Yet another sabre ROW question...

[AndrewH]

Hey once again, haven't posted anything in awhile but I've been thinking about this situation and i can't figure it out. Lets say that fencer X advances and establishes a point in line (making it his point attack). X lunges with the point, but Y retreats. Without removing the point, X lunges again and hits Y with the point, as Y makes a valid hit on X. Now my first guess would be to call it as X's first attack misses, Y's counterattack lands, touch Y. But if X never removes the point, is it like the continuation of a cut along the same line, i.e. any touch scored along that line is a first attack? Sorry if it's a little confusing, but I'd be interested if anyone has any ideas. Thanks!

P.S. This all takes place in a sabre bout.

[edew]

Good question. Let's see if I can take a stab at it. (Haha)

I would say it's X's touch. Basically, X is just establishing a point in line and Y is walking onto it, even if it's X who is moving and Y is stationary. Y's hit on X is a counter-attack into a point in line.

A point thrust attack (in foil or sabre) immediately becomes a point in line once the attack is over, provided the arm and point does not move.

The only way I can see Y's hit be called ROW is if Y starts his attack at the same time or soon after X starts his attack, and X's attack lands short while Y's arrives on X. In that case, X's point in line cannot be established prior to the start of Y's attack, hence Y has right of way.

[nahouw]

Of course, the caveat is, I would have to see it, but here are the possible scenarios as I would reconstruct the action:

First thing, Y has not counterattacked -- he made a distance parry by retreating, causing X's initial attack to fall short.

X attacks, Y makes a distance parry, X knowing that this would be Y's response, makes a redoublement and hits, it is X's point.

X attacks, Y makes a distance parry, X is stuck in his lunge as Y makes his riposte, so X's remise does not have priority over Y's riposte, touch for Y.

X attacks, Y makes a distance parry, X extends his lunge in tempo and hits, then Y hits, it is X's point.

X attacks, Y makes a distance parry, Y's riposte is delayed and X doesn't really keep the point in line, all timing of the phrase is lost, so it is simultaneous.

X attacks, Y makes a distance parry, X comes back to enguard and then makes a reprise -- in this case we need more evaluation: it would be Y's point because he is entitled to his riposte, HOWEVER, you have to evaluate the timing -- if Y's riposte is delayed, it would be X's point. Another issue for evaluation of the situation is like Eric says -- does X keep a point-in-line upon finishing the attack, or does he remove it, and is just fishing.

[shamshir]

I thought if you "attacked" with a line it was no longer a line, but a point attack. In that case, after the first lunge (if it didn't hit) ROW would go to fencer Y's riposte. The remise would be a counter-attack out of time.

I'm pretty sure about the lack of priority of an attacking line, but I guess I could be wrong. I don't have referee credentials or anything, and the FIE keeps messin' around with the rules. You should ask George Kolombatovich.

[edew]

If I make a short lunge with a point attack, and you retreat, and I fix the point immediately after I finish the lunge, and you don't advance until after I have stopped and made my PIL pose, then I do indeed have a PIL.

What usually happens in both foil and sabre is that the attack is finished with the arm performing a "follow-through" where the arm is somewhat pulled back or the the point (or the whole blade) does not maintain a fixed line. Then, a (somewhat) late advance by the distance parrying Y, with the point (or blade for sabre) threatening, is a rightful parry. X's replacement of the point is late unless Y is so slow and late in making the riposte that X can re-earn ROW by quickly placing the PIL before Y begins the forward movement.

[shamshir]

correct me if I'm wrong but in the scenario you describe X is making a PIL, then losing it by doing a lunge (or, rather, losing it because his lunge causes his arm to wobble forward or backward), but then replacing a PIL at the end of the lunge.

In that case yeah, Y's distance parry-riposte is in time if it's done right after the lunge, and too late if it's begun after the PIL is re-established.

Am I getting that right?

Also, it seems you're implying a forward movement (like a lunge or step) does not in itself nullify a PIL, but it is usually impossible to keep the point fixed and the arm locked in place when you make an advancing action, and that's why the PIL is lost.

[Peach]

In practice, point-in-line is not called for sabre fencers who have made point attack and attempt to leave out line afterwards. In fact, line is not usually established unless the fencer has retreated well out of distance.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Peach
In practice, point-in-line is not called for sabre fencers who have made point attack and attempt to leave out line afterwards. In fact, line is not usually established unless the fencer has retreated well out of distance.

Same in foil. I remember asking this question of Derek Cotton once. He responded, 'no one under 35 is going try to establish PIL after an attack, and it's only called in their favor if it's someone with a rep, like Mike Marx.'

That said, the original description confuses me. Does X establish PIL? Or is it an attack?

IF X established PIL, it seems to me like the line was never broken. If it was an attack, it depends on the timing of Y's hit, especially if Y doesn't move forward.

I'd really have to see it.

[edew]

Originally posted by shamshir
correct me if I'm wrong but in the scenario you describe X is making a PIL, then losing it by doing a lunge (or, rather, losing it because his lunge causes his arm to wobble forward or backward), but then replacing a PIL at the end of the lunge.

In that case yeah, Y's distance parry-riposte is in time if it's done right after the lunge, and too late if it's begun after the PIL is re-established.

Am I getting that right?

Also, it seems you're implying a forward movement (like a lunge or step) does not in itself nullify a PIL, but it is usually impossible to keep the point fixed and the arm locked in place when you make an advancing action, and that's why the PIL is lost.

Yes, a step forward or a lunge does not nullify a PIL. Indeed, on RSF, George K himself posted the information some time back. (For a while, it was indeed the case that a lunge nullified the PIL, but then in '95 or '96 or maybe even '97, the FIE arbitrage changed the ruling: you can advance, retreat, lunge, do whatever. As long as your arm doesn't move from the wrist or further up the arm, relative to the rest of your body. So, making squirming movements would most likely move your arm relative to the body and hence nullify a PIL.)

Other than that, I think you got my point (haha). Suppose I'm X, I attack at you, Y. I see that you're retreating fast. So, instead of chasing, I finish my attack by fully extending the arm and leaving a point out there. It's a point in line the moment my front foot touches the ground. If you advance at me after I have stopped, you're advancing into a point in line.

Go to the USFA website. Click on Committee websites. Then click on Fencing Officials Commission. When that page is displayed on the main frame, click on the FAQ and read the answer to the first FAQ question about what constitutes an attack. What I'm describing is situation #3.

[pkt]

I have to agree with Eric's final analysis.
A PIL is a position, not an attack.
If one attacks into a PIL then it's a suicide move.

There is no such thing according to the FIE as a distance parry. It is not one of the 19 FIE-approved terms for the referees to use.

There's so much controversy and misunderstanding with the PIL, we have recommended to the beginners to refrain from using it unless they know how the ref is going to call it from a previous bout.

achilleus's 2 points
"I remember asking this question of Derek Cotton once. He responded, 'no one under 35 is going try to establish PIL after an attack, and it's only called in their favor if it's someone with a rep, like Mike Marx.'"
is the sad truth. So Andrew, I'd suggest you listen to Derek as quoted.

Oh good luck,

PK

[edew]

True, distance parry is a colloquial term. It's not an official term. As a referee, I could call the action either as attack is parried (via distance, but don't say that), riposte arrives, or I can say attack (from left, say) failed, attack (from right) lands. In order for it to be right's counter-attack, right had to start the forward attacking motion prior to left's end and failed attack.

However, in the scenario painted above, left's (X's) attack fails, but it turns immediately into a point in line, provided Y did not begin a counterattack before the conclusion of X's attack.

[shamshir]

about distance parries, I agree the term is rather crappy. So what do people call it? I don't mean in USFA tournaments, I mean in countries where FIE terminology is used (and obviously WC's).

In Canada I've heard, "attaque, non, riposte, oui" or "attaque, non, riposte, touche" or something like that. What is the official term for an attack that just clear misses? Or do they just call it the attack for the successful hit?

And what is the official FIE hand motion for "parried" ? I read that there was a new hand motion approved for this, but didn't find a description. I know the motions for point-in-line, attack, attack on invalid target, but not for parry.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by edew
However, in the scenario painted above, left's (X's) attack fails, but it turns immediately into a point in line, provided Y did not begin a counterattack before the conclusion of X's attack.

and

Originally posted by edew
It's a point in line the moment my front foot touches the ground. If you advance at me after I have stopped, you're advancing into a point in line.

These 2 comments are contradictory, either it's PIL immediately, or it's not. I've never seen a ref give PIL immediately. I've seen them give PIL if there is period of time between the failed attack, and the riposte/counterattack/new attack.

[pkt]

eric,

"True, distance parry is a colloquial term. It's not an official term. As a referee, I could call the action either as attack is parried (via distance, but don't say that), riposte arrives, or I can say attack (from left, say) failed, attack (from right) lands."


simply call it this way:
attack: No
counter-attack: yes.

Y's action has to be a counter-attack since
NO parry took place you can't call it a riposte
A riposte implies that Y did a parry.

"In order for it to be right's counter-attack, right had to start the forward attacking motion prior to left's end and failed attack."

I'm amazed that a man of your ability has such a narrow, outdated interpretation of counter-attack: It's so wrong. (Back-hand compliment.)

(c) Counter-attacks
Counter-attacks are offensive or offensive–defensive actions made during the offensive action of the opponent.

In practice, they've lumped the offensive action after a 'distance parry' into this category, according to Vidosa.

PK

[edew]

Originally posted by shamshir
about distance parries, I agree the term is rather crappy. So what do people call it? I don't mean in USFA tournaments, I mean in countries where FIE terminology is used (and obviously WC's).

In Canada I've heard, "attaque, non, riposte, oui" or "attaque, non, riposte, touche" or something like that. What is the official term for an attack that just clear misses? Or do they just call it the attack for the successful hit?

And what is the official FIE hand motion for "parried" ? I read that there was a new hand motion approved for this, but didn't find a description. I know the motions for point-in-line, attack, attack on invalid target, but not for parry.

An attack that fails is called by the referee as, "attacque, non." The hand signal that goes with a failed attack is to take the arm on the side of the direction of the attack (say X on the left attacked towards the right, Y, then use the right arm), raise the arm so the upper arm is parallel to the floor, stick the index finger out, point it to the ear so that your head/neck, upper arm and forearm makes a triangle. Then whip the arm out so the finger swings once like an upside-down pendulum.

An attack that is parried is signalled by making the Ultraman laser-from-hand cross with the two hands. The vertical bar is done by the hand for the side of the parrier, the horizontal bar is done by the hand for the side of the attacker. The cross is made on the side of the parry.

I believe the USFA's rule book (and may also be on the FIE website) has illustrations of the hand actions.

One particular peeve of mine is the use of the wrong arm for the off-target in foil. If left attacks right, the referee uses his left hand to point to the left-bottom, indicating the location of the attack. Then he either shows:
* attack arrives with a straight RIGHT arm pointing to the right
* attack is parried with the crossed arms (crossed at the wrists) with RIGHT arm vertical, LEFT arm horizontal, and cross situated in front of the RIGHT shoulder
* attack misses with the inverted pendulum dealie using the RIGHT arm
* attack is off-target with the RIGHT upper arm parallel to the floor, the forearm dangling down and one pendulum swing.

Many referees use the LEFT arm to do the dangling, because of the false assumption that when the attack (by the left to the right) arrives, the LEFT arm is eventually lifted up to indicate a score. But the analogy is wrong. The arm is lifted to indicate a score, not to indicate a successful attack. The attack could well be unsuccessful, but the fencer on the left could still be awarded a score during the phrase (opponent ran off the back end, penalty awarded, time ran out with priority for the left, etc.)

The indian "How!" hand raised gesture to indicate a score does not indicate the action. It only shows which side(s) get the score.

There's also the high heil hitler hand position to indicate halt. Apparently, one is to raise the hand on the side of the fencer who caused the halt. I have not been able to do this hand action. I can do it if I call halt for some extraneous reasons (wires on strip, spilled drinks on strip, dog running onto the strip), and my "halt!" isn't immediately heard. But for general halts due to actions, I just call halt and can't bring myself to lift either arm. It's tough enough to watch the action that to add an extra arm raise makes it quite complicated. I lose the action by doing so.

[edew]

Originally posted by achilleus
and



These 2 comments are contradictory, either it's PIL immediately, or it's not. I've never seen a ref give PIL immediately. I've seen them give PIL if there is period of time between the failed attack, and the riposte/counterattack/new attack.

(I didn't bother to put my two comments in). I don't see how they're contradictory. Both says that an attack that falls short but places the point fixed in line turns the end of the attack into an immediate point in line as long as Y had not already commenced an attack of his own prior to the placement of the point in line.

[edew]

Originally posted by pkt
eric,

"True, distance parry is a colloquial term. It's not an official term. As a referee, I could call the action either as attack is parried (via distance, but don't say that), riposte arrives, or I can say attack (from left, say) failed, attack (from right) lands."


simply call it this way:
attack: No
counter-attack: yes.

Y's action has to be a counter-attack since
NO parry took place you can't call it a riposte
A riposte implies that Y did a parry.

"In order for it to be right's counter-attack, right had to start the forward attacking motion prior to left's end and failed attack."

I'm amazed that a man of your ability has such a narrow, outdated interpretation of counter-attack: It's so wrong. (Back-hand compliment.)

(c) Counter-attacks
Counter-attacks are offensive or offensive?defensive actions made during the offensive action of the opponent.

In practice, they've lumped the offensive action after a 'distance parry' into this category, according to Vidosa.

PK

That's not correct. A counter-attack is an action performed strictly by a person who doesn't have the right of way, hoping (or expecting) the opponent's attack with right of way misses. The "distance parry" gives your "counterattacker" the right of way and so he does not have to hope that the intial attacker misses.

Thus, I suggested -- if you didn't like the idea that a riposte can't occur with a blade-to-blade parry, "Attack by X, no. Attack by Y, yes (or no or off-target)." The attack by X is one phrase. The action by Y is a second phrase.

A counter-attack is done in the same phrase as the attack, in the hope or expectation that the attack misses.

A much missed action is the attack by X, a distance (or distance + blade) parry by Y, a slow but insistent riposte action by Y together with an immediate remise by X. I have often seen novice referees throw out such actions calling them simultaneous. It's not. The attack by X is done (and X did not immediately place a point in line, as the arm is usually dropped or pulled back a bit), and Y has the right to make the riposte, however slow or deliberate, as long as it's immediate without hesitation.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by edew
I don't see how they're contradictory. Both says that an attack that falls short but places the point fixed in line turns the end of the attack into an immediate point in line as long as Y had not already commenced an attack of his own prior to the placement of the point in line.

I agree with the above interpretation. Your previous comments, one said that if you advance, you advance onto PIL.

The other said if you go immediately, it's not PIL.

Maybe not exactly contradictory, but lacking in clarity for sure. Or maybe it's just my poor reading comprehension.

[edew]

If Y started before the PIL was established, then Y has right of way: X's attack is short, no, Y's counter-attack arrives, yes, X's PIL is not even factored into the equation.

If Y starts after the PIL is established, the X's PIL has (obviously) right of way.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by edew
If Y started before the PIL was established, then Y has right of way: X's attack is short, no, Y's counter-attack arrives, yes, X's PIL is not even factored into the equation.

If Y starts after the PIL is established, the X's PIL has (obviously) right of way.

Please stop. Your previous description was concise and clear, and I agreed with it.