New rules for Sabre?

[lindajdunn]

Does anyone know how those two new sabre rules played out? Explicitly, I quote from fencing.net's posting of yesterday:

1) On a simultaneous action in the middle if one fencer is attacking from hand down and the other from hand up the touch will be award to the fencer who is attacking with the hand up even if they start and land together.

2) On an attack, if the attacker falls short and his/her arm is extended then that will now be considered an established point in line and the person riposting will have to beat it becaues if they just riposte it will be called point in line.

This is apparently what the FIE told referees to call in the meeting they
had today...

Were the actions called as noted above?

[Peach]

In the bits of bouts I saw yesterday, I observed a couple of fencers use the "immediate line" with varying success--if correctly executed and the fencer making the riposte just went, the line was awarded (as the fencer who took line happily demonstrated after the touch, by miming line again). I saw a number of low-hand attacks take precedence over high-hand attacks, but in all cases the person who was low had started first.

No idea how this will play out in veteran fencing, assuming the referees take us seriously enough to assume we intended to put immediate line or deliberately executed a simultaneous attack with hand up against an opponent who begins with hand down. And assuming any of the referees we get will be rated high enough to (a) know about this and (b) see it. It will be interesting to try, assuming these rules become part of official policy.

[noodle]

anyone mind explaining the rationale behind these changes?

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by noodle

anyone mind explaining the rationale behind these changes?

They wanted to get rid of the flick---oops, uh, wrong thread.

From what I've read, it sounds like the point-in-line ruling was made to eliminate the variation from one referee to the next in the "window" a defender has to take over an attack when an attack falls short. If one referee gives you a vary small window and then lets the PiL take over, and another referee basically gives you forever (requiring your opponent to recover and break distance before getting the PiL), fencers are playing a slightly different game from one referee to the next. The International Olympic Committee prefers consistency in all manner of scoring and judging in all sports. The more "wiggle room" for judges and referees, the more interpretation is allowed to vary, the more likely there will be accusations of favoritism and cheating.

So, one way to make sure that everyone permits the line to be established with the same "window of opportunity" for the take over attack is to decide that there is no window. The defender must take the blade.

I'm just waiting to see whether this idea trickles down to the US NAC level in foil.

I have no idea what the high-low rule is about.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Yeah, anyone want to define what "attacking from hand down" means? I mean, the more I think about it, the more theoretical options I'm creating........ (which is exactly what I shouldn't do.....)

[oso97]

Originally Posted by tbryan

I'm just waiting to see whether this idea trickles down to the US NAC level in foil.

Assuming that wasn't a typo - why would you be concerned that it would be? Foil is a completely different weapon with a different set of rules and interpretations.

[nahouw]

Originally Posted by tbryan

I have no idea what the high-low rule is about.

probably to clarify the section in the rule book that the sabre blade has to be at a 135 degree angle to attack....

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by oso97

Assuming that wasn't a typo - why would you be concerned that it would be? Foil is a completely different weapon with a different set of rules and interpretations.

Not a typo...

1. I don't fence saber. I do fence foil. So, this rule doesn't have a lot of impact on me personally until it hits a weapon and a level where I might actually have to deal with it.
2. Foil has the same problem as saber, so if the FIE wants to make sure that there is no variation in the "window of opportunity" to start an attack before a line is established in saber, I assume that they'll eventually decide to do it in foil, too. Of course, that's just speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me to see similar rule in foil if these guidelines stick in saber. Right now, some referees (US National level) permit a fairly small window for the riposte, and the riposte is quite vulnerable to an immediate remise or point-in-line. For other referees (especially referees with more saber experience), the defender seems to have a much longer time to start a riposte or a take over attack. It's nearly impossible to score on a remise of the attack with these referees unless it's one light. To establish a line with these referees, you generally need to recover and break distance.

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

Yeah, anyone want to define what "attacking from hand down" means? I mean, the more I think about it, the more theoretical options I'm creating........ (which is exactly what I shouldn't do.....)

Sounds like if you approach your opponent with the blade held low or the tip near the ground...you're trying to go in underneath an attempt to parry..letting your opponent go over the top.

Works if the other guy always does a really deep parry 4....they'll see it coming, overreact, and you can get them on the underside of the arm or then flank....the key re the rule is teh blade is coming up from below the target area.

That's how I read it. (partially beasue I teach that attack and how to parry it!)

[Sciurus-Rex]

A low-line prep, much like an epee (foil) held in exaggerated two.

[dekko]

Interesting things here.

1. If the refs actually call actions this way, will wait to see Tim's writings on this. Also will likely buy the DVD to see how it's called and reactions of the fencers, that touch and following touches.

2. How the fencers and coaches react to these changes, before and during the fencing.

3. If US refs are asked to call actions this way in Memphis or Albequerque or other national events.

4. If these changes stick past this event or not.

[edew]

Low hand:

At the on-guard, both fencers are supposed to be in standard on-guard position: weapon forearm more or less horizontal, blade pointing upwards anywhere between vertical (90-degrees) to 2:30 position (making an angle of 135-degrees with the forearm). It's awkward to hold the blade at any angle outside of that range (pulling the blade backwards or overarticulating the wrist to point the blade downwards).

So, at the word "fence!" some fencers might drop the forearm down, aim the tip towards the opponent's knees and then gradually raise the arm during the advance-lunge. The benefit of doing this is that it's a more circuitous route, so you can make your attack last longer. It also keeps the blade away from the opponent's blade where even an incidental contact might cause one person's blade (maybe yours) to not hit.

I've always felt that doing the drop is sort of dogging it, like waiting for the opponent to commit and then finishing the attack and hoping (previously, with assuredness) that the ref would call it simultaneous. Now, they won't. I think part of it is that the blade is no longer aiming at target (when it's pointed down towards the knee) and it gives the fencer time to perhaps set up for a false attack parry-riposte.

[rcmatthews]

Ok, when I first saw it, I interpreted it as any low line attack vs. any high line attack. If this is not the case, then it may not be so bad. However, the line change is still stupid.

[Sciurus-Rex]

Originally Posted by edew

Low hand ...

I've always felt that doing the drop is sort of dogging it, like waiting for the opponent to commit and then finishing the attack and hoping ... that the ref would call it simultaneous.

Interesting. Your perspective of the preparation would seem to presuppose a certain attitude of underhanded(!) sneakiness in which the low-line fencer is trying to score undeserved points only by fooling the ref. I've always assumed it was as valid a prep as any other ... with the intention of deceiving the opponent, NOT the ref.

[edew]

No, not deceiving the ref at all. Making the arm movement circuitous still obeys the letter of the law. The thing is that the perspective of the fencer is not the same as the referee's perspective. What the referee sees as being some non-zero vector component going in the forward direction is greatly overwhelmed by the vector component going elsewhere, which the opponent sees. That gives the opponent the (deceptive) perception of a free hit. But having the referee call it simultaneously forces the opponent to think that his action is not soon enough or not clear enough. So, when that opponent tries to be sooner or clearer, the fencer can then parry riposte or step back or whatever. The net result is the dogging fencer has a slight advantage in being able to do either action A or B while the opponent is forced to do just A.

[Jason]

A few years ago, it was nearly impossible to be awarded an attack-in-preparation against a fencer cutting up from a low hand position. It has since become a realistic option.

The ruling in Turin seems like a further step in the progression of making the cut up less favored (at this point, it's even being made "unfavored").

[downunder]

From the other thread:

there is a very good chance none of these changes will effect you in the slightest, except for maybe an ancedotal story down at the pub.

The only world championships i have fenced at, foil fencers were carded for covering target if they so much as put their chin to their chest. This doesn't occur these days, and neither should these changes.

Whatever you do, don't go down to the club and put these into practice until we know exactly what will happen. The FIE does this all the time at major events and it is quickly forgotten.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by nahouw

probably to clarify the section in the rule book that the sabre blade has to be at a 135 degree angle to attack....

No such rule exists. The only mention of the 135 degree requirement is with regard to feints.

That may have been an omission, and maybe it was supposed to apply to the attack, ie the final cut, as well. But if so I don't see how this particular change rectifies that omission, since it's quite possible to hold the blade at almost any angle from the low line...135 degrees included.

If there is no longer to be any time or distance requirement for the line to be established after a failed attack, is that logic also to apply at other times? Will it now be possible to establish a line immediately into an attack as well? How can two different rationales be justified for the same action?

It's all too bizarre.

[edew]

Inq,

It seems that the attack is the initial stage of creating the line. The opponent is moving backwards during that moment, and when the attack finishes and the line is created, the opponent is (in the real sense) still moving backwards. The claim is that this situation should be construed as the attacker making a valid point in line. However, if the opponent is fast enough to start the attack during the attacker's attack and the opponent doesn't get hit by that attack, then the line being established by the attacker would be late.

This latter scenario would be closer to your offered scenario of establishing a line while the opponent is advancing. Remember that the extension doesn't have to begin until the back foot moves (although that's really cutting it fine: I teach people to extend as soon as possible, usually extend before even moving the front foot).

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

If there is no longer to be any time or distance requirement for the line to be established after a failed attack, is that logic also to apply at other times? Will it now be possible to establish a line immediately into an attack as well? How can two different rationales be justified for the same action?

It's all too bizarre.

It doesn't seem bizarre to me. Nothing in the rules defines the line as anything other than a situation that either exists or not. It's purely a convention that when an attack ends in line, there's a loss of priority into which the opponent can attack freely. A strict reading of the rules would say that if the line exists before the opponent's offensive action begins, even if it gained that position as the finish of an attack, that line would have priority.

Sure, that's not the current refereeing convention -- at least, it wasn't until now -- but it makes perfect sense to me, and I have no problem with it. I'd like to see the ruling extended to foil, where it makes even more sense.