Sabre moves.

[oiuyt]

Are you asking why it was added to the US rules or are you asking why it was added to the FIE rules?

Different questions with different answers.

-B

[Jason]

Are you asking why it was added to the US rules or are you asking why it was added to the FIE rules?

Different questions with different answers.

-B

Let's talk FIE.

[fencerbill]

Speaking of rule changes:
I'm curious about the rationale behind all the "beginning of the extending of the arm precedes the launching of the lunge" language added to the definition of an attack in sabre.

It seems unnecessary and potentially problematic.

In my opinion, it avoids problems rather than creating them.

It has been obvious in the past few years that some referees were considering forward movement as the definition of attack. They did not require extending of the arm as being necessary. I saw this as allowing fencers to "hide" their weapon by keeping their hand and blade back where the opponent had no possibility of making a counter action against the blade. When the retreating fencer reached the end of the strip, the advancing fencer could get close enough to make an unstoppable attack.

Since the extending of the blade to have right of way was emphasized, it was still possible to make a continuous slowly extending attack over multiple advances to a lunge.

The new definition constrains this because you have both the definition of the start of the attack as well as the previous definition of the end of the attack with the landing of the leading foot.

With this change your attack starts with the beginning of the extending of the blade and ends with the landing of the leading foot.

[Sean Butler]

Fencerbill,

How are you thinking counterattacks will be called after this rule change? Suppose the following simple scenario:

Fencer A advances with small steps making small feints.
Fencer B retreats.
Fencer B stops and extends for a headcut.
Fencer A (who never withdrew his arm) subsequently extends for a chestcut.
Both lights are lit.

Today this is almost universally called in favor of Fencer A, no? But, since in this case Fencer A did not extend his arm until after B, has he lost his initiative under this rule change?

Or, is this rule change only for determining when an attack is complete? In other words, any series of advances and feints still give Fencer A the initiative, but when he finally does begin his extension, he must complete it by the time his advance lunge has his front foot landing.

[oiuyt]

How are you thinking counterattacks will be called after this rule change?

It's not a new rule internationally. It's new to our rulebook because we've just gone through and passed a bunch of catch-up edits. Nothing is likely to change in how calls are made in the immediate future based upon this "change".

-B

[fencerbill]

It's not a new rule internationally. It's new to our rulebook because we've just gone through and passed a bunch of catch-up edits. Nothing is likely to change in how calls are made in the immediate future based upon this "change".
-B

Sad but true. Change the rules all you want and issue all the clarifications you want but some referees are still going to call them they way they did years and years ago.

[Jason]

The difficulty of the added language--besides the regular difficulties that come any time the FIE changes something--is that it limits the definition of the attack in a way that doesn't take context into consideration.

Imagine Fencer X executes a waiting lunge--foot first, hand held back--against Fencer Y who is escaping. As X closes the distance with his lunge, he quickly extends and hits (hitting before the foot lands, but starting the extension after the lunge began). After he begins the extension, Y extends and hits. I can't imagine an argument in which this isn't attack for X, counter-attack for Y. I expect every referee in the world to call it that way.

However, according to the new language, X never attacks. Who the **** knows what he's doing but, since his arm doesn't begin extending before he begins the lunge, he isn't, according to the new language, executing an attack.

I don't actually expect this to play out this way "on the ground", but I can't understand how, considering the history of linguistic problems with the FIE rules, that anyone would pass this change without giving more consideration to the language.

[Sean Butler]

I am with ya on that one, Jason. I don't think that the call made in your example will be changed by this rule. I am unclear on a particular aspect of both the prior rules and the current rules. Has the interpretation of the following changed?

* Fencer A advances while Fencer B retreats.
* Fencer A begins to extend his arm and make 3 advances.
* No blade contact or searching is done by either fencer.
* After the three advances B does a direct attack (counterattack?) while A finishes the extension and hits.

The question I have is: has the beginning of the extension created a situation where A's attack began 3 steps ago and thus is now terminated which grants B right of way for a counterattack?

My answer to that would be a definite "No" but, how would one have to interpret the new (and old) rules in order to justify that position?

[Inquartata]

LMAO! Crossovers, I think, aren't nearly as apparent as a guy doing a fieldgoal kick as he bounds down the piste.

Meh, sort of like a guy leaping into the air and drawing his knees up to his chest while attempting a seconde parry, you mean?

No one ever gets away with that sort of stuff...

The announcement on the USFA web site about rule changes will cause me to change how I treat potential crossovers.

Me, too. I welcome the clarification.

It has been obvious in the past few years that some referees were considering forward movement as the definition of attack. They did not require extending of the arm as being necessary.

Preach it, bruddah.

The new definition constrains this because you have...the definition of the start of the attack...

Well, but it was already in there. From the '06 rulebook:

"T.75 The attack is correctly carried out when the extending of the arm, with the point or the cutting edge continuously threatening the valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge. "

I'm with Jason, I don't see what value inserting the word "beginning" adds.

Whimsically, the change still doesn't fix the ambiguity so often brought up when rule fuzziness is discussed: It does not specify which arm must be extending.

[fencerbill]

There is no doubt there are a multitude of ways different people interpret the same words.

You claim the beginning of the attack has already been defined by the rule.

"T.75 The attack is correctly carried out when the extending of the arm, with the point or the cutting edge continuously threatening the valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge. "

I'm with Jason, I don't see what value inserting the word "beginning" adds.

Whimsically, the change still doesn't fix the ambiguity so often brought up when rule fuzziness is discussed: It does not specify which arm must be extending.

It doesn't say by how many steps the extending of the arm can precede the initiation of the lunge.

Do you say the extending has to be by one step? Not supported by the rule as you quoted it.

The definition says one must precede the other. But it doesn't say by how much.

Within the definition you quoted a fencer can have a slow and continuous extension all the way down the strip. It just has to be without hesitation.

[zenpharaohs]

Hmm... There is one sneaky little devil that is sometimes useful. If you are a right-handed vs. right-handed, then you simply attack to their 4 (your outside) and second-intention a parry 6. This is one of the very few instances I have seen where a 6 is actually useful, but it is extremely limited as it is a second-intention and it is towards only the head.

I was going to mention something like that. It's also not so limited because like anything else, you can work it into a theme. You never know. Just last week in an epee bout against a much stronger opponent (certainly the strongest epeeist I have ever faced) I got four of my ten touches on pulling out a pretty stupid trick. In fact, after the first time it worked, he said "you can only score once with that attack, not more". If he hadn't announced "last touch" when he got me down 6-14 I probably wouldn't have resorted to the same trick again. But, he did say that, so I did try it again, and it worked again three times, actually, and the fourth time he finally ended the bout 10-15 with a double. So you never know with stupid tricks. Some people just have a sort of a blind spot.

By the way, you need not only go head after sixte. You can certainly also make a gliding cut to flank (remember to keep contact and control of his blade as you change lines and land the cut before you end up forte on forte).

[zenpharaohs]

I'd be tempted to call that covering target. lol

That is covering target. Would have been carded in my day, I'd have to check the current rules though. Also in my day (nonelectric competition) hits which landed on the leg while the leg was covering target were scored as valid hits.

[zenpharaohs]

Well, whether or not the epee comments are thread drift, I still wonder what use that kick has in sabre.

It is useful at referee conferences?

For fencers who want to play Pokemon but who don't have enough yellow cards?

In case you have one of those bottle openers in your shoe sole and the opponent is thirsty?

[Inquartata]

It doesn't say by how many steps the extending of the arm can precede the initiation of the lunge.

Nor does the "new" wording. But the following subsections do so.

Within the definition you quoted a fencer can have a slow and continuous extension all the way down the strip. It just has to be without hesitation.

Which is why the following sections elaborate.

I merely said that adding the word "beginning" is no improvement to our understanding of that passage into which it has been inserted.

[fencerbill]

Fencerbill,

How are you thinking counterattacks will be called after this rule change? Suppose the following simple scenario:

Fencer A advances with small steps making small feints.
Fencer B retreats.
Fencer B stops and extends for a headcut.
Fencer A (who never withdrew his arm) subsequently extends for a chestcut.
Both lights are lit.

Today this is almost universally called in favor of Fencer A, no? But, since in this case Fencer A did not extend his arm until after B, has he lost his initiative under this rule change?

Or, is this rule change only for determining when an attack is complete? In other words, any series of advances and feints still give Fencer A the initiative, but when he finally does begin his extension, he must complete it by the time his advance lunge has his front foot landing.

Your description quite clearly defines preparation by Fencer A. Or as I heard during the Olympics "Attacque non correct".

The part that complicates your description is when you say "stops and extends arm". That can take enough time that fencer A can start an attack and finish it.

But I have seen numerous calls where the touch is called for Fencer B with a description of "Attack in Preparation".

[fencerchica]

There's an interesting (in my opinion) book out there called Dragonsbane by Barbara Hambly that talks about a (more realistic) way to kill a dragon... and I don't think that lances or sabers were involved

An excellent book (as are all of Hambly's)!