New Sabre timings and the fundamental laziness of directors

[sabreur]

After watching the World Championships several times, and participating in a couple of tournaments several orders of magnitude below the World Championships, I have noticed the following:

1. Referees are not separating actions as much as they used to. If both fencers attack, and both lights go on, the easy thing to do is call the action simultaneous--even when one fencer clearly (IMNSHO) started first.

2. Referees at the local level often don't understand that an advance-lunge is an attack. Variation of number one--both fencers are preparing/jockeying for tempo--A attacks with an advance-lunge; B cuts in/counter attacks, generally with a lunge and often hitting marginally ahead of A. Both lights go on. Worst case, ref gives touch to B. All too often, ref calls simultaneous. Note: this situation is fundamentally different from another common situation, in which A and B both start forward together and one of the fencers starts the final action an instant earlier than the other.

[sabreman]

From my view most refs are looking at who extends first. I agree about what you are saying regarding advance lunge vs. lunge or cut. I see this a lot at the Vet level.

[keropie]

Originally Posted by sabreman

From my view most refs are looking at who extends first. I agree about what you are saying regarding advance lunge vs. lunge or cut. I see this a lot at the Vet level.

Yes, though the correctly executed advance lunge attack includes extending during the advance, so that the correct adv.lu attack vs. lunge counter should still be called correctly. I tend to agree that officials in both saber and foil are starting to lean more that way, but after all, that's half of what the FIE was trying to do, standardize the officiating. It's dumb and crappy, of course, but what recent changes have they made that haven't been? (ok, so that was a bitter comment, please forgive me)

[AndrewH]

I find that the biggest problem with the new timing to be directors relying on the lights far too much to determine whether or not a counterattack is in time. Example:

A is advancing and makes a subtle preparation. B counterattacks in time, and both lights go off. All too often I see this action getting called as A's attack, because the logic is "if B wasn't fast enough to get one light, he must not have been in time". They figure that since the timing is so tight, an attack in preparation can only be valid if it locks out the attack.

[sabreman]

AH, I agree with you. Especially at the local level.

Keropie, Extending the arm during advance is very risky. I know the rules have always said that the hand must be extending but they are now looking at this much closer.

[downunder]

[quote=AndrewH}A is advancing and makes a subtle preparation. B counterattacks in time, and both lights go off. All too often I see this action getting called as A's attack, because the logic is "if B wasn't fast enough to get one light, he must not have been in time". They figure that since the timing is so tight, an attack in preparation can only be valid if it locks out the attack.[/QUOTE]



you know how difficult it is for that to happen?

B has to hit A, before he finishes the preparation and continues attacking. Otherwise it is a correctly executed compound attack and is thus valid.

The time gap is so small, and requires such amazingly good timing and skill, that 9 times out of ten the attack is valid.

[sabreman]

It is easy to get two lights to go off. This kind of thing happens pretty often.

[keropie]

Originally Posted by sabreman

Keropie, Extending the arm during advance is very risky. I know the rules have always said that the hand must be extending but they are now looking at this much closer.

No one said doing it right wasn't risky But in order for the advance to really be part of the attack and not a preparation preceeding the attack, the hand is supposed to be extending. There is no clarification of how much or how fast, or whatever, but it is supposed to be extending. Which, yes, does leave one open for pris-de-fer, etc., but at least ensures priority. Which, let's face it, any action that really ensures priority is risky. Nature of the beast.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by downunder

you know how difficult it is for that to happen?

B has to hit A, before he finishes the preparation and continues attacking. Otherwise it is a correctly executed compound attack and is thus valid.

The time gap is so small, and requires such amazingly good timing and skill, that 9 times out of ten the attack is valid.

Agreed. It is very difficult to hit someone in preparation in 1/10th of a second.

[AndrewH]

Originally Posted by downunder

you know how difficult it is for that to happen?

B has to hit A, before he finishes the preparation and continues attacking. Otherwise it is a correctly executed compound attack and is thus valid.

The time gap is so small, and requires such amazingly good timing and skill, that 9 times out of ten the attack is valid.

9 times out of 10, it probably is. But my point was that the situation does happen, and it's not getting called correctly when it does now that directors are relying too much on the timing.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by downunder

you know how difficult it is for that to happen?

It's not very difficult. It happens all the time.

[KD5MDK]

Do you think attack in prep is called less often now? I think that it is actually more common, as more one light AiPs occur. There were plenty of bad calls with the old timings.

[sabreman]

Yes there are more one light touches with the new timing. The problem is when there are two lights and the ref can't see (or isn't looking for) the prep.

[GGK]

Originally Posted by AndrewH

9 times out of 10, it probably is. But my point was that the situation does happen, and it's not getting called correctly when it does now that directors are relying too much on the timing.

I agree that many refs rely on the new times too much, but the underlying issue IMHO is that many do not clearly understand the difference between a counter attack, counter attack in time and attack in preparation. (Furthermore way too many refs I have seen have a limited understanding of what constitutes a simple attack in saber, but that is a different discussion.)
And yes it is possible to have two lights on a CA or AiP and have the ref miss the action or consistently call it one way.
The new timings allow a previously bad ref to be a mediocre ref that makes the same mistake consistently.

G

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by GGK

The new timings allow a previously bad ref to be a mediocre ref that makes the same mistake consistently.

G

But there are also previously good refs, who now cannot comprehend that a counter-attack is in time when 2 lights go off.

Overall, I like the new timings, but the problem is real.

[jrgunn]

I'm not sure if its "laziness" on the part of the refs. Those poor sots are held in contempt by many and work hard to be fair.

Unfortunately, many smply don't understand the rules when seeing what appears to be a simultaneous attack but is in fact one fencer's point. I don't think this is laziness, just ignorance. Many of these judges think they already know the rules, so they can't see the bad calls they are making.

My son's coach has a very practical solution. Attack simultaneous and see if the point is given to one fencer. If so, the ref doesn't understand the rule. That being the case, avoid simultaneous attacks with that director.

Typical Ukrainian practicality.

[oso97]

I've got an even better one. Attack accelerated and see if the ref gives it to you. If he doesn't, use the accelerated attack as a simultanious.

[gladius]

The problem of "advance-lunge" versus a "simple lunge" has been around forever in saber, with old and new timings. This is a major topic and is based on the understanding of when, where, and how the situation presented by sabreur takes place.

It depends if it happens upon the "Allez!" command, or after several offensive-defensive actions of the two fencers on the strip. This varies the perception of the tempo by the referee, the "inversion of the direction" has an effect, and other aspects connected with the correct execution of the attack which must be done with an extended arm.

Generally speaking, the rules don't say that the lunge has a lesser value than the advance-lunge combination, but in practice, the judging referee tends to favor the fencer who advanced, essentially because he shows to have a greater initiative than the opponent. Furthermore, the referee is attracted by the legs movement, which he perceives as an attack (keep in mind the fact that in a final bout, where the strip is elevated, often the eyes of the referee are lined up with the legs of the fencers), therefore, he who advances in his attack, usually is favored.

Some East European schools until the nineties, e.g., the Bulgarian and Romanian, taught the sabreists to execute a step-in-place (a kind of a trick, by moving the feet without advancing), just for the purpose to captivate the attention of the referee and his inclination to concede not so much the ROW, but the major "initiative" of the attack to the advancing fencer rather than the other fencer who at the same time was only lunging without first advancing.

This would be a simultaneous and in common tempo touch, nothing special about it, but in reality the advance is read as an attack with initiative, and the lunge of the opponent as a reaction to the initiative of the other fencer. In reality though, if you want to analyze the entire situation according to the fencing tempos, it is very difficult to say who is right.

Advance-lunge is an action in more than one tempo, where the lunge without advance is executed in a single fencing tempo. If both fencers succeed in getting both lights on, logically he who executed the lunge from a non advancing position started after the first tempo of the other fencer, i.e., after his the step forward.

Here the problem becomes whether this is an attack on preparation correctly executed, or a counterattack which is wrong. Truth of the matter is that the chronometric times in saber are so short that you cannot demand from the referee that he must always understand who started first (we are talking here fractions of a second). The step forward represents a risk and he who takes a risk is in essence rewarded by the general attitude of the judges, and I don't disagree with this way of judging this type of touches.

As to what AndrewH explains, at least the way I think I understand him, we must say that it does not matter who arrives first -- what in Italy is called "anticipo" (anticipation), but what counts is the evaluation of the fencing tempos, just like the rules demand. I may succeed in touching before my opponent, but if I don't do so before the last tempo of my opponent's action and he too touches me, according to the rules my touch is not valid.

To execute a counterattack on the last tempo of the opponent, e.g., a touch to the arm, I must not be touched myself. It does not matter which light goes on first. It is true that the new timings have narrowed down the blocking times of the lights, therefore, he who executes the attack has less time to conclude the touch, but it is also true that if the counterattacker is hit, even if he is first to hit the other one, his touch is not valid.

But we should not confuse this with an attack on preparation which implies that the attacker has the arm not extended or is suspending his attack. This is a different case and the opponent executing a touch in this situation is executing an attack, NOT a counterattack, because the first attacker is not executing a correct attack.

Maestro Bernacchi

[sabreur]

Originally Posted by jrgunn

Unfortunately, many smply don't understand the rules when seeing what appears to be a simultaneous attack but is in fact one fencer's point. I don't think this is laziness, just ignorance. Many of these judges think they already know the rules, so they can't see the bad calls they are making.

I hate to say it, but a referee that doesn't understand the rules is lazy, and has no business reffing. I know the rule book inside out, and I watch and rewatch DVDs of international events, so I understand the rules and how they are being applied. If I have questions, I ask high-level referees to clarify and explain.

MR

[jrgunn]

Originally Posted by sabreur

I hate to say it, but a referee that doesn't understand the rules is lazy, and has no business reffing. I know the rule book inside out, and I watch and rewatch DVDs of international events, so I understand the rules and how they are being applied. If I have questions, I ask high-level referees to clarify and explain.

MR

Point Taken. I was just trying to be generous.