Sabre rules "re-interpretations"

[AndrewH]

Can someone who has experience/authority with the subject summarize what the major changes were in St. Petersburg? I realize things haven't filtered down to the US yet (and might not) but I want to know potentially what to watch out for.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by AndrewH

Can someone who has experience/authority with the subject summarize what the major changes were in St. Petersburg? I realize things haven't filtered down to the US yet (and might not) but I want to know potentially what to watch out for.

Referees in the United States...should not interpret sabre actions any differently than they have in the past, and it's even from someone with authority.

Oh, and there is NO...rule six.

[sleepyweasle]

And what's really up with the low line rule? Capt Slo-Mo said they weren't really calling it at the World Champs and yet they certainly were in Poland. What's the deal? What are our refs going to be doing in Dallas? Any word from anyone in the know???... Brad???

[sleepyweasle]

Originally Posted by tbryan

Referees in the United States...should not interpret sabre actions any differently than they have in the past, and it's even from someone with authority.

Oh, and there is NO...rule six.

Ummm... I guess that answars that question

[AndrewH]

Originally Posted by tbryan

Referees in the United States...should not interpret sabre actions any differently than they have in the past

Originally Posted by AndrewH

I realize things haven't filtered down to the US yet (and might not)

It's possible that things will change. I'm just wondering what the changes would entail, if they ever happen.

[sleepyweasle]

And remember = there's a world cup in Germany 2 weeks after the Dallas NAC. Are our sabre fencers going to have to fence by one set of rules in the US and by a different set of rules outside the US? I'm sure a little consistancy would be appreciated!

[KD5MDK]

I would imagine our refereeing delegates from the Worlds (and whoever we sent to Poland) will report and the way we want to call things will be announced at the morning meeting at Dallas.

[randomsabreur]

Worlds = video replay
JWC - no video replay.

A number of the referees think the re-interpretations are rubbish.

Nuff said...

[KD5MDK]

Worlds - referees who have confidence in their interpretations of the rules.
JWC - referees who want to be promoted and will call whatever they're told to call by somebody above them.

[Falcon (XB :)]

St P refs meeting wasn't talking about new interpretations - it was reemphasising and reiterating what has been talked about for more than 18 months... that is, that the FIE wants refs to consider that sabreurs/euses [or "sabrists" for US folks] advancing with hands and points below the waist are certainly not yet attacking, nor should they be considered so until they get their hands above the waist and the point/edge heading toward the valid target. OTOH, the sabr[xxx] advancing with the hand above is going to be considered a damn sight more favourably (unless the arm is bent backward at the elbow and the point behind the head).

The FIE rationale is that below the waist, with hand and point, it is difficult to justify the menace to valid target, and that there is extra tempo to explain in getting the point/edge up to threaten, whereas there is not such a gap with the hand/point/edge above the waist.

The examples given on video at Torino 2006 were all of the "simultaneous" appearing attack by step-step-lunge. A has the hand up and coming forward, B has the hand/point/edge in low line. Even where the feet start at the same time, the lift from low line to high line is palpable, and it occurs after the continuous high line attack is on its way.

Would you have a problem if it is handed down (as it has been) that advancing rapidly with an arm bent, with the hand behind the elbow and the point behind the hand, is interpreted as a preparation and therefore non correct - and if both fencers start at the same time, one with the arm in some semblance of a normal on guard, the other as defined above, and A starts to extend as the attack commences and B gets to a semblance of point/edge in front of a hand in front of an elbow extending toward A sometime after the step-step-lunge is in progress....? And then an FIE Ref makes the call "Attack" [from A] "Touche" [against B] "Point" [for A]. You surely don't have a difficulty with that?

Seems that the FIE is simply trying to say that open guard / low line positions are inherently not-yet-attacking, and cannot be until they get up over the mid line. Same as with pulled-back arm and point positions.

Still a work in progress. But interesting to watch Marco Siesto (see elsewhere on Fencing.Net for an interview with "the best sabre referee in the world" (until he just retired...)) in front of a group of 30 or 40 of his peers agree openly with the referees delegates and the chair of the Refs seminar that this was the case.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by Falcon (XB :)

The FIE rationale is that below the waist, with hand and point, it is difficult to justify the menace to valid target, and that there is extra tempo to explain in getting the point/edge up to threaten, whereas there is not such a gap with the hand/point/edge above the waist.

See, this is where I think politics begins to trump reality. Imagine, that happening in a sports NGB!

My suspicion is that someone in the FIE (who shall remain nameless, since I don't know who they are, or if they truly exist) thinks saber is being ruined/being made much less telegenic by having those sneaky underhanded stop cuts scoring instead of giant, sweeping Hammer of Thor cuts that look sooooo much better in slo-mo on the TV replay.

Let's parse this for a minute. One fencer is in low line, point extended towards the opponent. The other is in on-guard position, hand forward, point straight up towards the lighting grid (which may or may not be about to burst into flames). Both are right handed. Both are intending an attack on the underside of the manchette of their opponent.

Look at the tips of the sabers. Which one is closest to the target? If they both extend in one plane or a non-compound attack, which one will hit the target first? That's right, the one the FIE says is not menacing the target.

Same positioning, this time the belly button is the target. Who has the shortest, simplest non-compound route to the target?

The extension of the arm should still remain paramount. Remember, just as the tip/cutting edge of a lowline has to come up to hit, the tip/cutting edge of a classic on guard highline has to come down to hit. Otherwise, it's a blow with the guard.

Which, come to think of it, might be quite telegenic as well.

[AndrewH]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

Same positioning, this time the belly button is the target. Who has the shortest, simplest non-compound route to the target?

Oh no, next thing you know hits to the head will take priority over any other target!

[edew]

I would say that a fencer who is cutting DOWN from above, trying to hit the underside of a manchette must be doing two actions. The first action is the downward cut and the second action is the upwards cut. In this case, if this fencer hits "at the same (chronological) time" as one coming from the bottom, the bottom fencer should get the point because it's one motion. The down-up motion is two and the first down can be (and should be) construed as a missed cut.

I'd say a person who has the blade up and making a downward cut should at least aim for the top side of the manchette. Given the position of the opponent's blade (down, aiming up at the underside of one's manchette), there's not much worry of a possible successful parry.

I guess I'll just ask my fencers to "cradle" the blade so that the guard is above the target line.

[Wafath]

Originally Posted by edew

I would say that a fencer who is cutting DOWN from above, trying to hit the underside of a manchette must be doing two actions.

What if he is swinging really, really hard? If he severs the wrist he might find that target on the way through!

W

[edew]

Originally Posted by Wafath

What if he is swinging really, really hard? If he severs the wrist he might find that target on the way through!

W

Wouldn't register: the inside of the gauntlet is usually non-conductive, at least most of it. There's a required 5cm of conductive part near the end of the manchette. Also, it probably takes more than 120ms to get there.

On the other hand, if the fencer can actually sever an arm with a glorified dipstick within 120ms, I'd be more than happy to hand him or her the gold medal right then and there and be done with the competition. Wookie.

[sheck]

Originally Posted by Falcon (XB :)

The examples given on video at Torino 2006 were all of the "simultaneous" appearing attack by step-step-lunge. A has the hand up and coming forward, B has the hand/point/edge in low line. Even where the feet start at the same time, the lift from low line to high line is palpable, and it occurs after the continuous high line attack is on its way.

Are there any video examples from the just past WC where the above occurs and is called attack for the high line?

[Inquartata]

Or maybe there's a concern about the number of penetration injuries to the hands and arms we've experienced with the S2000 blades and the effects of the new timing.

FIE, it's YOUR timing change that brought about the low-line phenomenon. Try fixing the root cause instead of fiddling around at the margins!

[sleepyweasle]

Perhaps, unbeknownst to us, this is all a result of the FIE entering into negotiations for a huge sponsorship contract with the makers of Viagra. Maybe they felt their product would be better represented by a proud erect weapon prevailing over a droopy limp one.

[erik_blank]

Hummm... Viagra or Enzyte?