ROW Question

[Rolls]

Here's a theoretical question on Point in line.

Fencer A fleches. Fencer B retreats and establishes P-i-L.

Fencer A continues running at fencer B. Let's say several tempo's pass so that Fencer B clearly has right of way with the P-i-L.

Fencer B slows, the distance closes, Fencer B's point goes pass Fencer A, but his/her arm reamins extended. The distance opens back up. Fencer A finishes two lights. Whose Right of way?

Can P-i-L lose right of way? How?

Rolls.

[edew]

I'd say, take both fencers out back and whack them with a point-control stick. They both need it terribly.

I'd say B loses right of way because the point in line is no longer in line: if it were in line, it would have hit the target. Since it didn't hit the target, it could not have been in line (much like having the stiff arm, but moving the point outside the target area while still being in front of the opponent).

Then again, how does A "finishes" the attack after the distance reopens? It's possible that B retreats a bit faster to reopen the distance and then replaces the point back in line. Then A attacks. If A was somehow attacking while B's point is past A, and the attack was so slow that it allowed B to reopen the distance, then the point should go to A. Otherwise, A really isn't attacking until B has retreated enough to replace the point in line. If B replaced the point in line prior to the initiation of A's final offensive action, then the point is for B.

Of course, the scenario you painted is horribly hypothetical. To the ludicrous extreme.

[Inquartata]

Yellow card to A for crossing over. It B has hit before the halt, touch to B; otherwise nothing done.

[Wizardly]

Inq: one to many blows to the head with a saber? CLEARLY a foil question.

Rolls: touch for A for forcing B off the strip.
I'm in agreement with Edew, you need to give a little more information about how A finishes.

Alright here's my question about this hypothetical running attack scenario.
Fencer A is chasing B down the strip, B is running backwards/retreating with his arm extended for several steps before A's final attack (we'll assume A is running with a bent arm until the final attack). Is B in the point-in-line position?

My guess is no. What say all of you?

Maybe I'm just baffled by Rolls' example: why is A running at B from that far away?

Yes, PIL can lose right of way if an opponent attacks without deflecting the blade and in response to the attack you step in with your line = counter-attack.

[pkt]

Rolls,

Which weapon are you talking about?
If it was sabre, it's highly likely that though his PIL missed that B still got a light when his blade brushes A's target.


PK

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Wizardly
Inq: one to many blows to the head with a saber? CLEARLY a foil question.

One can NEVER have too many blows to the head with a sabre. Gotta love those head-whacks.

I just see everything in terms of sabre....if the question is square, I will chop off the corners until it fits into that round hole, dammit!

[The0ne]

Wizardly,
The point in line is good in the situation that you illustrated. (In foil anyway)

[Rolls]

Sorry, should have been more specific. I was talking about foil.

I'm trying to get a better understanding of when a fencer loses right of way, in this casr with point in line. Most attacks have a finishing point. But with point in line, is there a time when it is "finished" and no longer has right of way. Does point in line constitute an attack?

Rolls.

[Craig]

The original point in line missed, so depending on when it hits it is either a remise or a new action. If the distance were not "broken" again, then B is SOL.

[oiuyt]

Originally posted by Wizardly
Yes, PIL can lose right of way if an opponent attacks without deflecting the blade and in response to the attack you step in with your line = counter-attack.

Uhm, no. New example (using X and Y to distinguish from the A and B in Rolls' example). Fencer X establishes PIL. Fencer Y begins an attack. Fencer X advances. Both PIL and attack arrive, two lights. Touch for X. Same thing, instead of advancing X lunges. Same result, touch for X. In both cases X still has PIL and has NOT counterattacked. The PIL is still good.

-B :)

[edew]

Thanks, oiuyt. Didn't we request that Wizardly not make any pronouncements about right of way rules? Or was that someone else?

[Craig]

Originally posted by oiuyt
Uhm, no. New example (using X and Y to distinguish from the A and B in Rolls' example). Fencer X establishes PIL. Fencer Y begins an attack. Fencer X advances. Both PIL and attack arrive, two lights. Touch for X. Same thing, instead of advancing X lunges. Same result, touch for X. In both cases X still has PIL and has NOT counterattacked. The PIL is still good.

-B

oiuyt's answer has been confirmed by the FOC in a previous thread re: Line.

For right of way answers in foil, one should weight oiuyt's and edew's (and usually my) answers higher than some others whose profiles show less experience.

If significant doubt is brought to bear, we will obtain a ruling from the FOC if I can't pull if from a prior thread.

Craig

[Wizardly]

Nope, that was someone else Edew. Sorry to disappoint.

Please excuse me while I join the army of fencers who want blood from the local referees. Can't say exactly how many, but I've been and witnessed many a victim of it called the other way.

And we're talking blatant run onto a line that is two advances and a lunge away and the line steps in at the last moment, no blade contact.

The result of this is a throng of fencers who establish line and ONLY retreated until the opponent gets close enough in which case they plant and deceive. ANY forward motion was called a counter-attack (which is why I abandoned line in my second year of fencing...i kept getting anxious and stepping in. )

Craig, got a link to that thread?

And on a side note: don't kindergarten through high school teachers tell kids to be tolerant of others being wrong? There is no need for "you're wrong, shut up, don't speak anymore, stupid-head." Imagine the state of science if only a select few were allowed to even venture a guess Galileo...the world would still be flat.

[edew]

Depends on how you did the "attack from a point in line". You could break your line in order to commit the attack. In that case, if you attacked into someone's attack, then you gave up your point in line for a counter-attack or perhaps an attempted stop-hit to your opponent's attack. (Maybe you were hoping to startle your opponent, in which case, his attack would have been stopped, your stop-hit/counter-attack/attack-from-a-PIL would then have priority. Since I wasn't there, I can't comment much more.)

I do empathize with you though. Too many part-time referees do not give the point in line, even though the attack makes all sorts of attempts to catch the blade before making the attack. The rule on transferring the right of way from attack to the opponent when the attacker attempts to find the blade and does not succeed is seldom adhered to.

Of course, some attackers make the combo "search-but-attack" action, which is the proper technique for dealing with points in line. It only works if one makes an attack very soon after or during the establishing of the point in line. While the point in line may justifiably been established prior to the attacker's initiation of the attack, a very prompt attack may be perceived by the referee as an attack that began before the establishment of the PIL. It plays to the referee. Happens.

[CarlKnoch]

One of the questions about PIL here was can ROW be lost when you have PIL...

X has PIL and begins taking continuous crossover steps towards Y as Y backs down the strip.

Y then launches and attack while X is still walking (cross over) toward him and we get two lights.

Who's touch?

[mollusk]

t 56 (8) implies X is in preparation. Touch against X, point for Y. (Or at least my best guess. Others may know better.)

[oiuyt]

Fencer X gets the touch, he still has PIL. Preperation doesn't apply, PIL is NOT an attack or otherwise an offensive action, it's a special case situation.

If fencer X has PIL s/he can lose ROW in one of several ways:
1) fencer X withdraws his/her arm
2) fencer X attempts a disceive without fencer Y (fencer X's opponent) attempting an engagement
3) fencer Y finds fencer X's blade

In a somewhat related but slightly different category, the PIL can also fail to arrive (or in the case in sabre, fail to arrive with the point). In this case the PIL had ROW but failed (in the case of sabre, the light generated by the edge of the weapon would be the result of a replacement).

-B :)

[downunder]

Originally posted by oiuyt
Fencer X gets the touch, he still has PIL. Preperation doesn't apply, PIL is NOT an attack or otherwise an offensive action, it's a special case situation.

If fencer X has PIL s/he can lose ROW in one of several ways:
1) fencer X withdraws his/her arm
2) fencer X attempts a disceive without fencer Y (fencer X's opponent) attempting an engagement
3) fencer Y finds fencer X's blade

In a somewhat related but slightly different category, the PIL can also fail to arrive (or in the case in sabre, fail to arrive with the point). In this case the PIL had ROW but failed (in the case of sabre, the light generated by the edge of the weapon would be the result of a replacement).

-B

depends if you consider the continous crossovers to be a fleche... then the PIL turns into a simple attack

[Wizardly]

Oiuyt, you got half way there. One question remains: why is Mollusk wrong, i.e. what about t.56.8? Does the fact that the rule doesn't meantion the position of the arm of the fencer that is continuously crossing his feet have anything to do with this? Is this a reitteration of t.56.4?

New question: why does the second case lose right of way? Why is a line change disallowed? Why isn't this mentioned in t.60.1.e?

t.60 is not exhaustive enough.
Woudln't it be lovely if there were an exhaustive list of ROW calls? Uber-t.60 with every possible thing that could occur? No more confusion EVER AGAIN? ::dreams::

Downunder: does it really matter if it's a PIL or an attack? The touch goes to the "attacking" fencer either way, yes? Of course, it does beg the next question: where does line give way to remise/redoublement? Where does "parry 0" apply to a "short lunge" at the end of a compound attack?

[downunder]

Originally posted by Wizardly
Downunder: does it really matter if it's a PIL or an attack? The touch goes to the "attacking" fencer either way, yes? Of course, it does beg the next question: where does line give way to remise/redoublement? Where does "parry 0" apply to a "short lunge" at the end of a compound attack?

but if its an attack you have the issue of repeated crossing of the legs -> preparation