PDA

View Full Version : PIL going backwards



drunken master
-20th June 2006, 11:58
Another foil vs. sabre question:

In foil, once you've established PIL, can you lose priority by running back? I can't find anything to this effect in the rules, but I've seen it given this way quite often. Is this just another one of those sabre spilling over into foil things?

rory
-20th June 2006, 12:10
Any ref who says the line doesn't hold because you stepped forwards or backwards is an idiot.

It may seem as though sabre refs consider a step back to break PiL - they don't. It's just that in sabre the refs tend to look much more closely for deviations in the line: if your point goes off target at all without deceiving your opponent's search, you'll lose PiL.
Foil refs call it more loosely.

To reiterate: in both foil and sabre, PiL remains in effect whether you step forwards or backwards

There's some contention over what happens when you lunge - in general it's considered that your attack ends the PiL, and that your opponent has a period of fencing time in which to attack before your still-straight arm is considered to have regained PiL status.

Australian
-20th June 2006, 12:22
To reiterate: in both foil and sabre, PiL remains in effect whether you step forwards or backwards


quoted for emphasis.

gbm
-20th June 2006, 12:40
There's some contention over what happens when you lunge - in general it's considered that your attack ends the PiL, and that your opponent has a period of fencing time in which to attack before your still-straight arm is considered to have regained PiL status.

Although not all agree: old quote from Keith Smith (March 2004):


If the point in line is executed correctly it does not matter whether you are standing still or moving forwards or backwards.Even if you do a lunge, it is still a point in line, but the ref can get this latter one wrong.

The point in line must be in the high line and the point must stay threatening the target. If the balde is beaten, taken or you bend your arm then you no longer have a point in line.

Keith

Red
-20th June 2006, 22:35
So foot movements do not end PIL?
Well that's ended an age old argument...

ChubbyHubby
-20th June 2006, 22:55
So foot movements do not end PIL?
Well that's ended an age old argument...
Providing the PiL is there before your opponent's attack starts.

If you are being chased down the piste with your opponent doing a progressive and continuous attack, just sticking your arm out whilst running away probably won't do you any good.

D'Artignan
-20th June 2006, 23:20
If you are being chased down the piste with your opponent doing a progressive and continuous attack, just sticking your arm out whilst running away probably won't do you any good.Depends how good your timing is, though;)

Note to self: Take Chubby's advice next time you're on the piste.......:whistle:

Nick_C
-20th June 2006, 23:24
yeah, i think the rules state that the PIL action has to be "threatening". It's up to the ref to as to what they consider "threatening"... I personally do not consider sticking your arm out straight and running backwards particularly "threatening" and therefore almost certainly won't give you the hit if I perceive you to be just doing that.

Australian
-20th June 2006, 23:48
yeah, i think the rules state that the PIL action has to be "threatening". It's up to the ref to as to what they consider "threatening"... I personally do not consider sticking your arm out straight and running backwards particularly "threatening" and therefore almost certainly won't give you the hit if I perceive you to be just doing that.


Nick you know better than that. The actual terminology is threatening the valid target and there arn't many actions that don't do that.

bydande
-21st June 2006, 09:29
PIL is refereed really inconsistently at Britsh Opens.

- partly because some people think PIL isnt valid whilst moving
- partly because some people have a different view on what happens if a fencer goes from PIL to a lunge
- and partly because some people are quite clearly "PIL blind"

My daughter once excecuted a perfectly timed PIL onto which her opponent carelessly impaled herself but she wasnt given the point - much to the surprise of her, myself and even the opponents coach (who was standing next to me at the time). When she asked the referee, in the politest fashion and purely for the sake of understanding, why her PIL hadnt been given (maybe he thought the timing was wrong or she bent her arm etc etc) his reply was ....... "oh I didnt see your PIL".

kalivor
-21st June 2006, 10:33
My daughter once excecuted a perfectly timed PIL onto which her opponent carelessly impaled herself but she wasnt given the point
While admitting to having no clue as to what actually happened, I must say that I hate the term "perfectly timed PIL".

A PIL must be ESTABLISHED BEFORE the attack begins. "Perfect" timing for a PIL is to have it out well before any sort of action from your opponent. It's not an action which can be "well timed" in the usual sense of the word, like a stop hit or attack into prep can be.

Another fencer
-21st June 2006, 10:43
A perfectly timed PIL is one which is established before the opponent's attack starts. Not before "any action". For example any preparatory action is NOT an attack. Therefore if you put out PIL and after your opponent starts a beat (and misses) and the opponent then continues their attack this should be given as PIL having priority. (A beat is a preparation.) What is more difficult is ChubbyHubby's continuous attack (attack with arm moving forward threatening target.)

gbm
-21st June 2006, 11:18
And of course any search for the blade causes ROW to pass to the opponent, so if a fencer searches for a PIL, the PILer has ROW even if they now don't hold the line perfectly (but instead turn it into an attack)...

bydande
-21st June 2006, 11:22
well timed PIL = establishing PIL at any moment before the other fencer starts an attack (point to PIL)

perfectly timed PIL = establishing PIL at the last possible moment before the other fencer starts an attack (point to PIL)

badly timed PIL = establishing PIL at any moment after the other fencer starts an attack (point against PIL)

kalivor
-21st June 2006, 11:59
perfectly timed PIL = establishing PIL at the last possible moment before the other fencer starts an attack (point to PIL)
This is not "perfectly timed". This is "risky", and runs the risk of not being viewed as "established" before the attack by the referee.

Keep in mind that, if you are extendING your arm in an attempt to get a line, and your opponent begins a step-lunge, you will not have established your PIL.


badly timed PIL = establishing PIL at any moment after the other fencer starts an attack (point against PIL)
This is better termed a "counterattack".

kalivor
-21st June 2006, 12:03
A perfectly timed PIL is one which is established before the opponent's attack starts. Not before "any action". For example any preparatory action is NOT an attack. Therefore if you put out PIL and after your opponent starts a beat (and misses) and the opponent then continues their attack this should be given as PIL having priority. (A beat is a preparation.) What is more difficult is ChubbyHubby's continuous attack (attack with arm moving forward threatening target.)
The example you give is not a point to the PIL, it is a point to the attack into preparation.

Fencer B attempts to beat Fencer A's blade, but misses. Fencer A then extends/finishes their extension, hitting B. B is in preparation, A hits with their ATTACK INTO PREPARATION.

Yes, to be established asa line, the extension must be before the "attack" begins, not "any action". But what is an attack is given a lot of leeway in foil and sabre. Extending your arm into forward movement expecting it to be called a line is asking for disappointment.

bydande
-21st June 2006, 12:12
This is better termed a "counterattack".

PIL is not an attack - and therefore - can not be a counterattack either.


This is not "perfectly timed". This is "risky", and runs the risk of not being viewed as "established" before the attack by the referee.


It is actually both - it is undoubtabtly perfectly timed but given the poor ability of most referees to understand let alone see PIL - it is also risky.



Keep in mind that, if you are extendING your arm in an attempt to get a line, and your opponent begins a step-lunge, you will not have established your PIL.

If you do PIL:
- during the step of a correctly executed step-lunge then it is a badly timed PIL
- during the step of an incorrectly executed step-lunge (ie no "straightening" of the sword arm before the end of the step) then it is a well timed PIL (but possibly risky give the standard of some referees at UK competitions)
- during the first step of a step, step-lunge then even if the step-lunge part of the action is correctly executed the PIL has priority because the step-lunge attack started after the PIL was established.

Timing and distance are just as important for PIL as for any other fencing move.

Marcos
-21st June 2006, 13:49
"oh I didnt see your PIL".

it happens....I have missed the PIL whilst refereeing a few times - happens especially when you've reffing a good while, say, in a fairly uninteresting and one-sided early DE match, and it is halfway through the point (rather than a straight arms as soon as the ref says "fence")

PIL is used so rarely in sabre I simply don;t expect the fencers to use it.

Obviously this is a post pointing out how easy it is for refs to get tired or suffer from lack of experience...but given this is the world we live in, I advise my students, if they are going to use PIL or some other oft misinterpreted move, to check the ref's understanding of the rule before the bout - kinda wakes them up a bit.

Another fencer
-21st June 2006, 16:03
Kalivor, the example I gave illustrates bydande point about PIL not being an attack. You seem to think that the extension of the arm is an attack. It isnt in this case. Fencer A swipes with a beat and misses. Before this is complete, fencer B extends his arm into PIL, fencer A starts his attack after the prep action and is hit by the PIL and hits as well. IF fencer A had not attacked he would not be hit because B's point is too far away. Thus fencer B's action is not an attack at all. This is why we call it PIL! If I had wanted to say attack in prep, I would not use the term PIL. It is possible to do an attack in prep as well, but this is different from PIL.

Your other point about a lot of leeway about what is called an attack is taken, but bad refereeing doesnt alter the reality of a valid PIL.

Nick_C
-21st June 2006, 17:56
PIL is used so rarely in sabre I simply don;t expect the fencers to use it.



I used PIL quite a bit, but not as a simple attack into preparation; usually a second intention attack, eg to induce a beat and open up a line, or a derobe(ment).

Gav
-21st June 2006, 20:44
PIL is used so rarely in sabre I simply don;t expect the fencers to use it.


Take a look at the footage on fencingchannel for MAY 2006 Men's Sabre Copa Villa de Madrid ESP (http://www.fencingchannel.tv/feature/2006msesp/MSESP06_fi.htm)

fencingmaster
-21st June 2006, 20:55
PIL is used so rarely in sabre I simply don;t expect the fencers to use it.

....if so, it's only because of the quality of referees who have a problem with PIL and derobements.

fencingmaster
-21st June 2006, 21:01
...oops didn't finish the post....

When teaching PIL & derobements, PIL & taken-over attacks, I have to do so, but sadly, with a health warning.

drunken master
-21st June 2006, 22:00
Thanks, all. That's cleared that up.

kalivor
-22nd June 2006, 09:53
PIL is not an attack - and therefore - can not be a counterattack either
OK.

Fencer A wants to establish a point of line. They attempt it late, after Fencer B has commenced their attack. One light ... to Fencer A!

What is this called?
(a) Attack, no. Point-in-Line arrives.
OR
(b) Attack, no. Counterattack arrives.

A "late PIL" is a counterattack, not a line.

ChubbyHubby
-22nd June 2006, 09:58
OK.

Fencer A wants to establish a point of line. They attempt it late, after Fencer B has commenced their attack. One light ... to Fencer A!

What is this called?
(a) Attack, no. Point-in-Line arrives.
OR
(b) Attack, no. Counterattack arrives.

A "late PIL" is a counterattack, not a line.

You are describing the typical "oh S***!" stick arm out type of counter attack (b), you could never call it (a) cos it was never a PiL.

kalivor
-22nd June 2006, 09:59
Kalivor, the example I gave illustrates bydande point about PIL not being an attack. You seem to think that the extension of the arm is an attack. It isnt in this case. Fencer A swipes with a beat and misses. Before this is complete, fencer B extends his arm into PIL, fencer A starts his attack after the prep action and is hit by the PIL and hits as well.
I do know the difference between an attack and a PIL. This description is more detailed than your previous one.

Normally when the situation originally described is seen on piste, Fencer A attempts the beat and lunges as a single action, while Fencer B deceives the beat and extends ... it all takes one unit of fencing time, making it an attack into preparation for B.

Australian
-22nd June 2006, 10:10
hehe, but is it ever called that way?

Another fencer
-22nd June 2006, 10:12
As ChubbyHubby has noted what Kalivor has suggested is not PIL. If it was not established in time and is just thrust out as opponent launches attack, it could not be a PIL and becomes a "counter-attack". What bydande says stands - PIL is not an attack.

Take another more interesting example - fencer A starts a continuous attack running forward, fencer B establishes a PIL (but too late from a priority viewpoint), both fencers take several steps, fencer A completes his attack but misses, fencer B hits. This is attack misses, PIL arrives. Why? Because up until fencer A finishes his attack, it is his priority. When priority passes because fencer A misses, the PIL then gains priority and is seen to have scored. It is not a counter-attack, because it is PIL.

kalivor
-22nd June 2006, 10:18
If you do PIL:
- during the step of an incorrectly executed step-lunge (ie no "straightening" of the sword arm before the end of the step) then it is a well timed PIL (but possibly risky give the standard of some referees at UK competitions)
No, it's not "well timed", it's REALLY F***ING LUCKY. Because you need your arm to be fully extended during that step, you must start extending well before the step is finished, giving any decent, half-awake fencer a chance to start their extension AFTER yours, and turn your late attempt at a point in line into a counterattack.

This isn't risky (only) due to refereeing standards, but also due to the fact that you're counting on your opponent being really bad and half blind.


- during the first step of a step, step-lunge then even if the step-lunge part of the action is correctly executed the PIL has priority because the step-lunge attack started after the PIL was established.
Unless it's a compound attack, and the attacker's extension has already begun.


Timing and distance are just as important for PIL as for any other fencing move.
I somewhat disagree. If your opponent acts *surprised* to find that you suddenly have a point in line that he is impaling himself on, chances are that it's not a point in line.


bad refereeing doesnt alter the reality of a valid PIL.
Sure it does. The presence or absence of a PIL is a statement of fact and as such is determined entirely at the whim of the referee. Reality, for our purposes (as fencers), is what the referee sees.

Australian
-22nd June 2006, 10:28
As ChubbyHubby has noted what Kalivor has suggested is not PIL. If it was not established in time and is just thrust out as opponent launches attack, it could not be a PIL and becomes a "counter-attack". What bydande says stands - PIL is not an attack.

Take another more interesting example - fencer A starts a continuous attack running forward, fencer B establishes a PIL (but too late from a priority viewpoint), both fencers take several steps, fencer A completes his attack but misses, fencer B hits. This is attack misses, PIL arrives. Why? Because up until fencer A finishes his attack, it is his priority. When priority passes because fencer A misses, the PIL then gains priority and is seen to have scored. It is not a counter-attack, because it is PIL.



Or its preparation attack B, due to the whole running forward deal.

Aside from that:

If A has not been extending, then its Point in Line.

If A has been extending, its attack no, counterattack.


Priority doesn't automatically "pass" either. Regardless of your opponent, you actually have to make the actions in the correct time to earn the right of way.

bydande
-22nd June 2006, 10:34
OK.

Fencer A wants to establish a point of line. They attempt it late, after Fencer B has commenced their attack. One light ... to Fencer A!


If I thought that fencer A had tried PIL I would describe it as:
Attack - no, (out of time) PIL - touche

If I thought that fencer A had just stuck his arm out in a desperate counter attack I would describe it as:
Attack - no, counter attack - touche

At the Birmingham international (in WF L32) I saw an overseas fencer score 3 points in the same bout with well timed PILs against a top 20 UK fencer who afterwards commented - yeah I saw the PIL but I thought it went out during my step so I continued anyway. DOH! So you see it it is eminantly possible to surprisingly impale yourself on PIL. And for the record, the overseas fencer did try it a fourth time but was late with the PIL and the UK fencer was given the point with a simple step-lunge attack.

Another fencer
-22nd June 2006, 10:34
I do know the difference between an attack and a PIL. This description is more detailed than your previous one.

Normally when the situation originally described is seen on piste, Fencer A attempts the beat and lunges as a single action, while Fencer B deceives the beat and extends ... it all takes one unit of fencing time, making it an attack into preparation for B.

A beat is a distinct action in itself taking a single unit of fencing time. Thus fencer A is doing something in two units of fencing time. Beat, lunge. Thus fencer B has time to do either an attack in prep or establish a PIL.

An incomplete PIL will actually become a valid attack in preparation as you describe, but a complete PIL should be given as PIL. We are discussing PIL. Take the case where fencer A is too far away to actually touch B's blade, but tries to beat anyway. Fencer B now establishes PIL. Fencer A then starts a countinuous attack which ends with both lights coming up. This is PIL hit to fencer B. Now imagine they are really close, but fencer A misses the beat and fencer B establishes PIL. The result is the same.

Another fencer
-22nd June 2006, 10:40
Or its preparation attack B, due to the whole running forward deal.

Aside from that:

If A has not been extending, then its Point in Line.

If A has been extending, its attack no, counterattack.


Priority doesn't automatically "pass" either. Regardless of your opponent, you actually have to make the actions in the correct time to earn the right of way.

What has happened is A has priority with the attack. Attack ends. PIL is still in place. Priority switches to PIL. PIL is continuous, when the attack ends, PIL gains the priority which means that the action is now in the correct time to earn the right of way. Thus as A is extending (which is assumed from the continuous attack BTW), it is attack no, PIL. (not a counter-attack).

Australian
-22nd June 2006, 11:03
What has happened is A has priority with the attack. Attack ends. PIL is still in place. Priority switches to PIL. PIL is continuous, when the attack ends, PIL gains the priority which means that the action is now in the correct time to earn the right of way. Thus as A is extending (which is assumed from the continuous attack BTW), it is attack no, PIL. (not a counter-attack).

In this situation Point in Line was never in place

Its not point in line because it started after the attack. There is no pause between the end of the attack and the established line to make it so.

What a pointless argument. Its a counterattack.

Nick_C
-22nd June 2006, 11:21
Thanks, all. That's cleared that up.

lol

LOOK what you've done!!! :rolling:

Another fencer
-22nd June 2006, 11:47
Actually, Australian, not a totally pointless argument, although I must admit that I would be tempted to say "ONE LIGHT" and move on when refereeing. (Who cares whether it is a counter attack or PIL in this case!) However, I think it is worth making the point about the continuity of PIL even when it does not have priority.

A point in line is a position -

t.10 The point-in-line position is a specific position in which the fencer’s sword arm is kept straight and the point of his weapon continually threatens his opponent’s valid target.

There is no reason why it cannot be established when your opponent is attacking. What has happened in my original example is that PIL is initiated after the attack has started. It just means that priority is with the attacker. It is thus not valid until the opponent loses priority.

T56. 5. If the attack is initiated when the opponent is not ‘point in line’ (cf. t.10), it may be executed either with a direct thrust, or by a disengage, or by a cutover, or may even be preceded by a beat or successful feints obliging the opponent to parry.

Take a slightly different example - fencer A begins a continuous attack, fencer B takes the PIL position, but fencer A has priority. Fencer A stops. PIL now has priority, as it is a continuous action. Fencer A impales himself. PIL.

Nick_C
-22nd June 2006, 12:45
just out of interested (and because i was told off when this happened while i was refereeing foil recently), does the attack end in foil when the front foot hits the floor during a lunge (as it does in sabre)? Or is there never an ending of an attack unless the arm is drawn back or parried/beaten?

If this is not the case, surely you can repeatedly lunge and recover forwards and never lose priority so long as your arm doesnt leave the target area and is always straight? THis seems silly to me, but then i'm a sabreur! Clarification appreciated!

bydande
-22nd June 2006, 12:53
just out of interested (and because i was told off when this happened while i was refereeing foil recently), does the attack end in foil when the front foot hits the floor during a lunge (as it does in sabre)? Or is there never an ending of an attack unless the arm is drawn back or parried/beaten?


I did once read a piece on this subject which seemed to indicate that there were country specific differences - i.e. the referees from say France generally have a different view on this action than say referees from Italy. (usual provisos about generalisations apply)

and of course in the UK, we are just ........................undecided

rory
-22nd June 2006, 13:34
No. It doesn't stop with the foot hitting the floor.

So yes, technically, if you reprise lunge, it's still your attack as long as you don't pull your arm back.

In practise though, most people withdraw their arm at least a bit if their lunge misses, thus ending the attack - unless they've delibereatly planned to reprise out of the lunge.

Australian
-22nd June 2006, 15:25
But its not "point in line" in refereeing terms until the pause. Saying otherwise confuses the newbies.


Actually, Australian, not a totally pointless argument, although I must admit that I would be tempted to say "ONE LIGHT" and move on when refereeing. (Who cares whether it is a counter attack or PIL in this case!) However, I think it is worth making the point about the continuity of PIL even when it does not have priority.

A point in line is a position -

t.10 The point-in-line position is a specific position in which the fencer’s sword arm is kept straight and the point of his weapon continually threatens his opponent’s valid target.

There is no reason why it cannot be established when your opponent is attacking. What has happened in my original example is that PIL is initiated after the attack has started. It just means that priority is with the attacker. It is thus not valid until the opponent loses priority.

T56. 5. If the attack is initiated when the opponent is not ‘point in line’ (cf. t.10), it may be executed either with a direct thrust, or by a disengage, or by a cutover, or may even be preceded by a beat or successful feints obliging the opponent to parry.

Take a slightly different example - fencer A begins a continuous attack, fencer B takes the PIL position, but fencer A has priority. Fencer A stops. PIL now has priority, as it is a continuous action. Fencer A impales himself. PIL.

ChubbyHubby
-22nd June 2006, 15:41
But its not "point in line" in refereeing terms until the pause. Saying otherwise confuses the newbies.

I agree with Australian. The amount of times I've heard newbies and even not so newbies "that's my hit, my arm was straight first!". They always forget that for PiL to be there the arm has to be straight point at target etc "before the opponent's attack starts".

I suppose that's better than "my light was on first!" :whistle:

kd5mdk
-22nd June 2006, 18:36
No. It doesn't stop with the foot hitting the floor.

So yes, technically, if you reprise lunge, it's still your attack as long as you don't pull your arm back.

In practise though, most people withdraw their arm at least a bit if their lunge misses, thus ending the attack - unless they've delibereatly planned to reprise out of the lunge.

I have a very hard time seeing a lunge-reprise being given as a continous attack. The attack does not necessarily end with the lunge landing in foil, but it certainly will end before the reprise. The reprise is by definition a continuation of a previous attack, the same as a remise or redoublement, and cannot have priority over a counterattack into the original attack.

kalivor
-23rd June 2006, 09:28
I have a very hard time seeing a lunge-reprise being given as a continous attack. The attack does not necessarily end with the lunge landing in foil, but it certainly will end before the reprise. The reprise is by definition a continuation of a previous attack, the same as a remise or redoublement, and cannot have priority over a counterattack into the original attack.
Particularly hard to see a reprise as a continuous attack, as a reprise involves a return to the guard position. A decent referee can see when the attack ends and the renewal of the attack begins, but it's hard to put an all-encompassing description in words.

Prometheus
-23rd June 2006, 10:14
Surely what Keith was referring to was the initial lunge keeping the PIL. If you reprise it's a reprise that will end in PIL, but gives the opponent the opportunity to launch his attack prior to the reprise of the initial lunge thus gaining time on his opponent's renewed action.

Also what does Chubs mean by continuous attack - I can't find this definition in the rules - it wouldn't be his usually incorrect definition of an attack - prepare-prepare-prepare- lunge, or prepare-prepare-prepare- step lunge would it?:nanananan

gbm
-23rd June 2006, 12:32
With a preconceived lunge-reprise it would be possible to keep the arm extending throughout in one simple action. No PIL, just attack.
That said, it doesn't really happen like that.

Prometheus
-23rd June 2006, 12:46
tut tut GBM:dont:

It's not one simple action if you lunge then reprise the lunge but two actions.

tigger
-23rd June 2006, 16:12
PIL is used quite a lot at the top level of sabre - especially by the French and German sabreurs. It rarely causes controversy.

The most annoying hit given in the UK is when I put out a PIL in time, my opponent moves forward and looks for the blade and fails to find it, and then I counter-attack with a cutting action and we hit simultaneously. The majority of refs will give the hit to my opponent, whereas his action is continuation of a failed attack and mine is a correct counter-attack.

Harty
-5th July 2006, 13:10
As usual everyone seems to be making a hash of what is an extremely simple situation.

If I have PIL and I decide to lunge, the attack (PIL whilst in the lunge) only ceases to be so if my opponent parries/beats or gets hit. It is quite normal (I do it from time to time) to lunge out of distance and to leave your arm straight in the lunge and then derobe and hit your opponent as they mistakenly attack. A supremely satisfying hit, I might add.

It is intensely annoying when a referee says that your attack fails in this instance. If your arm is still straight your attack doesn't finish until your opponent does something about it.

I am slightly less sure of how this is refereed in sabre but it seems to be that regardless of the PIL if a fencer lunges and doesn't hit that is the end of the attack.

By the way, I am extremely bored hence my flurry (2) of posts!

John Rohde
-6th July 2006, 20:56
The most annoying hit given in the UK is when I put out a PIL in time, my opponent moves forward and looks for the blade and fails to find it, and then I counter-attack with a cutting action and we hit simultaneously. The majority of refs will give the hit to my opponent, whereas his action is continuation of a failed attack and mine is a correct counter-attack.

FWIW I call it your way - did so at my club last evening; It's an elegant and logical move.

John Rohde
-6th July 2006, 21:04
I am slightly less sure of how this is refereed in sabre but it seems to be that regardless of the PIL if a fencer lunges and doesn't hit that is the end of the attack.

By the way, I am extremely bored hence my flurry (2) of posts!

IIRC correctly from our last time around this maypole, the PIL ends if an attack is made from that condition and priority is lost if the attack fails. If the point is left in line, and the opponent does not immediately make his own attack, the PIL is established again.
I'd prefer the PIL to apply until it is broken, removed or deflected - as a reflection of the peril of impalement but again IIRC that is not the current interpretation. Sorry I can't remember the source of that judgement :-(
My flurry is down to work-avoidance - an underestimated motor of the reflective humanities, as Xanthippe had cause to observe.

fencingmaster
-6th July 2006, 21:26
I put out a PIL in time, my opponent moves forward and looks for the blade and fails to find it, and then I counter-attack with a cutting action

Rather defeats the argument if you admit to counter-attacking!

Red
-7th July 2006, 00:55
I think what was meant was a counterattack on the opponent's attack on the blade? If the attack on the blade fails, then the counterattack has the priority. Or have I missed something?

gbm
-7th July 2006, 01:38
In foil and sabre, if an attacker searches for the blade and fails to find it (i.e. is derobed) then ROW passes to the other fencer.

Foil:
"t.56 (a) 7. If the attacker, when attempting to deflect the opponent’s blade, fails to find it (dérobement), the right of attack passes to the opponent."

Sabre:
"t.76 (c) 2. If, when attempting to find the opponent’s blade to deflect it, the blade is not found (dérobement), the right of attack passes to the opponent."

kalivor
-7th July 2006, 09:55
I think what was meant was a counterattack on the opponent's attack on the blade? If the attack on the blade fails, then the counterattack has the priority. Or have I missed something?
Your opponent searches for the blade, which is a preparation. You deceive your opponent's search, and attack into their preparation. Your opponent counterattacks.

fencingmaster
-7th July 2006, 10:11
Your opponent searches for the blade, which is a preparation. You deceive your opponent's search, and attack into their preparation. Your opponent counterattacks.

Precisely!

ROW passes to the derobement which means keeping the point in line & hitting with the point. Changing a line into a cut risks losing a period of fencing time. Either this cut it is early enough to be read as an attack on preparation, or (and it's usually given this way) it is a counter-attack out of time. If changing from a line to a cut, I would always recommend completing the action with a parry and/or distance aiming for one light only.

Nick_C
-7th July 2006, 15:21
Hang on we're talking about 2 different things here.

Tigger's example of line, opponent searches for it (and doesnt find it), followed by tigger's 'reposte' and their continuation. (not exactly a derobe if the line is followed by a cut)

Secondly, a line followed by a derobement (and hit with the point) as the opponent searches for (and fails to find) the blade never loses the initial attack's ROW.

(summary - reposte vs initial attack)

tigger
-11th July 2006, 13:28
In my example there is technically no derobement mentioned! It's quite common to see sabreurs look for a beat and miss without the defender derobing. This is a failed attacking action, and ROW immediately passes to me, regardless of whether my subsequent action is a point attack or cutting attack.

Just to clarify the rule:

Sabre:
"t.76 (c) 2. If, when attempting to find the opponent’s blade to deflect it, the blade is not found (dérobement), the right of attack passes to the opponent."

It's very, very simple: THE RIGHT OF ATTACK PASSES TO THE OPPONENT (ie there is no statement that any subsequent riposte or counter action MUST be with the point)

I was originally going to call my action a riposte...but of course there would have been a flurry of posts saying it couldn't be a riposte if the blade wasn't parried :-)

Another fencer
-11th July 2006, 22:06
Tigger, what does one call the action where you hit your opponent after a failed attack that just drops short? I ask because some people call it a riposte (attack - no, riposte- yes). Personally I always think (attack-no, attack-yes). Definitely not (attack-no, counter-attack yes) since the successful hit starts as an action after the failed attack has finished, meaning that it cannot be a counter attack. Practice varies even amongst the good sabre refs. In fact I would be tempted to just ignore the initial action and just say (attack-yes).

kalivor
-12th July 2006, 07:51
Definitely not (attack-no, counter-attack yes)
That's funny, because the correct call is: Attack, no. Counter-attack, yes.

randomsabreur
-12th July 2006, 07:56
I seem to remember that the call is "attack no", "attack yes", unless the successful action started before the end of the failed action.

Australian
-12th July 2006, 08:03
I think you're overthinking this just a little bit. As Kalivor says, its attack-counterattack. The reason for this is because the counterattack usually does start before the end of the attack - as soon as it misses, to create the correct timing.


Tigger, what does one call the action where you hit your opponent after a failed attack that just drops short? I ask because some people call it a riposte (attack - no, riposte- yes). Personally I always think (attack-no, attack-yes). Definitely not (attack-no, counter-attack yes) since the successful hit starts as an action after the failed attack has finished, meaning that it cannot be a counter attack. Practice varies even amongst the good sabre refs. In fact I would be tempted to just ignore the initial action and just say (attack-yes).

Another fencer
-12th July 2006, 08:20
Let me clarify.

Sabreur A chases sabreur B down piste. Sabreur A launches step lunge. B steps back and causes A to fall short. B then hits A with a step lunge. B's action does NOT start during A's step lunge. (I know that this can happen, I am just not interested in this. And under those circumstances Kalivor is correct.) What I am interested in, is the fact that A's attack is no, because B stepped out of distance and then B starts. And this is not (attack- no, counter-attack yes.)

This is frequently called "attack no, riposte yes". My understanding was that of Random Sabreur (who is a good sabre ref), but I have seen other good refs call it as a riposte. I wasjust wondering if anyone had an explanation of this?

Australian
-12th July 2006, 08:39
Let me clarify.

Sabreur A chases sabreur B down piste. Sabreur A launches step lunge. B steps back and causes A to fall short. B then hits A with a step lunge. B's action does NOT start during A's step lunge. (I know that this can happen, I am just not interested in this. And under those circumstances Kalivor is correct.) What I am interested in, is the fact that A's attack is no, because B stepped out of distance and then B starts. And this is not (attack- no, counter-attack yes.)

This is frequently called "attack no, riposte yes". My understanding was that of Random Sabreur (who is a good sabre ref), but I have seen other good refs call it as a riposte. I wasjust wondering if anyone had an explanation of this?


If there is a pause... then an immediate remise by A would have been valid?

If i was refereeing a similar situation in foil i would call the last action only, as i always do.

Another fencer
-12th July 2006, 08:56
If there is a pause... then an immediate remise by A would have been valid?

If i was refereeing a similar situation in foil i would call the last action only, as i always do.

In sabre, ROW seems to pass as soon as an attack fails. You might get a remise, but only as a counter-attack in time.

pinkelephant
-12th July 2006, 09:02
Except when you have one of those "referees" who thinks that if you miss, your opponent has right of way for the next half hour.

Andy
-12th July 2006, 09:20
Let me clarify.

Sabreur A chases sabreur B down piste. Sabreur A launches step lunge. B steps back and causes A to fall short. B then hits A with a step lunge. B's action does NOT start during A's step lunge. (I know that this can happen, I am just not interested in this. And under those circumstances Kalivor is correct.) What I am interested in, is the fact that A's attack is no, because B stepped out of distance and then B starts. And this is not (attack- no, counter-attack yes.)

This is frequently called "attack no, riposte yes". My understanding was that of Random Sabreur (who is a good sabre ref), but I have seen other good refs call it as a riposte. I wasjust wondering if anyone had an explanation of this?

Distance Parry?

Another fencer
-12th July 2006, 09:24
We call it "distance parry" in practice, but I dont think the concept is mentioned in the rules. It is just "a miss". Unless someone can point to something I missed?

kalivor
-12th July 2006, 10:14
Let me clarify.

Sabreur A chases sabreur B down piste. Sabreur A launches step lunge. B steps back and causes A to fall short. B then hits A with a step lunge. B's action does NOT start during A's step lunge. (I know that this can happen, I am just not interested in this. And under those circumstances Kalivor is correct.) What I am interested in, is the fact that A's attack is no, because B stepped out of distance and then B starts. And this is not (attack- no, counter-attack yes.)

This is frequently called "attack no, riposte yes". My understanding was that of Random Sabreur (who is a good sabre ref), but I have seen other good refs call it as a riposte. I wasjust wondering if anyone had an explanation of this?
This is either:
"Attack by A, no. Counter-attack by B, yes."
OR
"Attack by B, yes."

Depending on the timing. It is most certainly not a riposte, officially-speaking, though perhaps it is the best description for it given that B's offensive action occurs after they have caused A's attack to fail. However, ripostes are only allowed to occur following parries, and a "distance parry" is not a parry.

You seem to be describing this sequence of actions as a single phrase, in which case I still feel this should be called a counter-attack, as it is neither the initial offensive action in the phrase nor a riposte, remise, reprise or redoublement.

Nick_C
-12th July 2006, 12:05
A_F and Australian - i'm sure you've had this exact same discussion before on another thread about 4 weeks ago. </my involvement in this thread>!!

gbm
-13th July 2006, 00:17
Surely if:
The Lean-Back Hit Manuver
Fencer A initiates attack
Fencer B initiates counter-attack
Fencer A misses
Fencer B hits
then Attack, no, counter-attack, hits
(the usual scenario)

If:
The Missed attack, opponent then takes up attack
Fencer A initiates attack
Fencer A misses
Fencer B initiates attack
Fencer B hits
then Attack (fencer B) hits
(Fencer A's attack is a previous phrase)

If:
The attack fails, pause, then fencers both remise
Fencer A initiates attack
Fencer A misses
Fencer's A & B initiate attacks together
then
(attack no,) Together, nothing
(not sure if bit in brackets would add helpfulness

If:
Fencer attacks, opponent retreats (attack fails), attacker has another go
Fencer A initiates attack
Fencer A misses
Fencer A initiates redouble
Fencer B initiates counter-attack
then either:
Attack, no, redouble, hits
or:
Attack (fencer A), hits.

???

joefencer
-9th November 2006, 01:50
Fencer A makes an extension and and a step forward (like they were going to advance lunge) and stops as fencer B retreats. Fencer A has finished his extension before the step is finished and leaves the arm extended and the point threatening target. B finishes his retreat and then reverses direction and and makes an attack that hits A. Both fencers hit. Would you call A's movement a failed attack or give a PIL?

John Rohde
-9th November 2006, 02:18
Fencer A makes an extension and and a step forward (like they were going to advance lunge) and stops as fencer B retreats. Fencer A has finished his extension before the step is finished and leaves the arm extended and the point threatening target. B finishes his retreat and then reverses direction and and makes an attack that hits A. Both fencers hit. Would you call A's movement a failed attack or give a PIL?

I'm of the school that believes that a PIL is a PIL until it's broken or deflected, irrespective of what the fencer does with his feet FWIW. However, IMHO your case is unaffected by the great PIL-debate because the chap with the PIL hasn't attacked (see t.7 and t.75(b) below) and so, his attack cannot be said to have failed: He has simply placed his PIL on his step. His opponent has then attacked into it.
t.7 The offensive actions are the attack, the riposte and the counter-riposte.
— The attack is the initial offensive action made by extending the arm and continuously threatening the opponent’s target, preceding the launching of the lunge or flèche (cf. t.56ss, t.75ss).
t.75(b) The attack is correctly carried out when the straightening of the arm, with the point or the cutting edge continuously threatening the valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge.