Disturbing discussion on Sabre Right of way

[Draven]

I just returned from Atlanta, where I had a very disturbing discussion with two well respected and high level referees about the way right of way is being called in saber. To sum up their position (to the best of my understanding):

1) The fast attack always has the right of way
2) The attack that covers the most distance has right of way.

I was appalled, and naturally pressed for further details. The response,

"the person making the fast all out attack is taking the greater risk and therefore should have right of way".

I presented the following scenarios where 2 fencers of equal skill and intention begin and finish at the same time:

1) fencers A and B simultaneously make an attack, fencer A makes an accelerating attack, i.e. starts slowly, fencer B just charges forward as quickly as possible, both actions finish together.

2) fencers A and B both make a simultaneous attack with a fast double advance lunge, both actions finish at the same time, but fencer B makes larger advances and covers more distance.

3) fencers A and B both make a simultaneous fast attack, Fencer B is faster than Fencer A, however both actions finish together.

Who has right of way?

The answer from both referees was that "Fencer B has right of way because they were fastest" and, "fencer B has right of way because they covered the most distance".

I make my living by teaching fencing. I am constantly studying what is going on in the world of fencing through written works, discussions with other instructors, fencing masters, seminars, video etc. Not one source ever supports the idea that the convention of right of way is based on:

1) the amount of relative distance one covers,
2) how fast you cover said distance, or
3) how risky the attackers action it is to the attacker.

In all of the sources I've come across, Right of way is described as being based on the establishment of risk to the defender, NOT the risk that the attacker is assuming with an all out attack. If we were to use that reasoning, an unsuccessful Parry Riposte or Counter Attack should always receive right of way as they are actions that carry the greater load of relative risk!

Nor have I ever come across a description of Right of way as being based on the Quantity of distance covered by the attacker, or how fast they are doing it. Always as being established by a continuous threatening action within an attacking distance.

I find it very alarming to hear highly rated referees espousing such nonsense, I find it even more alarming that at an FOC led referee clinic, new referees were being fed it as gospel!

The only conclusion I can draw is that if you are genetically "inferior" to your opponent, i.e. your fastest is not as fast as their fastest and your biggest is not as big as their biggest, YOU WILL NEVER BE AWARDED AN ATTACKING SITUATION UNLESS YOUR OPPONENT IS IN FULL FLIGHT.

I am aware that our sport is always evolving, that our rules are a system of Jurisprudence governed by convention. I am also aware that all calls made by the referee "depend" on what the fencers are doing, But to use the premises espoused by the referees I spoke to as a basis reduce the sport to playing linebacker with weapons.

[bunbury]

Hasn't sabre always been called that way? If you didn't want the fastest attack to get right-of-way, fence foil; there, right of way is to whoever yells the loudest.

[Draven]

Not in good saber, take a look at bouts with say Montano, or Podzniakov, or Corvaliu (sp?).
Also, there is the huge problem with consistancy in US refereeing but that's another thread.....

[AndrewH]

1) fencers A and B simultaneously make an attack, fencer A makes an accelerating attack, i.e. starts slowly, fencer B just charges forward as quickly as possible, both actions finish together.

In this situation, what the referee sees is that B immediately establishes an attack. A is starting slowly, trying to see what B is going to do. When he sees B making that fast attack, he accelerates and finishes with him. Therefore, A is responding to B's attack, hence he is making a counterattack and does not have RoW.

2) fencers A and B both make a simultaneous attack with a fast double advance lunge, both actions finish at the same time, but fencer B makes larger advances and covers more distance.

I'm not sure why this would be believed to be B's attack. If anything it should be A's attack. In one of my DE's in Atlanta, I attempted to "steal" RoW by throwing in an extra small fast step before my advance lunge into simultaneous. Hristo Hristov, another top sabre ref, called it against me. I was surprised that he had picked up on it, but the call was absolutely correct. So I'm not sure why "covering more distance" is considered to gain RoW.

3) fencers A and B both make a simultaneous fast attack, Fencer B is faster than Fencer A, however both actions finish together.

If fencer B is faster than fencer A, then the action wasn't simultaneous.

[bigdawg2121]

That doesn't seem to be an accurate description of why right of way is called* but it probably works well as a mantra for new saber refs. A newer ref calling things like that is more likely to award touches in the middle the right way than one that's actually trying to figure it out (granted, the ideal is the ref actually working to figure it out b/c they'll be better in the long run but they'll screw up more bouts getting there). Who were these refs out of curiosity?


*although many people do seem to think that this is the right way to determine ROW

[bunbury]

Why is it not possible for two fencers to start an attack at the same time and have one be faster?

[annacattiva]

1) fencers A and B simultaneously make an attack, fencer A makes an accelerating attack, i.e. starts slowly, fencer B just charges forward as quickly as possible, both actions finish together.

In this situation, what the referee sees is that B immediately establishes an attack. A is starting slowly, trying to see what B is going to do. When he sees B making that fast attack, he accelerates and finishes with him. Therefore, A is responding to B's attack, hence he is making a counterattack and does not have RoW.

No, A is just counterattacking if A hasn't started an attack at the same time as B. An accelerating attack is an attack. If Draven had said "B starts slowly without attacking" or "B starts slowly with no extension" that would mean that eventually A was counterattacking, but as stated, it does sound like a potentially disturbing interpretation.

2) fencers A and B both make a simultaneous attack with a fast double advance lunge, both actions finish at the same time, but fencer B makes larger advances and covers more distance.

I'm not sure why this would be believed to be B's attack. If anything it should be A's attack. In one of my DE's in Atlanta, I attempted to "steal" RoW by throwing in an extra small fast step before my advance lunge into simultaneous. Hristo Hristov, another top sabre ref, called it against me. I was surprised that he had picked up on it, but the call was absolutely correct. So I'm not sure why "covering more distance" is considered to gain RoW.

In your example, you took an extra step in order to cover more distance. In the original example, each fencer is taking a fast advance lunge, and presumably B's is just longer. So there's no preparation (ie. extra advance), just a longer attack.

3) fencers A and B both make a simultaneous fast attack, Fencer B is faster than Fencer A, however both actions finish together.

If fencer B is faster than fencer A, then the action wasn't simultaneous.

OK- I'm not quite understanding Draven's example here. If they both start at the same time (ie. simultaneously), if B is faster, doesn't that mean that B finishes first? I don't get how the attacks can start together, finish together, and be different speeds. And maybe a more experienced ref can correct me on this (Please!) but in one of these cases I'd even give the touch to A:

Either they start together and finish together (simultaneous)
A and B start together, A with a slower attack and B with a faster attack, and assuming both lights are on, I'd call simultaneous (unless of course A prepares)
A starts a slow attack first, B makes a fast action into it, and they finish at the same time- I'd give this to A, since B's attack is a counter attack into a correct attack.

Am I crazy?

Anna

[nyacfencing]

I have been fencing epee for 20 years and fenced foil for about 10 years. I just started fencing sabre, and I must say that the way ROW is called confounds me. While I now understand how it is called and have been adapting, it doesn't really seem to follow the conventions outlined in the rule book.

Along with the issues identified above, the concept of the "distance parry" has particularly bothered me.

t7 (bullet 4): The parry is the defensive action made with the weapon to prevent an offensive action from arriving.
t7 (bullet 2): The riposte is the offensive action made by the fencer who has parried the attack.

This would seemingly tell me that when my attack falls short and no weapon-based parry is executed by my opponent, it is a simple attack with no parry or riposte, and fencing continues. Now if sabreurs want to call my attach falling short a parry, that's fine... I actually have no problem with it (even though it isn't supported by the rule book).

What bothers me is that the sabreur who was attacked seemingly have an eternity to stand there, far away, making no offensive actions, and maintains ROW. How is this possible? Even if you call the distance-miss a parry, they still are obligated to make a riposte to maintain ROW. And even calling it a delayed riposte won't account for the immense amount of time they are granted at such a great distance away and not moving.

So what is happening is:
a) I attack but miss because my opponent retreated
b) my opponent stands there doing nothing for several seconds
c) I remise/redouble to which my opponent counters
d) my opponent gets the point

Two items in the rule book seem to back me up on this:

t8,d1: 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.

This seems to say that since my opponents riposte is (at best) delayed, my remise is an offensive action.

ESPECIALLY THIS ENTRY

t8,d2: 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.

Regardless of whether or not you call the distance-miss a parry, this seems to back up the fact that they must riposte.

Can somebody please explain to me how sabre ROW is being called in a way which completely contradicts the conventions of fencing stated by the rule book?

[flyingfencer]

...This would seemingly tell me that when my attack falls short and no weapon-based parry is executed by my opponent, it is a simple attack with no parry or riposte, and fencing continues. Now if sabreurs want to call my attach falling short a parry, that's fine... I actually have no problem with it (even though it isn't supported by the rule book). ...

Actually, it is in the rules. An attack with a lunge that falls short is considered over when the front foot hits the ground.

t.75,b,1. An attack with a lunge is correctly carried out:
— in a simple attack (cf. t.8) when the arm is extended with
the lunge and the touch arrives at the latest when the front
foot touches the strip;

[Mihail]

Can somebody please explain to me how sabre ROW is being called in a way which completely contradicts the conventions of fencing stated by the rule book?

I don't understand why you are asking the question if you describe the answer in the rest of your post.

A "distance parry" is not really called by the higher level referees. The correct call is, for example:

Attack from the left: no. Attack* from the right: touch.

* or counter-attack

But the essence of the call is the same: one attack fails and the other is good. As far as standing there for "eternity," there's no time-based definition in the book. Before the timing change in sabre, if a fencer made a blade parry, he was also allowed "eternity" to land the riposte, even if the redoublement was immediate. Whether an attack fails because of distance or because of a blade, the only time-based restriction on the opponent's response is the machine.

In this respect, at least, the convention hasn't really changed.

The mechanics of change of direction, e.g. the transition of a forward action after a backwards action like a parry or a retreat, are often too subtle and complex for a referee to tell exactly when an attack or a riposte starts.

Fencing is a sport and game like any other. There's no way for basketball referees to call fouls in a unified, ink-on-paper way. Even the call of jostling in epee is a cause of contention, and passivity can be also.

[nyacfencing]

Actually, it is in the rules. An attack with a lunge that falls short is considered over when the front foot hits the ground.

t.75,b,1. An attack with a lunge is correctly carried out:
— in a simple attack (cf. t.8) when the arm is extended with
the lunge and the touch arrives at the latest when the front
foot touches the strip;

Um... okay, so we agree that I attacked. Nowhere in what you presented does it say that my attack falling short is, by definition, a successful parry by my opponent.

[AndrewH]

No, A is just counterattacking if A hasn't started an attack at the same time as B. An accelerating attack is an attack. If Draven had said "B starts slowly without attacking" or "B starts slowly with no extension" that would mean that eventually A was counterattacking, but as stated, it does sound like a potentially disturbing interpretation.

I realize what the actual situation may be, as seen through instant replay. I was describing what the referee would see, and hence what they would call.

[nyacfencing]

I don't understand why you are asking the question if you describe the answer in the rest of your post.

Sure... I agree with you. But even in the case where my attack falls short, my opponent stands there doing nothing, I clearly attack again (let's say via adv lunge) while my opponent continues to stand there doing nothing, and at the last second s/he swings and hits me at the same time, s/he is awarded with the point. This is very different than what you are saying.

[AndrewH]

Um... okay, so we agree that I attacked. Nowhere in what you presented does it say that my attack falling short is, by definition, a successful parry by my opponent.

It's not, and it's a mistake than so many lower level sabre directors make, and it drives me crazy when they call it. If there is no blade contact, there is no parry, and therefore there is no right to riposte. If your attack falls short, RoW doesn't automatically go to the other person. In most cases, they will start an attack, however slowly, and therefore take the RoW. But if they stand there, you push forward and re-establish RoW, then hit, it is your touch and will be called as such by any referee who knows what they're doing.

[Draven]

Um... okay, so we agree that I attacked. Nowhere in what you presented does it say that my attack falling short is, by definition, a successful parry by my opponent.

It's not a successful parry, a parry by definition involves a blade action. however, in missing your attempt to hit you've also removed your threat in that your edge and point have passed the valid target. I do agree that the time allowed for the attack from the successful defender has a finite amount of time to begin, but as stated by viewtifulmisho:

The mechanics of change of direction, e.g. the transition of a forward action after a backwards action like a parry or a retreat, are often too subtle and complex for a referee to tell exactly when an attack or a riposte starts.

Fencing is a sport and game like any other. There's no way for basketball referees to call fouls in a unified, ink-on-paper way. Even the call of jostling in epee is a cause of contention, and passivity can be also.

[Draven]

If fencer B is faster than fencer A, then the action wasn't simultaneous.

OK- I'm not quite understanding Draven's example here. If they both start at the same time (ie. simultaneously), if B is faster, doesn't that mean that B finishes first? I don't get how the attacks can start together, finish together, and be different speeds. And maybe a more experienced ref can correct me on this (Please!) but in one of these cases I'd even give the touch to A:

Anna

To clarify example #3, If Fencer B makes double advance lunge and Fencer A (being slower) only has time to make advance lunge. One can think up any number of footwork combinations that will result in a simultaneous finish of two fencers of unequal speed starting at the same time.

That doesn't seem to be an accurate description of why right of way is called* but it probably works well as a mantra for new saber refs. A newer ref calling things like that is more likely to award touches in the middle the right way than one that's actually trying to figure it out (granted, the ideal is the ref actually working to figure it out b/c they'll be better in the long run but they'll screw up more bouts getting there). Who were these refs out of curiosity?

*although many people do seem to think that this is the right way to determine ROW

to have newer refs using this mantra brings down the overall level of fencing by reinforcing BAD actions, charging in as fast as possible, rather than smart actions involving tactics.

Needless to say the refs I was speaking to I hold a deal of respect for in terms of their skill and ability, which is one of the reasons I was so very shocked at the details of their answer. Another reason is that it is contrary to how they have been calling the action for as long as I've been watching.

Quote:
Originally Posted by annacattiva
No, A is just counterattacking if A hasn't started an attack at the same time as B. An accelerating attack is an attack. If Draven had said "B starts slowly without attacking" or "B starts slowly with no extension" that would mean that eventually A was counterattacking, but as stated, it does sound like a potentially disturbing interpretation.

I realize what the actual situation may be, as seen through instant replay. I was describing what the referee would see, and hence what they would call.

If I understand you correctly AndrewH, you're saying that the referee can't be bothered to pay attention to what the fencers are DOING at the command "fence", that only the large attention drawing action will be recognized. Not only is that lazy, that's bad refereeing.

[stu]

Because the attack that falls short is not, strictly speaking, parried, it does not automatically entitle the defender to a riposte. The fencing situation effectively resets to neutral, with either party able to gain right of way by begining a new attack. Usually this won't make any difference, because the defender will be able to BEGIN a 'riposte' before the attacker can remise. It isn't often called that way, but that would seem to be what the rules imply.

As for this business of the fastest sabreur getting priority, it's utter nonsense, but it serves to demonstrate that in a sport where so much is dependent on the president's interpretation of the actions, the important thing is all too often catching their eye.

[AndrewH]

If I understand you correctly AndrewH, you're saying that the referee can't be bothered to pay attention to what the fencers are DOING at the command "fence", that only the large attention drawing action will be recognized. Not only is that lazy, that's bad refereeing.

No, it's not lazy and it's not bad refereeing. It's recognizing the intentions of the fencers. If one fencer is clearly committing to the attack right away and the other is adopting a "wait and see" attitude, then RoW should go to the fencer who committed first.

[sheck]

to have newer refs using this mantra brings down the overall level of fencing by reinforcing BAD actions, charging in as fast as possible, rather than smart actions involving tactics.

Needless to say the refs I was speaking to I hold a deal of respect for in terms of their skill and ability, which is one of the reasons I was so very shocked at the details of their answer. Another reason is that it is contrary to how they have been calling the action for as long as I've been watching.

Younger, Faster, Quicker LOL!

[sheck]

No, it's not lazy and it's not bad refereeing. It's recognizing the intentions of the fencers. If one fencer is clearly committing to the attack right away and the other is adopting a "wait and see" attitude, then RoW should go to the fencer who committed first.

Now that I mostly fence Vet I see this more often. Some refs will let a less mobile fencer start latter (with the feet) as long as both hands extend at the same time (this might not be as tight either). I see it as a reaction from the slower fencer.