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

[bigdawg2121]

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.

I'm pretty sure that the point the masters shown in the video were trying to make was that said attacks don't really become attacks until they enter said "parry zone". Outside of that zone one is more or less being awarded for making a preparation and then attacking as opposed to being awarded only for the attack. The 135 degree rule seems to be in this spirit as well. Hence, as I meant to address from someone's (Inq?) earlier post, if someone is advancing with their arm mostly in tierce but drawn back to their chest where the blade is equally as withdrawn/hard to find they are also preparing and not attacking until they have actually begun extending past that point (or at least in it's vicinity b/c refs are still human). I may be playing devil's advocate, but isn't an attack something that's practically vulnerable to defense?

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.

I don't really think that this is being as disputed as much as one might think. The key is that the action be immediate. No more waiting, pausing, baiting, etc. Lest ye lose the opportunity that ye have created.

Only time will tell though. They might just be out of their damn minds. That's also a realistic possibility.

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.

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?

I also doubt that they really quite meant it that way. If you're chasing the other guy down the strip (still threatening target area in a correct manner) and you're not "carrying" blade or chasing them in preparation (blade back against the chest, down by your toes, generally trying to hide the blade, holding your hand back in a position such tierce, although any work, and not actually attacking) they'll have to do more than just start a nanosecond ahead. That's not likely to change too much. It'll probably just get tighter: get caught holding 3, 4, or 5 in an attempt to draw a counterattack from the opponent you'd better be legitimately finishing before that counterattack comes or ready to parry riposte. The days of being able to make an invitation and just barely wait for the opponent to start before deciding you're really ready to finish are likely numbered that's all.

Again, only time will tell. They very well may have lost their minds. I don't put it past them. At all.

[seak]

Hey could someone rep Oiuyt for me? thanks

and from BigDawgs logic, since parry 2 IS a parry (despite what some FIE refs seem to think) a low line attack is within the parry zone once it starts to actually come forward. For me this is when a low line attack would go from a prep to an attack, when the arm starts to come forwards away from the body, like every other attack.

[bigdawg2121]

On that much I agree. Whether my agreement matters or not we shall soon see. Likely it will not.

[VorpalCat]

Hey could someone rep Oiuyt for me? thanks

Done!

[KD5MDK]

Done with probably a bit more impact.

[pkt]

.... You're right, this thread is getting repetitive.

It's good to be told that one is right.
Thank you,
PK

[sheck]

j
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.

I totally agree with you. I sent a request to the FOF web site asking if they could follow-up with him and maybe others such as Pozdniakov.

[sloper]

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?

Do these responses not sum up a good deal of what's wrong with the FIE and fencing - top officials who won't give an objective, universal answer to a reasonable, objective question? First, they have to know who your daddy is. Kind of like car salesmen when you ask them how much a car is and they respond with, "How much are you looking to spend?" Blech.

[IanSerotkin]

Do these responses not sum up a good deal of what's wrong with the FIE and fencing - top officials who won't give an objective, universal answer to a reasonable, objective question?

To be fair, if I had a complete stranger email me at work and ask me why I made a particular design decision on Project XYZ at work, my first question to them would absolutely be who they were and how the hell they got my email address.

But then again, I don't have a public position visible and accountable to a large community.

[tbryan]

Do these responses not sum up a good deal of what's wrong with the FIE and fencing - top officials who won't give an objective, universal answer to a reasonable, objective question? First, they have to know who your daddy is. Kind of like car salesmen when you ask them how much a car is and they respond with, "How much are you looking to spend?" Blech.

Or maybe it's like an author who simply wants to know who his audience is. If I thought that I were going to write something that others would take as an official explanation, I'd be pretty careful that the explanation was appropriate to the audience.

1) They might not have a response prepared yet.
2) They may want to discuss it with the other FOCs more before offering an opinion. Is the e-mail from someone who needs to be part of that discussion, or is it someone who just needs the summary after the discussion is over?
3) Even if they have a response prepared, they don't want every individual fencer to e-mail them personally. (Of course, we can certainly discuss whether the FOC has an effective and well-recognized method of promulgating information to the fencing community at the moment. I don't think they do, but that's not really what you were saying.)
4) Even if they are willing to write responses to individual fencers and coaches, the way they write the response is going to vary. If I'm an unrated saber fencer, then I probably need to hear a different explanation than if I'm on the National Points List. A referee probably needs a different explanation than a curious fencer.

I've generally found FOC members to be happy to share and discuss things, and they've never asked who may daddy is. With anything refereeing, it's hard to explain it without practical demonstrations. Words are sometimes really weak at conveying the meaning of subtle timing issues, so FOC members are generally more talkative in person where they can demonstrate what they're trying to explain. It also helps to respect their time. It's much easier to get 15 minutes of an FOC member's time during a referee seminar or during lunch at a NAC than it is to get 15 minutes of their time on a typical Wednesday evening.

I can sometimes get an e-mail response, but that's easier if they already have talked to me in person. They may have a vague memory of who I am and some previous context for how much detail I need to hear, so I imagine that it's easier for them to give an appropriate response.

[KD5MDK]

tbryan - Note he didn't email the FOC, he emailed the Arbitrage Commission.

[tbryan]

tbryan - Note he didn't email the FOC, he emailed the Arbitrage Commission.

Thanks. I stand by what I said in my post, but it just has much less relevance to the thread.

tbryan makes note to read the thread more carefully next time.

[sloper]

Or maybe it's like an author who simply wants to know who his audience is. If I thought that I were going to write something that others would take as an official explanation, I'd be pretty careful that the explanation was appropriate to the audience.

1) They might not have a response prepared yet.
2) They may want to discuss it with the other FOCs more before offering an opinion. Is the e-mail from someone who needs to be part of that discussion, or is it someone who just needs the summary after the discussion is over?
3) Even if they have a response prepared, they don't want every individual fencer to e-mail them personally. (Of course, we can certainly discuss whether the FOC has an effective and well-recognized method of promulgating information to the fencing community at the moment. I don't think they do, but that's not really what you were saying.)
4) Even if they are willing to write responses to individual fencers and coaches, the way they write the response is going to vary. If I'm an unrated saber fencer, then I probably need to hear a different explanation than if I'm on the National Points List. A referee probably needs a different explanation than a curious fencer.

I've generally found FOC members to be happy to share and discuss things, and they've never asked who may daddy is. With anything refereeing, it's hard to explain it without practical demonstrations. Words are sometimes really weak at conveying the meaning of subtle timing issues, so FOC members are generally more talkative in person where they can demonstrate what they're trying to explain. It also helps to respect their time. It's much easier to get 15 minutes of an FOC member's time during a referee seminar or during lunch at a NAC than it is to get 15 minutes of their time on a typical Wednesday evening.

I can sometimes get an e-mail response, but that's easier if they already have talked to me in person. They may have a vague memory of who I am and some previous context for how much detail I need to hear, so I imagine that it's easier for them to give an appropriate response.

But my point was that the ancient one's question wasn't an essay question. It wasn't a question about fencing theory or right of way. It was an point of order question about the official status of a circulating DVD. When people respond to these kinds of questions with attempts to figure out "who you are," I get uneasy because it sounds like the actual answers will depend on "who you are" when, for this type of question, it shouldn't matter in the slightest.

[swordsen]

I agree with sloper. How hard would be be to say
Yes, this is the official position.
No, this is not official.
or
We are discussing that issue and a formal announcement will be made soon.

Much better answers than who are you and why do you want to know?

[pkt]

...

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?

"the ancient one" you obviously are wise in your ways since you know not to ask a question without knowing the answer before hand.

So you should also know that in big organisations, governments being a good example, there are rules of engagement even in correspondence. I'm sure most of us know the RoE so I won't be repetitive.

IMHO, the correct course of action is for you in the USFA to ask your FOC. Then the FOC ask the FIE's Arbritrage Commission. Otherwise, can you imagine that these Arbritrage Commissioners, or their staffers have to answer to the 1,106 FIE-rated referees, not to mention the whole of the FIE membership. It's impractical.

Nevertheless, thank you very much for initiating the process. I hope if and when you get the answers you'll post them here.

===)====================

A video can be a videotape, DVD, film or memory stick as the recent unfortunate Taser death of a Polish immigrant in YVR shows.

Since, I think, most and more people saw the video from the link from here or the FIE , the correct term - to be totally asinine and pedantic - should be video.

===)====================

PK

[the ancient one]

Agreed.

But the situation is unusual since the DVD material is rapidly spreading about the fencing community and not restricted to Internal FIE or FIE-FOC...and this without any official comment as to what we are to do with the information.

I suspect that the rapidity of propagation has caught them off-guard.

Due to the fact that the DVD is in our hands with an official-looking FIE logo in front we have to consider whether the material is doctrine, guidance or just a documentary of certain well-respected coaches opinions. The DVD itself lacks any direct statement by a commission member or FIE officer. So, the potential for confusion is great. Under these circumstances I think it is reasonable for someone to ask some basic questions.

Consider that even I could (at some risk) put an FIE logo in front of any material I wish and circulate it. The potential for hoaxing is large without some official recognition or guidance about the release.

After all of that, please note that I am not complaining, I like the format and the accessibility and hope for more material like this in the near future.

My contrary opinions about low-line attacks are another matter.

[pkt]

He defines prise de fer as an action that maintains blade contact, hitting in opposition. He thinks that what most people call prise de fer shouldn't be termed that.

-B

If someone answered this already, then please ignore this. Otherwise read on.

Of course Bauer is right; it's unfortunate that he did not explain what a "prise de fer" is. So I'll do that if you'll be patient.

===)================
Christian Bauer correctly pointed out, at 30:13 of the video, that there are THREE types of "attaques au fer" attack on the blade:
1. Battement = beat;
2. Pression = press and
3. Froissement (ou coulé) = glide or graze "the displacement of the opponent's blade by a sharp, strong, grazing action, forwards and downwards." - A~Z of Fencing, E.D. Morton. (ISBN 0-356-154394)

My first Portuguese ass't coach loved to do this to us newbies in foil.

Try doing any of three other than a beat in sabre... you'd be a genius in sabre.

===)================
A "prise de fer" or in Morton's book "prise-de-Fer", is
"A preparation of attack, in English a 'taking-of-the-blade' by means of which the opponent's blade is forced away from its existing line and carried into a new one, thus at once controlling his blade and opening his target to an offensive action. ..."The engagement and change of engagement are sometimes, perhaps dubiously, included in this category; the three main examples are the envelopment (circular), the bind (diagonally across the target area) and the Croisé (from high to low line on the same side of the target). Further information is given under their separate headings.

"A prise-de-fer can only be effective when the opponent's arm is extended with the blade in line, as without suitable resistance the latter cannot be controlled and transported to a new position by the dominating opposition of forte to foible. The chances of successful execution are greatest when the opponent has a stiff arm and a strong wrist, or when he is attempting to renew his attack, or force his way through a parry; for the prise-de-fer may precede a riposte or counter-riposte just as well as an attack. Tactically, it will be found that the envelopment is most appropriate when the opponent's hand is relatively low; the bind and Croisé when it's high."
===)================

The two terms are not mutually interchangeable.

I hope this clarifies things a bit.

One thing good about explaining stuff to others is that one also learns in the process.

PK

[erooMynohtnA]

If someone answered this already, then please ignore this. Otherwise read on.

Of course Bauer is right; it's unfortunate that he did not explain what a "prise de fer" is. So I'll do that if you'll be patient.

===)================
Christian Bauer correctly pointed out, at 30:13 of the video, that there are THREE types of "attaques au fer" attack on the blade:
1. Battement = beat;
2. Pression = press and
3. Froissement (ou coulé) = glide or graze "the displacement of the opponent's blade by a sharp, strong, grazing action, forwards and downwards." - A~Z of Fencing, E.D. Morton. (ISBN 0-356-154394)

My first Portuguese ass't coach loved to do this to us newbies in foil.

Try doing any of three other than a beat in sabre... you'd be a genius in sabre.

===)================
A "prise de fer" or in Morton's book "prise-de-Fer", is
"A preparation of attack, in English a 'taking-of-the-blade' by means of which the opponent's blade is forced away from its existing line and carried into a new one, thus at once controlling his blade and opening his target to an offensive action. ..."The engagement and change of engagement are sometimes, perhaps dubiously, included in this category; the three main examples are the envelopment (circular), the bind (diagonally across the target area) and the Croisé (from high to low line on the same side of the target). Further information is given under their separate headings.

"A prise-de-fer can only be effective when the opponent's arm is extended with the blade in line, as without suitable resistance the latter cannot be controlled and transported to a new position by the dominating opposition of forte to foible. The chances of successful execution are greatest when the opponent has a stiff arm and a strong wrist, or when he is attempting to renew his attack, or force his way through a parry; for the prise-de-fer may precede a riposte or counter-riposte just as well as an attack. Tactically, it will be found that the envelopment is most appropriate when the opponent's hand is relatively low; the bind and Croisé when it's high."
===)================

The two terms are not mutually interchangeable.

I hope this clarifies things a bit.

One thing good about explaining stuff to others is that one also learns in the process.

PK

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

I have seen the froissement used plenty in saber, although I call it an expulsion. A press just seems like a stupid idea. I don't watch Div I level bouts, though.

[bigdawg2121]

Also forgot about lie (excuse my French, I don't know how to add accents). I agree with Anthony though, actions of all 3 types do occur although press is very uncommon. I think that actions from categories 1 and 3 are both rather common though. Also, from what I gathered from the video, the discussion focused more on the idea that prise-de-fer should be used only to describe actions in which contact with the blade is kept for the entire action (the most literal prises-de-fer) and not to describe all attaques-au-fer as it often is currently. Personally speaking, I imagine more people would term it correctly if they actually spoke French. As it is, I suspect it's more a problem of many referees not being French speakers and not having any sort of background for making the distinction.

[Durando]

Personally speaking, I imagine more people would term it correctly if they actually spoke French. As it is, I suspect it's more a problem of many referees not being French speakers and not having any sort of background for making the distinction.

I was also impressed by the clarity of Bauer's explanation. But then I speak French. (Also impressive is how persistent and consistent FFE definitions are among French-trained MdA.)

Now a prise de fer is a different beast from an attaque au fer. The FFE sets it out thusly:
Elles comprennent : l’opposition, le croisé, le liement, l’enveloppement.

They include opposition, croisé [vertical transfer, I think you would call it], binds [or diagonal transfer], and envelopment.

Bauer says, if I remember correctly, that these actions are almost impossible to do in sabre.