FIE Arbitrage Sabre DVD - a must see for ALL fencers and referees

[yowsers]

Originally Posted by pkt

I think we all agree that the most pertinent point of this FIE video is that these are the FIE's sanctioned views. FIE refs and others aspiring to become FIE refs or simply improve his/her reffing skills should follow these GUIDELINES.

The jury is not out yet on what this video means. Please see my earlier posts. You're right, this thread is getting repetitive.

[smellofellow]

just read the thread and figured I would throw one more opinion into the pot.

and attack is the threatening of valid target area.

in sabre, the entire blade can threaten target area not just the point.

with my weapon down, i can definitely threaten valid target area, especially under my oppenents arm or wrist.

therefore, it makes no sense to me why anything starting with the blade down would be thrown out as a valid attack.

also any argument that 'the tip is pointed at the opponents shoes therefore it is not an attack' has no bearing on anything given that the tip in sabre rarely ever points at valid target except for point in lines or point attacks. if i attack to my opponents head, my tip never points at any valid target, even when my blade is resting on top of his head.

also i do not see why a physical parry, and a "distance parry" should be treated differently in terms of right of way. despite using different terminology, the result should be the same.

if i MAKE my opponents attack fail because i block it with my blade -or-
if i MAKE my opponents attack fail by pulling distance and making him miss

i should be allowed to make my own offensive action and hive ROW regardless of whether my opponent makes a remise, redoublement or what have you.

I think you would be very hard pressed to find more than a few high level sabre fencers who agreed with these "new" interpretations. Not only from th U.S.
Yakimenko clearly stated his disagreement when he talked about it in his interview. He was not merely talking about the use of replay since replay had already been used for an entire season prior to his comments about the "new experiment" at the University Games.

to strictly enforce what the video shows would be murder to the sport that i love.

[Joe biebel]

[quote=smellofellow;633423] SNIP
also i do not see why a physical parry, and a "distance parry" should be treated differently in terms of right of way. despite using different terminology, the result should be the same.

if i MAKE my opponents attack fail because i block it with my blade -or-
if i MAKE my opponents attack fail by pulling distance and making him miss
SNIP QUOTE]

If you parry with your blade, it is a parry. You are rewarded with not getting hit by the attack, and briefly, you have priority.

If you retreat in the face of an attack, you are rewarded with not getting hit. That seems like reward enough to me. The "distance parry concept" is too vague. I have often pushed an opponant back with a false attack, aborted the action and started a fresh action with the opponant making a counterattack, only to have the referee give them credit for something that never existed. Just because an attack does not arrive, does not mean that the defender did anything really to stop it. The reward is not getting hit if you escape by retreating.

[ViewtifulMisho]

Originally Posted by Joe biebel

I have often pushed an opponant back with a false attack, aborted the action and started a fresh action with the opponant making a counterattack, only to have the referee give them credit for something that never existed. Just because an attack does not arrive, does not mean that the defender did anything really to stop it. The reward is not getting hit if you escape by retreating.

Just to play devil's advocate, what's the difference between the bolded part and the opponent taking a parry and riposting into your remise? Either way, he's avoiding getting hit and he's making an attack. And either way, your first attack (whether it's real or "false" it can be avoided or parried) does not hit him, while your second attack does. The "combat aspect" of both situations is identical, if that's what we're concerned about (which I'm not).

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by ViewtifulMisho

Just to play devil's advocate, what's the difference between the bolded part and the opponent taking a parry and riposting into your remise? Either way, he's avoiding getting hit and he's making an attack. And either way, your first attack (whether it's real or "false" it can be avoided or parried) does not hit him, while your second attack does. The "combat aspect" of both situations is identical, if that's what we're concerned about (which I'm not).

A parry takes the opponent out of line.

An attacker can "miss" while a defender can make a suicidal counterattack onto his weapon.

An attacker can be taken out of line by a parry, and the opponent can make a totally rational attack into the non-threatened situation. If the original attacker put his blade back into line, well, that's unforeseen.

Seriously, this is stupid. Any rationale or counter-rationale can be given for any action. I can lunge with my arm pulled back and still threaten target. By fencing convention, no, I can't. However, I think if I lunged at a police officer with my hand back, I might end up in a less than negligible amount of physical pain.

It's just the way the rules work. Find someone more competent and ask them to rationalize it for you. That's what I do.

[edew]

The only way I can see how having the blade below the waist line is considered preparation is if the blade originally started above the waist (in standard tierce position) and was pushed down below the belt and then lifted back up.

In such a case, one could conceivably argue that the movement of the blade from tierce to below the belt is the initial cut by the fencer, which obviously misses and thus allows an opponent to take over right of way and make an attack.

I've always felt that such a move should be considered a two-tempo action: the first tempo is to bring the blade down, the second tempo is to bring the blade back up. I personally don't like the action. But there are plenty of people who do this action and few (if any) referee ever calls it a failed attack plus a redoublement, so I'm going to stick with what's being called.

[Grasshopper]

Wasn't sabre originally made to prepare for "horse-to-horse" combat? Wouldn't lowering your weapon point under the opponent's waist line risk getting it caught in the saddle or worse... hitting the poor horsy!

[Inquartata]

So, if this really IS just supposed to be a "return to the rules", I'd like to know just which rule says that a riposte, eg an attack following a parry, is given more time or different treatment than an attack which ends in some other fashion. Where is the written justification for "The riposte should have more leeway than the causing of an attack to fall short"?

And which rule lays out that a low-line attack is not threatening target? I sure can't find it.

No, it just looks like more of the same old "This will make things easier on us referees and look more appealing to spectators" thing we've been getting from the FIE for some time now.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

So, if this really IS just supposed to be a "return to the rules", I'd like to know just which rule says that a riposte, eg an attack following a parry, is given more time or different treatment than an attack which ends in some other fashion. Where is the written justification for "The riposte should have more leeway than the causing of an attack to fall short"?

And which rule lays out that a low-line attack is not threatening target? I sure can't find it.

No, it just looks like more of the same old "This will make things easier on us referees and look more appealing to spectators" thing we've been getting from the FIE for some time now.

I just wanna point out that there is no way this is making things easier on the refs, at least not for me right now.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

Wasn't sabre originally made to prepare for "horse-to-horse" combat? Wouldn't lowering your weapon point under the opponent's waist line risk getting it caught in the saddle or worse... hitting the poor horsy!

No.

Stop saying silly things.

[Allen Evans]

Many of these posts seem to imply that under the "new" interpretation, an attacker can keep swinging his or her blade until a parry is made to end the attack. Somehow, I doubt that is the correct interpretation.

AE

[yowsers]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

And which rule lays out that a low-line attack is not threatening target? I sure can't find it.

I challenge anyone to find a definition in the rule book of what constitutes "threatening the opponent's the target."

If the FIE wants to assert that low-line attacks in saber do not threaten valid target, perhaps an explicit detailed amendment to the rules is in order.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

A bunch of the FOC will be meeting tonight (unfortunately my plane arrives in Dallas too late for me to be part of that group) to craft a unified message to be distributed tomorrow morning in Dallas. Until that process is complete I'm not planning on commenting on the calls, what I think, or how they should be interpreted, to avoid a possible muddying of the waters.

If it's not otherwise (unlikely, given the number of FNetters that will be there), I'll ensure that message is distributed here for those not present at the NAC.

The statement made at the various morning meeting in Dallas effectively boils down to (paraphrased):

The video is an FIE thing and doesn't directly concern us at this point in time. As a referee, one is expected to know when an action is threatening target and when it isn't and make the appropriate calls.

In actual practice very little changed in the calls from what was expected by athletes and coaches.

This may get addressed more formally (and officially in writing) in the next FOC newsletter (due out in December in electronic form).

-B

[the ancient one]

For the moment I have to view the DVD as a presentation of a few well known Coaches opinions about the rules governing Saber actions. Opinions only.

I have so far written 3 Arbritrage Commission members to pose the following question:

"What is the official status of the FIE Arbitrage Saber DVD that is now in circulation?"

Results:
1 no answer
2 Who are you and why do you want to know?
3 Before I answer, who are you?

So I have responded to them to narrow the question and further identify myself as a nobody in the fencing world since I have already given them my own name. I will pass on any useful response I may receive. Odds?

In the mean time you can contact them yourselves or just speculate as to why the question is so difficult to answer.

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

The statement made at the various morning meeting in Dallas effectively boils down to (paraphrased):

The video is an FIE thing and doesn't directly concern us at this point in time. As a referee, one is expected to know when an action is threatening target and when it isn't and make the appropriate calls.

In actual practice very little changed in the calls from what was expected by athletes and coaches.

Were there *any* differences in the calls? As an FIE B referee, how has it affected your calls? Do you anticipate refereeing one way at FIE events and another at USFA events?

This is a very unsatisfactory situation. I can understand the FOC not wanting to issue a revised rule interpretation right before a NAC -- at least, not one that affects the tactics of the fencing itself -- but we need to know whether we are supposed to be applying these interpretations in the future or not.

Is the FOC planning to issue some statement on the matter, not that the NAC is over?

[wbowman]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

Wasn't sabre originally made to prepare for "horse-to-horse" combat? Wouldn't lowering your weapon point under the opponent's waist line risk getting it caught in the saddle or worse... hitting the poor horsy!

While this is a pretty common way to explain the sabre target area to people (especially beginners or non-fencers), I've seen at least one article which argues that it's incorrect.
Supposedly (according to this argument -- sorry, can't remember where I read it), modern sabre actually developed from the "sabre di terreno," or sabre-dueling on foot, of the 19th century. Apparently the legs were once considered target, but that was changed because going for the legs was a pretty risky thing to do.

All that aside -- I can see the argument that a low-line attack does not threaten target, but it doesn't take into account that it DOES threaten the bottom of the cuff with the back edge of the blade -- which was legitimate cutting edge even before the rule change to allow hits with the flat.
Perhaps going from on-guard to a low line and then attacking IS an extra motion -- but what about if the blade is already in low line after the fencing has gone on for a bit?

Of course, you could always argue the other extreme -- that if it hits, then it must have been threatening target wherever it was. (there seemed to be a lot of that thinking going on in foil during the heyday of the flick.)

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by wbowman

All that aside -- I can see the argument that a low-line attack does not threaten target, but it doesn't take into account that it DOES threaten the bottom of the cuff with the back edge of the blade -- which was legitimate cutting edge even before the rule change to allow hits with the flat.

Look, if low-line attacks were an option historically then we'd have traditional low-line parries, and not just new-fangled inventions like seconde. Clearly the lack of such indicates that defense from that quarter wasn't considered important until the rules were distorted over the past few years/decades.

-B

[keith]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Look, if low-line attacks were an option historically then we'd have traditional low-line parries, and not just new-fangled inventions like seconde. Clearly the lack of such indicates that defense from that quarter wasn't considered important until the rules were distorted over the past few years/decades.

-B

you are just so cute.....

[Capt. Slo-mo]

The video showed a fair bit of PIL and point attacks. If the intended attack zone is point to the bellybutton, for instance...who has the shortest and most direct path there: a person advancing with their blade forward, but pointing at the opponent's thigh to start, or a person advancing in tierce guard, with their point raised toward the ceiling?

Remember, the demonstration of how to threaten showed three edge positions, and a point, so obviously they believe the point can be a threat.

There was also some discussion about how it is impossible to take the blade when the opponent is in low-line, so it's incorrect.. I'm curious as to why you are obligated to make it any easier for your opponent to do so. Similarly, if you're in low-line, it's much tougher for you to take your opponent's blade, as well. In either event, for an attack to land, it eventually has to enter a parry zone, whether it's launched from low-line or a five guard over your head.

We could discuss for sometime the historical uses of displacing the target as a defense, since the makers of the DVD seemed interesting a a very traditional mode of fencing. If someone takes a cut at your flank, and you parry, your action has thwarted his attack. If he makes the cut, and you step back, your action has thwarted his attack. In both cases, the attacking blade is out of line: the parry stops it short, the displacement causes it to swing past the target area. Both enable an immediate offensive action on your part.

What they didn't directly address is the very common scenario where an attacker cuts (from the quite proper tierce position, tip very erect and proud), the defender hops or leans back to let the cut pass by. The original attacker then immediately retreats, and in chased down the strip by the defender. My impression of the DVD is that all the way in retreat, the former attacker merely has to start his blade going forward a nanosecond before the person in pursuit in order to correctly attack.

And that, boys and girls, would be a huge departure from the way that action has most frequently been called all the way up to the highest levels of international competition.

Hmmm...which also makes you wonder: under their interpretation, if you do parry, but the attacker immediately leaps back (before you can riposte) and begins retreating, forcing you to chase, do you still have the presumption of right of way changeover?