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

[dekko]

It had been mentioned before but this seems to be a POV type conversation. Sabre has always had different schools of thought regarding how calls should be made and how it should be taught, usually noted by country or region. I wonder if we may not see a polish or russian or hungarian response to this before the next WC in France(?). I doubt they will do a video though, would be nice.

I too will need to watch it a few times but the first time through did have a 'feel' problem concerning the pulling distance portion. The point in line reinforcement is interesting and will cause lots of interesting conversations on strip.

I also want to thank downunder for posting this and his friend for hosting this large file. This will give sabre fencers, coaches and refs lots to think about in the coming weeks and months.

If anyone in Dallas can video any refs or coaches meeting discussing this and post it that would help lots of us who can't be there understand at least the first step refs are expected to take regaridng this information.

[sheck]

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

I don't like this complete eradication of the low line attack but I do like the removal of right of way for people whose tips are by their feet etc.

I agree with this 100%. It has gotten way out of hand IMHO.

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

The question that I have is whether actions that still keep the point on frame but are lower than the opposing action will be penalized. I can foresee that being a huge problem especially when these interpretations are first being spread.

Also replay in most cases will not be available. Having the ability to review the action is a big plus.

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by dekko

This will give sabre fencers, coaches and refs lots to think about in the coming weeks and months.

Foil fencers, coaches, and referees too.. If the FIE is at all consistent, the general principles expressed in the DVD must apply to foil as well. However, it may be that the issue with the low attack in sabre won't apply to foil, since foil has the concept of the off-target attack which nevertheless must be defended against. We'll see.

[sheck]

Originally Posted by dekko

It had been mentioned before but this seems to be a POV type conversation. Sabre has always had different schools of thought regarding how calls should be made and how it should be taught, usually noted by country or region. I wonder if we may not see a polish or russian or hungarian response to this before the next WC in France(?). I doubt they will do a video though, would be nice..

From watching the SP WC videos it looks like they have already started. I saw where calls were reversed for low line vs. high line. There is one in the France - Hungary team match that is a very critical reversal.

[gladius]

Originally Posted by edew

With regards to the "distance parry", I am well aware that the term is colloquial. But we all recognize that a cut that falls short because the defender steps away does end the attack and the right of way of the attacker and the defender (the one who jumped back) can take over right of way. Otherwise, the finger-from-the-ear referee hand signal would be meaningless and 90% of saber fencing's defensive actions would have to go out the window.

The issue, which is clear to me when I watch the video and hear what they are saying, is what is an ATTACK and what is NOT an attack, and consequently WHEN does the ATTACK "dissolve" to use their term, or when does it end, giving origin to the next action.

Originally Posted by edew

I am not going to, based on what was stated on the video about retreating out of distance IS NOT A PARRY (fine, so it's not a parry), tell my students to stand their ground and make parries in saber (and to a degree, in foil as well). That would just be plain suicide.

I'm not entering a technical discussion I am not qualified to hold, but what the Maestri are discussing here is the sport of fencing, not a duel, where obviously certain tactics which may be effective on the strip, would be indeed suicidal or better murder-suicide in a duel. This is just my common sense interpretation and I'll tell you what the real experts say.

Originally Posted by edew

The issue is not whether it's called a parry or evasion or fente, feinte, fuet, fark or funky chicken. The issue is whether the right of way of the attack has ended or not...

No, I believe the issue is whether or when the ATTACK has ended, THEN the ROW is lost. The horses are in front of the cart, not the other way around. So we go back to the original question, raised many times in the video by Polish, French and Italians, of WHAT IS AN ATTACK. ROW is a "privilege" you have in saber and foil if and only if you execute a proper attack which you maintain as long as your attack continues and does not "dissolve."

Originally Posted by edew

If there's hesitation on both parties, then it's a free for all and whichever fencer who goes first gets the RoW.

Again, you confuse ROW with ATTACK.

Originally Posted by edew

Nowhere is there any requirement that either fencer must move fast or with power. Just as long as the takeover is done and a continuous threat to the opponent is maintained, the right of way is effectively passed from the initial attacker to the defender who successfully avoided that attack.

I believe that what is meant is that the attacker finishes his attack when he does something or his opponents parries therefore the opponents earns ROW when the original attack has dissolved.


These are just my personal comments. An expert will confirm or refute them. I'll keep you posted.

In any case, for me this is all clear in theory. There is no mystery and nothing "new" but for the FIE desire to bring in line the inconsistency in and among referees and opinions which are obviously going around. In actual practice, I am the first to recognize that visually to discern all this clearly each and every time, even with the aid of slo-mo replay, is very difficult. This remains a problem, but right now the real problem, addressed by this DVD which is produced after all by Cramer and the FIE, is more one of philosophy and direction as these discussions are the evident proof of the confusion that reigns at least around here about the fundamental principles that govern or should govern the sport of fencing.

I have not heard any expert of the caliber in the video objecting to anything said in the video. And, other than language used, I don't see any discrepancy or bias, certainly not against the East Europeans or Russians. And if anyone thinks that this is the usual fight between Maestri or coaches and referees (as a class) check on the interview Serge Timacheff did with Marco Siesto, universally recognized as one of the best, if not the best saber referee in the world. He said exactly the same things regarding the "low line attack" in saber. So, get used to it.

[bigdawg2121]

Foil also has that extra bit of low line target.

[dekko]

Remember, the rules for ROW are the same for foil and sabre but since sabre is an edge weapon this is the reason for the perceived difference.

As for the video of the touches from the team event and the animation of the ref's call in the upper corner, I am wondering if that is how the action was supposed to be called or how it was called and now we need to change the way those actions are called. Does anyone know the distinction?

As for the low line attack, someone else mentioned no doubt half joking but if the point is at the ceiling how can that be attacking valid area. Also, if my edge is headed for the target why would it matter if it is above or below the waist. One of the guys showing the action seems to put forth that because the low line attack opens up the target on the top of the arm this is part of the reason it's not a good attack but every attack leaves target area open hence the ROW rules. There are lots of countries and schools of teaching that will be hurt by this one unless there is further clarification and allowances made.

Either way, this video seems to have shaken lots of conversations loose from many corners.

[sheck]

Originally Posted by gladius

T

I have not heard any expert of the caliber in the video objecting to anything said in the video. And, other than language used, I don't see any discrepancy or bias, certainly not against the East Europeans or Russians. And if anyone thinks that this is the usual fight between Maestri or coaches and referees (as a class) check on the interview Serge Timacheff did with Marco Siesto, universally recognized as one of the best, if not the best saber referee in the world. He said exactly the same things regarding the "low line attack" in saber. So, get used to it.

I would think the Russians are not that happy with some of these changes.

See this Yakimenko interview.

http://fencing-future.com/cntnt/eng/...erview_10.html

By the way the English translation is poor. I am not sure if he is talking about the same things. Seems a bit strange. May be someone that knows Russian can make a better one?

[keith]

Originally Posted by sheck

I would think the Russians are not that happy with some of these changes.

See this Yakimenko interview.

http://fencing-future.com/cntnt/eng/...erview_10.html

By the way the English translation is poor. May be someone that knows Russian can make a better one?

... that reads more as a complaint about video reply; no complex action looks correct in slow motion.

[sheck]

Originally Posted by keith

... that reads more as a complaint about video reply; no complex action looks correct in slow motion.

But replay was around before the WUG? He specifically points out some experiment took place at the WUG. I wouldn't be surprised if some of it was part of this. As has been mentioned it would be interesting to hear the Russian view point.

[Platonist]

Originally Posted by edew

I think, in the context of the low-line action, and the video replays that seems to be almost always against the russians, the italians and others are trying to influence the referees to make calls against Podzniakov. Podz loves to do the low-line flip to the wrist. Now, the coaches are teaches their fencers to attack the moment Podz is in that position and with this influence to the refs, will know that they will get the call.

(Note that there were no east european coaches interviewed. Nor American coaches like Korfanty or Burdan, despite the attempt to have English translation posted.)

Thank you. I agree that your speculation is very very possible.

[yowsers]

Originally Posted by edew

(Note that there were no east european coaches interviewed. Nor American coaches like Korfanty or Burdan, despite the attempt to have English translation posted.)

I find the smug attitude of the experts in this video irritating, especially the last person to speak, who asserts that referees need to do a better job at peril of hurting the sport. Such a statement after 40 minutes that are certain to add to the already notable confusion in saber conventions!

The more I think about this video, the more I believe that this video is an attempt to put an end to the Eastern European, especially Russian (Soviet), style of fencing, in which low line attacks and footwork-based defense are paramount.

I also received the impression from the video that a defender must parry an attack to obtain right of way, not simply retreat, using distance to evade the attack.

Consider:
1. Fencer X retreats from fencer Y's attack, causing it to fail (explicitly allowed by the rules, btw)
2. Fencer X begins an immediate attack, while fencer Y makes a second attack at the same time.
3. Both fencers hit valid.

Who gets the touch?

Before this video, I would have said X, without a doubt. After this video, I'm not so sure, and that is a big problem because it would be a stunning (and, I would assert, untenable) change to the way saber is fenced.

EDIT: Looking at the rulebook, 4 C II 2 (in article t.80, on page 25), there doesn't appear to be any priority given to the fencer who attacks after successfully avoiding an attack:

The fencer who attacks is alone counted as touched:
(a) If he initiated his attack when his opponent had his point ‘in
line’ and without deflecting the opponent’s weapon. Referees
must ensure that a mere grazing of the blades is not
considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent’s blade.
(b) If he attempts to find the blade, does not succeed (because of
a derobement) and continues the attack.
(c) If, during a compound attack, he allows his opponent to find
the blade, and continues the attack while his opponent
ripostes immediately.
(d) If, during a compound attack, he bends his arm or makes a
momentary pause, during which time the opponent makes a
stop hit or an attack while the attacker continues his own
attack.
(e) If, during a compound attack, he is stop-hit one period of
fencing time (temps d’escrime) before he makes his final
movement.
(f) If he makes a touch by a remise, redoublement or reprise
following a parry by his opponent which has been followed
by a riposte which is immediate, simple and executed in one
period of fencing time without withdrawing the arm.

But earlier in the rulebook:

t.75 (a) Any attack properly executed (cf. t.7) must be parried, or
completely avoided, and the phrase must be followed through.

So, completely avoiding an attack seems to end the phrase. But if Fencer X and Y attack at the same time after X avoided Y's attack, then what we have is a simultaneous attack, not an attack from X and counter-attack from Y.

Also, we should note:

t.70 The saber is a weapon for thrusting and cutting with the cutting
edge, the flat and the back of the blade.
(a) All touches made with the cutting edge, the flat or the back of
the blade are counted as good (cuts and back-cuts).

If back-cuts are legal, then a fencer should be able to threaten the bottom of an opponent's arm with a low-line attack. This example seems to be an successful, but unaddressed, counterargument to the uncontested assertations made by the experts in this video that a low-line attack cannot be threatening a valid surface.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

I've only watched the first half of the video so far but a few observations:

1. For the love of {insert appropriate deity-unit here}, hire a professional camera-person next time! And an audio guy wouldn't be such a bad idea, either. The $25 camera mike on top of the home movie camera is not your friend.

2. Most people, Christian especially, do not feel very comfortable with the camera six inches from their nose. Step back a little.

OK, now to the minor stuff:

I found it curious that after nine minutes of trashing the low line attack, the first video example (at 9:46) shows the Romanian attacking from the left, blade up, but then dipping the blade all the way down to the floor, then back up, and finishing with a downward cut. The Ukrainian starts low, but makes a direct and smooth sweep up to what appears to be a flank cut. Both blades, at some point, dip below the knee. Yet the guy who started high and made three blade elevation changes gets the touch. Go figure.

Originally Posted by yowsers

If back-cuts are legal, then a fencer should be able to threaten the bottom of an opponent's arm with a low-line attack. This example seems to be an successful, but unaddressed, counterargument to the uncontested assertations made by the experts in this video that a low-line attack cannot be threatening a valid surface.

Removing this seemingly legal attack mode may be a big problem for the USA women's saber team, most of whom having been making a good living off the stop cut or backhand cut up to the bottom of the arm from the lowline.

I'm no conspiracy theorist here (and you can check with my friend, Mr. Grassie Knollguy, for verification) but one wonders if the genesis of this "clarification" wasn't an attempt by certain interests to counter the success of the fencing disciplines that frequently employ the lowline.

[yowsers]

Removing this seemingly legal attack mode may be a big problem for the USA women's saber team, most of whom having been making a good living off the stop cut or backhand cut up to the bottom of the arm from the lowline.

I had the exact same thought. Whenever I see Rebecca Ward fencing on tape, it seems like most of her attacks are underneath the arm.

So, the moment a fencer dips her point to cut under the arm, her attack is suddenly over, or has reverted to preparation, or what?

[Platonist]

It seems that way, yowsers. When your cutting edge no longer threatens target, you are in preparation.

[keith]

Originally Posted by yowsers

So, the moment a fencer dips her point to cut under the arm, her attack is suddenly over, or has reverted to preparation, or what?

no no we are simply returning to the good old days where the attacking fencer had to demonstrate (via the positioning of the guard) that the attack is being made with a valid surface*.




*I think I am joking.

[yowsers]

But the current rules specifically state that the flat of the blade can be used to score a touch, not just the "cutting edge."

So, if I can slap you on the bottom of your arm with the flat of my blade (which is by the way is one of my favorite attacks when I fence saber), how can carrying my blade in the low line not threatening target?

It seems like these guys just want to get rid of low line attack. Why bother teaching parry 2? If your opponent attacks in low line, just counterattack to head with a direct cut. You'll be attacking in his preparation, even if you both hit at the same time.

This outcome seems ridiculous, and these experts smugly talk about this turn of events as if it has always been this way.

[keith]

Originally Posted by yowsers

But the current rules specifically state that the flat of the blade can be used to score a touch, not just the "cutting edge."

I suspect what they want to get rid of is the 'corruptions' introduced during the transition to electric sabre. The use of the flat to score a touch is against the character of a cutting weapon

Perhaps a little inquisition smiley could be added to the video at appropriate moments?

[yowsers]

Originally Posted by keith

I suspect what they want to get rid of is the 'corruptions' introduced during the transition to electric sabre. The use of the flat to score a touch is against the character of a cutting weapon

How nice for them that they can release this video and do away with the flat of the blade as a valid way to score a touch. However, the rulebook, which one of the experts says "is very well written", still states that the flat of the blade can be used to score the touch.

The rulebook also says that grazing touches and point touches that pass should not be counted. However, we know with the current scoring machines, both of these types of touches will register a valid touch. I would like to see a referee say that a saber fencer's thrust was passe and therefore not counted, despite the same fencer's lamp being illuminated on the scoring machine.

I also want to say that it is irritating that these experts seek to silence any debate on their assertions by prattling off all their various titles and the titles of their students. I'm willing to wager that there are coaches not interviewed in this video with equal or better credentials who will disagree with what they are saying. For example, I would like to see a reply from the various coaches and fencers of the Russian school.