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

[Goldgar]

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.

I've seen opposition, and at quite a high level, but none of the others. In sabre, that is; they get used in the other weapons (especially epee) more often.

[bigdawg2121]

I really dislike gross generalizations, especially in fencing. It's unlikely that one will use an envelopment but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Heck, I bet that if more people wanted to they could make it happen just to be contrary (I bet Podz or several other of the top ranked international fencers could do it reasonably successfully even at a WC level w/o much personal risk of losing if they set out to do it). I also question where this leaves the a lot of saber actions which seem to satisfy most of the conditions of being a prise-de-fer and just happen very quickly. A lot beats and parries in saber happen very quickly but nontheless satisy the conditions of prise-de-fer: the average parry 2/riposte combo is a croise from 3-2 or a lie from 4-2 followed by a riposte but done at very high speeds. The average beat, when executed by most saber fencers I can think of, has the effect of expulsing the blade as the beat is made with an explosive sort of grazing movement forward on the blade. Mostly what you hear is something that sounds about like a beat would in any other weapon but I'm not sure that it's always a simple beat.

I concur with the consistency of FFE definitions amongst French trained MdA. My understanding of the things explained hasn't changed much thanks mostly to my American coach also being a French trained MdA and my coach before him being trained by a French trained MdA...however, I find it leads to some frustration as far as the phrases remise and reprise go. I've always been taught that a remise is essentially the continuation or retaking of an attack in the same line while the reprise is the continuation or retaking of the attack in a different line. Functionally (as a referee) I know these are defined differently but I always wonder if this is an example of fencing "shorthand" or if I've just been taught outdated defintions.

[pkt]

Also forgot about lie (excuse my French, I don't know how to add accents).

What is "lie"? Where did you find it? Do you mean "line"?

If you're using Windows XP or even 2000 you can find "Character Map" in
Start / All Programs / Accessories

I've put mine in the tool bar at the bottom of the screen for ease of access since being a Canadian, a fencer and a ref I prefer to do my French words correctly - Inq, pardon me for being pedantic yet again. The Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons is Stéphane Dion; one of the weapons we use in fencing is an épée. Here are some other fencing terms: flèche, corps à corps, lamés vs lame - a blade and you know what it means in English, hence the iticising.

A female's name: Renée looks rather odd with out the accent.

One could pronounce this word recipé as re-cipe [as in "ripe"] rather than re-ci-pe [as in "pay"], which I did in my younger days in Hong Kong when I was still very much monolingual [Chinese] and mostly monocultural and not exposed to the fact that it's a French word. Imagine saying this in English rather than French: "corps à corps". Lol!

Then I found out that many native British English people do say re-cipe.

PK

[Goldgar]

If you're using Windows XP or even 2000 you can find "Character Map" in Start / All Programs / Accessories

In addition to using Character Map, you can generally key these directly using the ALT key and the numeric keypad. You just hold down the ALT key while pressing the appropriate 4-digit number on the numeric keypad -- not the number keys on the main section of the keyboard.

Character Map will tell you what codes to use. Here are some handy ones for typing French words:

ALT+0233 é
ALT+0232 è
ALT+0234 ê
ALT+0224 à
ALT+0244 ô
ALT+0231 ç

[pkt]

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.

Perhaps you can quote the point rather than repeating my whole post seeing that it's immediately above your post.

That's what I mean - which Yowser agree with me - this thread is becoming "repetitive".

:-)

PK

[pkt]

In addition to using Character Map, you can generally key these directly using the ALT key and the numeric keypad. ...

Character Map will tell you what codes to use. ...

Ah to use a Chinese idiom, "the wisdom of three stinking leathersmith" vs a wise and briliant strategist. This is what is great about the internet: shared wisdom as long as people are willing to share. And there are more than adequate proof here that people are more than willing to.

Thank you.

PK

[pkt]

... I also question where this leaves the a lot of saber actions which seem to satisfy most of the conditions of being a prise-de-fer and just happen very quickly. A lot beats and parries in saber happen very quickly but nontheless satisy the conditions of prise-de-fer: the average parry 2/riposte combo is a croise from 3-2 or a lie from 4-2 followed by a riposte but done at very high speeds. The average beat, when executed by most saber fencers I can think of, has the effect of expulsing the blade as the beat is made with an explosive sort of grazing movement forward on the blade. Mostly what you hear is something that sounds about like a beat would in any other weapon but I'm not sure that it's always a simple beat.

What do you mean by "lie"???? Do you mean "line"? [ See, I'm reading your every word very attentively. ] Speak ENG or you'll get Tasered then swarmed!!! [ I know, NOT funny, and it wasn't meant to be. ]

... I've always been taught that a remise is essentially the continuation or retaking of an attack in the same line

That's correct. See below.

... while the reprise is the continuation or retaking of the attack in a different line. Functionally (as a referee) I know these are defined differently but I always wonder if this is an example of fencing "shorthand" or if I've just been taught outdated defintions.

As far as I know, the definitions of "remise, redoublement and reprise" have remained the same since I started fencing in 1965, through French MdA, Polish and MdAs of other nationalities.

"Functionally", as a ref you should, in order to help the fencers understand what you saw by using the correct term.

To help you out - as I wrote in a previous post in this thread - check out your "Rules for Competitions" t.8.4. Other offensive actions. You don't need to kill any of your brain cells. As a ref, you do own a Rule book, don't you?

Now, i better work.

Best,

PK

[erooMynohtnA]

Perhaps you can quote the point rather than repeating my whole post seeing that it's immediately above your post.

That's what I mean - which Yowser agree with me - this thread is becoming "repetitive".

:-)

PK

I'm sorry that your post was less than succinct and 230 posts later than my answer on the first page.

Perhaps reading previous posts would help avoid repetitious activities.

[tbryan]

"Functionally", as a ref you should, in order to help the fencers understand what you saw by using the correct term.....As a ref, you do own a Rule book, don't you?

As a ref, bigdawg is quite good. He probably doesn't need to consult the rulebook to know that the its definition of a reprise does not match the definition that he just gave.

[bigdawg2121]

What is "lie"? Where did you find it? Do you mean "line"?


PK

What do you mean by "lie"???? Do you mean "line"? [ See, I'm reading your every word very attentively. ] Speak ENG or you'll get Tasered then swarmed!!! [ I know, NOT funny, and it wasn't meant to be. ]

Firstly, that was a tasteless reference. Generally on this forum when one uses a tasteless reference it is done in such a way that it might be considered funny. The only funny aspects of your posts are purely unintended.

Secondly, asking the question twice doesn't get it answered any faster. Notice that earlier when I posed a question to you, which you ignored in several subsequent posts, I didn't bother asking again or outlining it in obnoxiously large, colored, letters.

As for your question, start reading Durando's post:

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.

I hope you read, as I know you have a large aversion to that activity.

A lie, which should have an accent ague on the single AND terminal 'e' (I know that you love being specific beyond a fault), is a term used to describe the action of performing a liement. If I wish to describe my liement in specific terms I may say that I made a lie from say the line of 7 to the line of 6 (someone knowledgeable may correct me if I'm wrong here but I'm pretty sure that describes a proper liement). Just as one may say froisse (which should also have an accent ague on the single AND terminal 'e') instead of froissement one may say lie instead of liement. I would use the appropriate accents and I am aware of the shortcuts however, I only have a laptop. Laptops generally lack number pads and mine is a pretty general laptop. Unfortunately for those that can't stand the lack of accents I generally don't deem posting here worthy of a trip back to campus and away from HBO ONDemand.

As far as I know, the definitions of "remise, redoublement and reprise" have remained the same since I started fencing in 1965, through French MdA, Polish and MdAs of other nationalities.

"Functionally", as a ref you should, in order to help the fencers understand what you saw by using the correct term.

To help you out - as I wrote in a previous post in this thread - check out your "Rules for Competitions" t.8.4. Other offensive actions. You don't need to kill any of your brain cells. As a ref, you do own a Rule book, don't you?
PK

Thanks. As TBryan seems to have pointed out for me the rules do not define remise and reprise as (even you agreed) I correctly described them in my post. Perhaps the FIE rulebook varies; I haven't read it in the French or British translations in a couple months so it may. In which case, forgive the differences in our rulebooks but to my reading the 4th section of T.8, which is labeled (d) in the United States, reads something like this:

1. The remise
A simple and immediate offensive action which follows the
original attack, without withdrawing the arm, after the opponent
has parried or retreated, when the latter has either quitted contact
with the blade without riposting or has made a riposte which is
delayed, indirect or compound.
2. The redoublement
A new action, either simple or compound, made against an
opponent who has parried without riposting or who has merely
avoided the first action by retreating or displacing the target.
3. The reprise of the attack
A new attack executed immediately after a return to the on-guard
position.

edit: I woke up from my nap and what do you know: the official FIE rules give the same definition. Funny that.

Autres actions offensives
t.8.4.a) Remise
Action offensive simple immédiate qui suit une première action, sans retrait de bras, après une
parade ou une retraite de l'adversaire, soit que celui-ci ait abandonné le fer sans riposter, soit qu'il
riposte tardivement, ou indirectement ou en composant.
t.8.4.b) Redoublement
Nouvelle action, simple ou composée, sur un adversaire qui a paré sans riposter, ou qui a
simplement évité la première action par une retraite ou esquive.
t.8.4.c) Reprise d'attaque
Nouvelle attaque exécutée immédiatement après retour en garde.
t.8.4.d) Contre-temps
Toute action exercée par l’attaquant sur un arrêt de son adversaire.
As you can see no mention is made of the line to which the action is executed, rather the distinction is based on what the fencer did following their initial action.

As a referee, the correct term is the one used in the rulebook. As the rulebook conflicts with the terms as used by MdA whilst instructing fencing I would be incorrect in using the MdA's terminology while refereeing. This seems to be contrary to your personal beliefs. Whoopie ****, what's new?

- to be totally asinine and pedantic -

PK

In the future you should begin and end all of your posts with this phrase. You are certainly a pedant and an unmitigated asshole. You are also the first person to ever make it to my ignore list.




eh, I wasn't sleepy so I just fired "les missiles"

[pkt]

Firstly, that was a tasteless reference. Generally on this forum when one uses a tasteless reference it is done in such a way that it might be considered funny. The only funny aspects of your posts are purely unintended.

How do you know it was unintended?

Secondly, asking the question twice doesn't get it answered any faster. Notice that earlier when I posed a question to you, which you ignored in several subsequent posts, I didn't bother asking again or outlining it in obnoxiously large, colored, letters.

I was going to quit replying to this thread...

As for your question, start reading Durando's post:

I hope you read, as I know you have a large aversion to that activity.

Is this a case of post-rage?

A lié, which should have an accent ague on the single AND terminal 'e' (I know that you love being specific beyond a fault), is a term used to describe the action of performing a liement. If I wish to describe my liement in specific terms I may say that I made a lié from say the line of 7 to the line of 6 (someone knowledgeable may correct me if I'm wrong here but I'm pretty sure that describes a proper liement). ...

My French MdA never used that term, not to mention our Polish or UKR MdAs. Thanks for teaching me the term.

Again I quote Morton.
Liement. 1) an engagement, especially one exerting some control of the opponent's blade. (Cp. the Bind, in the Italo-Hungarian sense.)
2) A prise-de-fer from high to low line, or vice versa.

Thanks. As TBryan seems to have pointed out for me the rules do not define remise and reprise as (even you agreed) I correctly described them in my post. Perhaps the FIE rulebook varies; I haven't read it in the French or British translations in a couple months so it may. In which case, forgive the differences in our rulebooks but to my reading the 4th section of T.8, which is labeled (d) in the United States, reads something like this: ...

As you can see no mention is made of the line to which the action is executed, rather the distinction is based on what the fencer did following their initial action.

A rule book, by definition is prescriptive, not descriptive. It's meant to provide general guide lines and consequently, sometimes the ref, like a judge, have to make some interpretations following precedents or the generally accepted interpretations of the rules.

In our case, you are in the US, under the jurisdiction of the USFA's rules, you have to use the USFA Rules. While I, being in Canada, am subject to either the original, official French Rules, or the British ones.

In an earlier post in this thread I've mentioned that in the event of an international tournament, the FIE French version of the rule is the only acceptable version of the Rules governing out sport.

This brings up an issue I've always asked my USFA friends: Why do the USFA see the need, the compunction it seems to me, to have a different set of Rules to that accepted by the sport's governing body?

In the BFA's Rules' title page there is this paragraph:
"The British Fencing Association is the Governing Body for fencing in the United Kingdom. Among the many services which it provides is making available the official English text of the RULES FOR COMPETITIONS issued by the Fédération Internationale d'Escrime." [Red highlight mine.]

As a referee, the correct term is the one used in the rulebook. As the rulebook conflicts with the terms as used by MdA whilst instructing fencing I would be incorrect in using the MdA's terminology while refereeing. This seems to be contrary to your personal beliefs. Whoopie ****, what's new?

Do the " **** " represent "Goldberg"?

I'm afraid I have to tell you that you're wrong. I'd have
1) asked the MdA for an explanation;
2) assiduously used the Rules' terminology.

In the future you should begin and end all of your posts with this phrase. You are certainly a pedant and an unmitigated asshole.

We all fit those names sometimes, don't we all? But resorting to name-calling in a forum shows that you've run out of words and wit, or am I wrong?

You are also the first person to ever make it to my ignore list.

I guess that's a back-handed honour.

I'll be at a convention for the wkend, so please do not expect a reply from me till Monday.

Nice weekend.

PK

[Peach]

I can't rep bigdawg2121 at the moment, alas. Somebody do it for me?

[veeco]

Done.

[veeco]

My French MdA never used that term, not to mention our Polish or UKR MdAs. Thanks for teaching me the term.

My French Maitre d'Armes have used that term a lot, and so have my Ukrainian ones.

Oh, and by the way, it's quite common even for French speakers not to use the accents when they are typing on an English keyboard. Such as what I am doing now.

And if you want to be pedantic, "Recipe" isn't a French term, and Photos isn't spelled "fotos", neither in English, nor in French.

[Inquartata]

And there's an episode of the Britcom "Chef" which derives hilarity from the manager's pronunciation of his daughter's name as "Reenee".

Anyway, back to the subject: I forgot to mention the whimsical business about how low line attacks can't be valid because you can't beat or take them. Aside from the illogic of it, it's also untrue. I beat opponent's advancing with their blades in low line all the time.

Prise de fer: Watch Steve Mormando work with the point some time. You will see binds and envelopments aplenty.

[veeco]

Anyway, back to the subject: I forgot to mention the whimsical business about how low line attacks can't be valid because you can't beat or take them. Aside from the illogic of it, it's also untrue. I beat opponent's advancing with their blades in low line all the time.

Totally agree. I guess a stronger point could be made for the argument that they do not threaten valid target, though.

[bigdawg2121]

Anyway, back to the subject: I forgot to mention the whimsical business about how low line attacks can't be valid because you can't beat or take them. Aside from the illogic of it, it's also untrue. I beat opponent's advancing with their blades in low line all the time.

Yeah. I more or less agree. As I've said earlier, I think the problem is the situation that arrives when people are hiding/carrying their blades really far back/close to the body in a position that can't really be reached by any standard parries (think about any time you would have to reach really far and lean in toward the opponent to find the blade, thus putting yourself in a position that's relatively unlikely to reward you with successfully finding the blade and likely to find you getting hit by any sort of remotely intelligent opponent). In theory, this would still be a preparatory stage of the attack; in practice, you'll either reach really far in and make yourself very vulnerable to whatever they choose to do OR you'll attempt to attack in prep and they can finish after they see you start, even if it's just a flick of the wrist upward that starts as/barely before they're hit. If they put a light on it's theirs*.

Since a lot of refs/people don't necessarily bother calling this the correct way the FIE/Kramer have decided that they can just decree a bandage, and eliminate what should theoretically be a valid line of attack. Kinda sucks. Kinda sucks a lot.


On another note: thanks everyone.


*What's slightly more annoying (especially as a lefty) is that sometimes a low-line attack, even when incorrectly executed, will be given ROW over a correctly executed action (especially point actions) to the flank just b/c the blade/hand will usually look like it's accelerating faster

[Inquartata]

As I've said earlier, I think the problem is the situation that arrives when people are hiding/carrying their blades really far back/close to the body in a position that can't really be reached by any standard parries

Yep.


Much of this problem could be addressed by spreading a consensus interpretation of what constitutes a valid attack based on the actual written rule---as opposed to the current one, which seems to say that as long as you are advancing you can start to extend long after your opponent does and so long as you get a light it's still your attack. That way it would not be profitable to have your hand back beside your thigh while you march forward.

I have another question about this new interpretation of the low line, which perhaps Downunder or someone else close to the source can answer:

If your hand is way down by your knee, but the tip of your blade is up above waist level, is this considered to be "threatening the TARGET VALABLE" and therefore a valid position from which to attack, or is it the same as having your hand at hip level but drawn way back to your side with the blade vertical, eg preparation?

[jeff]

One of the occasions on which Inq and I are complete agreement...

[Inquartata]

Bah! Now I must return to Hell, and make my long, laborious way back here again! ( Vanishes in a puff of sulphurous smoke )