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

[oso97]

Some of the things in the video make sense, but I'm confused by the calls that appear to indicate an immediate continuation of the attack still takes ROW.

If I understand what they're saying (and this jives with a conversation I had recently), it makes a difference weather the continuation is with a redoublement, a reprise or a remise.

[Platonist]

I prefer sabre fencing as it is now. The ability to gain priority by making the opponent miss gives sabre the back-and-forth that basically defines the sport, and in modern sabre extending in low line threatens target - the arm/wrist since you can attack with the flat of the blade.

Seems like they're fixing what ain't broke.

[Goldgar]

If I understand what they're saying (and this jives with a conversation I had recently), it makes a difference weather the continuation is with a redoublement, a reprise or a remise.

That's not the way I interpret the video. The crucial factor is that the return attack or counterattack must start before the continuation. Any delay or hesitation on the part of the defender affords the attacker an opportunity to renew the attack. That's the end of the rather large window that has often been given to the defender in this situation.

[Goldgar]

I prefer sabre fencing as it is now. The ability to gain priority by making the opponent miss gives sabre the back-and-forth that basically defines the sport, and in modern sabre extending in low line threatens target - the arm/wrist since you can attack with the flat of the blade.

You can still gain priority by making the opponent miss. But you have to act immediately.

I see your point about the threat to arm/wrist from the low position. I can conceive of arguments on both sides of that one.

[Platonist]

Yep, I think we're mostly in agreement. I mean clearly the defender should not have an opportunity to grab a light snack before starting. However, one of the examples in the video awards a touch to the remise without even giving the defender a chance to overcome his momentum. That's too strict an interpretation, since to make a good opponent miss you are probably going to be travelling backwards pretty fast, too fast to be able to put on the brakes instantaneously.

[yowsers]

Seeing as this video has "FIE Arbitrage" at the beginning of it, I suspect it is indeed "gospel."

Some revelations to me are:

1) If a saber fencer attacks with the point with a lunge and fails (the opponent retreats), but leaves the point in line, the point in line continues to have priority until the attacker or opponent removes the line.

2) An attack "from below" is considered a preparation if the opponent attacks in the high line first. The reasoning of this interpretation appears two-fold:
- An attack "from below" is threatening the legs, which are not valid target.
- An attack "from below" is very difficult to parry or beat.

3) One of the interviewees seems to imply that if an attack-au-fer is properly executed, there should be only one light on the machine. If there are two lights on the machine, the fencer executed an arret which was parried, rather than an attaque-au-fer.


Far be it from me to argue with the FIE. However, all three of these points seem to be new to me, although I now understand the video they use for examples of phrase d'armes much better (2005 world championships, I believe).


The concluding point, that coaches and referees must have an ongoing dialogue so that they do not have different ideas about fencing, is perhaps the most important point in the video.

[Goldgar]

Yep, I think we're mostly in agreement. I mean clearly the defender should not have an opportunity to grab a light snack before starting. However, one of the examples in the video awards a touch to the remise without even giving the defender a chance to overcome his momentum. That's too strict an interpretation, since to make a good opponent miss you are probably going to be travelling backwards pretty fast, too fast to be able to put on the brakes instantaneously.

I'm not sure that's the reason for the call you're talking about. Without knowing exactly which one you mean, I remember that there was at least one where the attacker's renewed action was awarded because (as I saw it) the defender dropped his blade to low line before attacking.

[Goldgar]

One of the interviewees seems to imply that if an attack-au-fer is properly executed, there should be only one light on the machine. If there are two lights on the machine, the fencer executed an arret which was parried, rather than an attaque-au-fer.

I'll have to go back and review it to be sure, but that's not what I understood him to be saying. I remember it being pointed out that, if you make a prise-de-fer counterattack -- *not* an attaque au fer -- you must not be touched. That has always been the case, but the point being made was (I thought) that many referees have not been distinguishing prise-de-fer actions from attaque-au-fer actions.

I'm certainly going to have to watch it again.

[the ancient one]

I wonder how many years back we can appeal?




No I am not serious.

[KD5MDK]

None, given so far the discussion has all been about points of fact.

[jeff]

Andrew, could you specify the time into the video (minutes/seconds) of the calls?

The smiley must have come from the ex-Microsoft person who invented "Clippy"!

[fencerbill]

Some revelations to me are:

1) If a saber fencer attacks with the point with a lunge and fails (the opponent retreats), but leaves the point in line, the point in line continues to have priority until the attacker or opponent removes the line.

First, I apologize that my seven year old computer and ssloooww DSL have kept me from viewing it.

Are you talking about a point attack from on guard or point attack from point in line?

Since they have been saying you can attack with the point from point in line, I have been curious about what follows when your attack is short.

You have never removed your point in line, does it still have point in line status and must be removed?

On the other hand, if you make a point attack from on guard and leave your point on target with arm fully extended in a straight line from the shoulder, have you seamlessly established your PIL such that a so-called distance parry is not enough, your PIL must be removed?

[yowsers]

On the other hand, if you make a point attack from on guard and leave your point on target with arm fully extended in a straight line from the shoulder, have you seamlessly established your PIL such that a so-called distance parry is not enough, your PIL must be removed?

That is what the experts in the video seem to be implying.

[Goldgar]

Since they have been saying you can attack with the point from point in line, I have been curious about what follows when your attack is short.

You have never removed your point in line, does it still have point in line status and must be removed?

Yes.

On the other hand, if you make a point attack from on guard and leave your point on target with arm fully extended in a straight line from the shoulder, have you seamlessly established your PIL such that a so-called distance parry is not enough, your PIL must be removed?

Yes.

[yowsers]

I'll have to go back and review it to be sure, but that's not what I understood him to be saying. I remember it being pointed out that, if you make a prise-de-fer counterattack -- *not* an attaque au fer -- you must not be touched. That has always been the case, but the point being made was (I thought) that many referees have not been distinguishing prise-de-fer actions from attaque-au-fer actions.

I'm certainly going to have to watch it again.

I'm going to have to watch this video about a dozen times. One of the points I got was that pris-de-fer is extremely rare in saber (I guess that they are thinking of a pris-de-fer as a blade transfer e.g., bind). So, they use the term attaque-au-fer (press, beat, or expulsion followed by a cut) instead. The refreeing mistake that appeared to be discussed was distinguishing between the Arret (stop-cut/counterattack) (?) and an attaque au fer.

Bill Oliver just wrote to fencingofficials@yahoo.com:

Yes, the interpretation of the attack has changed recently. The FIE Arbitrage Commission has determined that actions which begin in low line are preparations, and that there is no "parry by distance."

The FOC is currently discussing the ramifications of this, and will have something by the referee's meeting on Friday, at the Dallas NAC.

[AndrewH]

Andrew, could you specify the time into the video (minutes/seconds) of the calls?

The smiley must have come from the ex-Microsoft person who invented "Clippy"!

Take a look at 27:45, as well as the action that comes right after it.

[keith]

The refreeing mistake that appeared to be discussed was distinguishing between the Arret (stop-cut/counterattack) (?) and an attaque au fer.

That was what I saw from the video - a stop hit (arret) with opposition is not a parry, attaque au fer, or a pris-de-fer; it is a stop hit and must be treated as such in assigning priority.

[jeff]

Take a look at 27:45, as well as the action that comes right after it.

Will do. That looks like a Biblical reference, doesn't it?

I'm slowly trolling through this (I was on conference calls till a few minutes ago, and the sounds of fencing Italian and French - not to mention the fencers yelling - would have attracted unwanted attention). I'm boggling a little bit at how different the video's instructions are from current local practice.

The PiL portion Goldgar, yowzers, and fencerbill refer to is around the 17th minute. It's stated explicitly that a short point attack gains PiL immediately. No distance parry. No "if you hold the line a tempo before the other guy attacks". None of that: a hanging short point attack gets PiL. I don't disagree, but it sure as heck is contrary to how reffing has been done. Didn't we rehash this very subject just a few weeks ago?

So, what's the time frame for all this to filter down from Olympus?

[KD5MDK]

Will do. That looks like a Biblical reference, doesn't it?

Now refereeing gets to have even more literalists.

I'm slowly trolling through this (I was on conference calls till a few minutes ago, and the sounds of fencing Italian and French - not to mention the fencers yelling - would have attracted unwanted attention).

That's what mute is for. Or were you the one person talking*

So, what's the time frame for all this to filter down from Olympus?

We'll find out at Dallas.



* Going from my experience with conference calls.

[jeff]

Or were you the one person talking

I was giving a presentation, so it wasn't the usual "omigod this boring call is going on forever and all the oxygen has been sucked out of the room". Still, I had my mouse position right next to "Play"...