Simultaneous (saber). Why?

[luv2fence]

I have been fencing with saber for about 1/2 year;
I am still a novice in skill level.

Occasionally, I think I see really bad officiating.
I have observed directors calling "simultaneous" when
it is obvouis to me that one fencer was attacking first
and should have ROW.
What am I missing?
Should a director say more than "simultaneous" in the
case described below?
(Asking later does not work, because nobody remembers.)

Immediately, after the director says "fence",
fencer Left advances continuosly toward fencer Right, who does
not move. As fencer Left is making his final arm extension
simulateously fencer Right reacts with his attack.
Both hit tagets, with simple straight cuts.

It seems to me that, when a fencer takes the fight to another,
the director should EXPLAIN; the director should say "Attack Left hesitation,
simultaneous attacks" or "No arm extension Left, then simultaneous attacks".
Other times, the same director would give the point to Left fencer.

I have noticed a correlation of certain directors and distance between fencers, and this is easy to see; these directors are consistent.

Any help would be appreciated.

[AndrewH]

I think it's safe to say it was bad directing, without actually seeing the action in question. In my life, I have had maybe a handful of sabre directors who could consistently call the correct actions and apply the rules correctly. The problem is that, at the novice level, you find 2 types of sabre directors:

1) the ones that can't see an arm extension, however subtle or blatent it may be, and will call any situation with both fencers attacking off the line as simultaneous.

2) the ones that feel calling simultaneous is the mark of a bad director, so they make it a point to always call one fencer's attack, even if the action really was simultaneous.

Of course neither are correct, but it takes a lot of experience and training to see an extension that may have been 1/10 of a second faster that the opponent. Look at the men's sabre olympic videos, the directors were calling actions that looked to be simultaneous, but with instant replay were actually an attack-counterattack situation. It's difficult to see.

What I'm saying is that good sabre directors are far and few between.

As for your other question, you can certainly ask the director for clarification of a touch. In fact, doing so might be to your advantage, because it helps to see how the director thinks. If the director explains that he called an attack against you, be conscious not to hesitate too much. If he explains that your attacks started at the same time (even if they didn't), forget about out-attacking and change your tactics.

Summary: bad sabre directors abound. Ask for clarification of any calls you don't understand and adjust your tactics accordingly.

[mrbiggs]

I have a question sort of related to this post.

I heard awhile ago that you have to be within a certain distance of your opponent to start an attack. In other words, if you and your opponent are at opposite ends of the strip, you can start moving forward without starting an attack, because your opponent was not in range.

Is that accurate?

[AndrewH]

I have a question sort of related to this post.

I heard awhile ago that you have to be within a certain distance of your opponent to start an attack. In other words, if you and your opponent are at opposite ends of the strip, you can start moving forward without starting an attack, because your opponent was not in range.

Is that accurate?

An attack is defined by the extension of the arm, just like any other weapon. So if I was to advance with my arm still in the en guard position, then no I would not be attacking. However, if we were on opposite sides of the strip as you described, and I began to advance with my arm slowly extending, no matter how far away I am, thats still an attack and it doesn't end until my arm has come to full extension.

[mrbiggs]

An attack is defined by the extension of the arm, just like any other weapon. So if I was to advance with my arm still in the en guard position, then no I would not be attacking. However, if we were on opposite sides of the strip as you described, and I began to advance with my arm slowly extending, no matter how far away I am, thats still an attack and it doesn't end until my arm has come to full extension.

Oh, just so everyone's clear, I'm talking foil. So it is slightly off-topic. Sorry.

The argument I heard was that you had to be threatening target area, and from a long distance, you are not threatening target.

[luv2fence]

Is this a necessary condition of an attack ? :
blade must threaten a valid target.

If so, then two fencers standing very far apart,
can Not be attacking each other, yet. They
would first have to close the distance.

Perhaps some directors are using this criterion,
consciously or unconsciously. I only known one
coach who observed distance-rules; he was European.

Among my US coaches and other good fencers I hear "distance"
in the context the mechanics of sticking and slicing,
not in the context of ROW or rules.

luv2fence

[AndrewH]

Is this a necessary condition of an attack ? :
blade must threaten a valid target.

If so, then two fencers standing very far apart,
can Not be attacking each other, yet. They
would first have to close the distance.

Perhaps some directors are using this criterion,
consciously or unconsciously. I only known one
coach who observed distance-rules; he was European.

Among my US coaches and other good fencers I hear "distance"
in the context the mechanics of sticking and slicing,
not in the context of ROW or rules.

luv2fence

Now you're opening a whole new can of worms, some directors only consider a foil attack to be an attack if the point is threatening valid target, others allow an advance with the point towards the ceiling to be an attack. But I know very little about foil so I won't go into that, besides, this a sabre thread after all.

As far as sabre goes? I suppose you could be technical and say that the "imaginary line" that the blade would sweep out as you cut would have to intersect valid target, but as long as you're extending your arm towards your opponent, it's hard to visualize NOT hitting valid target in the absence of a parry. Yes there are some directors who refuse to recognize low-line attacks. Don't worry about those until you come across them. Just know that the (almost) universally accepted definition of a sabre attack is "arm extending".

[edew]

Has to be within an advance-lunge or jump-lunge distance for saber. If a fencer can make an advance-lunge and hit, then it's within his distance. There is no metrical length to define distance. It's based on the ability of the fencer. If a fencer (like me) can't make a single advance-lunge to hit, then my "attacks" won't count until my last advance-lunge.

If I'm 20 ft tall with 12 ft legs and can make a 25 ft span with one advance, then I can make an advance lunge to hit from practically any distance. I can also guarantee that no one can hit me above my waist, for the most part.

[noodle]

if you were 20ft tall with 12ft legs, you would couldn't pet a puppy, because if you tried, you'd crush it.

to try and stay on topic slightly, i agree that its pretty much a case of bad directing (if the situation is as you describe it).

distance is a major player in ROW. as edew said, i can't have an attack unless i can actually hit with this attack. if i'm at one warning track and my opponent is at the complete opposite side, and i take a lunge, is that really an attack?

[Link14]

Hmmm, I probably shouldn't respond until I look at my notes from Coaches College, but I don't think we can tell if the directing is bad by the description....because we don't know when the fencer Left's arm started extending forward.

A attack in foil starts when (aargh...I know I'm going to screw this up) the arm is extending forward and the point is threatening valid target area. Like Edew said, "threatening" starts when you're within your adv-lunge distance.

Like I tell my fencers, you start extending the arm forward at the beginning of an adv-lunge sequence and land the point just before your front foot lands. That way the attack starts at the beginning of the adv-lunge. If you don't start the extension until the lunge starts....that's where your attack has started.

So going back the the example. If fencer Left started the arm extension at the beginning of the adv-lunge AND fencer Right lunges simultaniously...touch left, but if fencer left starts the arm extension at the lunge and Right lunges at the same time...simul.

Hope that helps.

P.S. One other idea that had confused me in foil was the point threatening with the arm "cocked" back for a flick. As a director, you have to think of the point threatening along an arc, and not just a straight attack. Then the above attack description still is valid. I know I pissed off alot of foilest before I figured that one out.

[luv2fence]

Was it bad officiating?
When one fencer pounces like a panther on a puppy,
I wish the director would say more than "simultaneous".

It is not so important whether the director made a mistake
in a particular case. I am trying to find out what factors
are critcal so I can better analyze, see, and remember.
I would definitely change my game on this basis.

Arm extension is one of those critical factors.
Can anyone explain the 135 degees in saber (?);
I know it was mentioned on this forum.

I tried to do a search for "135" on this forum: nothing.
I did a search through 2000 edition USFA Fencing Rules: nothing.
luv2fence

[AndrewH]

Your panther/puppy analogy isnt really applicable, because keep in mind that attack has nothing to do with foot speed and everything to do with arm speed. I could fly off the en gaurd line with my arm pulled back, and you could calmly advance and extend, and it would be your attack. Unfortunatly, inexperienced directors will often make the opposite call, assuming that I must be attacking first, because I'm coming forward faster.

The director doesn't have to say any more than "simaltaneous". It's up to you to request clarification.

I'll let one of the more technically inclined members explain the 135 degree thing, I don't fully understand it myself.

[mrbiggs]

Has to be within an advance-lunge or jump-lunge distance for saber. If a fencer can make an advance-lunge and hit, then it's within his distance. There is no metrical length to define distance. It's based on the ability of the fencer. If a fencer (like me) can't make a single advance-lunge to hit, then my "attacks" won't count until my last advance-lunge.

If I'm 20 ft tall with 12 ft legs and can make a 25 ft span with one advance, then I can make an advance lunge to hit from practically any distance. I can also guarantee that no one can hit me above my waist, for the most part.

Okay, thanks, that clears that up. Just making sure I know what I'm talking about.

[keith]

the 135 degree thing is the sabre equivalent of the point threatening the target in foil - a blade at this angle is threatening a cut.
You are not threatening a cut if you are scratching your ear with the tip of your sabre (although you are probably threatening to try and cut off your opponents arm even if they do stop cut in time).

[GGK]

Arm extension is one of those critical factors. Can anyone explain the 135 degrees in saber (?);
I know it was mentioned on this forum.

So the 135 is in reference to your arm and the angle of the blade. It describes a cone with your hand is the vertex and
when your blade is inside this cone than you are attacking. So if fencer A and B both start a simple attack at the same time both are identical in every way (extension, foot speed, smoothness, etc.) except that A's blade is within the 135 degree cone and B's is pointed at the ceiling until the end it is attack/counterattack point A.
A is dedicated to the simple attack and wins the touch. And A is also very "parryable" therefore easily stopped.
Then the tactical wheel kicks in.

I tried to do a search for "135" on this forum: nothing. I did a search through 2000 edition USFA Fencing Rules: nothing.

t.77

G

[edew]

Of course, the 135-degree is a visual interpretation by the referee. No one is going to do any geometric analysis. (And, it's even harder for the referee to make that analysis when the fencer is making a chest or flank cut that puts the blade parallel to the ground and perhaps pointing away from the referee.)

Basically, if the blade looks "held back" then it's preparation. If the blade is earnestly moving forward - towards the opponent (without any sort of hedging or hesitation or delay), then it's an attack, even before the blade gets to the 135-degree threshold.

[prototoast]

Of course, the 135-degree is a visual interpretation by the referee. No one is going to do any geometric analysis. (And, it's even harder for the referee to make that analysis when the fencer is making a chest or flank cut that puts the blade parallel to the ground and perhaps pointing away from the referee.)

Basically, if the blade looks "held back" then it's preparation. If the blade is earnestly moving forward - towards the opponent (without any sort of hedging or hesitation or delay), then it's an attack, even before the blade gets to the 135-degree threshold.

Another problem I see is that the 135 angle is with respect to the arm. Change the arm angle and the blade tip can be pointed backwards with the angle acceptable.

[keith]

Another problem I see is that the 135 angle is with respect to the arm. Change the arm angle and the blade tip can be pointed backwards with the angle acceptable.

which is why it's a bloody good thing that sabre refs simply use it as a guide for the simplest attacking action - and simple is better than compound.

but I do look forward to watching a sabruer screaming for priority because their blade was at 135 degrees and their arm straight (even if it was pointing straight up in the air).

[haroldbuck]

Your panther/puppy analogy isnt really applicable, because keep in mind that attack has nothing to do with foot speed and everything to do with arm speed. I could fly off the en gaurd line with my arm pulled back, and you could calmly advance and extend, and it would be your attack. Unfortunatly, inexperienced directors will often make the opposite call, assuming that I must be attacking first, because I'm coming forward faster.

I don't think that was the point. The point was that IF you have really long legs, you can begin an attack by extending your arm from YOUR advance-lunge distance, while the other person could not since they wouldn't be within THEIR advance-lunge distance. It's not about speed, it's about when you're in range to properly "threaten target" while extending.

If you're (a normal size, like me and are) 8 meters away, I don't have the attack just because I start extending before you do, since I'm too far away to threaten target.

[dunastor]

I don't think that was the point. The point was that IF you have really long legs, you can begin an attack by extending your arm from YOUR advance-lunge distance, while the other person could not since they wouldn't be within THEIR advance-lunge distance. It's not about speed, it's about when you're in range to properly "threaten target" while extending.

If you're (a normal size, like me and are) 8 meters away, I don't have the attack just because I start extending before you do, since I'm too far away to threaten target.

This is the background of the height advantage in RoW-weapons.
That doesn't mean it isn't still possible to make an attack in preparation or a simultaneous attack in that situation...