Sabre questions....

[Anari]

Well, I'm sorry if this has already been discussed but I just couldn't find it...

Anyway, I was fencing today in a State Open Tournament and I was in the finals, and the other fencer instructs us all (including the ref) on the finer points of sabre reffereeing. My coach agrees with me, but I'd still like to put a few points forward.

1. Can you cross your feet while in the middle of the flunge (it doesn't look like one but that's what he calls it) and as long as you land on the same foot you are not carded for an offence? (I debated this one a bit) (I think you can't...)

2. If my opponent lunges, lands and misses but keeps his hand pronated at the end of the lunge and I counter-attack (well before the line is established), he gets the point unless I beat the blade? (We had a REALLY nasty argument about that one, but the referee and the fencer went to the same club-referees are rare here) (I think that I gain the priority after his initial attack fails)

Finally.

3. If two attacks are simultaneous, the fencer who cut gains priority automatically over a fencer who uses the point to attack. (i.e., fencer left lunges and cuts to head, while fencer right lunges at the same time and hits with the point in the chest). (I think it's simultaneous anyway)

I was just wondering because the final score 15-12 was sort of controversial but I'm happy with how I performed. And yes I understand that I should have adapted etc, etc. But considering I want to take my National Refereeing Qualifications quite soon I thought I'd ask as Sabre is not my strongest reffing weapon.

Thankyou.

[Jason]

Holy crap, is that some bad directing.

The short answer to everything there is "no".
The long answer is, "When in Adelaide-Australia, fence epee."

[annacattiva]

Originally Posted by Anari

1. Can you cross your feet while in the middle of the flunge (it doesn't look like one but that's what he calls it) and as long as you land on the same foot you are not carded for an offence? (I debated this one a bit) (I think you can't...)

Land on which same foot? In a flunge, you need to take off with your front foot in front of your back foot, and land with your front foot in front of your back foot. If you can launch yourself into the air, cross your feet in mid-air, cross them back, and land, and still remember to hit your opponent, you should join a circus. Sounds like he's wrong and you're right, although I'd have to see the "flunge" to be sure.

Originally Posted by Anari

2. If my opponent lunges, lands and misses but keeps his hand pronated at the end of the lunge and I counter-attack (well before the line is established), he gets the point unless I beat the blade? (We had a REALLY nasty argument about that one, but the referee and the fencer went to the same club-referees are rare here) (I think that I gain the priority after his initial attack fails)

There's a long thread about this action somewhere, and what to call it. Assuming you respond with your attack immediately after he lunges and misses, and assuming you don't prepare, it's your touch.

Originally Posted by Anari

3. If two attacks are simultaneous, the fencer who cut gains priority automatically over a fencer who uses the point to attack. (i.e., fencer left lunges and cuts to head, while fencer right lunges at the same time and hits with the point in the chest). (I think it's simultaneous anyway)

Pretty sure you're right on this one too. Again, have to see the action to be sure.


All in all, it sounds like you had a sort of bad experience with sabre reffing, but you seem to have a pretty good attitude about it. Sabre can occasionally really suck this way. If it bothers you enough, you could download a copy of the rulebook and bring it with you next time. If it doesn't bother you that much, be content in knowing that you're probably right, and keep enjoying the fencing!

Anna

[Anari]

Originally Posted by annacattiva

Land on which same foot? In a flunge, you need to take off with your front foot in front of your back foot, and land with your front foot in front of your back foot. If you can launch yourself into the air, cross your feet in mid-air, cross them back, and land, and still remember to hit your opponent, you should join a circus. Sounds like he's wrong and you're right, although I'd have to see the "flunge" to be sure.

Oh trust me, he literally jumped, did a scissor-kick and landed...I called for the yellow but he told the referree that he could.

I'm glad to know that my calls are correct, I was really, really worrying there because it's quite close to the exams as I was saying and hence I was rather concerned.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by annacattiva

Land on which same foot? In a flunge, you need to take off with your front foot in front of your back foot, and land with your front foot in front of your back foot. If you can launch yourself into the air, cross your feet in mid-air, cross them back, and land, and still remember to hit your opponent, you should join a circus. Sounds like he's wrong and you're right, although I'd have to see the "flunge" to be sure.

Not quite. Your feet need to remain uncrossed until the hit lands. If they cross in the air before you hit, that's no good. There is not landing requirement.

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by prototoast

Not quite. Your feet need to remain uncrossed until the hit lands. If they cross in the air before you hit, that's no good. There is not landing requirement.

There is an analogous situation where you are almost off your end of the strip. If you pick your front foot up, swing it back behind the line, swing it back over the line and land on the strip, you have been off the strip and have a touch scored against you.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Obviously, no one can make a good judgement without seeing the calls.

Originally Posted by Anari

1. Can you cross your feet while in the middle of the flunge (it doesn't look like one but that's what he calls it) and as long as you land on the same foot you are not carded for an offence? (I debated this one a bit) (I think you can't...)

how much did his feet cross, and at what point did he hit you? If it's HIT then CROSS, then there isn't a problem at all. If it's Cross and then Hit, well, different people have different ideas about what "crossing over" means in the first place, nevermind when airborn. some people call it as when the back foot meets your instep, some people call it as when your back foot is totally in front of your front foot. this is difficult enough to see (depending on how the director is calling it) on the ground. add your opponent being airborn, and then add the possible difficulties in the angle the director was at..... and ti's no longer all that easy. If your opponent LANDED correctly, many will assume that his feet were never "crossed over" enough to count as crossing over. a lot of the time, they'll be correct.

Originally Posted by Anari

2. If my opponent lunges, lands and misses but keeps his hand pronated at the end of the lunge and I counter-attack (well before the line is established), he gets the point unless I beat the blade? (We had a REALLY nasty argument about that one, but the referee and the fencer went to the same club-referees are rare here) (I think that I gain the priority after his initial attack fails)

Finally.

that depends--- did he see it as an attack, or as a line from the begining??? if the attack fails, he has no time to put up a lunge, and then you hit him.... then you're fine. if he puts up a line, lunges with it, the line is never unestablished (by either of you) and then you both hit..... then yes, the call is correct. and that's only just the first way that i can recreate the action so that the call is correct.

i especially get antsy at you self identifying what you hope to get the touch with as a "counterattack". it's traditionally very difficult to get a point from a director with something identified as a "counterattack". (y'know, unless you're the only one with a light on.....)

Originally Posted by Anari

3. If two attacks are simultaneous, the fencer who cut gains priority automatically over a fencer who uses the point to attack. (i.e., fencer left lunges and cuts to head, while fencer right lunges at the same time and hits with the point in the chest). (I think it's simultaneous anyway)

depends on the hand motions. i can see that as left fencer attacks, right fencer puts out a line that is not in time. even if that's not what happened, someone used to watching sabre and only sabre is likely to SEE that.....



bottom line? probably bad directing played some part in it. probably some confusion of the rules played a part in it. but no one has any idea of what the calls should have been without the actions, and it's fairly easy (in this case) to recreate actions that would make the calls reasonable.

based on these calls, i'm imagining a ref that is mostly a lower level ref who mostly does sabre, and is a little shaky on how to call lines, but errs on the side of something being a line as opposed to being a point attack. and that's useful information as a fencer.....

[annacattiva]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

depends on the hand motions. i can see that as left fencer attacks, right fencer puts out a line that is not in time. even if that's not what happened, someone used to watching sabre and only sabre is likely to SEE that.....

Based on the description, it sounds like one is making an attack with a cut and the other is making an attack with point. If the attacks Are Simultaneous, then they're simultaneous and nobody gets a point because the attacked with one or the other. If they're not simultaneous, then someone gets a point because someone had the attack.

[keropie]

Originally Posted by Anari

Well, I'm sorry if this has already been discussed but I just couldn't find it...

Anyway, I was fencing today in a State Open Tournament and I was in the finals, and the other fencer instructs us all (including the ref) on the finer points of sabre reffereeing. My coach agrees with me, but I'd still like to put a few points forward.

1. Can you cross your feet while in the middle of the flunge (it doesn't look like one but that's what he calls it) and as long as you land on the same foot you are not carded for an offence? (I debated this one a bit) (I think you can't...)

No, he can't legally do this. It is, of course, difficult to see, but as per:

Originally Posted by USFA Rulebook, t.75.3

The flèche and any forward movement crossing the legs or
feet is forbidden. Any offence will be penalized as specified
in Articles t.114, t.116, t.120. Any touch scored by the fencer
at fault will be annulled. However, any touch correctly
executed by his opponent is valid.

Yes, they are the USFA rules, but the FIE rules are the same (in this case), I don't speak French, and I didn't feel like messing with them

Originally Posted by Anari

2. If my opponent lunges, lands and misses but keeps his hand pronated at the end of the lunge and I counter-attack (well before the line is established), he gets the point unless I beat the blade? (We had a REALLY nasty argument about that one, but the referee and the fencer went to the same club-referees are rare here) (I think that I gain the priority after his initial attack fails)

There are a variety of threads on this, both in foil and in saber (which share the same priority rules in all/most cases). Here's a recent one: click here
Essentially, if the official feels he's creating a line and advancing it, you lose. However, I rarely see that as the officials interpretation. Normally I see attack fails; attack (or riposte) from the other fencer arrives.

Originally Posted by Anari

Finally.

3. If two attacks are simultaneous, the fencer who cut gains priority automatically over a fencer who uses the point to attack. (i.e., fencer left lunges and cuts to head, while fencer right lunges at the same time and hits with the point in the chest). (I think it's simultaneous anyway)

This one is just silly. There is no priority difference between correctly executed point and cut actions, so if they are both correctly executed and start simultaneously, they are simultaneous attacks, no touch. There is actually more to go wrong with the cut action (the 135 degree angle, for instance).

Of course there is the afore expressed caveat that none of us saw the actions, so all of our answers are based on whatever we imagine to have happened. I can certainly imagine reasons for each action to have gone the way they did.

HTH

[sabreur]

Originally Posted by Jason

Holy crap, is that some bad directing.

The short answer to everything there is "no".
The long answer is, "When in Adelaide-Australia, fence epee."

Jason got it right, in my mind.

1. If someone crosses their feet in the air, but lands on their front foot, I don't think there is a director in the world (or at least, a director outside of Australia) that would call the crossover. Rules lawyers might argue, but....

2. If the other guy attacked with the point, and then left the point in line, it could be a little ticklish, but that doesn't sound like what happened.

3. Simultaneous is simultaneous. Often, a point attack looks earlier, because the arm tends to be fully extended, but if both fencers start extending together, then it should be nothing done.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by annacattiva

Based on the description, it sounds like one is making an attack with a cut and the other is making an attack with point. If the attacks Are Simultaneous, then they're simultaneous and nobody gets a point because the attacked with one or the other. If they're not simultaneous, then someone gets a point because someone had the attack.

based on this description, yes, absolutely. but based on the call mixed with the "one person makes a cut, the other attacks with point", it's easy to imagine that the description offered by this fencer is not what the person directing saw.

[Anari]

OK, there's seems to be some confusion/lack of clarity around which is undertandable as none of you actually saw the action.

1. In the crossover he was GOING to be penalised until he argued about it and the ref backed down (it was a crossover in midair as I said, I don't know why he would have done it but still.)

2. Well, my opponent lunges, I move back and escape the attack (whic is made with a cut to to head. I then lunge just before he lands and hit with the point to his mask and his point hits just above my hip. But then again, that is a judgement call and I was not the referee.

3. Here we literally attack together (no line), one with a cut, one with the point. My opponent actually TOLD us all that it HAD to be refereed that way because THAT was the rule. And hence I asked you guys.

Thanks for the responses, sorry that my first post was so confusing, you've all been really helpful!

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by sabreur

1. If someone crosses their feet in the air, but lands on their front foot, I don't think there is a director in the world (or at least, a director outside of Australia) that would call the crossover. Rules lawyers might argue, but....

You called?

The rule is clearly worded. "...any forward movement crossing the legs or feet is forbidden". That's "any". There is no latitude in the word. There are no exceptions made in the rules. Hence the action is an infraction no matter whether it occurs in the air or on the ground.

What a ref may or may not do with the rule is another matter entirely, but any who see the movement described ( seeing it is the usual difficulty ) and do not penalize it are wrong. Speaking for myself, I would certainly card it.

2. If the other guy attacked with the point, and then left the point in line, it could be a little ticklish, but that doesn't sound like what happened.

Right, right....unfortunately, referees do make mistakes. I saw an instance of just this action called in the gold medal bout between Smart and Rogers at Pittsburgh last year: a missed cut ending in the blade just being left out there as a line, in distance, given the touch over an immediate attack. A good ref, too. I think he must just have blinked at the wrong time or something.

I think Anari is clearly correct on all three of his questions. The calls were wrong.

[keropie]

Originally Posted by Anari

1. In the crossover he was GOING to be penalised until he argued about it and the ref backed down (it was a crossover in midair as I said, I don't know why he would have done it but still.)
<snip>
3. Here we literally attack together (no line), one with a cut, one with the point. My opponent actually TOLD us all that it HAD to be refereed that way because THAT was the rule. And hence I asked you guys.

These are the more troubling ones. Maybe the official saw the light on during the first cut on case number two, maybe he blinked, whatever. But when the official backs down, that's bad, and when the other fencer makes up a rule and the official buys it, that's bad too. The official should not reverse a call due to a fencer. If there really were a rule like that (there's not) and the official made a bad call, the Bout Committee exists for just that purpose. That was a very poor job by your official.

FWIW, the textbook correct answer for the official in the first case is yellow card, en guarde, likely followed by either a yellow card for disobeying the official (not getting on guard) or unjustified appeal perhaps. The second would likely also be a yellow for unjustified appeal since the rule doesn't exist, or another for disobeying the official, or if it's been bad enough unsportsmanlike and/or disturbing order.

[KD5MDK]

In the case of the point in line call, it is possible the referee saw something that made them think Anari's initial counter-attack had a preparation or initially missed, or that he reacted improperly to the line (i.e. gave it respect).

However, the officials calls were clearly wrong if they were altered by the objections of a fencer. In particular, there isn't the slightest bit of support for giving priority in sabre to one kind of attack over another in terms of cut versus point, and for a fencer to argue priority with a referee like that is most inappropriate.

Now for your faults.
1) You probably could have appealed the crossing of the feet non-carding, if the referee clearly started a crossover occurred. In any event
2) It was your duty to request that the referee be observed, given their apparent misapplications of the rules and ability to be influenced by the other fencer.

[penguin_2000]

Originally Posted by Anari

3. Here we literally attack together (no line), one with a cut, one with the point. My opponent actually TOLD us all that it HAD to be refereed that way because THAT was the rule. And hence I asked you guys.

Looks like the director should have pulled out his "brown" card for the fencer being full of sh*t. The director probably gets beaten up at his own club and thus submits to the his clubmates during tournaments...

[sabreur]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

You called?

The rule is clearly worded. "...any forward movement crossing the legs or feet is forbidden". That's "any". There is no latitude in the word. There are no exceptions made in the rules. Hence the action is an infraction no matter whether it occurs in the air or on the ground.

The rule reads "The flèche and any forward movement crossing the legs or feet is forbidden." I would argue, if we were playing at rules lawyering, that crossing the legs in the air does not contribute to forward movement. The reductio ad absurdum example would be the fencer who, standing still, jumped up, scissored the legs, then landed again in a normal en garde.

On a more practical level (not that I expect to convince anyone), a cursory review of any video footage of recent world class sabre would clearly show that referees are NOT carding temporary mid-air cross-overs, as long as the front foot lands in front of the back foot.

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by sabreur

On a more practical level (not that I expect to convince anyone), a cursory review of any video footage of recent world class sabre would clearly show that referees are NOT carding temporary mid-air cross-overs, as long as the front foot lands in front of the back foot.

On several occasions at Reno the referees, quite competent otherwise, were not seeing crossovers at strip level. They are so rare many refs don't look for them anymore. I asked one after the bout and he said, "Really, I didn't see it."

[oso97]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

On several occasions at R