From: kreinddm@ucunix.san.uc.edu (David M Kreindler)
Subject: Re: A few questions and observations
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:11:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.031819.8413@wdl.loral.com> nyden@wdl30.wdl.loral.com (William Nyden) writes:
>In article <Bz5p0u.AD1@ucunix.san.uc.edu> kreinddm@ucunix.san.uc.edu (David M Kreindler) writes:
>>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.  
>
>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).

Perhaps, but the way the FIE rules are set up, two classes of events are
recognized: the attacker scoring because he successfully did something
correctly (Section 417), or the defender scoring because of a failure of the
attacker's attack (Section 422).

>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.

Agreed. This is an example of a Section 422 result: the attacker impaled him/
herself on a point set in line, and therefore botched his attack.

>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.

Not entirely correct, given the situation you've described.  If *both*
fencers have established points-in-line, then the onus is on the fencer
who begins moving forward to clear his opponent's point *out* of line:
Section 422 para 2(a) sez that he's hit "if he initiates his attack when
his opponent has his point in line...without deflecting the opponent's
blade(1)"  (The footnote goes on to say that a mere grazing of the
blades isn't sufficient to deflect the blade.)

>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.  

The directors *should* be seeing the change from a point to a cut as an
additional feint, and hence an additional measure of fencing time.
It's also a switch from a "point in line" (-which, once again, is a
defensive action, since nowhere in the rulebook is it recognized as an
action by means of which an *attacker* can score, but only the defender-)
to an attack with the point.  Since a point in line needs to be
established (by the defender) one full measure ahead of the
time it lands in order to be valid, the change from a point to a cut 
demonstrates to the director (in effect) that the measure of time is there.

-- 
kreinddm@ucunix.san.uc.edu -------------------------------------------------

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