Point in Line

[James Russell]

OK I'm suspicious of your argument given the final statement, which
doesn't seem to fit in coherently with the prior argument. (I snipped the
rest).

Holly E. Ordway wrote:

> One point to remember, though, is that while a disengage is allowed,
> it has to be in response to an actual attempt to take the blade. If
> Fencer B tries to take the line, A can disengage and lunge, and will
> get the touch. However, if A anticipates the beat or take, and
> disengages without being in response to anything, he loses priority,
> and the simple attack from B will get the touch.

Hoe exactly would that work? As long as the point 'remains' in line during
the disengage to a non-existent envelopment, wouldn't it still count by
the prior argument? (or is this last part a caveated seperate
rule/clause?).

Rather than argue this spuriously I decided to consult my 1999 USFA
rulebook (let's quote some rules!). If they have changed in the new 2002
version let me know, but

t.10 - point in line. easy-peasy (and you can apparently move any
direction on it as agreed).

t.56(a)6. In summary, if point in line, it must be deflected.
"""7. If attacker fails to find the blade (is derobed) then the right of
attack passes to the opponent. This suggests the point in line does NOT
give priorty of attack.

t.60 (2)(a). Only attacker is hit if he does not deflect a point in line.

t.76(c)1. more on must deflect yada yada. (for sabre).

So from this I would say it supports your argument Holly, HOWEVER. I then
thought about it (and not at the least not wanting to be wrong =) )
realised that nowhere has it said that a point in line IS an offensive
action (i.e. an attack, ergo with priority).

Looking at rules t.7 through t.10, and considering t.56(a)6. I would
suggest that should the blade NOT be taken, then an attack into a 'point
in line' has occured. Point in line has priority. BUT, if the point in
line then becomes a lunge, this is no longer a t.10 action but a t.7
action. a NEW action, offensive, but with a priority later than the first
attacker, hence it will NOT have priority.

That's the way I see it anyway. I would encourage you to reply and argue
if you feel justified though (trying to be constructive, see your point of
view, as is want with these rulings). I certainly do not want to offend
you, though, so please don't be offended by my incessant arguing of the
point.

James

[James Russell]

Holly E. Ordway wrote:

> Basically, the point in line has ABSOLUTE priority once it has been
> correctly established - Fencer B **MUST** deal with it regardless of
> whether Fencer A is advancing, retreating, or lunging.

Yes, unless it ceases to be a point in line (t.10) and becomes an
offensive action with its own priority (t.7) which would be out of time to
the initiating offensive action (also a t.7).

i.e. lunging with a line won't work into an attack (see the other post for
a more thorough treatment).

j

[Wolf]

> > One point to remember, though, is that while a disengage is allowed,
> > it has to be in response to an actual attempt to take the blade. If
> > Fencer B tries to take the line, A can disengage and lunge, and will
> > get the touch. However, if A anticipates the beat or take, and
> > disengages without being in response to anything, he loses priority,
> > and the simple attack from B will get the touch.
>
> How exactly would that work? As long as the point 'remains' in line during
> the disengage to a non-existent envelopment, wouldn't it still count by
> the prior argument? (or is this last part a caveated seperate
> rule/clause?).
>
> Rather than argue this spuriously I decided to consult my 1999 USFA
> rulebook (let's quote some rules!). If they have changed in the new 2002
> version let me know, but
>
> t.10 - point in line. easy-peasy (and you can apparently move any
> direction on it as agreed).

It's interesting, as I read this, that it seems to suggest that the initial
extension of the arm, say preceeding a lunge, sets up 'point in line'. It
makes a subsequent analysis intriguing, given that premise.

> t.56(a)6. In summary, if point in line, it must be deflected.
> """7. If attacker fails to find the blade (is derobed) then the right of
> attack passes to the opponent. This suggests the point in line does NOT
> give priority of attack.

Not necessarily. It reinforces the need to clear the PIL, and that a failure
loses right of way. I also read it to mean that a missed 'beat' transfers
right of way as well. Remember, t.56 covers all situations, not just an
attack into a PIL.

> Looking at rules t.7 through t.10, and considering t.56(a)6. I would
> suggest that should the blade NOT be taken, then an attack into a 'point
> in line' has occured. Point in line has priority. BUT, if the point in
> line then becomes a lunge, this is no longer a t.10 action but a t.7
> action. a NEW action, offensive, but with a priority later than the first
> attacker, hence it will NOT have priority.

But is it? All a PIL is is an extension of the arm/blade that threatens
target. PIL isn't necessarily some magical special situation. It can
transiently exist during a simple attack or during a lunging attacking after
extension.

PIL implies you can't take the blade offline, but it doesn't seem to say you
can't lunge -- which afterall, is only a foot/body movement and on its own,
not an attack.

I read PIL as an attack in progress, with implicit right of way. Lunging
forward w/ it shouldn't be seen as a new attack, but merely the advancement
of an aleady existing attack, much like lunging after an arm extension does
not make a lunge attack two attacks, one newly started with the movement of
the body forward.

Interesting that I never thought of it that way until I read the rules in
question sequentially.
-Bill

>

[Holly E. Ordway]

>> One point to remember, though, is that while a disengage is
>> allowed, it has to be in response to an actual attempt to take the
>> blade. If Fencer B tries to take the line, A can disengage and
>> lunge, and will get the touch. However, if A anticipates the beat
>> or take, and disengages without being in response to anything, he
>> loses priority, and the simple attack from B will get the touch.
>
> Hoe exactly would that work? As long as the point 'remains' in line
> during the disengage to a non-existent envelopment, wouldn't it
> still count by the prior argument? (or is this last part a caveated
> seperate rule/clause?).

Huh. I've been trying to find the specific rule (in my copy of the
2000 rules) and can't find it. If anyone else can locate a rule
bearing on that subject, please jump in.

> t.10 - point in line. easy-peasy (and you can apparently move any
> direction on it as agreed).
>
> t.56(a)6. In summary, if point in line, it must be deflected.
> """7. If attacker fails to find the blade (is derobed) then the
> right of attack passes to the opponent. This suggests the point in
> line does NOT give priorty of attack.

I don't agree - here the rule is clarifying the situation.

t.56(a)6. If the attack is initiated when the opponent is "point in
line", the attacker must, first, deflect the opponent's blade.

This makes it very clear that the PIL has priority; it's up to the
would-be attacker to take that priority back. t.56(a)7 just clarifies
what happens if the would-be attacker screws up.

> t.60 (2)(a). Only attacker is hit if he does not deflect a point in
> line.
>
> t.76(c)1. more on must deflect yada yada. (for sabre).
>
> So from this I would say it supports your argument Holly, HOWEVER.
> I then thought about it (and not at the least not wanting to be
> wrong =) ) realised that nowhere has it said that a point in line
> IS an offensive action (i.e. an attack, ergo with priority).

You're right, in that the PIL is not defined as an attack or as an
offensive action. However, it *is* presented as having priority. An
attack onto the point in line can never be successful unless the point
in line is dealt with. (Think of it this way: when you hear it called,
it's "point in line, attack onto the point in line" and then the PIL
person gets the touch. The PIL is not being described as an attack in
any way, just as an action that has priority over the attack)

Here, it's

> t.60 (2)(a). Only attacker is hit if he does not deflect a point in
> line.

that provides that interpretation. We don't have to call a PIL an
attack or an offensive action; it simply has priority over an attack
(that doesn't deflect it).

> Looking at rules t.7 through t.10, and considering t.56(a)6. I
> would suggest that should the blade NOT be taken, then an attack
> into a 'point in line' has occured. Point in line has priority.
> BUT, if the point in line then becomes a lunge, this is no longer a
> t.10 action but a t.7 action. a NEW action, offensive, but with a
> priority later than the first attacker, hence it will NOT have
> priority.

No, this is incorrect. The definition of a point in line is

t.10: "a particular position in which the fencer has his sword arm
extended and continually threatens the valid target of the opponent
with the point of his weapon."

This defines the PIL *entirely* in terms of the arm position and
threatening of target; footwork is *not* included in the definition.
There is absolutely nothing in any reference to the PIL that indicates
that it is in any way related to the fencer's motion, forward or
backward. Neither does it refer to the fencer's motion relative to the
attacker. He can advance, retreat, and lunge - why not? The rules
don't specify the footwork.

To exaggerate, to say that lunging makes the PIL lose priority is like
saying that a PIL loses priority if the fencer is wearing striped
socks. The rules don't say anything about socks, so we can safely
assume that the sock color is irrelevant.

I see how you've developed your argument (that by lunging, the PIL
"becomes" an attack and is therefore covered by t.7 rather than t.10.
But look at t.10 and t.56 again: the only way that the PIL loses
priority is by not conforming to its description (arm not extended, or
point not threatening target) or by being deflected.

A point in line **cannot** "become a lunge." A lunge is footwork. PIL
is a position of the arm and weapon.

> That's the way I see it anyway. I would encourage you to reply and
> argue if you feel justified though (trying to be constructive, see
> your point of view, as is want with these rulings). I certainly do
> not want to offend you, though, so please don't be offended by my
> incessant arguing of the point.

Oh, I'm not offended at all! :-) It has motivated me to pull out the
rulebook and look at it more closely, which is always a good thing.

I'll also add that I'm primarily a sabre fencer; sabre referees seem
to follow the rules as written somewhat more closely than foil
referees (witness the differences in how "preparation" is called), so
I'm not to be held responsible for weird interpretations of the rules
by foilists! ;-)

I would like to see if someone can track down the basis for my
understanding that a PIL loses priority if it disengages without being
in response to a beat; I used to think that it kept priority as long
as it was a small enough disengage to stay threatening target, but I
had a number of very informed people tell me otherwise.

--Holly

[Carol]

James Russell wrote:
>
> Holly E. Ordway wrote:
>
> > Basically, the point in line has ABSOLUTE priority once it has been
> > correctly established - Fencer B **MUST** deal with it regardless of
> > whether Fencer A is advancing, retreating, or lunging.
>
> Yes, unless it ceases to be a point in line (t.10) and becomes an
> offensive action with its own priority (t.7) which would be out of time to
> the initiating offensive action (also a t.7).
>
> i.e. lunging with a line won't work into an attack (see the other post for
> a more thorough treatment).

ABSOLUTELY!! Finally, someone that understands the nuances!!!
There is hope yet.......but then again, I hope that you do
understand that If I hold a line, and that line is there as you
think about it, and then you finallly decide to pull back your
weapon behind your back, and in that moment that you are pulling
BACKWARDS and BEFORE you BEGIN to extend it, I decide to lunge,
that is my attack -- nuances are very funny, and they work both ways......

Part of the problem that has been occurring with refereeing has
been that refereess aren't paying that much focus in
distinguishing between the first action and the second action --
and, fencer's, with their vocalizations, have been able to
persuade referees that it was their first actions and not their
second action that has hit. It is quite problematic, especially
considering that many spectators are getting confused -- i.e.
spectators are seeing it right, but then the referee callls it
opposite, and then the spectator gets confused, because just
when they thought they understood it, the referee calls it different....

[James Russell]

Other nuance is if you go for my wepaon and I derobe AND attack (lunge) while
you are still flailing about looking for my weapon (preparing) and haven't
initiated an attack.

I talked to friends about this interpretation last night and they agreed with
PIL being different to an attack (1st/2nd action a good description also).
Though that
s not surprising given that's how its unequivocably ruled here.

j

Carol wrote:

> James Russell wrote:
> >
> > Holly E. Ordway wrote:
> >
> > > Basically, the point in line has ABSOLUTE priority once it has been
> > > correctly established - Fencer B **MUST** deal with it regardless of
> > > whether Fencer A is advancing, retreating, or lunging.
> >
> > Yes, unless it ceases to be a point in line (t.10) and becomes an
> > offensive action with its own priority (t.7) which would be out of time to
> > the initiating offensive action (also a t.7).
> >
> > i.e. lunging with a line won't work into an attack (see the other post for
> > a more thorough treatment).
>
> ABSOLUTELY!! Finally, someone that understands the nuances!!!
> There is hope yet.......but then again, I hope that you do
> understand that If I hold a line, and that line is there as you
> think about it, and then you finallly decide to pull back your
> weapon behind your back, and in that moment that you are pulling
> BACKWARDS and BEFORE you BEGIN to extend it, I decide to lunge,
> that is my attack -- nuances are very funny, and they work both ways......
>
> Part of the problem that has been occurring with refereeing has
> been that refereess aren't paying that much focus in
> distinguishing between the first action and the second action --
> and, fencer's, with their vocalizations, have been able to
> persuade referees that it was their first actions and not their
> second action that has hit. It is quite problematic, especially
> considering that many spectators are getting confused -- i.e.
> spectators are seeing it right, but then the referee callls it
> opposite, and then the spectator gets confused, because just
> when they thought they understood it, the referee calls it different....

[Carol]

James Russell wrote:

Since you are talking nuances, I will of course jump right in!!

> Other nuance is if you go for my wepaon and I derobe AND attack (lunge) while
> you are still flailing about looking for my weapon (preparing) and haven't
> initiated an attack.

Of course, for people who haven't been exactly following our conversation, this
is an entirely new topic.

I LOVE derobements -- that is what makes fencing so fascinating to watch!!! -- I
find it EXTREMELY uncommon for them to be called in the US, but I find them
EXTREMELY well called in Europe. This is fencing as good as it gets -- only the
true afficiandos get it and appreciate it!!!!!

Unfortunately, for US fencing, this fine distinction is totally irrelevant, for
lack of a better and more apprpropriate term.

[Fencerbill]

In article <3F11EFE2.CE255C04@verizon.net>, Carol <ca.donohue@verizon.net>
writes:

>I LOVE derobements -- that is what makes fencing so fascinating to watch!!!
>-- I
>find it EXTREMELY uncommon for them to be called in the US, but I find them
>EXTREMELY well called in Europe. This is fencing as good as it gets -- only
>the
>true afficiandos get it and appreciate it!!!!!

What did you expect? After all, it is A FOREIGN TERM.

Bill Hall

[Harold Buck]

In article <3F11EFE2.CE255C04@verizon.net>,
Carol <ca.donohue@verizon.net> wrote:

> James Russell wrote:
>
> Since you are talking nuances, I will of course jump right in!!
>
> > Other nuance is if you go for my wepaon and I derobe AND attack (lunge)
> > while
> > you are still flailing about looking for my weapon (preparing) and haven't
> > initiated an attack.
>
> Of course, for people who haven't been exactly following our conversation,
> this
> is an entirely new topic.
>
> I LOVE derobements -- that is what makes fencing so fascinating to watch!!!
> -- I
> find it EXTREMELY uncommon for them to be called in the US, but I find them
> EXTREMELY well called in Europe. This is fencing as good as it gets -- only
> the
> true afficiandos get it and appreciate it!!!!!
>
> Unfortunately, for US fencing, this fine distinction is totally irrelevant,
> for
> lack of a better and more apprpropriate term.


Not that I'm an expert, but I think the distinction used to be more
relevant. Back when a point in line was a point in line no matter what
footwork you did EXCEPT lunge or fleche, the call needed to be "Point in
line is no, attack into preparation is good" since the lunge after the
derobement negated the PIL.

However, now that you can lunge with a PIL, I think they can get away
with calling it a little more sloppily.

All of this, of course, is IIRC.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson