From: nyden@wdl30.wdl.loral.com (William Nyden)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
Subject: Re: A few questions and observations
Summary: A point in line is ALWAYS a threat
Date: 16 Dec 92 03:18:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Space Systems/Loral

In article <Bz5p0u.AD1@ucunix.san.uc.edu> kreinddm@ucunix.san.uc.edu (David M Kreindler) writes:
>In article <1g3uimINNduu@tamsun.tamu.edu> rgd3729@tamsun.tamu.edu (Greg Dilworth) writes:
>>In article <2B24AEA3.4919@deneva.sdd.trw.com> rosen@pooh.sdd.trw.com (Daniel Rosen) writes:
>>
>>>The second question involves sabre fencing; for quite a while I have
>>>developed an attack which I initiate "en pointe" (set up for a point
>>>with my arm extended). As my opponent attempts to parry, I disengage
>>>and WITHOUT BENDING MY ARM or REMOVING THE POINT FROM BEING INLINE, I
>>>bring the saber under his blade (the disengage) then continue the
>>>motion bringing it full over to a head cut. Lately, several directors
>>>have said that beginning en pointe and continuing to a cut
>>>constitutes a break in fencing time and if my opponent hits me prior
>>>to the head cut, they declare that I have lost the right of way. I
>>>can't find any reference to this in the USFA rules, but perhaps I am
>>>not paying close enough attention. Anyone who could shed light on
>>>this, please let me know. Thanks a lot. 
>>
>[First reply omitted.]
>
>There's an additional twist to this, though, and whether or not it
>applies to your question is unclear from the way you've explained the
>situation.  In sabre, a point-in-line is considered a purely defensive
>action; it's different from an attack with the point.  Essentially, you
>can't be moving forward with a point-in-line: if you try doing so into
>your opponent's attack, you've lost your priority since you no
>longer have a point-in-line established, but are executing a (counter-)
>attack with the point instead.  (There *are* a bunch of situations in
>which you'll be able to score a touch with the counter-attack - opponent
>breaks his/her attack, doesn't complete the attack, tries an
>unsuccessful prise-de-fer, etc. - but that wasn't what you asked.)
>-- 
>kreinddm@ucunix.san.uc.edu -------------------------------------------------
>
I beg to differ:  An established point in line is neither offensive nor
defensive, but is a threat that must be dealt with regardless of whether
the fencer is stationary, moving forward, backward or sideways (as long as
he/she doesn't leave the piste).

If the fencers are out of distance and both extend their points before
any other action, and one fencer then moves forward, then it is an
attack onto a point in line.  Touch for the stationary fencer.

If one fencer establishes a point in line and begins moving forward, it is
an attack and must be defended against unless the action stops, or the point
is removed from line.  The directors Mr. Rosen is talking about are seeing 
the change from a point to a cut as removing the point from line, and therefore
a break in the attack.  You cannot change a point threat to a cut without
removing the point from line.  

If Dan were to change to a cutting attack before his opponent made any reaction,
the director should give the attack.  If he has his point in line, and his
opponent attacks, he must hit with the point to maintain right-of-way.
-- 
 Bill Nyden                          |    I do not officially represent anyone
  ( nyden@wdl1.wdl.loral.com )       |    other than myself on this network...
   SSI DiveCon 0006DC                |    ...and sometimes not even me.
   Nullum prandium gratuitum         | 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing