The main weakness in this video is that a lot of the explanation of what is considered an attack is done in a vacuum. What is the other fencer doing? As I say to my fencers, you can advance with your blade stuck up your 4$$ and it's an attack, provided the opponent thinks it's an attack and is defending (by making parrying actions or retreating waiting for the eventual cut or thrust). The point in line after a lunge is also another action that is discussed outside of the context of two fencers. The answer always is (and should be) depends on what the other fencer is doing. The implication I get is that if fencer X23J makes a thrust (point) attack and fencer Bob jumps back and immediately advance lunges, while X23J finishes with a perfect point in line in a lunge position, and if both hits, then X23J gets the touch. I don't have any quibble with that. Indeed, that's what I would call. In reality, though, X23J's attack is exhausted and one notices a discernable finality to the attack (upper body swings a bit, the tip or arm drops and then is brought back up). In that case, even if X23J started with the thrust, it is not a point in line (at least not one that is in time). The "bringing the arm back up" is a new action that is being initiated during Bob's advance-lunge, hence, Bob's action has right of way. Now, here's a scenario that I would like the maestri discuss (since they all managed to talk in a vacuum): fencers are at the on guard lines. Referee calls, "ready, fence". Fencer X23J makes a (short) lunge with point and ends with the perfect point in line in a lunge position. Fencer Bob makes an advance lunge. Both fencers are doing their respective actions at the word, "fence!" Bob impales himself on X23J's PiL while splitting X23J's head in half with a head cut from the lunge. In this case, I'd say the point goes to Bob. X23J's attempt to make the PiL is not in time, as X23J starts to make the PiL at the same time that Bob is making the advance-lunge. In other words, the PiL has not been established prior to the attack by the opponent. This scenario was not discussed or mentioned in the video. And, just from watching the video, I'd teach my fencers to make the shortest lunge (or advance-lunge) from the on guard, using a thrust action and finishing with the perfect point in line in a lunge pose and let the opponent run into the blade. As a referee, I wouldn't give the PiL the call, but in the context of the video, it would imply that the PiL would get the touch. As for the low-line attack, that is definitely a new interpretation. Again, it is without context. What is the opponent doing? In the "Phrases d'Armes" replays, it seems to indicate that (well, aside from dissing the russians time and again) if both fencers attack from the on guard line and one stays high and the other goes low, then the one that stays high will get the point. To a degree, this is a new interpretation (and I would be very curious as to what will be said at Dallas). On the other hand, since both fencers start at tierce, I've claimed that to hit after going to the low line, it would be a two-tempo action: bring the blade below target is the first tempo, bringing it back up is the second tempo. I've seen many referees call the action simultaneous if fencer X23J make this two-tempo action (drop blade, raise it back up) while fencer Bob makes an advance-lunge action (blade moves straight forward). Indeed, in Atlanta last year in the Div II/III/Vet event, one of my fencers would do the part of Bob, advance-lunge with blade starting in tierce (as one should), extending the blade smoothly and finishing with a cut to the head while his opponent dropped the blade so that even the guard was well below the waist then launched a fast attack from the low line to the head. Yes, the opponent was faster, but I couldn't see how it was called attack-counterattack against my fencer. The action occurred from the on guard lines after the call of "fence!". Afterwards, I came up to him and said that, basically, I can't help you change because there's nothing you did that was wrong. If the referee won't give it to you, you might have change tactics altogether to not get called like that. Another issue with the "low line" action being called as preparation (aside from the lack of context) is the justification that it's hard to parry. Well, there's lots of attacks that could be very hard to parry, and probably harder to parry than a low-line action. Supposed I pull my blade so that the guard is right next to my chest, blade almost vertical (to the extend that I can make it stand straight up). I march forward, you retreat some, then I start slowly extending my arm from that position. After I start my slow extension, you make a change from retreat to forward movement, extending your arm quickly and making either a stop-hit action or an attacking action. I finish extending my arm quickly, coordinated with a lunge to boot. We both light up. Touch for me, right? It's pretty textbook attack/counterattack. But note that until my arm is somewhere about 25% extended, where the guard is approximately 6-8 inches in front my chest (to the side, of course), it is impossible for you to parry my blade. Indeed it is probably easier to hit my body than to hit the blade, since my body is probably closer to the opponen't blade. But by the time my arm is 25% extended, my opponent has already fully committed to making the counter-offensive action. He has decided to not make a parry attempt and has chosen to strike instead. We both finish and I get the point. So how is this more "correct" than a low-line action where my arm is mostly extended (and is extending) where my blade, while aiming at the legs, is easily parry-able? I think, in the context of the low-line action, and the video replays that seems to be almost always against the russians, the italians and others are trying to influence the referees to make calls against Podzniakov. Podz loves to do the low-line flip to the wrist. Now, the coaches are teaches their fencers to attack the moment Podz is in that position and with this influence to the refs, will know that they will get the call. (Note that there were no east european coaches interviewed. Nor American coaches like Korfanty or Burdan, despite the attempt to have English translation posted.) Lastly, what the heck is a fuet? And what do the mean by "lame"? The subtitles seems to be done by using babblefish or something.