foil/sabre timings- reasons?

[Openeyes]

Hi all,

I was explaining some of the new rules for foil due to be implemented and realized I didn't know what the intention or purpose behind the 2005 blocking time reductions for foil and sabre were. I think the tip timing change has proven useful for foil but as I seem to remember making fencing more 'tv friendly' or understandable to a wider audience was the purpose of the change I don't see how blocking time reduction serves that purpose.

Oh, on an unrelated note, what is the legal status of a deliberate strike to off-target in sabre? Specifically I'm thinking of situations where the blade is 'bounced' off the opponent's front thigh to go under the parry but land on the lame.

Thanks all
Cheers,

-H

[catwood1]

Reducing the lockout time greatly increases the number of 1 light actions. Making it easier for TV audiences to understand. And I have never seen that sabre action, but I'd assume its the same as any sabre action...

[oiuyt]

Fewer 2-light calls means that it's easier for the initiate to understand why Fencer X got the touch.

Additionally, the theory continues, by forcing actions to finish a bit earlier to retain priority the timing requires a threat that is more clear. Clearly threatening actions are easier for non-fencers to understand and see as a threat that must be dealt with.

Regarding an intentionally off-target hit, followed by an on-target remise.... Deal with it the same way you would any other remise. It fails to retain priority vs. the counter-attack. It's difficult to construct a situation where this is more beneficial than an attack that follows nearly the same path under the guard but doesn't land on the leg.

-B

[oso97]

Regarding an intentionally off-target hit, followed by an on-target remise.... Deal with it the same way you would any other remise. It fails to retain priority vs. the counter-attack. It's difficult to construct a situation where this is more beneficial than an attack that follows nearly the same path under the guard but doesn't land on the leg.

Assuming the referee can differentiate between the attack and the remise. I had a student come back from the Chicago NAC with a number of deep bruises on her leading thigh from one bout where the action was exactly as you describe - attack to the leg, remise up to the flank - that the referee called "attack." Once the opposing fencer realized she could get away with that action, she used it ...

It CAN be a difficult action to see, particularly when its taking place on the opposite side from the referee.

[edew]

I'd hate to be the coach that works on that drill. "Ok, whack me on the thigh and then come up under the arm."

However, I can see that if it's smooth enough, one could get away without the referee seeing it as two actions.

[sabreteur]

Assuming the referee can differentiate between the attack and the remise. I had a student come back from the Chicago NAC with a number of deep bruises on her leading thigh from one bout where the action was exactly as you describe - attack to the leg, remise up to the flank - that the referee called "attack." Once the opposing fencer realized she could get away with that action, she used it ...

It CAN be a difficult action to see, particularly when its taking place on the opposite side from the referee.

Sounds very unlikely to be an intentional strategy. In sabre, don't attribute to malice what can be explained by poor control of distance.

[Openeyes]

Sounds very unlikely to be an intentional strategy. In sabre, don't attribute to malice what can be explained by poor control of distance.

My thanks for the clarifications on the intent of the blocking time reduction. I can see the logic but am far less sure about its (un)intended effects on foil.

Regarding the Sabre 'move' I had never seen it before but it was without a doubt both intentional and well-practiced. The fencer in question was in a DE bout and I'd expect he was a high C or a low B based on the rest of his technique and the quality of his adjustments during his bout. He attempted this very technique at least three times and a few more where it wasn't so clear. The director (and his opponent) were clearly a bit befuddled and eventually the director gave him a verbal warning and here's the interesting bit; The fencer asked the reason for the warning, and when the director told him 'unorthodox fencing' the fencer nodded with body language that indicated he was expecting to be told to stop at some point.

I agree with the posters who are curious why such a 'move' would be useful at all. It's a bit hard to explain, but this guy had clearly put time into it and his initial feint would deceive the parry like an amazingly fast foil disengage; 45degrees down and in- flat bouncing just past the knee right in the foibles center up and in 45 degrees to chest followed by a tierce/quinte to clear the defenders' blade.

On the issue of ROW I certainly can't see any reading that would consider this an attack and remise regardless of the deception of the parry; If you strike something the phrase is ended. However, if you were to give this a really charitable reading perhaps ROW would not pass to the defender but be in limbo as the attack ends in the same tempo (or slightly prior) to the defenders failure to find the blade. The bounce off the leg would be a redoublement or perhaps even a stop hit as the defender has to switch directions with his blade (his blade still sweeping to quarte).

I wonder what more experienced sabre folk make of this from a rules standpoint.

The fellow did manage two points with it, the third clear example got him popped in prep very clearly so I'm assuming this is one of those esoteric things and not a result of a considered study of risk/reward.

-H

[LordShout]

, if you were to give this a really charitable reading perhaps ROW would not pass to the defender but be in limbo as the attack ends in the same tempo (or slightly prior) to the defenders failure to find the blade. The bounce off the leg would be a redoublement or perhaps even a stop hit as the defender has to switch directions with his blade (his blade still sweeping to quarte).

The call is attack no, counter attack. The most charitable possible rendition of RoW cannot change the fact that the initial attack has failed, and the defender is now counterattacking.

Break it down:

1: Attack begins
2: Counter attack begins
3: Attack is No, aka any continuation becomes remise
4: Counter attack arrives valid
5: Remise arrives valid

This is not a temporal ordering, but rather a RoW order, the ref turns off his brain RoW wise at step 4, touch is to that fencer.

For it to be a stop hit the fencer being attacked upon would have to not perform step 2, then the break down becomes

1: Attack Begins
2: Attack No, Remise begins
3: Counter attack begins
4: Remise arrives valid
5: CA arrives valid

The RoW is never in limbo, either the CA begins before the remise or after the remise, if its at the same time (aka the ref cannot tell) then in my experiance YMMV the CA tends to be given priority, with a strong minority of refs saying something like "You go, miss (to attacker) You stand around looking at birds (to defender) then you both go, simul, en garde"

[arc]

Non sub homine sed sub deo et lege
-Bracton

Okay, I know this is a major digression, but having [voice=Christopher Lambert] a very extensive library [/voice], I couldn't help but look this up ...

"Ipse autem rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub deo et sub lege, quia lex facit regem."

A bit dated in American society since, oh, 1776, since we explicity reject the premise on which this is based ("Parem autem non habet rex in regno suo, quia sic amitteret praeceptum, cum par in parem non habeat imperium.") with the first of Jefferson's self-evident truths, i.e., that all men are created equal.

(Bracton, De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, translated by Samuel Thorne, Harvard University Press, 1968 ... Volume 2, p. 33 ... the translation of the relevant passage (edited for punctuation) being "The king has no equal within his realm; subjects cannot be the equals of the ruler, because he would thereby lose his rule, since equal can have no authority over equal, nor a fortiori a superior, because he would then be subject to those subjected to him. The king must not be under man but under God and under the law, because law makes the king.")

[Phaeton]

I remember being told by a coach once:

"If you feel like it, hit people on legs. It annoys them. But make sure to get touch! It is the most important part although not always most fun. "

[oso97]

Sounds very unlikely to be an intentional strategy. In sabre, don't attribute to malice what can be explained by poor control of distance.

I didn't say it was malice, I said it was intentional. Heck, I teach my fencers to take advantage of errors that referees make too. If a referee is going to make the same call every time, in your favor, you'd be an idiot not to continue doing it.

[bigdawg2121]

My thanks for the clarifications on the intent of the blocking time reduction. I can see the logic but am far less sure about its (un)intended effects on foil.

Regarding the Sabre 'move' I had never seen it before but it was without a doubt both intentional and well-practiced. The fencer in question was in a DE bout and I'd expect he was a high C or a low B based on the rest of his technique and the quality of his adjustments during his bout. He attempted this very technique at least three times and a few more where it wasn't so clear. The director (and his opponent) were clearly a bit befuddled and eventually the director gave him a verbal warning and here's the interesting bit; The fencer asked the reason for the warning, and when the director told him 'unorthodox fencing' the fencer nodded with body language that indicated he was expecting to be told to stop at some point.

I agree with the posters who are curious why such a 'move' would be useful at all. It's a bit hard to explain, but this guy had clearly put time into it and his initial feint would deceive the parry like an amazingly fast foil disengage; 45degrees down and in- flat bouncing just past the knee right in the foibles center up and in 45 degrees to chest followed by a tierce/quinte to clear the defenders' blade.

On the issue of ROW I certainly can't see any reading that would consider this an attack and remise regardless of the deception of the parry; If you strike something the phrase is ended. However, if you were to give this a really charitable reading perhaps ROW would not pass to the defender but be in limbo as the attack ends in the same tempo (or slightly prior) to the defenders failure to find the blade. The bounce off the leg would be a redoublement or perhaps even a stop hit as the defender has to switch directions with his blade (his blade still sweeping to quarte).

I wonder what more experienced sabre folk make of this from a rules standpoint.

The fellow did manage two points with it, the third clear example got him popped in prep very clearly so I'm assuming this is one of those esoteric things and not a result of a considered study of risk/reward.

-H

I can't even visualize this...perhaps my brain ain't workin' great or it's beyond the level of absurdity that I'm able to parse. Can someone youtube or otherwise diagram an example?

[oiuyt]

I can't even visualize this...perhaps my brain ain't workin' great or it's beyond the level of absurdity that I'm able to parse. Can someone youtube or otherwise diagram an example?

Cut to low flank from below, skipping off of the leg on the way up.

How this is better than doing the same thing an inch in front of the leg and NOT losing ROW is beyond me, but this appears to be what is being described. Especially if such an action "skips" hard enough to leave a deep bruise.

That said, some parts of the descriptions don't fit what I've described, so it's quite possible I've mis-interpreted. I haven't seen any action that fits what's here be attempted with anything appearing intent.

-B

[oso97]

How this is better than doing the same thing an inch in front of the leg and NOT losing ROW is beyond me, but this appears to be what is being described. Especially if such an action "skips" hard enough to leave a deep bruise.

Come on Brad... think for a moment. Use that imagination . Can you see how a referee who was lazy, bored or just not quite up to snuff could see the single cut, and then the skipping up the side, and think that it was the first action that landed on target? Particularly if that first action landed on the upper part of the thigh/hip and it was on the side of the fencer facing away from the referee?

Yea, okay, that is better. See? I know you could do it!

Note: I did some tests the other day in the club, and yea, seeing the action that misses the leg is easier than the one that hits the leg.

[oiuyt]

I think you misunderstood me.

The action which misses that leg which I am describing doesn't end around the leg. It continues and hits target. I'm not suggesting an alternative method of setting up a remise.

Do the same low-line cut under the parry and hit target. What does hitting off-target in the process add? Okay, perhaps one can guarantee the MAXIMUM possible displacement below the bell (assuming that the ricochet off the leg doesn't result in a greater separatation than merely trying to avoid hitting the leg). Even then it's hard to see how a bruise-inducing smack is required (or, indeed, even beneficial), rather than a scraping slide.

If one's opponent is using a tierce parry and one want to cut to low flank, disengage under the bell and come up the inside, by all means. Happens all the time. How does hitting the leg assist in that?

-B

[Allen Evans]

You guys really need to shut up. Once the FIE finds out you're using bank shots in saber, the FIE will make you call them before you attack. Don't we have enough problems?

AE

[Medinilla]

You guys really need to shut up. Once the FIE finds out you're using bank shots in saber, the FIE will make you call them before you attack. Don't we have enough problems?

AE

good one