Point in Line

[Jeremy]

Fencer A puts out a line.

Fencer B advances, and starts a motion that, should fencer A not move, will
end up hitting A on the wrist.

A doesn't advance, but pushes out his line further (motion comes mainly from
the shoulder and hips).

Both land.

Here's my issue: Does A relenquish the line when he makes that further
extension?

One of the guys at my club said 'A line has the arm out at full extension,
so if you push it further, you must have given up the line'. Not exactly a
water-tight argument, but I get his point.

(I didn't call the point, just admitted I had NFI what the rules were in
this case... Oh, and it's Sabre)

J

[Robert Pluim]

"Jeremy" <dru042@optushomenospam.com.au> writes:

> Fencer A puts out a line.
>
> Fencer B advances, and starts a motion that, should fencer A not move, will
> end up hitting A on the wrist.
>
> A doesn't advance, but pushes out his line further (motion comes mainly from
> the shoulder and hips).
>
> Both land.
>
> Here's my issue: Does A relenquish the line when he makes that further
> extension?

Hmm, I have no idea what the rules say, but my gut feeling is that as
long as he doesn't retract his arm, it's still a line. After all,
he's allowed to derobe an attempted prise-de-fer, so why not let him
lean forward a little?

> One of the guys at my club said 'A line has the arm out at full extension,
> so if you push it further, you must have given up the line'. Not exactly a
> water-tight argument, but I get his point.
>
> (I didn't call the point, just admitted I had NFI what the rules were in
> this case... Oh, and it's Sabre)

Ah. Ignore what I said, I'm a foilist. I don't understand sabre.

Robert
--
For mail, remove NOSPAM and translate from French.

[Holly E. Ordway]

"Jeremy" <dru042@optushomenospam.com.au> wrote in
news:3efd3bce$0$9355$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au :

> One of the guys at my club said 'A line has the arm out at full
> extension, so if you push it further, you must have given up the
> line'. Not exactly a water-tight argument, but I get his point.

You can advance, lunge, and "extend further" with a point in line, and
as long as it was correctly established to begin with, it's still a
line. If B didn't take A's line, it's A's touch.

Years ago, a forward motion with the point in line in sabre nullified
the line. Then they changed it (I think around 8 years or so ago), and
for a while there were lots of questions like your friend's. I still
come across questions like that, but it's definitive - the line is still
good.

--Holly (sabrist)

[James Russell]

I was under the impression (i.e. this is how I have seen it ruled).

A line is broken and becomes an attacking motion if it is advanced or lunged
with.
If that attacking motion (by the person with the line) happens as a reaction
to an attack into the line, then it started AFTER the other attack, and is
hence a counterattack.

Otherwise you would get gumbies just sticking their arm out and blithley
lunging into any motion forward by the opponent (annoying!).

James

Holly E. Ordway wrote:

> "Jeremy" <dru042@optushomenospam.com.au> wrote in
> news:3efd3bce$0$9355$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au :
>
> > One of the guys at my club said 'A line has the arm out at full
> > extension, so if you push it further, you must have given up the
> > line'. Not exactly a water-tight argument, but I get his point.
>
> You can advance, lunge, and "extend further" with a point in line, and
> as long as it was correctly established to begin with, it's still a
> line. If B didn't take A's line, it's A's touch.
>
> Years ago, a forward motion with the point in line in sabre nullified
> the line. Then they changed it (I think around 8 years or so ago), and
> for a while there were lots of questions like your friend's. I still
> come across questions like that, but it's definitive - the line is still
> good.
>
> --Holly (sabrist)

[Dirk Goldgar]

"James Russell" <apo@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3F01635F.5A64873B@slingshot.co.nz
> I was under the impression (i.e. this is how I have seen it ruled).
>
> A line is broken and becomes an attacking motion if it is advanced or
> lunged with.
> If that attacking motion (by the person with the line) happens as a
> reaction to an attack into the line, then it started AFTER the other
> attack, and is hence a counterattack.
>
> Otherwise you would get gumbies just sticking their arm out and
> blithley lunging into any motion forward by the opponent (annoying!).

Yes, it has been ruled that way in the past, but that is not the current
official interpretation. As the rule is currently to be applied, the
point in line, properly established before the start of the opponent's
attack, retains its right of way regardless of footwork.

Who knows, maybe they'll change it again next week.

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 1 Jul 2003 07:48:43 -0400
Dirk Goldgar <dgoldgar@NOalumni.SPAMprinceton.edu> wrote:
>
> Yes, it has been ruled that way in the past, but that is not the current
> official interpretation. As the rule is currently to be applied, the
> point in line, properly established before the start of the opponent's
> attack, retains its right of way regardless of footwork.
>

makes sense to me, if the idea of right of way is to get people to deal
with a nasty sharp thing pointing at them before they go leaping in.

If it's pointing at you, deal with it. If it's pointing at you and
moving towards you, then definitely deal with it! NO matter when it
starts moving.

Zebee

[Harold Buck]

In article <slrnbg3sus.s82.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>,
Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:

> In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 1 Jul 2003 07:48:43 -0400
> Dirk Goldgar <dgoldgar@NOalumni.SPAMprinceton.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, it has been ruled that way in the past, but that is not the current
> > official interpretation. As the rule is currently to be applied, the
> > point in line, properly established before the start of the opponent's
> > attack, retains its right of way regardless of footwork.
> >
>
> makes sense to me, if the idea of right of way is to get people to deal
> with a nasty sharp thing pointing at them before they go leaping in.
>
> If it's pointing at you, deal with it. If it's pointing at you and
> moving towards you, then definitely deal with it! NO matter when it
> starts moving.


Well, unless you started to attack first (in foil and saber). Then you
most likely ignore it. Thus, I think your last statement is incorrect.

--Harold Buck


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

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:06:27 -0700
Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnbg3sus.s82.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>,
> Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:
>
>> makes sense to me, if the idea of right of way is to get people to deal
>> with a nasty sharp thing pointing at them before they go leaping in.
>>
>> If it's pointing at you, deal with it. If it's pointing at you and
>> moving towards you, then definitely deal with it! NO matter when it
>> starts moving.
>
>
> Well, unless you started to attack first (in foil and saber). Then you
> most likely ignore it. Thus, I think your last statement is incorrect.

If it's not a sharp pointy thing, but only pretending, then I suppose it
matters if you are attacking first.

If it is, then it doesn't matter if you started first, deal with it...

Difficult to make that into rules I suppose, in that you aren't supposed
to start attacking until you have dealt withthe bloke attacking you, and
a sharp pointy thing will make this clear, but as most folk aren't
dealing with one, they tend to do silly things.

Zebee

[James Russell]

If you started the attack first? That would at best only be a step-lunge max.

Anything else in Sabre (or Foil for that matter) I stick my arm out. As Zebee
said - deal with it!

Yay for down under.

j

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:06:27 -0700
> Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrnbg3sus.s82.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>,
> > Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> makes sense to me, if the idea of right of way is to get people to deal
> >> with a nasty sharp thing pointing at them before they go leaping in.
> >>
> >> If it's pointing at you, deal with it. If it's pointing at you and
> >> moving towards you, then definitely deal with it! NO matter when it
> >> starts moving.
> >
> >
> > Well, unless you started to attack first (in foil and saber). Then you
> > most likely ignore it. Thus, I think your last statement is incorrect.
>
> If it's not a sharp pointy thing, but only pretending, then I suppose it
> matters if you are attacking first.
>
> If it is, then it doesn't matter if you started first, deal with it...
>
> Difficult to make that into rules I suppose, in that you aren't supposed
> to start attacking until you have dealt withthe bloke attacking you, and
> a sharp pointy thing will make this clear, but as most folk aren't
> dealing with one, they tend to do silly things.
>
> Zebee

[Harold Buck]

In article <slrnbg4d1g.bgu.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>,
Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:

> In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:06:27 -0700
> Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrnbg3sus.s82.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>,
> > Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> makes sense to me, if the idea of right of way is to get people to deal
> >> with a nasty sharp thing pointing at them before they go leaping in.
> >>
> >> If it's pointing at you, deal with it. If it's pointing at you and
> >> moving towards you, then definitely deal with it! NO matter when it
> >> starts moving.
> >
> >
> > Well, unless you started to attack first (in foil and saber). Then you
> > most likely ignore it. Thus, I think your last statement is incorrect.
>
> If it's not a sharp pointy thing, but only pretending, then I suppose it
> matters if you are attacking first.
>
> If it is, then it doesn't matter if you started first, deal with it...
>
> Difficult to make that into rules I suppose, in that you aren't supposed
> to start attacking until you have dealt withthe bloke attacking you, and
> a sharp pointy thing will make this clear, but as most folk aren't
> dealing with one, they tend to do silly things.


Sorry. I thought we were talking about how the rules of fencing applied
to the situation, not real life.

--Harold Buck


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

[Amy & Joseph Kormann]

Harold Buck wrote:

>Sorry. I thought we were talking about how the rules of fencing applied
>to the situation, not real life.
>
>
>
Fencing is life.

--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

[Chris Hagen]

In article <slrnbg3sus.s82.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>, Zebee Johnstone
<zebee@zip.com.au> writes:


>[sic] makes sense to me, if the idea of right of way is to get people to deal
>with a nasty sharp thing pointing at them before they go leaping in.

>If it's pointing at you, deal with it. If it's pointing at you and
>moving towards you, then definitely deal with it! NO matter when it
>starts moving.
>
>Zebee

Z' - you need to tell that to A!

The WHEN is VERY important!

It is my understanding that B would have successfully landed the point/cut on
A's wrist without getting hit in turn, EXCEPT for A's effort to impersonate
Plasticman.

A is the one who went 'leaping in' (granted tiniest of leaps - didn't even move
their feet...) when the point/blade was already coming at them.

A did not maintain the line, but made an attack against the priorly
established attack.

In article <slrnbg4d1g.bgu.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>, Zebee Johnstone
<zebee@zip.com.au> writes:

>Difficult to make that into rules I suppose, in that you aren't supposed
>to start attacking until you have dealt withthe bloke attacking you, and
>a sharp pointy thing will make this clear, but as most folk aren't
>dealing with one, they tend to do silly things.
>
>Zebee

Yes, A did a silly thing!

A made a stand;
B called the bluff, and circumvented the point;
his point being outflanked, instead of defending, A decided to counter-attack.

Very-silly!
Very silly, indeed!

;-)

[Chris Hagen]

In article <3F01635F.5A64873B@slingshot.co.nz>, James Russell
<apo@slingshot.co.nz> writes:

>Subject: Re: Point in Line
>From: James Russell <apo@slingshot.co.nz>
>Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:33:03 +1200
>
>I was under the impression (i.e. this is how I have seen it ruled).
>
>A line is broken and becomes an attacking motion if it is advanced or lunged
>with.

(I believe) Holly was half right: they DID change interpretation of maintaining
the line, to include advancing it, HOWEVER

>If that attacking motion (by the person with the line) happens as a reaction
>to an attack into the line, then it started AFTER the other attack, and is
>hence a counterattack.

You are correct in this statement!

>Otherwise you would get gumbies just sticking their arm out and blithley
>lunging into any motion forward by the opponent (annoying!).

Sorry to say, we had that before, and still do!

;-)

[Holly E. Ordway]

clhagenmn@aol.comspamx (Chris Hagen) wrote in
news:20030711131710.02222.00000775@mb-m16.aol.com:

>>A line is broken and becomes an attacking motion if it is advanced
>>or lunged with.
>
> (I believe) Holly was half right: they DID change interpretation of
> maintaining the line, to include advancing it, HOWEVER
>
>>If that attacking motion (by the person with the line) happens as a
>>reaction to an attack into the line, then it started AFTER the
>>other attack, and is hence a counterattack.
>
> You are correct in this statement!

Nope.

If Fencer A has established a line correctly, he may advance OR LUNGE
at any time, as long as he maintains the line (ie. doesn't withdraw
the line by bending the arm, moving the hand, etc.). If Fencer B does
not take the blade in any way, and gets hit by the point, Fencer A
scores the touch.

It DOES NOT MATTER if Fencer B has already begun the attack when
Fencer A advances or lunges with the point in line: if B does not take
the line, A scores. I am a bit touchy (ha ha) on this point (oh man,
this time that was unintentional) because it was called wrong against
me at Nationals last week and the ^*&%$%! guy from the Bout Committee
got it wrong too. Would have been nice if he'd LOOKED IN THE RULEBOOK
where it clearly spells this out!

All of the other (many) times that I have used this move with a rated
referee, it has been called correctly. It's a great tactic: establish
the line, then just as the opponent attacks, lunge with the line.
Chances are that the attacker's attempt to take the blade will either
fall on the guard (hah!) or miss entirely.

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.

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.

--Holly

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on 11 Jul 2003 17:17:09 GMT
Chris Hagen <clhagenmn@aol.comspamx> wrote:
> In article <slrnbg3sus.s82.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>, Zebee Johnstone
><zebee@zip.com.au> writes:
>
>
>>[sic] makes sense to me, if the idea of right of way is to get people to deal
>>with a nasty sharp thing pointing at them before they go leaping in.
>
>>If it's pointing at you, deal with it. If it's pointing at you and
>>moving towards you, then definitely deal with it! NO matter when it
>>starts moving.
>>
>>Zebee
>
> Z' - you need to tell that to A!
>
> The WHEN is VERY important!
>
> It is my understanding that B would have successfully landed the point/cut on
> A's wrist without getting hit in turn, EXCEPT for A's effort to impersonate
> Plasticman.

Just went back and re-read and yep, that's what it says.

Now if B can land that cut without impaling themselves on A's sword,
then A needs to stop leaving that hand out there saying "hit me hit me"
and deal with that incoming.

The cut at the wrist *is* dealing with nasty sharp pointy thing, because
of the angles and distance. The moving forward is a sort of attempt to
change the distance, but no where near enough.

"what if they were sharp" includes "don't leave vulnerable bits hanging
in the breeze"....

Maybe that's how to get people to learn right of way. No padding, use
point d'arrets and heavier sabres and let nature take its course!

Zebee

[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

[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

[Chris Hagen]

In article <3F01635F.5A64873B@slingshot.co.nz>, James Russell
<apo@slingshot.co.nz> writes:

>Subject: Re: Point in Line
>From: James Russell <apo@slingshot.co.nz>
>Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:33:03 +1200
>
>I was under the impression (i.e. this is how I have seen it ruled).
>
>A line is broken and becomes an attacking motion if it is advanced or lunged
>with.

(I believe) Holly was half right: they DID change interpretation of maintaining
the line, to include advancing it, HOWEVER

>If that attacking motion (by the person with the line) happens as a reaction
>to an attack into the line, then it started AFTER the other attack, and is
>hence a counterattack.

You are correct in this statement!

>Otherwise you would get gumbies just sticking their arm out and blithley
>lunging into any motion forward by the opponent (annoying!).

Sorry to say, we had that before, and still do!

;-)

[Holly E. Ordway]

clhagenmn@aol.comspamx (Chris Hagen) wrote in
news:20030711131710.02222.00000775@mb-m16.aol.com:

>>A line is broken and becomes an attacking motion if it is advanced
>>or lunged with.
>
> (I believe) Holly was half right: they DID change interpretation of
> maintaining the line, to include advancing it, HOWEVER
>
>>If that attacking motion (by the person with the line) happens as a
>>reaction to an attack into the line, then it started AFTER the
>>other attack, and is hence a counterattack.
>
> You are correct in this statement!

Nope.

If Fencer A has established a line correctly, he may advance OR LUNGE
at any time, as long as he maintains the line (ie. doesn't withdraw
the line by bending the arm, moving the hand, etc.). If Fencer B does
not take the blade in any way, and gets hit by the point, Fencer A
scores the touch.

It DOES NOT MATTER if Fencer B has already begun the attack when
Fencer A advances or lunges with the point in line: if B does not take
the line, A scores. I am a bit touchy (ha ha) on this point (oh man,
this time that was unintentional) because it was called wrong against
me at Nationals last week and the ^*&%$%! guy from the Bout Committee
got it wrong too. Would have been nice if he'd LOOKED IN THE RULEBOOK
where it clearly spells this out!

All of the other (many) times that I have used this move with a rated
referee, it has been called correctly. It's a great tactic: establish
the line, then just as the opponent attacks, lunge with the line.
Chances are that the attacker's attempt to take the blade will either
fall on the guard (hah!) or miss entirely.

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.

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.

--Holly