can only score with the replaced line---that is, with the point and not a cut. I have heard this "interpretation" once before this season, but not in all the years I've been fencing sabre before that.

Can anyone point me toward the rule or rules which support this? I don't distrust the competence of the 2 referees involved, but in Reagan's words, "Trust, but verify". I'd like to understand the why of it.

Well, t.76.b explicitly grants you ROW in the event of a failed search, and the rule itself does not include any stipulations with regard to how "the right of attack" is exercised.

If, when attempting to find the opponent’s blade to deflect it, the blade is not found (dérobement), the right of attack passes to the opponent.

Also, t.70.b once read:

Point touches which slip over the valid target, or cuts which merely brush the opponent’s target (passé touches) do not count.

However, that text was last seen in the 2008 rulebook - that is, it was removed from the 2010 rulebook and replaced with:

All touches made with the cutting edge, the flat or the back of the blade are counted as good (cuts and back-cuts).

Perhaps what you've heard was a mis-remembering (or mis-interpretation?) of the former wording of t.70.b... or the return of the concept (or something similar) as an "interpretation" rather than a written rule?

-----

This is certainly true in foil. I don't know why it would be true in saber.

t.56.3(c) is identical to t.76.b. Moreover, t.60.5(b) specifically states:

Only the fencer who attacks is counted as touched:

If he attempts to find the blade, does not succeed (is the object of a dérobement) and continues the attack

So, what you're saying is that if X establishes a valid PIL, breaks the PIL by withdrawing the arm to successfully avoid a search by Y (thus making Y "the object of a dérobement" and (re)earning X "the right of attack"), and immediately attacks with a lunge/fleche/whatever while extending, that this would not be awarded as X's attack (with Y's subsequent offensive action, if any, being a counter-attack into said attack)?

-----

Haven't we established recently and at length that you can't actually do this and any connection between the true rules and the written rules is just post-rationalization?

Yet, there comes a point where it becomes just silly - the "true rules" can - and, more to the point, should - have at least some grounding in the rules-as-written.

That is, referees - either individually or collectively - should not be able to come up with concepts and rulings that are wholly and explicitly opposite to the RAW... at least, not without very solid and compelling reasons (and seeking documented/documentable clarification, supplementation and/or amendment with regard to the relevant rule(s) shortly thereafter).

Doing so without such compelling reasons under the guise of "these are the 'true rules', those are the 'false/n00b/etc rules', now stfu and take it" and having the fencers have no way of presenting questions and appeals when necessary and appropriate (or making them believe that to be the case... and/or making them believe that doing so will be ineffectual and/or detrimental to their situation) is exactly the same process through which bad things happen.

Also, we wouldn't have t.122 (especially t.122.2) written in the way that it is...

[jjefferies]

Once again the superiority of epee is demonstrated.
(now to post quickly and run)

[Inquartata]

The rationale that I have heard for this is that by establishing the line (or rather the point in line), you establish a threat with the point, not the 'edge'. Thus, if the point does not make contact with the target area, then you are considered to have essentially missed (this applies to a point attack as well), and any subsequent contact between the edge and the target would then be considered a remise.

That might make a kind of sense to me if it were applied consistently. But I asked whether this would also be the case: If I were in guard, and the opponent searched for my blade, and I evaded the search, must I now ONLY hit with a cut, and not, say, an attack with point? That is, if I begin by threatening the opponent's target with the edge, am I restricted to hitting with the edge only? The ref did not seem interested in answering this. Hence my continued confusion...

There are two different things that you might be describing. In one, you have point in line, derobe the opponent's search for the blade, and passively hit with the edge. This should be called as a remise or counterattack, since the point in line did not hit, so if the opponent hits you with the continuation of his attack, the point should go to him.

In the other situation, you actively attack immediately after derobing the opponent's search for your blade. In this case, the rules say your attack should have priority. However, it had better really look like an attack in preparation, and not just an attempt to hit with the point in line; otherwise, the referee is bound to view it as the first situation.

In both cases I am talking about it was clearly the second. Both referees explicitly admitted that an unsuccessful search had occurred, but insisted that the relevant action was that I had changed from point to cut in making my attack, and that this was not allowed.

My understanding was that a search, which is an attempt to strike the blade, broke the "threatening valid target" part of the definition of the attack, and hence would mean "attack, no". The added requirement that the response could only maintain its original form is the part which confused me.

After the ( first ) bout on Sunday my opponent said that he thought the same thing, that it should have been my touch and that he didn't feel good about the call. My opponent in the second bout, however, argued that one can search any number of times without vitating an attack.

I think you hit on it there - the issue is refs seeing (or calling) searches for the blade in order to call a derobement of the attempted taking, whether PIL or not. This issue is not limited to sabre, either. Too bad, as it makes it hard to use what used to be an effective and IMO elegant action.

In the instances I am talking about, though, in both cases the ref saw and admitted the existence of the searches, but maintained that if you start with PIL, you may only hit with PIL after the derobe or evasion, and may not attack and hit with a cut. If it was only a matter of them not perceiving the search as a search, I would have shrugged and put it down to bad calls. This is rather more perplexing, the more so since as I said the first ref from whom I heard this position is a 3 in sabre and coaches it as well...

If you have a PiL and derobe and leave it as a PiL, but hit with the edge, then you didn't hit with a PiL, so your opponent's immediate attack after a failed search has priority. If you have a PiL (or not, even), your opponent searches, you successfully derobe and then make an attack, either with thrust (point hitting) or cut (side of blade hitting), then you have RoW as a failed search allows the opponent (you) to initiate an attack with RoW.

I wish it were only this. I would understand it then.

Once again the superiority of epee is demonstrated.
(now to post quickly and run)

Epeeists do nothing "quickly".

[vivoescrimare]

A failed search offers a "window." What you do with that window is up to you. If you use it to establish PiL then MISS with your point and hit with the edge...your PiL failed, you landed with a remise. Probably this means your PiL no, your opponent's attack yes. (Unless your opponent manages to miss.)

If you launch an attack (With a cut, with your point, whichever) while your opponent is missing with his search, then its your attack and should be called as such whichever part of the blade you hit with. Mediocre/bad referees blow this call. (Point in fact, this action is my preferred method of figuring out whether or not my referee knows what he or she is doing.)

TL;DR : Goldgar and Edew have it right.

[Jason]

in Reagan's words, "Trust, but verify". I'd like to understand the why of it.

Lenin's words, actually. Reagan was just a fan.

[haroldbuck]

As to the original question about the source of this, it's probably confusion with the following:

A established PIL. B searches, A derobes but maintains the line, but doesn't hit with the point and instead hits with the edge as B hits as well.

I asked about this here a few weeks ago to verify that the interpretation is that the line is no because it didn't hit with the point. This does not mean that you can't attack with a cut after you derobe and have priority, but maybe some people are interpreting it as such?

[jeff]

In the instances I am talking about, though, in both cases the ref saw and admitted the existence of the searches, but maintained that if you start with PIL, you may only hit with PIL after the derobe or evasion, and may not attack and hit with a cut. If it was only a matter of them not perceiving the search as a search, I would have shrugged and put it down to bad calls. This is rather more perplexing, the more so since as I said the first ref from whom I heard this position is a 3 in sabre and coaches it as well...

I don't get it either, and never heard of any rule (oh, I want an actual rule behind this? I know: dreamer) that puts any such restriction. As stated, it penalizes anyone who puts up a line to draw the attempted blade taking. I'm with vivoescrimare "Goldgar and Edew have it right." They expressed perfectly what I think is the case, and this is one of those arbitrary rules subject to eac's comment at the top of the thread. Not that it matters from lowly types like me, but IMO you wuz robbed.

PiL is now worse than ROW's Blue Screen of Death - it's now the Bermuda triangle.