Sabre Video Clip

[Inquartata]

After Montano's short attack, there is a break, and Tarantino does look like he's attacking, which would frame Montano's answer as a defensive action. Based on the comments either call may be okay; is there a definitive call for this?

Six of one, a half dozen of the other---as far as the outcome is concerned. In effect, though, Tarantino is preparing and Montano catches him with an attack with prise into it, IMO.

[edew]

To me, Montano's posture and weight seems to be on a defensive position. He's reaching out, searching for the attacker's blade, which indicates that he respects Tarantino's right of way. He finds the blade and immediately changes gear from reverse to forward and hits Tarantino. Pretty standard "attack-short-attack-parry-riposte". If one considers that Tarantino's arm is not in attack mode (not extending towards the target, 135-degree blah-blah), then one could say it's Montano's prise-de-fer.

The fact that Montano is actively searching for Tarantino's blade (note the windmill movement) and there's a click indicating successful search makes the conclusion pretty clear that it's Montano's touch.

If there's no blade contact, then it still might go one way or the other depending on how the referee interprets Tarantino's forward motion: is it an attack or is it a preparation. Even so, if there were no blade contact, I'd give it to Tarantino. Montano's search clearly indicates that he respects Tarantino's right of way. If there's no blade contact, then he has changed his mind without Tarantino doing anything different (no halts, stutter steps, broken forward movements, etc). Well, the right of way hasn't changed, so Tarantino's hit would count.

Note, folks, if Tarantino is clearly advancing in a preparation (blade is right next to his forearm or held perpendicular to the line motion, or waving around), and Montano searches, unsuccessfully, and then launches an attack, Montano better hit before Tarantino STARTS his attack for it to be in time for Montano. Otherwise, it should be Tarantino's attack.

[Welted 24/7]

Why is everyone saying Montano's attack is short? Even if you can't see where it lands, there's a pretty clear clack indicating he landed on either the forte or the guard. To me it reads attack, parry, no riposte, prise de fer for the touch from the left. Of course the prise is dependant upon where the beat landed, because it looks like it's in that gray area where it could be either a prise de fer or on the forte and Tarantino's parry.

I can't see the green light- did they both go on, or was Tarantino locked out?

[edew]

Montano's attack is short because
(a) he didn't hit Tarantino,
(b) Tarantino is jumping back to avoid being hit, hoping to make Montano's attack fall short, and
(c) Montano shortened his lunge at the last moment because he didn't want to completely stretch out and get nailed with a quick parry-riposte.

Montano may even have set the whole thing up: feign a hard fast lunge, pull up short deliberately when Tarantino jumps back, and then make a quick prise de fer on the oncoming attack by Tarantino. Usually, that moment right at the start of the new attack by the person who jumps back is the vulnerable moment. The movement is still a bit slow, the blades are closest that they'll probably ever will be, and it's just plain hard to start the arm forward when moving forward (sorta the action-reaction thingee with Newton's 3rd law of motion).

[Welted 24/7]

I caught all that, but there's still a parry in there, which is why I'd hesitate to call it short, even if it was an incidental one. So to be technically correct, why isn't it Tarantino's parry instead of Montano's short attack?

[sabreur]

I caught all that, but there's still a parry in there, which is why I'd hesitate to call it short, even if it was an incidental one. So to be technically correct, why isn't it Tarantino's parry instead of Montano's short attack?

I think you are hearing Montano's front foot, not blades. The only blade contact I hear is Montano's pris de fer, after his initial attack and as Tarantino starts forward.

When you look at it in slow motion, you can see why Tarantino was pissed--he took a pretty clear 3 parry (he often starts his forward action after an opponent is short with a counter 3...). However, it looks to me like Montano did a back-edge beat (counter-4, but with the hand in terce). Taking the beat with the back-edge gives you a big advantage, because no one is going to mistake it for an attempt to stop cut.

MR

[Welted 24/7]

No, there's definitely some blade contact in there on Montano's initial attack. There's the sound of his foot hitting the strip, and behind it is a metallic clack which I'm pretty sure is Tarantino's parry. Also, watch his hand. After he drops his guard when the director calls fence, Montano immediately comes in with his attack, and from there it REALLY looks to me like Tarantino has to make a hasty parry to avoid getting caught by the first one. I'm pretty sure he's not just jumping back.

[Purple Fencer]

Forget about your eyes, did you listen?

I watched it again, and you're right...I didn;t hear Montano finding the blade because I was trying to watch the other action.

That's the problem with reviewing in the comfort of your home...you can overanalyze TOO much and miss the real answers!


Eric;

Oh, I know all abotu sticking to your calls...I took Derek Cotton's directing clinic and one thing he hits on is make a call and stick to it, even if you realize it's wrong after you award the touch.

Yesterday I directed my 3rd gold medal sabre bout in a row at a San Bernardino Div event (#1 Mark Segal vs someone from out of town, #2 Lesie Taft vs Costa Nicols...and bout I've directed a LOT of times, and #3 Taft vs Yukari Hiriyama) In all three cases, the relative skill and speed level of the fencers was closer to mine and I could see the actions....I could not DO Montano/Tarantino in one shot...too fast for me to see it witeh my experience level.

'Course, I'm a lot better than I was the first time Lesle and Costa asked me to direct their bouts (because I was the only other person in the gym who'd even DONE sabre aside from some beginners)

I've always tried to ignore fencer comments, particularly when they're questioning a call. Yesterday: Yukari attacks an earlier DE opponent, and I saw it as a mal parre, touch to Yukari. His response: I parried it! Me: I didn;t see it, touch right, on guard.

[edew]

I'm sure Montano and Tarantino would not want you to referee their bout either. Even if you have an italian last name.

As for Welted 24/7's comment. It doesn't matter whether Montano was parried on his initial attack or Tarantino pulled distance. The point is that Montano lost right of way when his attack ended without scoring. Tarantino now takes over right of way. But that takeover was quickly pre-empted by Montano's quick re-taking of the right of way with a parry/prise-de-fer/beat/whatever and subsequent immediate launching of his offensive action.

[Welted 24/7]

Yeah, I know he lost the right of way no matter what. Now we're just quibbling over the technicalities of the original action.

But still, WAS there a green light? I didn't see it on the mask and Tarantino was in the way of the box.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Yes, it was initial attack is parried, you just have to listen for it. It makes nearly the same sound as the prise, so it's not the foot hitting the piste. And, I didn't see a green light.

[Teme]

Oddly, I think it Tarantino's hit, except that he doesn't get the light, which is why (I think) he's so quick to show his frustration and equally quick to overcome it.
For me it looks like Montano is just trying to keep Tarantino at bay after his failed attack by threatening Tarantino's wrist while he retreats from Tarantino's 'killing zone'. Tarantino parries the second attempt, and Montano feints a fast retreat but tries to get in an attack on preparation by once again changing the direction. He almost caughts Tarantino by suprise, but Tarantino manages to just throw his blade in. It almost seems like they're fencing with new timings, since Tarantino's light doesn't come up...

[dunastor]

The comments here talk about Montano's prise de fer, as a reprise of his first attack. So is Montano on the attack or the defense for his scoring touch? If Montano's on the attack, is it because Tarantino is definitionally not attacking since his arm isn't extending? After Montano's short attack, there is a break, and Tarantino does look like he's attacking, which would frame Montano's answer as a defensive action. Based on the comments either call may be okay; is there a definitive call for this?

How about offensively defensive?

[whtouche]

Oddly, I think it Tarantino's hit, except that he doesn't get the light, which is why (I think) he's so quick to show his frustration and equally quick to overcome it.
For me it looks like Montano is just trying to keep Tarantino at bay after his failed attack by threatening Tarantino's wrist while he retreats from Tarantino's 'killing zone'. Tarantino parries the second attempt, and Montano feints a fast retreat but tries to get in an attack on preparation by once again changing the direction. He almost caughts Tarantino by suprise, but Tarantino manages to just throw his blade in. It almost seems like they're fencing with new timings, since Tarantino's light doesn't come up...

You really think montano's prise de fer is a stop hit that's parried by tarantino?
Really?

I know not everyone is a sabre fencer, but this is one of the more clear actions that fencers can make during a bout, to me.

[Frank Pratt]

Purp,
Stick to the call and ignore any complaints. Develop a thick skin and continue along. Remember, as a referee, you are ALWAYS correct when interpreting right of way.

I certainly agree with this point. We're all human. Whether you are a beginner overseeing an epee bout in your club or one of the world's finest officiating a gold bout at the Olympics, you're subject to some degree of error. Allowing your mind to be changed on the strip only informs anyone who's watching that you are not confidant in yourself and will yeild to the opinion of a better fecner/referee, even if the protest is severely biased. This destroys your creadibilty. Do the best you can, and accept that you will make some bad judgement calls, even in epee. If you're lucky, the fencers will understand this reality as well.

[Purple Fencer]

I certainly agree with this point. We're all human. Whether you are a beginner overseeing an epee bout in your club or one of the world's finest officiating a gold bout at the Olympics, you're subject to some degree of error. Allowing your mind to be changed on the strip only informs anyone who's watching that you are not confidant in yourself and will yeild to the opinion of a better fecner/referee, even if the protest is severely biased. This destroys your creadibilty. Do the best you can, and accept that you will make some bad judgement calls, even in epee. If you're lucky, the fencers will understand this reality as well.

Which is why I've never changed a call...I may not be the best director, but I DO try my best. And I've never allowed a fecner to intimidate me into changign a call..not even while I was botching my foil practical at Palm Springs NAC one year (My apologies to Bill Oliver, my observer)

[Teme]

You really think montano's prise de fer is a stop hit that's parried by tarantino?
Really?

Really.

That was my first impression, and it didn't change when I went the clip through frame by frame. Montano's first attempt doens't even come close to Tarantino's blade, but is exactly where I'd put it if I wanted to slow down my opponent. Montanos' second attempt is foible against forte, which is very bad for pris de fer, and it wouldn't have succeeded if Tarantino wouldn't have lifted his blade straight up, as in making a parry.
Then Montano jumps backwards and withdraws his arm, which is not what you do if you have found opponents blade on your timing, but it's exactly what you do if you want to open distance to lure your opponent to think he's out of range for one tempo attack -- you set up your attack on preparation.

But, as the saying goes: I've been wrong before.

Let's just say that if I did counter-attack with pris-de-fer like that (albeit in slo-mo), my coach would chew my sorry *** for at least 15 minutes.

I know not everyone is a sabre fencer, but this is one of the more clear actions that fencers can make during a bout, to me.

Heehee, I don't claim to be a saber fencer, although I've been training it for about 15 years.

[Inquartata]

But don't you think "If it were me, I'd have done X" is a pretty, er, unfortunate way to referee a bout? You have to call what the fencers do, which may be radically different from what you would do, much less what your coach would tell you to do, no?

[ra2000a]

aldo montano is such a great fencer

[Teme]

But don't you think "If it were me, I'd have done X" is a pretty, er, unfortunate way to referee a bout? You have to call what the fencers do, which may be radically different from what you would do, much less what your coach would tell you to do, no?

Yes, I do think so. If my thoughts came out that way, the blame is certainly mine.
Of course, to correctly interpret "what the fencers do", I have to appreciate 'the flow of the game' and regognize the movements, for which I have nothing else to help me but my training and experience. The rules offer very little help here. That, I believe, is the reason that creates the 'interpretational differences' in refereeing that FIE is so keen to get rid of. It seems to be easier to change the box than interpretations, though.
In this case, my interpretation is based on not "what I would do" but on how "we" do stuff "over here", because that is the filter I have to look though. Besides, if it "were me", I wouldn't have been able to execute as fast and long attack and recovery as Montano to begin with...