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

[oldguy31]

It seems to me as if many of those interviewed were not especially excited about what they were saying...especially Christian Bauer...gave me paranoid thoughts about undue influence that someone else alluded to...

[Platonist]

Ok...if you want to get technical..the saber is known as a cutting weapon instead of a point weapon ie you can cut with the edge as well as the point whereas foil and epee are point weapons....

the back side of the blade until the heavy armored calvary days....was DULL and not a cutting surface....so point your blade down at my feet and basically you are threatening me with a club....so you are right....its not at attack....and the exception to the rule is get a one light....they cant argue with that...but otherwise...I mean you want to get technical a slap with the blade in not an "attack" either

But even more basic is....they make the rules...we fence by them....if you dont like them...well....tough...I really dont think the FIE are gonna change them...especially seeing as they arent "new" rules but them pointing out that these are the rules and should be followed...

R

Red herring all the way through. I don't mean to be uncharitable but you have one argument based on the history of the weapon, which is irrelevant, and one which is based on the authority of "they", the same "they" whose interpretation of the rules I am challenging.

I will have to wait a while to see the video, but I will venture a few remarks now.

1) "FIE Arbitage", my snowy white you-know-what. I have it on excellent authority that this new treatment of the low line is the cherished brain child of one man and one man alone, albeit one with the power to force these things through. ( What the heck is it with the FIE? Must everything, at every level, be decided by strong-man fiat? )

2) Same authority says that the interpreation is applied only while said individual is present and ignored otherwise. Sadly, this will probably change, if referees wish to be used in future.

I have tried to think about this in other ways but unfortunately, this is a conclusion that I have inevitably arrived at. I actually think some of the video contained good points, like the bit about PIL and how retracting the arm is preparation. But then they threw in the "low line is not an attack" as though it were just as clearly so. Clever, and very suspicious.

4) You HAVE to do a blade parry or there is no end to an attack? What? With the close lockout time we have been handed? The sport will become ALL about remises and stop-cuts, rather than just 75%...

I agree, call it what you will, the end of the attack needs to be treated like the attacker was parried or else sabre is going to look very ugly very soon (I think this is what you meant, correct me if I'm wrong). However, I don't think it's quite as bad as that... from what I gather, at the end of the attack the defender has an instantaneous window to take over.

Anyway, I might be splitting hairs. I think that the defender should get "his turn" after he makes the attacker miss, at least a chance to stop his momentum and take over. Even under this new interpretation, though, I think the defender will have some chance to do so, even if the window is tiny. You seem to be very knowledgeable and informed, so I'd appreciate it if you'd correct my understanding if necessary.

[oldguy31]

I cannot understand the call at 28: 26. The first attack with point is short, attack no. There is no remise, the fencer is WITHDRAWING his arm as the new attack comes from the right!! Even with the new interpretation, I can't see the justification for awarding the touch for the fencer on the left!?!

[oldguy31]

BTW, no examples from Women's Sabre...still stuck in a certain mindset the dear old FIE is....

[oldguy31]

And why oh why is this being done in an OLYMPIC YEAR???

Sorry I will be quiet now.....

[keith]

And why oh why is this being done in an OLYMPIC YEAR???

... because they hate America.

The USFA should designate the DivI championship at summer nationals the world championship and just be done with the FIE.

[pkt]

... 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.

Too strict an interpretation?

Covaliu could be seen in various videos to cock his sabre ever so lightly before his cut, and in spite of the fact that his arm was still going fwd, and the attacks were in most other respects simultaneous, he's been called "pull" : his weapon no longer threatens the valid target since it's out of the obtuse angle that defines a sabre attack.

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

You can argue and disagree all you can with the FIE, but them's the rules, them's the latest interpretation, if you can't adapt - like if you can't learn to flèche in the new manner - guess what happens when you're reffed by an FIE A or B ref or the top ranked refs in the USFA?

What the FIE are doing with this video - and I agree 100% with what they are doing - is to provide some arguments and visual proof to back up the arguments.

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

The 1st "Phrase d'armes" after the "Redoublement, remise... " section was actually a counter-riposte: L-attack; R-parry and riposte; and finally L-counter-riposte in 5.

In the examples for redoublement and remise, Fencer R didn't help his own cause because in both case his sabre was "NOT THREATENING THE VALID TARGET", i.e. below his waist.

Happy chopping,
PK

[pkt]

I cannot understand the call at 28: 26. The first attack with point is short, attack no. There is no remise, the fencer is WITHDRAWING his arm as the new attack comes from the right!! Even with the new interpretation, I can't see the justification for awarding the touch for the fencer on the left!?!

Hey oldguy,

I guess you didn't read or didn't want to accept what all 4 fencing masters in the video said.

In the "Remise" Phrase d'armes" all fencer-R did was "distance parry". It was repeated 4 or 5 times that the only correct action is to parry the attack.

1. The attack was with a point.
2. There was NO parry.
3. The line THREATENING THE VALID TARGET S STILL EXISTS.
4. Fencer-R attacked into a line.
5. Fencer-R's action is therefore a counter-attack.
6. He had no right of way.

The emphasis of the 4 masters was that
1. "Distance parry" is a valid action, but it does NOT give one the right to "riposte".
2. If the attacked fencer acts against the attack - WITHOUT PARRYING - then the action is a counter-attack.

Obviously, if fencer-L didn't do anything after the attack ended - and didn't have a PIL - and Fencer R started an attack FIRST, that'd be another story. This is what the FMasters esp. Bauer was talking about... whoever attacks FIRST after the cessation of the 1st action that's the attack.

Is that concept that difficult to grasp?

The easiest thing to do, of course, is to have only one-light hits. Then there'd be no debate, no discussion, like the "Phrase d'armes" starting at 28:43 showing the remise on Fencer-R's wrist against the riposte.

Have fun fencing,

PK

[KShan5[PrFC]]

So what if you have to simultaneous low line "attacks" in the middle. Since they're no longer considered attacks, what are they?

Also, what if there are two low line attacks in the middle, but one person clearly started first? I would assume you'd just give it as attack-counter, but can you seeing as there are no low line attacks?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

After watching the video all the way through, and especially watching the delivery of the material, I came away with a couple of indelible impressions:

1. There is an element or elements in the FIE that is staunchly traditionalist and believes that certain saber actions have corrupted the historic lynch-pins of the sport. Phrases like "the real meaning of fencing" and "the old fencing treatises" seem a good indicator of their mindset.

2. There are many references to the rulebook like "The rulebook is very well written" or "You have to simply be obedient to the rulebook" or "The rulebook is very clear." Yet, the demonstrators seem to have sometimes deliberately chosen only the parts of the rulebook that buttress their traditionalist milieu. When the presenter shows what constitutes the hand/blade positions for a correct attack, he only shows cuts with the front edge of the blade to the head, flank and back, and a thrust with the point. He studiously ignores 50% of the other ways to score:

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).

Remember, we have to simply be obedient to the rule book.

He makes a great deal out of continously threatening the "surface valable," but choses to only consider the edge and point as having the ability to threaten. The exclusion of the flat and back of the blade appears deliberate. You have to wonder why?

When the give and take about the invalidity of the low line attack was in full gear, I wish the guy off camera had just reached up with the back of the blade and smacked the underside of the lecturer's arm and said: "Did that touch the surface valable? Was the back of the blade continously threatening the surface valable on the underside of the lame arm all the way up from when the saber was pointing at your knee? Can you score a touch with the back of the blade?"

But those questions weren't asked, because that's not a subject or discussion the makers of this DVD want to encourage. It's pretty clear what they've put on their agenda for cleaning up saber fencing, and it appears to have a fair bit of disingenuousness in it.

[Rick Shellhouse]

Red herring all the way through. I don't mean to be uncharitable but you have one argument based on the history of the weapon, which is irrelevant, and one which is based on the authority of "they", the same "they" whose interpretation of the rules I am challenging.

Well....I understand you aren't happy with them and are challenging them....let me know how that works out for you...

Its real simple....

if you are not threatening valid target its not an attack...

The FIE as the governing body of the sport decided what is considered threatening valid target

They say a low line is not threatening valid target ( I agree)

That about sums it up...


Everybody can argue semantics....if the back of the blade counts? does a low line threaten target? do the timings ruin the sport? are lexans the evil tool of the Europeans?


All of this doesn't matter unless you are arguing it in front of the FIE Congress... they have a meeting in a couple of weeks.....maybe it will be brought up there....I really doubt it...with the FIE election next year I think other things are on the agenda...


Regardless if it is a GRAND conspiracy..... them the breaks....ignore them in your club..high school...whichever....but Im willing to bet if the FOC decides to adopt them (like they do most) you'll see it at NAC's and Summer Nationals...and it will filter from there...You can argue it all you want on the piste...but I doubt the high level refs will listen...

[fencerbill]

So what if you have to simultaneous low line "attacks" in the middle. Since they're no longer considered attacks, what are they?

Also, what if there are two low line attacks in the middle, but one person clearly started first? I would assume you'd just give it as attack-counter, but can you seeing as there are no low line attacks?

If it has appeared on the scoring machine, it must have been an attack for at least 15 milliseconds (That is the latest contact time - I think).

The fencers who deliberately attack to the leg and then drag the blade up onto the Lame must drive the maestros crazy.

[edew]

[...]
But those questions weren't asked, because that's not a subject or discussion the makers of this DVD want to encourage. It's pretty clear what they've put on their agenda for cleaning up saber fencing, and it appears to have a fair bit of disingenuousness in it.

Saber's rather clean. Foil is about as ugly as you can get: attack, parry step-in with remise, missed riposte, rinse, repeat.

Saber at least follow some sort of back-and-forth.

Apparently, it's not cleaning up, but rather helping to buttress the former strongholds who can't adapt and need legislative assistance to stay alive.

[forethought]

After watching the video all the way through, and especially watching the delivery of the material, I came away with a couple of indelible impressions:

1. There is an element or elements in the FIE that is staunchly traditionalist and believes that certain saber actions have corrupted the historic lynch-pins of the sport. Phrases like "the real meaning of fencing" and "the old fencing treatises" seem a good indicator of their mindset.

2. There are many references to the rulebook like "The rulebook is very well written" or "You have to simply be obedient to the rulebook" or "The rulebook is very clear." Yet, the demonstrators seem to have sometimes deliberately chosen only the parts of the rulebook that buttress their traditionalist milieu. When the presenter shows what constitutes the hand/blade positions for a correct attack, he only shows cuts with the front edge of the blade to the head, flank and back, and a thrust with the point. He studiously ignores 50% of the other ways to score:
Remember, we have to simply be obedient to the rule book.

He makes a great deal out of continously threatening the "surface valable," but choses to only consider the edge and point as having the ability to threaten. The exclusion of the flat and back of the blade appears deliberate. You have to wonder why?

When the give and take about the invalidity of the low line attack was in full gear, I wish the guy off camera had just reached up with the back of the blade and smacked the underside of the lecturer's arm and said: "Did that touch the surface valable? Was the back of the blade continously threatening the surface valable on the underside of the lame arm all the way up from when the saber was pointing at your knee? Can you score a touch with the back of the blade?"

But those questions weren't asked, because that's not a subject or discussion the makers of this DVD want to encourage. It's pretty clear what they've put on their agenda for cleaning up saber fencing, and it appears to have a fair bit of disingenuousness in it.

IMHO, the maestri in the video adhere to a much more traditional theory on what fencing is: yes, it is a sport, but it is a sport that has descended from swordplay, and it seems to me that is what the FIE is trying to mold fencing back into, instead of the current trend of having it be simply "tag with extremely flexible metal sticks". Examples to this change include trying to eliminate the flick from foil (though the cure has become nearly as bad as the disease), and, most recently, this notion that an attack from the low-line is not valid in sabre. Now a lot people have voiced the question along the lines of, "Who does Old Europe think they are, trying to tell the world how to fence?" I dunno, maybe the center for Western fencing, which is where our sport descends from? That, coupled with the fact that they've had about half a millennium more time in the development and practice of swordplay than the US, I'd say that carries some weight too.

Now, as to the reference in the rulebook stating that the entire surface of the sabre blade being able to score, of course they had to put it in there, there is no simple, or even mildly complex way of eliminating the side and/or back of the blade from the circuit in sabre, and the FIE couldn't possibly say that only attacks with the edge and point count, because the game is too fast and there's no way to distinguish most times which part of the blade hit the target. Video replay is a tedious option at best, and the results would still be hard to conclude.

I'm not saying that the FIE is trying to change sport fencing into historical fencing, nor would I want that to be the case, but what I am saying is that I believe they are trying to preserve the roots, tradition and image of fencing, which is something not only do I approve of, but I embrace as well.

[Goldgar]

So what if you have to simultaneous low line "attacks" in the middle. Since they're no longer considered attacks, what are they?

Also, what if there are two low line attacks in the middle, but one person clearly started first? I would assume you'd just give it as attack-counter, but can you seeing as there are no low line attacks?

I expect you'd have to make a judgement as to which fencer first brought the blade up above the waist, unless they did that simultaneously, too. Could get ugly.

[Draven]

after watching the video I see nothing new, merely a clarification of how and why things are called the way they have been at the highest levels of fencing for as long as I can remember.

[oldguy31]

Hey oldguy,

I guess you didn't read or didn't want to accept what all 4 fencing masters in the video said.

In the "Remise" Phrase d'armes" all fencer-R did was "distance parry". It was repeated 4 or 5 times that the only correct action is to parry the attack.

1. The attack was with a point.
2. There was NO parry.
3. The line THREATENING THE VALID TARGET S STILL EXISTS.
4. Fencer-R attacked into a line.
5. Fencer-R's action is therefore a counter-attack.
6. He had no right of way.

The emphasis of the 4 masters was that
1. "Distance parry" is a valid action, but it does NOT give one the right to "riposte".
2. If the attacked fencer acts against the attack - WITHOUT PARRYING - then the action is a counter-attack.

Obviously, if fencer-L didn't do anything after the attack ended - and didn't have a PIL - and Fencer R started an attack FIRST, that'd be another story. This is what the FMasters esp. Bauer was talking about... whoever attacks FIRST after the cessation of the 1st action that's the attack.

Is that concept that difficult to grasp?

The easiest thing to do, of course, is to have only one-light hits. Then there'd be no debate, no discussion, like the "Phrase d'armes" starting at 28:43 showing the remise on Fencer-R's wrist against the riposte.

Have fun fencing,

PK

Dear PK,

You miss my point. The fencer on the left is withdrawing his arm during his so-called remise. Perhaps under slow-motion he appears to be holding a line, but under full speed it is clear that he his withdrawing his arm subsequent to his failed attack.

New interpretations or no, this is no remise.

[bigdawg2121]

That's kind of a hasty statement Draven. I mostly agree with you through most of the video but keep in mind that even these high level fencers and refs don't always agree with the call. The guy in the top corner isn't making the same call as the actual ref did a decent portion of the time.

[the ancient one]

My first question is about the legitimacy of the DVD.

http://www.fie.ch/download/letters/2...uly%202007.pdf

With several members absent (probably normal but...) at the meeting which was held in Algeria the meeting minutes report:

"July 7th to 9th Algiers Algeria....

The Commission watched the Sabre Refereeing DVD prepared by Arthur Cramer and approved it in principle. Not all the commission was present and also translations into the working languages of the FIE would be needed before it could be used.
..."

How would have George K. have weighed in if he had attended?

"Approved in principle" is not necessarily an unconditional endorsement, and the minutes specifically mention that "not all of the commission was present."

So is this just a splinter group taking advantage of a lightly attended session or does it really have the full and proper endorsement of the FIE?

[yowsers]

The guy in the top corner isn't making the same call as the actual ref did a decent portion of the time.

This is an important point. I've studied the video from which the examples are taken many times to improve my saber refereeing. Some of the calls I have never understood. It would interesting to find those examples on the original video and compare the call that was actually made to the call the FIE endorses.

I am certain of one thing, however. No yellow cards were given to any fencers for crossing forward (fleche) in any of the bouts.