Fencing Action, You call the touche

[CarlKnoch]

Speaking of point-in-line, does anyone know exactly WHEN it becomes established as point in line?

I've already been told that the arm must be straight out threatening high line target for a full beat (tempo, action) prior to the attack coming at it.

So if I start to extend my arm as my opponent is in the middle of an advance, and my arm becomes locked out just before he finishes that advance with a lunge, it's his attack, and I never had point-in-line established, and so it's his attack, my counter.

Has anyone read the rule on that as I can't find it in the USFA rules. It's vague as to when point-in-line becomes established and how long it must be established before it gains you ROW.

[Katman]

2001 FIE Referees Committee offered further guidelines for Point in Line beyond what is given in the rules. Arm must be straight and remain straight, threatening target in the high line. Hit can be made stationary, moving forward or backward. Retains priority until blade is parried, beaten or prise de ferred.

Huh? Why just the high line? O.o You can threaten low line and keep your arm perfectly straight, hell you don't even have to move it from where you might threaten high line. Why did they specify highline? If you happen to know that is.

[Wizardly]

1) B
t.7 - attacks do not continue past the last forward movement.
t.8.c.1 - after the initial attack failure due to the retreat, the attacker is making a remise or, t.8.c.2 redoublement, which is a new action in counter-time to B's right of way
t.56.1 and 3 - supports interpretation of t.7
t.60.f - supports t.8.c.1 as the fencer is making a remise or redoublement and is hit by an immediate riposte

As long as A stopped his last forward motion, B may riposte by virtue of avoiding the touch. Should B delay the riposte, t.60.c kicks in along with t.8.c.1 or 2, giving A right of way again. Should A not redouble or remise, A may become point in line as there is a period of fencing time in between the attack end and subsequent action.

2) B
t.10 - B is point in line
t.7 - point in line occurred before the last forward stop of opponent.
t.56.8 - crossing over is preparation. this is so, from my interpretation, because the the step-forward lunge occured (arm extends + one forward motion) but subsequent forward motions were made.

As long as B establishes line at least one step before the last, B is in line and A must deflect or avoid. If after the last step, B is counterattacking. That's my interpretation of the rule. If I'm totally wrong, t.56.8 means that you may attack the running attack at any time and have right of way.

[Chris]

Originally posted by CvilleFencer
I would be agreeing with you Mischa except for one thing... I can't invision someone running without crossing their feet. I would think that would just be advancing quickly! :-)

If he A DID NOT cross his/her feet and DID begin his/her arm extension BEFORE B then it is his/her point, but if B established point in line while A was retreating or A crossed his feet in his "run" I would say it is B 's touch.

We are proving the Muaddib's point though aren't we?

A lot of common scenarios/variations have been discussed, some correctly...However, with respect to the actual question opening the thread, many of you people have missed the fact that the Point-in-line was established while the opponent was 'out of distance', as it is required to be, so it matters NOT WHAT the opponent was trying to do in the way of preparation or attack, as they were by definition, TOO FAR AWAY to be threatening; and therefore too far away to constitute an attack.

In THIS case, Point-in-Line takes the PRIORITY.
NOW will every 'referee' see it the same way?
(i.e. does every referee perceive 'out of distance' the same); obviously, NOT, just as they do not all understand the rules very well.

Originally posted by Sabresque
1) B
2)A

I think. Of course, I fence sabre, and I'd have to actually see the timing of the actions.


Now here's a fun one. I've noticed that (especially in sabre) that people have MANY different ideas of what constitutes a point in line attack.

I have heard that:

• [1]You must step back and be in advance lunge distance to put out line
  [2]You may not advance or retreat with line
  [3]You may not advance with line
  [4]You may not retreat with line
  [5]you may not lunge with line
  [6]One director told me I lost line because I made disengages (They were with the fingers!) !!

Which do YOU think are true?

1. False. You must be 'out of distance'; not IN.
2. False. You can retreat with it freely.
3. False. You can advance it while remaining 'out of distance'.
4. False - see above
5. Technically, False, IF you decided that you wanted to fence from that position, and after the lunge, you are still out of distance (and I suppose it would help if the opponenet wasn't doing anything, yet) then YES, the rules t.10 doesn't specify what position your feet are in, so you can have P-I-L that way, and but if by lunging the word 'lunge' implies trying to hit the opponent, that kind of changes things...
6. True! He TOLD you that!
Actually you MUST be allowed to 'derobe' - manipulate the blade to avoid attack au fer: That's kind of elementary to the whole P-I-L concept. HOWEVER, if the ref' didn't think your opponent was making attack au fer, well, that can be a little bit of a gray area...Of course, he could have been wrong!

Originally posted by CarlKnoch
Speaking of point-in-line, does anyone know exactly WHEN it becomes established as point in line?

I've already been told that the arm must be straight out threatening high line target for a full beat (tempo, action) prior to the attack coming at it.

For P-I-L you must have completed the extension PRIOR to initiation of the attack. I beleive the issue of threatening the high line is the predominant interpretation; it's not specified in the rules, but never expect to get the P-I-L call if it's low.

So if I start to extend my arm as my opponent is in the middle of an advance, and my arm becomes locked out just before he finishes that advance with a lunge, it's his attack, and I never had point-in-line established, and so it's his attack, my counter.

Sound like A. you are a little too close to get PIL, and you didn't say when he initiated his extension. (of course there are a lot of people who will incorrectly interpret advancing as attacking.)

Has anyone read the rule on that as I can't find it in the USFA rules. It's vague as to when point-in-line becomes established and how long it must be established before it gains you ROW.

See t.56 subparagraphs 5, and 6; and
t.60 subparagraphs 1e, and 2a

or t.76 for sabre.


Fun, fun, fun!

[axelbcorlu]

concerning the first example, i've read the opinions on who/how...my opinion is that, even if the initial attack is considered over (as mischa says), if the flecheing fencer does not deflect a point-in-line before making his touch (and in the example it says no blade), he has still impaled himself.

moving forward without deflecting a blade pointing at you is not an attack if you are already being threatened by a point-in-line, even if the initial attack was short, in my opinion...

if we understand right-of-way with people moving forward or backward, and not the threat posed to the valid target area, everything is possible, of course.

[DanInMI]

Ok....I am a little late in the thread and I am sure that this has been covered....but I simply couldn't get through the whole list of posts.


situation one:

B) wins the point. Even though a remains point in line he has exhausted his initial attack. Anything after that moment is a redoublement or remise. Allowing B to take right of way.

Situation Two:

If the feet cross B. (technically)

If A is advancing point in line A.

I think that most directors will call it for A just because it is such a well telegraphed attack, whether the feet cross or not. I think that the distance between the fencers will make a big difference in the way that a director percieves the attack also. If he has to take 5 or 6 steps before reaching the other fencer then the point in line might not seem so threatening as if he reached him in two steps.

I think also that if B is moving backward that a director would perceive the attacker A has right of way.

[Agent_V]

Originally posted by Katman
Huh? Why just the high line? O.o You can threaten low line and keep your arm perfectly straight, hell you don't even have to move it from where you might threaten high line. Why did they specify highline? If you happen to know that is.

From the Word Up High, the reason is simply convention. There is no place in the rulebook that you can find this, that is simply how it is treated by the FIE refs
Hope that helps :-P
-Alexander

[axelbcorlu]

perhaps, it is not just convention; when you hold your arm straight in the high line, you're reaching the maximum length you can achieve, and making it necessary for your opponent to deal with that direct threat first. when you have a straight arm threatening the low line, geometrically you're not at your greatest extension point. or that's how i think the conventions you're mentioning in this case might be thought out...

[muaddib]

Thanks for all your replies. And especially thanks to Jeff, Chris, and the ones who quoted rule numbers. (Although I doubt the danish refs will believe me!)

Although I meant for this post to be about foil, I didn't mention a weapon, because I thought the rules of ROW were the same for foil and sabre. Now I can see that's not true.

I have never heard the rule that a point in line MUST be in high line. I agree with Katman, this doesn't make sense! I guess in soccer the right side of the goal is better than the left side?? Target is target. How can a rule say that high target area is more important than low? What about short people?

A few weeks ago I had a debate with the danish national coach, who was directing my bout, who wouldn't give me a point-in-line call on an action because he said it was in low line. I said "So what", I'm threatening his target! He didn't buy it.

These silly rules ALMOST make me want to switch to epee
Well almost.

[jeff]

Originally posted by muaddib
A few weeks ago I had a debate with the danish national coach, who was directing my bout, who wouldn't give me a point-in-line call on an action because he said it was in low line. I said "So what", I'm threatening his target! He didn't buy it.

Muaddib, you're in good company: in early '70s I saw Albert Axelrod (1960 Olympic Bronze) arguing with a director at the A-rated Martini and Rossi Invitational on exactly this issue. If you extend from line of 6, it's high line and you can get PIL. Do the exact same thing extending from 2nd or 8th, with point threatening valid target, and you won't get it. He even varied the angle of his hand from 6th to 8th, asking "exactly when does it stop being a threat". All to no avail: the director didn't give him the touch.

It's just one of those completely arbitrary things that has never been properly justified or documented in the written rules. As Kolombatovich has said, the rules don't even say which arm needs to be extended! The rules are not written well enough.

I would think, with your user name, you would actually worry more about your knife chipping and shattering, right? (Though PIL is used in the book's first lethal knife fight)

[corinna2u]

I asked one of our coaches...why does he teach us in foil that our attack is over when the foot lands? (He teaches us that the point should hit slightly before or when the foot lands.)

I mentioned the fact that it doesn't say that under foil but does under saber.

His response...The sabre rules have been rewritten for clarification more recently than foil; when they get around to the rewrite on foil, it will clarify that when the foot lands the attack is ended.

So, he teaches us in such a way that at the highest level, we know that our attack does or does not have priority.

Just thought I would share this...

[Mischa]

Wow, good luck to all the presidents trying to decide if fencer A's foot hit the ground before his point landed or not, thus nullifying or validating fencer B's stop hit.

[corinna2u]

His advice on that one...make sure there is only one light...

What he is teaching us is know when your action really has ended and their's has begun, so you know what to do...not just hope the director calls it the way you want them to...

[rory]

Wow, good luck to all the presidents trying to decide if fencer A's foot hit the ground before his point landed or not, thus nullifying or validating fencer B's stop hit.

They manage at sabre!
But more seriously, if it ain't in the rules, it's not a rule.

Saying that "when they next rewrite the rules they'll..." is all very well, but "they" have been saying the flick's going to be banned for what... ten years now?

Fence to the current rules.
More importantly, fence to the referee.

[corinna2u]

His response...The sabre rules have been rewritten for clarification more recently than foil; when they get around to the rewrite on foil, it will clarify that when the foot lands the attack is ended.

Fencing Rules 2000 Edition USFA:

ii ....As a matter of policy, the USFA normally follows the technical rules enacted for the sport by the FIE, with occasional minor exceptions that are duly announced. The rules for fencing, as set forth in this book,...

iii ....This American edition incorporates the most recent FIE rules changes using terms commonly used in American fencing. Some changes of form have been made to increase the clarity of the text, without altering the original text............This current edition is based, in large part on the British translation of the FIE Rules....


My point is "our" version is in a large part a SECOND translation from the original....FIE rules are in French, first translation in British English, second translation in American English. Things get lost in translation especially second translations...as stated on page iii, some parts have been rewritten for clarification (not rule change). The sabre section, according to my coach, was one such section rewritten for CLARIFICATION.

So Rory, when you say fence by the current rules...

You would first have to have a complete understanding of the rules in its original language - French - then you would have to know all the "minor exceptions" in American English that the USFA has set forth.

[walrus418]

I would say 1) A and 2) A

1) Point in line is the highest priority action in the referee manual. Once it is properly established (and their is nothing stated in the example to indicate otherwise) it takes precedence over the attack from B. PIL can be made from a stand still, moving forward, or moving back.

2) Because the attack from A is the inital offensive action, the action by fencer B appears to be a reaction and thus a counterattack. The definition of an attack must consider actions by both fencers. Since B reacted to A with his extention, then it is A's attack.

[Wizardly]

Originally posted by walrus418
I would say 1) A and 2) A

1) Point in line is the highest priority action in the referee manual. Once it is properly established (and their is nothing stated in the example to indicate otherwise) it takes precedence over the attack from B. PIL can be made from a stand still, moving forward, or moving back.

1) A is NOT point in line. A is performing a remise.

Originally posted by walrus418
2) Because the attack from A is the inital offensive action, the action by fencer B appears to be a reaction and thus a counterattack. The definition of an attack must consider actions by both fencers. Since B reacted to A with his extention, then it is A's attack. [/B]

2) B is point in line (the highest priority action, remember?). A is in preparation.

Please show me which rules show I'm wrong or at least why you're right.

[Katman]

How is A performing a Remise? He has established point in line with his lunge and has not been parried. I understand there is a discussion above about the rules for Sabre and the rules for Foil, but it's my understanding that the end of a lunge does not obliviate established right of way in Foil. I searched for the rule in the USFA manual but I could not find it. Perhaps someone could quote it for me? O.o

[jeff]

I think I did quote the relevant rules, and cited the FOC's website for an identical example: they indicate Fencer A established the line.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by Katman
How is A performing a Remise? He has established point in line with his lunge and has not been parried. I understand there is a discussion above about the rules for Sabre and the rules for Foil, but it's my understanding that the end of a lunge does not obliviate established right of way in Foil. I searched for the rule in the USFA manual but I could not find it. Perhaps someone could quote it for me? O.o

It's easy to break down a written ROW a question, however reality, and application of the rules is another matter.

So often I see people argue with ref saying that the other fencer withdrew their arm, or were preparing, not realizing that they did not take advantage of the prepartion, and thus were hit with the attack.

It all depends on the timing of it, and how the ref sees it.

A makes an attack which is short because B retreats.
If B makes an immediate attempt to score after A's attack ends, it's B's touch. If B pauses it's A's PIL. The length of the pause has to be long enough for the ref to acknowledge it. Note, B is not immobile, nor merely advancing, but attacking into A's missed attack. That's how the action is currently interpreted. I posted this a while back but I post it again. I spoke with Derek Cotton about this 4 years ago. His response, was 'no one under 35 will ever try to establish line after they lunge, and no ref will give line, unless the fencer trying to establish is over 35 and has a rep, like Mike Marx.'

On the second action, B has to establish her/his PIL before A's attack is initiated. A may start out of distance, and B may see this and attempt to establish line, but that doesn't mean that B DOES establish line before A's attack is initiated.