affect of G.K's point in line

affect of G.K's point in line

Post by Roger Boo » Thu, 14 Mar 1996 04:00:00


OK, I'm not arguing about when point in line ceases being point in line,
I will go with George K since he is the person in charge.  I am just
pointing out what affect this ruling has on foil fencing.

Point in line basically is a benefit only for the taller fencer.  If
a short fencer has point in line and a taller fencer can reach over the
line and hit there is NOTHING the shorter fencer can do about it.  If the
shorter fencer lunges while (attempting to) maintaining the line, they
lose it because it is now an offensive action.

Foil is supposed to be a priority weapon, which should be a balancing
factor that allows a shorter fencer to not be at a significant
disadvantage.  However, this ruling contradicts that.  This should not
be surprising because recent FIE rules changes have been weighing heavily
in favor of the taller fencer.  The shorter lockout times is another area
where the taller fencer rules.  My guess would be that wasn't the intention,
the intention was to compensate for bad directors by passing more control
to the box, but that is the end result.

Roger
(Has anyone ever seen a director overrule a box?  It should happen
 frequently in Sabre, but I bet it never does.)

 
 
 

affect of G.K's point in line

Post by sasha zuck » Thu, 14 Mar 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

> Point in line basically is a benefit only for the taller fencer.  If
> a short fencer has point in line and a taller fencer can reach over the
> line and hit there is NOTHING the shorter fencer can do about it.  If the
> shorter fencer lunges while (attempting to) maintaining the line, they
> lose it because it is now an offensive action.

True, yet a fencer with a point in line may retreat or advance! George
didn't say you can't do that, and, in fact, it's in the rules. I don't
know what article number, sorry. However, it does specifically say that
retreating or advancing does not make you lose point in line.

  This should not

Quote:
> be surprising because recent FIE rules changes have been weighing heavily
> in favor of the taller fencer.

I'm not so sure that this is a correct interpretation of the rules in
actual practice. Of course, if you are a the shorter fencer in a bout, you
have to fence differently than if you are the taller fencer...

-sasha

 
 
 

affect of G.K's point in line

Post by CJRive » Thu, 14 Mar 1996 04:00:00


Quote:
>Point in line basically is a benefit only for the taller fencer.  If
>a short fencer has point in line and a taller fencer can reach over the
>line and hit there is NOTHING the shorter fencer can do about it.

This is absolutely NOT true. First of all, if the taller fencer can reach
over the line, the shorter fencer can TRY A DIFFERENT TACTIC. Fencing is a
game which relies on the intricate play of actions and counter actions. We
are not limited to one tactic for a reason. As I have pointed out before,
the whole discussion of the point in line is very esoteric. Any fencer who
relies soley on point in line for his entire game needs to learn a few
more moves. My complaint with the current line interpretation is that it
is illogical, not that it favors tall fencers (which I don't believe it
does...this seems to me, ludicrous). Some of the best fencers in the
country are shorter than I am (and at 5'10' I am hardly a giant!) and they
can manage with a line quite succesfully. Furthermore, the whole
philosophy behind the line is that you have established a primary threat
which must be defeated before your opponent may attack. If I, as your
opponent, happen to have nine foot arms, then I am able to defeat your
line and score with no danger to myself and it is right that I should
attack. The peculiar genetic aberration which is the source of my
advantage should have no bearing on the rules.

Christopher