ROW question

[Fiat Slug]

There's a person at my club who sometimes starts an attack with a change-beat. I've been able to figure out this person's timing so I can anticipate his change-beat and move blade in a circular motion around his blade (what is this called?) After I evade his change-beat, I attack. My opponent also attacks despite of the fact that his change-beat missed. My coach almost always call this a simultaneous attack. I can see from the director's perspective, the two fencers both executed the same exact moves at the same exact time so there's no touch. Is there another way to evade a change-beat so it's obvious to the director?

[catwood1]

A couple things you could do:

1: Make sure you're not disengaging too early. When you start too early, its easy to make it look like YOU are the one searching, not him. Let him start the search, then disengage.

2: Try hitting with the point. If you finish with a point action instead of a cut, it will sometimes look more like you are avoiding a search. It doesn't change whats actually going on between the 2 fencers, but it might change the way its being perceived.

3: Find a new action. Derobing a search can be a very hard thing for many refs to see. I've found then most refs below a 4 (5 or worse) consistently miss it, or at best, sometimes get it right...

[Purple Fencer]

There's a person at my club who sometimes starts an attack with a change-beat. I've been able to figure out this person's timing so I can anticipate his change-beat and move blade in a circular motion around his blade (what is this called?) After I evade his change-beat, I attack. My opponent also attacks despite of the fact that his change-beat missed. My coach almost always call this a simultaneous attack. I can see from the director's perspective, the two fencers both executed the same exact moves at the same exact time so there's no touch. Is there another way to evade a change-beat so it's obvious to the director?

Instead of just doing the double (doo-blay), finish it off with a beat and THEN attack...if done correctly, it'll be called either a beat-attack or a party-riposte.

Sometimes you have to fence the director...make it clear or make it one light.

[bigdawg2121]

A couple things you could do:

1: Make sure you're not disengaging too early. When you start too early, its easy to make it look like YOU are the one searching, not him. Let him start the search, then disengage.

2: Try hitting with the point. If you finish with a point action instead of a cut, it will sometimes look more like you are avoiding a search. It doesn't change whats actually going on between the 2 fencers, but it might change the way its being perceived.

3: Find a new action. Derobing a search can be a very hard thing for many refs to see. I've found then most refs below a 4 (5 or worse) consistently miss it, or at best, sometimes get it right...

I'm just going to assume that you know the OP well enough to know that they're discussing a saber action. That being said I'm more confused at how this action can be missed (by the ref) if properly executed. Also waiting might not be the best bet. If the opponent is going to make change beat regardless best case scenario if you jump the change beat (start disengaging earlier rather than later) you land one light AiP. Otherwise your action should be far enough ahead of your opponent that your ref/coach/whoever can see that it has priority. I'd imagine the same would be true in foil....at least until you reach the point of diminishing returns where you're disengaging so early that your opponent doesn't bother to make the change beat at all.

[catwood1]

Whoa, I could have sworn there was some mention of sabre in there! My bad...

Either way, what I've seen happen a number of times in foil is knowing when and how the opponent is going to search, and starting the disengage too early. Refs have tended to reverse the call of who was searching, because what was actually a disengage, looked like the search.

In my experience, having a referee see searching is one of the actions that I have no confidence in refs to see. I'm talking more about foil then sabre.* People disagree?

[bigdawg2121]

In general I'd agree. It's a reasonably tight action and a lot of refs can't see it. However, a fair amount of can't see it must be attributed to the fact that the ref probably isn't that good (which is a good reason to stay away from the action practically, in competions, but not a good reason to abandon it in training bouts).

Another thing to remember is that if the "disengage" so far precedes the attack that no beat exists from the opponent it very well may be an incorrect action unless it looks like a well executed indirect action.

Whoa, I could have sworn there was some mention of sabre in there! My bad...

Either way, what I've seen happen a number of times in foil is knowing when and how the opponent is going to search, and starting the disengage too early. Refs have tended to reverse the call of who was searching, because what was actually a disengage, looked like the search.

In my experience, having a referee see searching is one of the actions that I have no confidence in refs to see. I'm talking more about foil then sabre.* People disagree?

[pinkelephant]

Disengaging on a change-beat is a counter-disengage, not a derobement or a double. A derobement starts with a point in line, which then disengages around an attempt to find the blade. A double is an attack which starts with a disengage and then diengages again around a circular parry.

[bigdawg2121]

You are very right, but how important are esoteric pedagogical terms to the conversation?

Disengaging on a change-beat is a counter-disengage, not a derobement or a double. A derobement starts with a point in line, which then disengages around an attempt to find the blade. A double is an attack which starts with a disengage and then diengages again around a circular parry.

[Superscribe]

The only way i'd feel comfortable using this in a competition is if I made him miss, and then finished fast enough and with opposition so he couldn't complete the attack.

If you can anticipate his attempt at your blade, you probably have an idea of what line to which he's going complete the attack when he sees that he's missed and you are starting your attack. Angle your blade and put your bell between his foil and your torso.

This is what i do in foil. This is what i've seen other people do in sabre.

[Gav]

You are very right, but how important are esoteric pedagogical terms to the conversation?

In a sport like ours "very". Because this is a technical sport using the correct technical terms is very important when communicating any information about the flow of actions. If you don't how is anyone supposed to know what you're talking about*?


* see just about any ROW thread.

[Craig]

It's a pretty common foil attack to start with a change of engagement so that if you catch it, then you have a beat-attack, if you don't, you are still starting the attack.

You're not going to get the call for the disengage. It's a lower % than point in line.

The best things to do have been suggested already. If you already know which line he's going to finish in, then extend w/opposition to close him out.

You can also feint like you're doing the disengage lunge, but only take a half step and then retreat and take the parry.

There are a lot of solutions to the problem. Find solutions that end with one-light for you rather than worrying about how to get the referee to see what you think they should be seeing.

Craig

There's a person at my club who sometimes starts an attack with a change-beat. I've been able to figure out this person's timing so I can anticipate his change-beat and move blade in a circular motion around his blade (what is this called?) After I evade his change-beat, I attack. My opponent also attacks despite of the fact that his change-beat missed. My coach almost always call this a simultaneous attack. I can see from the director's perspective, the two fencers both executed the same exact moves at the same exact time so there's no touch. Is there another way to evade a change-beat so it's obvious to the director?

[bigdawg2121]

Craig, as much as I love you, I'm gonna have to call BS. It's not an attack, it's a preparation, followed by an attack. The reason refs get paid the big bucks is b/c they are supposed to see things like that. The reason fencers train is so that they can convince all the refs that it's "just a simple indirect attack". If your ref is any good you're not going to get that as one attack (assuming your opponent's response is correct and in time). Also, if your ref is any good and you happen to be awesome at executing that action they'll see the first time that you make the beat and remember it; from that point on they'll know the difference between change beat and indirect attack b/c you'll have shown it to them. When your ref sucks then yes you'll get away with it but I don't particularly condone training for crap refereeing (adjusting to it in a bout that matters, yes...training for it, not unless your training to win with terrible referees, which might be a good exercise).

Also, Gav, I understand the general importance of terminology but my specific question was how important it was to this particular discussion. I'm pretty sure everyone that read the thread either a) envisioned the correct scenario or b) realized that a doublé couldn't happen in the scenario and then envisioned the right scenario. Why bog down the discussion? Should we discuss wether the OP would be more succesful by executing this action via derobement (which can be accomplished from an extended but not-quite-line position I'm pretty sure) rather than trompement next?

It's a pretty common foil attack to start with a change of engagement so that if you catch it, then you have a beat-attack, if you don't, you are still starting the attack.

You're not going to get the call for the disengage. It's a lower % than point in line.

The best things to do have been suggested already. If you already know which line he's going to finish in, then extend w/opposition to close him out.

You can also feint like you're doing the disengage lunge, but only take a half step and then retreat and take the parry.

There are a lot of solutions to the problem. Find solutions that end with one-light for you rather than worrying about how to get the referee to see what you think they should be seeing.

Craig

[edew]

There's a person at my club who sometimes starts an attack with a change-beat. I've been able to figure out this person's timing so I can anticipate his change-beat and move blade in a circular motion around his blade (what is this called?) After I evade his change-beat, I attack. My opponent also attacks despite of the fact that his change-beat missed. My coach almost always call this a simultaneous attack. I can see from the director's perspective, the two fencers both executed the same exact moves at the same exact time so there's no touch. Is there another way to evade a change-beat so it's obvious to the director?

Your coach is a bad referee. From your description, you evaded the search and the RoW is yours as you attacked. The evasive movement is called a derobement (spoken with that french accent), I'm guessing. I don't know what a change-beat is, but I'm guessing it's a circular action, from the description you're giving.

If your opponent is good, he should make his movements smaller and cleaner and so it doesn't look like a search. You then disengage against a non-search (at least to the referee's eyes) and then you attack into his attack and in that case, it's his attack, your counterattack.

In either case, the referee shouldn't be calling simultaneous.

I can imagine a scenario where one fencer is in sixte, the other in octave (both lefty or both righty). They're both out of distance, both jump in into distance, the sixte fencer sweeps down to octave searching for the blade just as the octave fencer sweeps up to sixte searching for the blade, both missing their respective searches, both then continue and hit. Then, I can imagine the action being called simultaneous. Still, I think the referee should find who searched first, even by a microsecond and call that one the searcher and the other one the evader and award the point to the one who succeeded (the evader in that case).

[Superscribe]

Craig, as much as I love you, I'm gonna have to call BS. It's not an attack, it's a preparation, followed by an attack. The reason refs get paid the big bucks is b/c they are supposed to see things like that. The reason fencers train is so that they can convince all the refs that it's "just a simple indirect attack". If your ref is any good you're not going to get that as one attack (assuming your opponent's response is correct and in time). Also, if your ref is any good and you happen to be awesome at executing that action they'll see the first time that you make the beat and remember it; from that point on they'll know the difference between change beat and indirect attack b/c you'll have shown it to them. When your ref sucks then yes you'll get away with it but I don't particularly condone training for crap refereeing (adjusting to it in a bout that matters, yes...training for it, not unless your training to win with terrible referees, which might be a good exercise).

The biggest hurdle here is your imagination. There are a couple ways to make an attempt at a blade look like the beginning of an attack... like if i start out in low line and i want to flick anywhere to the body.

The point here is, someone was complaining about how such actions are actually being called. Some advice was offered about how to avoid having the ref bungle the action.

Your observations are largely about how ref's who can't see the action described correctly suck at reffing, despite your concessions that "It's a reasonably tight action and a lot of refs can't see it." So if you admit that ref's can't see it, and it's possible to get things reversed, then it's not beyond one's imagination to think that there are people out there who would use that to their advantage.

[Craig]

Craig, as much as I love you, I'm gonna have to call BS. It's not an attack, it's a preparation, followed by an attack. The reason refs get paid the big bucks is b/c they are supposed to see things like that. The reason fencers train is so that they can convince all the refs that it's "just a simple indirect attack". If your ref is any good you're not going to get that as one attack (assuming your opponent's response is correct and in time).

I've been on both sides of this call (making the disengage and making the search/attack) with very high level referees at Div I NACs and attack in prep was never called.

When both fencers are doing the action in foil it is very hard to see the attempted take. To the referee it looks like both fencers are either trying to take the blade or trying to avoid the blade.

I'll agree with you on all the other points. In theory, I agree with you on all of the points, but what I've seen in practice has been different - which is why I would advise any fencer posting a thread/question here about the action to focus on making the result a one-light action and not so much on the "how do I get a referee to see this".


Craig

[edew]

To superscribe and Craig:

Nonetheless, the referee shouldn't call it simultaneous. Either give it to the searcher/attacker or the disengager/attacker or call I don't know. It's not a simultaneous action, by description and by visual action. Someone started first. Is it a search? If yes, it's the other's point. If no, then it's an attack.

[bigdawg2121]

My response related to reffing b/c it was directed at the idea that someone shouldn't get the call b/c starting with a search and then continuing into an attack is a valid action. It isn't. I fully acknowledged that b/c the referee may suck adjustments may have to made. Great suggestions have been made as to how to cope with ref suckage. However, the OP asked about ways to refine the action so that it's easier for the ref to see. Considering that it's a valid action I think focusing on how to refine it is a good idea. It's great to have in the arsenal for those times when the refs don't suck or when the bout is really tight in general.

On a different note, another to watch is your footwork as you execute the action. Because you're making an AiP action you need to make sure that you time your footwork to go forward (or at least not backwards) as you start to execute your counter disengage. It needs to be clear that you're A) not counter-attacking B) that you're starting your attack before the search portion of the opponent's action has ended. If the opponent manages to search and then start ahead of (or even simultaneously in reality) your attack the attack will be theirs as they initiated the aggressive action. If you're still retreating then you're making a passive action which is easier for the ref to miss and also more likelly to be incorrectly executed.

The biggest hurdle here is your imagination. There are a couple ways to make an attempt at a blade look like the beginning of an attack... like if i start out in low line and i want to flick anywhere to the body.

The point here is, someone was complaining about how such actions are actually being called. Some advice was offered about how to avoid having the ref bungle the action.

Your observations are largely about how ref's who can't see the action described correctly suck at reffing, despite your concessions that "It's a reasonably tight action and a lot of refs can't see it." So if you admit that ref's can't see it, and it's possible to get things reversed, then it's not beyond one's imagination to think that there are people out there who would use that to their advantage.

[Inquartata]

I am surprised, occasionally, to have opponents claim to a referee that I am doing this: looking for the blade and upon not finding it turning the action into an attack. I am not aware that this is what I'm doing; I make a lot of sweeping line changes and moulinets, but am trying to do them from out of distance, in which case they can't really be searches. However, if I am in fact doing them in distance then I am "fooling" an awful lot of referees with them...

PS Bigdawg, clear out your PMs!

[thekoby]

I see this (and use it) more in foil than I do in sabre fencing, but looking at it from a ref perspective, I would actually have to see the action played out to get a direct call. I feel, the way you describing that:

Fencer A changes line and attempts to beat-attack (let's say for the sake of this example we're fencing foil and use change from 4-6, beat in 6)

Fencer B evades the beat with a circle-4 counter, finish with a beat-attack in 4

Fencer A and Fencer B both lunge at the sound of the beat, both lights go off.

In my head, it does seem like Fencer B is searching for the parry out of time, while Fencer A is simply making an attack with a change of line (because his intended beat failed doesn't negate the motion to attack). I can understand why you feel like it is your control of the blade because you made the successful beat, and it very well might be, but from a ref's standpoint, I can't tell what a fencer is thinking through their head, I just see the blades spin with no contact, a beat, then two lights. I have to agree with some of the previous posts about locking him out with an opposition attack, or using your footwork to gain better control of the strip (not the blade).

[erooMynohtnA]

I see this (and use it) more in foil than I do in sabre fencing, but looking at it from a ref perspective, I would actually have to see the action played out to get a direct call. I feel, the way you describing that:

Fencer A changes line and attempts to beat-attack (let's say for the sake of this example we're fencing foil and use change from 4-6, beat in 6)

Fencer B evades the beat with a circle-4 counter, finish with a beat-attack in 4

Fencer A and Fencer B both lunge at the sound of the beat, both lights go off.

First of all, the situation described by the OP results in no blade contact. There is an attempted beat, a disengage, two lights.

In my head, it does seem like Fencer B is searching for the parry out of time, while Fencer A is simply making an attack with a change of line (because his intended beat failed doesn't negate the motion to attack). I can understand why you feel like it is your control of the blade because you made the successful beat, and it very well might be,

What makes this a might be? What about a successful beat attack is a might be? When is a successful beat attack not?

but from a ref's standpoint, I can't tell what a fencer is thinking through their head, I just see the blades spin with no contact, a beat, then two lights. I have to agree with some of the previous posts about locking him out with an opposition attack, or using your footwork to gain better control of the strip (not the blade).

I know it's popular to say you can't read people's minds while directing, but you're taking that beyond common sense to the terminus of being a bad ref. Regardless of mind-reading, if you see a beat, call the beat attack.

"Sir, didn't I parry?"
"There was some blade waggling then a tap, what am I, a mind reader? Simultaneous attacks."