the infamous point in line.

the infamous point in line.

Post by Sasha Zuck » Fri, 07 Apr 1995 04:00:00


This message is a question for George Kolombatovich.

George, I have to say that I'm beginning to ge frustrated with the way
referees in general are calling point in lines.

here are some examples that have led to my frustration:

Fencer A and B are at double advance lunge distance.

Fencer A establishes point in line. (I'm fencer A, BTW :-)   )
Fencer B advances forward searching for the blade.
Fencer A decieves the blade, moving his hand slightly to do so, but not
withdrawing his arm.
Fencer B finishes his attack. Both fencers arrive valid.
The refs call: Attack from B; Fencer A loses the line because he moved his hand.

ARGH! The rule book says that the only way to lose a line is to withdraw
the arm or to have the attack deflect the blade.

What's the deal? Why do referees in this country so blatantly misuse the
rules? What's going on here? Do you think that yelling "YES! my line
arrived! I can't believe it! woo-hoo!" would help. Never mind, that's a
potential yellow card anyway... but I digress. anyway, I've had cases also
where I would attack someone with a point in line by searching for their
blade, they would _move their entire arm_ to decieve, I would finish, and
we would both arrive valid. My opponent would then claim to have the line,
even though they had moved their entire arm. This person is also a
national director, BTW...

Anyway, to make a long story short, I lose the line if I do anything but
remain completely motionless. Referees take away the line if you so much
as bat an eyelash.

What's going on here? Am I just wrong (wouldn't be surprised, actually),
or are many directors simply directing poorly on a broad basis?

What can I do about this.

sincerely,

stumped in Stanford Fencing Club.

 
 
 

the infamous point in line.

Post by Jessie Mical » Fri, 07 Apr 1995 04:00:00

Quote:
Sasha Zucker writes:
>George, I have to say that I'm beginning to ge frustrated with the way
>referees in general are calling point in lines.
>here are some examples that have led to my frustration:
>Fencer A and B are at double advance lunge distance.
>Fencer A establishes point in line. (I'm fencer A, BTW :-)   )
>Fencer B advances forward searching for the blade.
>Fencer A decieves the blade, moving his hand slightly to do so, but not
>withdrawing his arm.
>Fencer B finishes his attack. Both fencers arrive valid.
>The refs call: Attack from B; Fencer A loses the line because he moved his
>hand.
>ARGH! The rule book says that the only way to lose a line is to withdraw
>the arm or to have the attack deflect the blade.

I have had very similar experiences.  With some directors, you simply
just cannot use the line, because you'll never get a point.  I've lost
bouts because I keep thinking that they'll get it right next time, but
they don't!  And if you think it's bad in foil, it's really bad in sabre!

More specifically to your example.... if you evade the attempt to take the
blade, your priority is by derobement (no longer by the point in line),
which is clearly explained in the rules as having priority over the attack
on the blade.  Of course, they probably won't see it as a derobement either,
so you won't be able to protest a misapplication of the rules.  I've been
absolutely amazed at some of the descriptions I've heard of (what to me) was
a very clear example of a derobement.  I've even heard a derobement
described as a counterriposte, which was very confusing to me since there
were no parries (not to mention two different ones!).

There are a lot of misunderstandings about the line.  We see it almost
everyday in this newsgroup.  Can one advance to hit?  Can one retreat,
lunge, etc.  Many fencers do not know the rules very well themselves, and
many of these same fencers are being called to direct in self-directed
pools (the standard in most low-level, local tournaments, I'm afraid).  It's
no wonder they don't award a line since the rules of application seem
complex and rather mystical if one hasn't spent a lot of time thinking about
it or discussing it in a group such as this or with a GOOD fencing
master.  Most directing is learned by imitation, so a bad
interpretation can spread until it becomes gospel within a division.

My procedure now is to put out a line early in the bout and see how the
referee reacts.  If the analysis sounds off the wall, I will no longer use
it.  It's a shame when that happens, because it's one of my favorite
moves!

Jessie

 
 
 

the infamous point in line.

Post by Eric D » Fri, 07 Apr 1995 04:00:00


Quote:
>This message is a question for George Kolombatovich.

>George, I have to say that I'm beginning to ge frustrated with the way
>referees in general are calling point in lines.

>here are some examples that have led to my frustration:

>Fencer A and B are at double advance lunge distance.

>Fencer A establishes point in line. (I'm fencer A, BTW :-)   )
>Fencer B advances forward searching for the blade.
>Fencer A decieves the blade, moving his hand slightly to do so, but not
>withdrawing his arm.
>Fencer B finishes his attack. Both fencers arrive valid.
>The refs call: Attack from B; Fencer A loses the line because he moved his hand.

[detailed gripe removed]

Quote:

>What's going on here? Am I just wrong (wouldn't be surprised, actually),
>or are many directors simply directing poorly on a broad basis?

>What can I do about this.

>sincerely,

>stumped in Stanford Fencing Club.

Ok, how about this, George, while we're at it.  How can you as an official
differentiate between a semi-long lunge with rear foot recovering forward
and an  advance?  What I mean is:  Fencer A has a point in line.  Fencer
B makes an attempt to d o a binding attack.  Misses the blade because A
disengaged.  But now, since A was a bit freaked, makes a lunge/body throw
(like a half-hearted inquartata), but realizes the severity of his
body motion and recovers by bringing the back foot up, so it looks like
an advance.  Under anyone's VISUAL interpretation, A freaked and
counter-attacked, so loses his point -in-line.  Under this 'allowed to
advance' interpretation, he has point-in-line.  I don't think so.

On the other hand, if an advance is not an attack, suppose fencer A
is marching at me with the feinting of the blade (think of Jack Tichacek
marching forward).  A advances, B retreats (say at advance lunge distance),
B puts out a line or decides to lunge, A follows through on his walk-about
with this timid half-advance that can be interpreted as a short lunge.

According to the advance is not an attack interpretation, B should get
the touch (assuming both hit valid).  But you and I know that that's never
called that way (and I agree).  It's always called attack by A, counter-attack
by B.  (Of course, there's no hesitation by A during the advance to short lunge,
just a smooth, consistent forward motion of body and blade).

Oh, how about cross-advances?  Aside from saber, I don't recall seeing
a rule in the foil section stating that a cross-advance consitute an attack
while a regular advance does not.  If so, how are you going to distinguish
between a cheesy fleche with the front foot recovering forward versus
a cross-advance?  (I mean, in the context of point in line).

I personally liked the commentary posted here in r.s.f about six to
eight months ago by some German guy who claims that a point in line is
arm straight no wiggling of arm (or point unless to deceive an attempt to
take the blade), and only retreating in allowed.  So, NO ADVANCING allowed.
That's the way I can see it work without having fencers put their point out
at the first possible moment, and when the opponent gets close to advance
lunge distance, make this pathetic long lunge-recover forward movement and
get it called as a point in line (because he "only advanced").

EDEW

 
 
 

the infamous point in line.

Post by Morgan Bur » Fri, 07 Apr 1995 04:00:00


Quote:
> The refs call: Attack from B; Fencer A loses the line because he moved
> his hand.


Quote:
> My opponent made an attack on the line, and I
> derobed (sp?) while making an advance to close the distance.  I did
> not break my arm or change my line.


Quote:
> Under anyone's VISUAL interpretation, A freaked and
> counter-attacked, so loses his point -in-line.  Under this 'allowed to
> advance' interpretation, he has point-in-line.

Folks, we seem to be forgetting that derobement has priority over attacks
on the blade.  Deception of an attack au fer gives right of attack;  it
is IRRELEVANT whether you maintain the line, advance, lunge, or fleche.  
You take the priority no matter which choice you make (as long as you make
the choice immediately).

The only possible snag is if the fencer "breaks" the line to derobe the
attack au fer, and then establishes a new line as the failed attack au fer
becomes an attack.  As I see it, this is only a possibility in Sasha's
example, where the director felt that the original line was broken because
of his hand movement.  Seems a bit extreme to me, especially if Sasha's
arm remained extended and his point was on target the whole time, but I
wasn't there.  Unnecessary blade or hand movement can often invalidate a
line (especially in sabre), but there should be a fair amount of tolerance
when the movement is a controlled derobement.  I'm sure George can tell us
what these tolerances are.

Anyway, the simple solution if you think you may have broken the line in
order to execute the derobement, is to attack.

-- Morgan Burke

 
 
 

the infamous point in line.

Post by Alessandro Riz » Sat, 08 Apr 1995 04:00:00

Quote:

>If the line is correctly established (straight line from shoulder to
>point with the line aimed at valid target) before an attack starts it
>should have priority unless:
>    the blade is moved without reason (derobement type movements when
>    the opponent is not trying to find the line)
>    the opponent beats the line
>    the fencer with the line lunges or fleches

In my opinion the third point is wrong, because in the international rule book of
the F.I.E. there is a remark where there is written explicitly that the line
doesn't miss her priority either if one moves back, or forwhard, or launge or fleches.

I'm an Italian fencer who studies in France. I' will be here to the month of July.
If there are fencers in all over the world who wants to communicate with me, I will
be there for you all!!!
Excuse me for my english: I've totally forgotten it!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alessandro Rizzo
Equipe TEMIS                              Tel : +33 99 84 72 69
IRISA/INRIA Rennes, Campus de Beaulieu    Fax : +33 99 84 71 71

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

the infamous point in line.

Post by George Edward Kolombatovic » Sat, 08 Apr 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

> >If the line is correctly established (straight line from shoulder to
> >point with the line aimed at valid target) before an attack starts it
> >should have priority unless:

> >       the blade is moved without reason (derobement type movements when
> >       the opponent is not trying to find the line)

> >       the opponent beats the line

> >       the fencer with the line lunges or fleches

> In my opinion the third point is wrong, because in the international rule book of
> the F.I.E. there is a remark where there is written explicitly that the line
> doesn't miss her priority either if one moves back, or forwhard, or launge or fleches.

Remarks such as this really serve no purpose.  When someone states that
something is explicitly written in the FIE Rules Book when, in fact, it
is not, only confusion will occur.  

Please, if one is going to quote the rules book, quote the rules book!


Chair, Fencing Officials Commission
United States Fencing Association

 
 
 

the infamous point in line.

Post by David Glass » Sat, 08 Apr 1995 04:00:00


[snip]

Quote:
>If you remove the point from target, or you bend any
>of the joints of your arm, your position is no longer line.  In sabre,
>I have seen this rigidly enforced (i.e. nothing but finger motion
>allowed).  But that is beside the point.

I think that referee was abusively interpreting the rules.  It may be good
technique to derobe with a finger action, but it isn't a prerequisite as long
as the blade movement is not exaggerated.  

Quote:
>Why did you bother trying to hit with the line?  Why bother trying to
>maintain it?  Once B tries to take your blade and you successfully
>avoid that attempt, why not just attack?

If the opponent attempts (for example) to make a simple opposition
thrust to deflect your line and hit you, he is not making a preparation, and
you respond with a disengage lunge, I believe current FIE interpretation would
analyze your action as a counter-attack which would not benefit from a
derobement.  I, personally would prefer to regard that as a
priority counter-attack by derobement, but most authorities today eschew that
interpretation.  Anyway, maintaining your line in this circumstance by a neat
derobement avoids this problem.  Of course if the ref doesn't call lines
correctly you can let the opponent take your line and then parry riposte.  

[snip]

Quote:
>The line invites the attack on the blade so you can play this game.
>The line has served its purpose once B commits and you are set free of
>its confines.  Attempts to maintain the line invite the referee to
>declare that you broke it by bending the arm or removing your point
>from target.  Why subject yourself to that kind of abuse?

Abuse, ja.  

Quote:
>At least one text I have read recommends immediately counter-attacking
>with lunge after you derobe (sorry to verbify) so as to clearly assert
>your right to the point.
> -- Mike Buckley

Generally, pretty good advice.

David Glasser  
fencing master %DFB:BLZ/LLZ Bonn  NFF:BSI/BF/NSKS Bergen

Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin -- Madison

 
 
 

the infamous point in line.

Post by George Edward Kolombatovic » Sat, 08 Apr 1995 04:00:00


Quote:
> George, I have to say that I'm beginning to ge frustrated with the way
> referees in general are calling point in lines.
> What's the deal? Why do referees in this country so blatantly misuse the
> rules? What's going on here? Do you think that yelling "YES! my line
> arrived! I can't believe it! woo-hoo!" would help. Never mind, that's a
> potential yellow card anyway... but I digress. anyway, I've had cases also
> where I would attack someone with a point in line by searching for their
> blade, they would _move their entire arm_ to decieve, I would finish, and
> we would both arrive valid. My opponent would then claim to have the line,
> even though they had moved their entire arm. This person is also a
> national director, BTW...

No need to state "in this country."  The line is frequently called
incorrectly in many places.  

If the line is correctly established (straight line from shoulder to
point with the line aimed at valid target) before an attack starts it
should have priority unless:

        the blade is moved without reason (derobement type movements when
        the opponent is not trying to find the line)

        the opponent beats the line

        the fencer with the line lunges or fleches

If you avoid the above, you should have your score advanced.

Quote:
> Anyway, to make a long story short, I lose the line if I do anything but
> remain completely motionless. Referees take away the line if you so much
> as bat an eyelash.

Referees who do not give priority to a correct line make errors in doing
so.  (Just as referees who give priority to fast counter-attacks against
correctly executed slow attacks make errors.)

Some referees just don't see the line; they are frequently so busy trying
to follow the actions that they are unable to devide their attention.

Quote:
> What's going on here? Am I just wrong (wouldn't be surprised, actually),
> or are many directors simply directing poorly on a broad basis?

Many referees make errors.  The better referees are considered better
only because they make fewer errors AND because they are consistant.

If you have a referee who sees fine tempo actions and can tell who is
controling blade meetings but cannot see the line, don't use the line.  
Most often, one is better off with the referee who consistantly makes an
incorrect call on the line while getting everything else correct than
with the referee who sees lines but misses tempo or blade actions.

Quote:
> What can I do about this.

First of all, you are certainly correct that you don't want to yell and
scream; that really is a bad idea.  What you can do is speak with the
referee before the competition and tell him or her of your concerns.  
Usually, if you do it politely and you have not gotten a reputation as a
cronic complainer, your concerns will be intelligently discussed and you
might even help the referee learn.  

If all else fails, don't use the line.  Remember, the fencer is always
trying to deceive the opponent while being obvious to the referee.  That
is certainly a difficult task.  The other thing you should probably try
is to become a referee yourself.  Show others how it should be done while
learning that it is not as easy to do as it may appear.

George Kolombatovich

Chair, Fencing Officials Commission
United States Fencing Association

 
 
 

the infamous point in line.

Post by George Edward Kolombatovic » Sat, 08 Apr 1995 04:00:00

Quote:

> Ok, how about this, George, while we're at it.  How can you as an official
> differentiate between a semi-long lunge with rear foot recovering forward
> and an  advance?  What I mean is:  Fencer A has a point in line.  Fencer
> B makes an attempt to d o a binding attack.  Misses the blade because A
> disengaged.  But now, since A was a bit freaked, makes a lunge/body throw
> (like a half-hearted inquartata), but realizes the severity of his
> body motion and recovers by bringing the back foot up, so it looks like
> an advance.  Under anyone's VISUAL interpretation, A freaked and
> counter-attacked, so loses his point -in-line.  Under this 'allowed to
> advance' interpretation, he has point-in-line.  I don't think so.

The referee is required to make many judgement calls.  When is a meeting
of the blades a beat by one fencer or a parry by the other?  When is an
action an attack into a preparation and when is it a counter-attack?  
When is it an advance and when is it a lunge with a forward recovery?  
All of these are judgements.  What the fencer should be able to expect
from the referee is consistancy in how those judgements are made.

Since the rules require the referees to make these judgements, the
referees have to make these judgements.

Also be aware that if, as in your example, a fencer tries to find the
opponent's blade and fails to do so, the so called "line" might properly
be called an attack into a preparation.  (This is what frequently actually
happens in high level fencing when someone with a line makes a lunge.)

Quote:
> On the other hand, if an advance is not an attack, suppose fencer A
> is marching at me with the feinting of the blade (think of Jack Tichacek
> marching forward).  A advances, B retreats (say at advance lunge distance),
> B puts out a line or decides to lunge, A follows through on his walk-about
> with this timid half-advance that can be interpreted as a short lunge.

And suppose that A is B's half sister whom A has not seen since they were
separated when they were three years old in Iceland.  I'm sorry but I just
do not understand what you are saying in this example.  How can one be
expected to analyze what is meant by something such as "follows through on
his walk-about with this timid half-advance that can be interpreted as a
short lunge."?  The referee must translate into words what actions
fencers make.  It matters not what it "can be interpreted as," it matters
what the referee says it is.

Quote:
> According to the advance is not an attack interpretation, B should get
> the touch (assuming both hit valid).  But you and I know that that's never
> called that way (and I agree).  It's always called attack by A, counter-attack
> by B.  (Of course, there's no hesitation by A during the advance to short lunge,
> just a smooth, consistent forward motion of body and blade).

If a fencer is attacking before the line is established, the line is not
a line; it is a counter-attack.

Quote:
> Oh, how about cross-advances?  Aside from saber, I don't recall seeing
> a rule in the foil section stating that a cross-advance consitute an attack
> while a regular advance does not.  If so, how are you going to distinguish
> between a cheesy fleche with the front foot recovering forward versus
> a cross-advance?  (I mean, in the context of point in line).

Referees will make a judgement.  I would caution fencers not to try to
"test" referees with such things.  A cross over would very likely be
considered an attack in this situation.

Quote:
> I personally liked the commentary posted here in r.s.f about six to
> eight months ago by some German guy who claims that a point in line is
> arm straight no wiggling of arm (or point unless to deceive an attempt to
> take the blade), and only retreating in allowed.  So, NO ADVANCING allowed.
> That's the way I can see it work without having fencers put their point out
> at the first possible moment, and when the opponent gets close to advance
> lunge distance, make this pathetic long lunge-recover forward movement and
> get it called as a point in line (because he "only advanced").

A referee does not have the luxury of personally liking or disliking a
rule; a referee must simply enforce the rules.  The "German guy" was
either misunderstood or he never attended a required FIE seminar for
international referees.  Advancing is allowed with the line; attacking
is not allowed.

George Kolombatovich

Chair, Fencing Officials Commission
United States Fencing Association

 
 
 

the infamous point in line.

Post by David M Kreindl » Sun, 09 Apr 1995 04:00:00

Quote:

>Folks, we seem to be forgetting that derobement has priority over attacks
>on the blade.  Deception of an attack au fer gives right of attack;  it
>is IRRELEVANT whether you maintain the line, advance, lunge, or fleche.  
>You take the priority no matter which choice you make (as long as you make
>the choice immediately).

I still would like someone to clarify (as has been implied or stated in
r.s.f. a number of times) what the difference is (if any) between advancing
with a line and lunging with a line.  To my mind, there shouldn't be any
difference.  George K. seemed to imply that an advance was okay but a
lunge wasn't.  If so, then how is a director supposed to decide what
constitutes an attack-with-the-point executed with a step forward, and
what's a simple advance with a point-in-line?
--

"Sometimes you're the windshield / Sometimes you're the bug...." - Dire Straits

http://www.uc.edu/~kreinddd/cfc.html - The Cincinnati Fencing Club Home Page

 
 
 

the infamous point in line.

Post by Mike Buckl » Sun, 09 Apr 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

>Fencer A and B are at double advance lunge distance.

>Fencer A establishes point in line. (I'm fencer A, BTW :-)   )
>Fencer B advances forward searching for the blade.
>Fencer A decieves the blade, moving his hand slightly to do so, but not
>withdrawing his arm.
>Fencer B finishes his attack. Both fencers arrive valid.
>The refs call: Attack from B; Fencer A loses the line because he moved his hand.

>ARGH! The rule book says that the only way to lose a line is to withdraw
>the arm or to have the attack deflect the blade.

Well, not quite.  If you remove the point from target, or you bend any
of the joints of your arm, your position is no longer line.  In sabre,
I have seen this rigidly enforced (i.e. nothing but finger motion
allowed).  But that is beside the point.

ARGH!  Why do people misunderstand the uses of the line?

Why did you bother trying to hit with the line?  Why bother trying to
maintain it?  Once B tries to take your blade and you successfully
avoid that attempt, why not just attack?

If the ref is unclear on the rules, trying to maintain a line just
adds to the confusion.

From article 237:

   2. Only the fencer who attacks is counted as hit:

            (b) if he attempts to find the blade, does not succeed
            (derobement) and continues his attack;

The line invites the attack on the blade so you can play this game.
The line has served its purpose once B commits and you are set free of
its confines.  Attempts to maintain the line invite the referee to
declare that you broke it by bending the arm or removing your point
from target.  Why subject yourself to that kind of abuse?

At least one text I have read recommends immediately counter-attacking
with lunge after you derobe (sorry to verbify) so as to clearly assert
your right to the point.

--

 -- Mike Buckley

 
 
 

the infamous point in line.

Post by Mike Buckl » Mon, 10 Apr 1995 04:00:00


Quote:


>[snip]
>>If you remove the point from target, or you bend any
>>of the joints of your arm, your position is no longer line.  In sabre,
>>I have seen this rigidly enforced (i.e. nothing but finger motion
>>allowed).  But that is beside the point.

>I think that referee was abusively interpreting the rules.  It may be good
>technique to derobe with a finger action, but it isn't a prerequisite as long
>as the blade movement is not exaggerated.  

As a requirement of the derobement, no.  But as a requirement for the
maintenance of the line, i.e. point on target and arm straight, I
think it within the competence of the referee.

Quote:
>>Why did you bother trying to hit with the line?  Why bother trying to
>>maintain it?  Once B tries to take your blade and you successfully
>>avoid that attempt, why not just attack?

>If the opponent attempts (for example) to make a simple opposition
>thrust to deflect your line and hit you, he is not making a
>preparation, and you respond with a disengage lunge, I believe current
>FIE interpretation would analyze your action as a counter-attack which
>would not benefit from a derobement.  I, personally would prefer to
>regard that as a priority counter-attack by derobement, but most
>authorities today eschew that interpretation.  Anyway, maintaining
>your line in this circumstance by a neat derobement avoids this
>problem.

Oops.  I was thinking in terms of a clear attack on the blade.  I'm
not sure of the status of an attack with opposition.  Article 237
talks about _attacks_ which try to "find" the blade (CFF text), not
preparations so even a simple thrust with opposition seems to be
covered.  I think an authoritative response would be the only way to
resolve this question (and would worthless since many referees still
get confused about basic details of the line).

I've seen this get very confusing with left handers attacking
indirectly to quarte.

--

 -- Mike Buckley

 
 
 

the infamous point in line.

Post by AMullhau » Mon, 10 Apr 1995 04:00:00


If the line is correctly established (straight line from shoulder to
point with the line aimed at valid target) before an attack starts it
should have priority unless:

        the blade is moved without reason (derobement type movements when
        the opponent is not trying to find the line)

        the opponent beats the line

        the fencer with the line lunges or fleches
<<

I'll admit that the point I'm about to raise we have discussed before in
r.s.f., but
what you have just said here confuses the issue for me. The question is:
If
a fencer establishes the point in line, and the opponent attempts to
displace
target, but the fencer with the line moves his weapon so as to maintain a
continuous threat and the straightness of his arm, is the line intact? The
movement is _not_ a derobement, nor is the blade motion without reason.
However, in our previous discussion it seemed that you would take away the
line from a fencer who moved it significantly even for this reason.

I proposed a rewrite of Article 422-2(a) from:

    "he initiates his attack when his opponent has his point 'in line'
(arm
    straight and point threatening target) without deflecting the
opponent's
    weapon. President's must ensure that mere blade contact is not
    considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent's blade."

to:

    "he is hit by a point in line (arm straight and point threatening
target)
    which was established before the initiation of his attack and not
deflected.     Presidents must ensure that mere blade contact is not
considered as
    sufficient to deflect the opponent's blade."

which at the time exactly corresponded to my understanding of correct
interpretations. (The revised version having the virtue of eliminating
the possibility that the attacker is hit by something other than the point
in line - in particular the edge of a point in line.) _Now_ there is the
question
of which motions, if any, do not invalidate the point in line. I certainly
think
it entirely reasonable to make a small motion (from the shoulder or
fingers)
in order that the point in line continues to threaten target, since
although the
opponent is not necessarily trying to find the blade, he is certainly up
to no
good - there is a reason to move the line in this case.

As to your point about referees liking rules. You are absolutely correct
in
saying that the referee has no choice as to which rules must be applied.
The correct rules to apply do not depend on the particular preferences of
the referee. The only acceptable way for a referee to avoid applying rules
which are distasteful to him is to stop being a referee.

However, it _is_ entirely possible for a referee to dislike rules.
Although in
general I am quite happy with the vast majority of the rules, I can think
of
no less than four examples of rules I don't like. Many people must have
found many rules unsatisfactory at one time or another, or else it is
impossible to understand why the rules have changed at all. (And we all
know that the
rules change pretty frequently). Despite my reservations about these
rules,
I have not had much trouble enforcing them. In fact the most unpleasant
rule
is quite simple to apply correctly - I haven't seen any close calls there
at all.
The only rule I have run into trouble with in actual practice as a referee
is
the turning the back rule. I let one foilist go pretty far once without
calling
him, only realising my mistake about two actions later. I usually don't
mind
missing a call if it's rare enough, but you never want to miss that one,
since
it is so easy for someone to be seriously injured. I am much more
conscious
of this problem now, but I see it so rarely I am not sure how good I have
become at making that call.

Later,
Andrew P. Mullhaupt

 
 
 

the infamous point in line.

Post by HaroldBu » Mon, 10 Apr 1995 04:00:00

Quote:
David M Kreindler writes:
>If so, then how is a director supposed to decide what
>constitutes an attack-with-the-point executed with
>a step forward, and what's a simple advance with
>a point-in-line?

An attack with the point usually doesn't start with the attacker standing
fully extended with a line. When most sabreurs attack with the point, they
extend the arm during a lunge or advance.

-Harold Buck

The opinions expressed here are not
necessarily those of my employer. Since
I am self-employed, this means these
opinions are not necessarily my own.

 
 
 

the infamous point in line.

Post by Morgan Bur » Tue, 11 Apr 1995 04:00:00


|> I still would like someone to clarify (as has been implied or stated in
|> r.s.f. a number of times) what the difference is (if any) between advancing
|> with a line and lunging with a line.  To my mind, there shouldn't be any
|> difference.

This is far from an official interpretation, but I agree.  My take is
that footwork has no bearing on the line at all, although distance
does come into it.  That is to say that if distance is large enough
that the forward movement of the line does not carry the threat of
scoring a touch, then any kind of forward movement is allowed without
breaking the line.  Thus fencers can step forward or even lunge and
still maintain the line.  If the forward movement of the line breaks
the distance and threatens to score a touch if the opponent does not
take evasive or defensive action, then it is an attack, regardless
of whether the forward movement is by step or lunge.

-- Morgan Burke