Can someone tell me what's a redouble & appel in sabre?

[HDG]

Originally Posted by downunder

correct calling is just remise. Don't use any other terms unless you need to explain the phrase further to the fencers or you are coaching them or something else. If you are there to referee properly, you use remise as a blanket term.

Other than for simplicity, I don't understand why this would be the case. If the distinction is not important, why have it at all? It may be that we no longer treat it as important, but that's something different...

[GGK]

Originally Posted by downunder

correct calling is just remise. Don't use any other terms unless you need to explain the phrase further to the fencers or you are coaching them or something else. If you are there to referee properly, you use remise as a blanket term.

I understand this may be different if you are sitting for your rules exam.

If you want a blanket term I would recommend "renew" (renewed, renewal) since remise is a well defined term and misusing it only confuses people. And a renewed action would cover: remise, reprise, redouble, continuation, wack-wack-wack, poke-poke-poke and fishing after missing.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by GGK

If you want a blanket term I would recommend "renew" (renewed, renewal) since remise is a well defined term and misusing it only confuses people. And a renewed action would cover: remise, reprise, redouble, continuation, wack-wack-wack, poke-poke-poke and fishing after missing.

referees use french



and remise never confuses anyone at the top level - problems like this only ever seem to arise at basic club level. I wonder why this is?

Originally Posted by HDG

Other than for simplicity, I don't understand why this would be the case. If the distinction is not important, why have it at all? It may be that we no longer treat it as important, but that's something different...

It is just that, simplicity. In determining priority, it doesn't matter whether it is a remise or redouble or re-something, its just a final action. you're just overcomplicating things by using more terms as a referee.

[Inquartata]

Well, why use ANY terminology, then? Just raise a hand and award the point. Anything else is needless complication, and those "top level" fencers ( who are after all the only ones who matter ) will just automatically understand what happened anyway...

The terms are in the rule book, the distinction is in the rule book. Dismissing them as superfluous is the sort of attitude that IMO gets rules muddied and eventually ignored, leading to such states of affairs as that in foil, with drawn-back bent-arm point-at-the-sky actions awarded the attack. "Extending" is just overcomplicating things, too, apparently.

[HDG]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Well, why use ANY terminology, then? Just raise a hand and award the point. Anything else is needless complication, and those "top level" fencers ( who are after all the only ones who matter ) will just automatically understand what happened anyway...

The terms are in the rule book, the distinction is in the rule book. Dismissing them as superfluous is the sort of attitude that IMO gets rules muddied and eventually ignored, leading to such states of affairs as that in foil, with drawn-back bent-arm point-at-the-sky actions awarded the attack. "Extending" is just overcomplicating things, too, apparently.

Beautifully said.

[peet]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Well, why use ANY terminology, then? Just raise a hand and award the point. Anything else is needless complication, and those "top level" fencers ( who are after all the only ones who matter ) will just automatically understand what happened anyway...

The terms are in the rule book, the distinction is in the rule book. Dismissing them as superfluous is the sort of attitude that IMO gets rules muddied and eventually ignored, leading to such states of affairs as that in foil, with drawn-back bent-arm point-at-the-sky actions awarded the attack. "Extending" is just overcomplicating things, too, apparently.

Easy big fella

I think some folks are just trying to say that if a distinction doesn't make a difference in the right of way, then it's not neccessary for the ref to say it when making the call. e.g. If my attack fails, it makes no difference in ROW whether my "continuation" is a remise or reprise.

Sure, remise, reprise, and redoublement are defined in the rulebook, along with lots of other stuff that isn't relevant to ROW.

-p

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

The terms are in the rule book, the distinction is in the rule book. Dismissing them as superfluous is the sort of attitude that IMO gets rules muddied and eventually ignored, leading to such states of affairs as that in foil, with drawn-back bent-arm point-at-the-sky actions awarded the attack. "Extending" is just overcomplicating things, too, apparently.

True, but it would be a pain to get a call like "Compound attack from my right. Parry 4 is good from my left, redoublement on my right fails, riposte from the left is good," when "parry, riposte" will suffice.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by peet

Easy big fella

I think some folks are just trying to say that if a distinction doesn't make a difference in the right of way, then it's not neccessary for the ref to say it when making the call. e.g. If my attack fails, it makes no difference in ROW whether my "continuation" is a remise or reprise.

Not to ROW, but ROW is not all. It matters because the ref's analysis tells me HOW I failed, if he's doing it properly. Then I can adjust accordingly. It's hard enough to decipher the idiosyncrasies of how individual referees call things as it is, without them going all sphinx-like into the bargain.

For instance, the hand signals draw a distinction between an attack parried and an attack failing by distance, and again by a preparatory "pump" midway through. Why, if all we're concerned with is ROW? Failed is failed, might just as well use the "attack no" signal for all three situations, right?

[KShan5[PrFC]]

That's true...but if we're dealing with just hand signals, you can't really distinguish between remise and reprise anyways.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

True, but it would be a pain to get a call like "Compound attack from my right. Parry 4 is good from my left, redoublement on my right fails, riposte from the left is good," when "parry, riposte" will suffice.

Yes, but no one is suggesting such a level of complexity. We are suggesting that perhaps if the distinction between remise and reprise is in the rule book and there is a question concerning it in the ref exam that it's a distinction the FOC thinks is worth calling. ( Note that this does not apply to, say, individual parries, which the rule book does not differentiate or define. )

Of course, if one is strictly using the hand signals there's not even a need for a single term for renewed attacks---there's no signal for a failed remise, reprise or redoublement. So we might as well say that we don't need ANY of those terms any more. Rather than just blending them into one, why not eliminate them altogether?

[Have At You]

but... but...

but then we'd lose some of the beautiful arcana that makes fencing what it is!

and more importantly, we'd lose a source of never-ending discussion here.

[peet]

This is getting to be something of a thread-jack.

I'll PM you my reply, Inq.

-p