Fencing.Net - You make the Call! Sequence 1

[Bonehead]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0OSdieIVKo[/YOUTUBE]

Ok I suggest the format as such;

Refereeing Qualifications: FIE A/B, USFA 1-10, Canadian N/P, or just years experience fencing.

Action: The actions are all numbered

Call: Attack from the left touche or something

why: a short explanation as to why you think that's the call

would you make the same call without video: A friend of mine who is a Canadian N made the point that the slow motion replay sometimes changes the call. Please try to be honest, I know everyone could say "I would make the call the same way regardless of seeing the replay", but that's probably not true.

Also, please assume both fencers hit on their first attempt.

I'll Start

Refereeing Qualification: Canadian P and 12 years experience

Action: Action #1

Call: Attack from the left, touche

why: Left's arm starts first. Left's lunge begins before right's arm completes. and just generally it's an attack vs a line so i give precedence to the attacker in general.

Same call without video replay: Yes, this action seems quite clear to me.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Why are they fencing dry???

[Bonehead]

No good reason. Just for demo purposes.

[epeemike81]

I'm a USFA 4 in foil.

My initial reaction to all of these actions was attack from left. The replay video just made me more confident in that call. In every one of the actions, the attack had begun before the arm was fully extended and line established.

IMO, these are all quite clear.

-m

[Bonehead]

My initial reaction to all of these actions was attack from left. The replay video just made me more confident in that call. In every one of the actions, the attack had begun before the arm was fully extended and line established.

Just for clarification, are you basing that on the extension of the arm, or just 'the attack' holistically?

[Superscribe]

This is in response to Epeemike's post:

I've had about 7 years of fencing experience.

Action: 5

Call: Attack from the left touche

why: Action starts before line is established.

would you make the same call without video: No. Action 5 slow is line for FOTR. I woudl have probably called it attack for FOTL in real life, but upon review, it's clear line is established before the attack from the left begins.

[bigdawg2121]

Link doesn't work for me. At least not for the phone. What's this video called and/or what's the link?

[Hauptman]

I'm a USFA 4 in foil.

My initial reaction to all of these actions was attack from left. The replay video just made me more confident in that call. In every one of the actions, the attack had begun before the arm was fully extended and line established.

IMO, these are all quite clear.

-m

But are all of the actions from the right an attempt to establish line? Given the distance might they not be counter-attacks, and in at least one of the examples, an attack into preparation?

[Purple Fencer]

No director rating here...took Derek Cotton’s seminar and did a directing practical at the Palm Springs NAC, which I sorta botched (Bill Oliver was my observer...no pressure, right?).

However, I HAVE been asked to direct frequently at local events and have SOME idea of what to call. I’m known as being very fair....I screw everyone equally!

That being said (all determinations being made at full speed, since that’s when you’re gonna see it in real life)

My MAJOR complaint here is all the actions are static...thus I judged them that way. If you want a more accurate experiment, put the people at the en garde lines and have them move like in a real bout.

#1 Touch left....final action started before right extended.

#2 Touch left...no break in distance before the attempt to establish PIL....you can’t do it that close.

#3 Same as #2 for me...although the lack of extension from left makes it a little dicey....still, left IS attempting to put the point on while right just extends into it.

#4 Same as #3, plus left DOES start moving forward before right is fully extended.

#5 If right had broken distance, I would give it to him as a valid PIL...but he does NOT break distance, therefore, touch left.

#6 Same as 5

#7 Same as 5

[Bonehead]

#5 If right had broken distance, I would give it to him as a valid PIL...but he does NOT break distance, therefore, touch left.

So If I read this correctly, you're asserting that the line must be established out of distance?

[KShan5[PrFC]]

But are all of the actions from the right an attempt to establish line? Given the distance might they not be counter-attacks, and in at least one of the examples, an attack into preparation?

N
#5 If right had broken distance, I would give it to him as a valid PIL...but he does NOT break distance, therefore, touch left.

I'm not commenting on if it's line or not....I just want to know why people think you have to break distance to establish line?

[Allen Evans]

I'm not commenting on if it's line or not....I just want to know why people think you have to break distance to establish line?

hahahaha! I use to fence with someone like this. Everytime he was about to be hit, he stick his arm out to get two lights, and then vehemently argue that he "had a line". He did this for ten years, and never once won that argument.

Eventually -- to the relief of many -- he quit.

The line is not an action. It is a situation or a state.

[epeemike81]

But are all of the actions from the right an attempt to establish line? Given the distance might they not be counter-attacks, and in at least one of the examples, an attack into preparation?

in which case said counter-attacks and AiP's are short. Thus, still attack from left.

-m

[dramamine]

I don't believe there is any reason to think a line has to be established out of distance. A few fencers who get lines very frequently (Golubitsky, Joppich) never really do so from "out of distance".


I agree that the actions are a little too artificial to call. I think it would be better even if you added a little tiny bit of forward/back movement to make the actions start from a more realistic situation .

That being said I'm inclined to say 5 6 and 7 are a line while 1-4 are an attack. I'll review it later when I have more time.

If I can get a hold of a camera I'll try and come up with some of my own too.

[Allen Evans]

I don't believe there is any reason to think a line has to be established out of distance. A few fencers who get lines very frequently (Golubitsky, Joppich) never really do so from "out of distance".

The line may not have to be established "out of distance" but it does have to be established a tempo ahead of the attack. In all of these clips, the extension by the fencer on the right begins after some action by the fencer on the left. In some cases the extension finishes sooner, but this is not the definition of "a line".

My own belief? Almost every referee I know would give the attack to the fencer on the left, simply because the fencer on the right is extending in response by an action on the left, and never attempts to steal a tempo (the way an attack in preparation must).

Excuse me. That beep was the microwave telling me my popcorn is ready...

[Craig]

I'm changing the thread title - the cesspool thing was a good joke, but going forward let's not be so self-deprecating.

This is a good idea, like what we had done with the point in line video clips. They are still pretty artificial, but are a great step in the right direction.

Since I'm replying, I'll post my thoughts:

- On all of the actions, I would call it attack for the left.
- In all of the actions, the left attack (point moving towards and threatening target) began before the line was fully established.
- Slow-Mo: Didn't change any of my calls. I could argue that #5 in particular had the line completed just before the attack starts, but not by enough to overrule my original call.
- I am now a 7 in foil, but out of practice, so I will defer to the refs on the board whom I know are good to set me right.

Final thought: After a brief time to have people post their thoughts, it would be a good idea to post "the answer" to have a starting reference point.

Craig

[Jason]

But are all of the actions from the right an attempt to establish line? Given the distance might they not be counter-attacks, and in at least one of the examples, an attack into preparation?

It's often a mistake for a referee to think in terms of what a fencer "attempted" to do. He either counter-attacks or he doesn't; he either attacks or he doesn't; he either parries or he doesn't; he either establishes line or he doesn't; etc. In these scenarios, you don't need to decide if Right wanted to counter-attack, make PiL, etc. You only need to decide if he actually did those things.

I think this is a great idea for a project but will echo what has already been said: it's too artificial. Add some mobility. Add some context.

[Superscribe]

The line may not have to be established "out of distance" but it does have to be established a tempo ahead of the attack. In all of these clips, the extension by the fencer on the right begins after some action by the fencer on the left. In some cases the extension finishes sooner, but this is not the definition of "a line".

Action: 5

Call: Attack from the left touche

why: Action starts before line is established.

would you make the same call without video: No. Action 5 slow is line for FOTR. I woudl have probably called it attack for FOTL in real life, but upon review, it's clear line is established before the attack from the left begins.

I feel line is established a tempe before FOTL begins attack. No?

[Purple Fencer]

So If I read this correctly, you're asserting that the line must be established out of distance?

I am....that's what I remember Derek Cotton teaching. Admittedly, that was a number of years ago and the memory may be a bit fuzzy. It could be that he RECOMMENDED breaking distance to ensure the line was clearly out for the director to see and acknowledge, and I DO teach that if you feel the need to break distance a few steps, to throw the line out....if nothing else it might give you a couple of seconds to think.

Edit: After posting this and reading Allen's comment, perhaps the distance break is a method in which to establish that tempo...or lack thereof.

But there's also T.60 (which is repeated in other sections)

Emphasis mine.

1. Only the fencer who is attacked is counted as touched:
(a) If he makes a stop hit on his opponent‘s simple attack.
(b) If, instead of parrying, he attempts to avoid the touch
and does not succeed in so doing.
(c) If, after making a successful parry, he makes a
momentary pause which gives his opponent the right to
renew the attack (redoublement, remise or reprise).
(d) If, during a compound attack, he makes a stop hit
without being in time.
(e) If, having his ‗point in line‘ (cf. t.10) and being
subjected to a beat or a taking of the blade (prise de
fer) which deflects his blade, he attacks or places his
point in line again instead of parrying a direct attack
made by his opponent.

I interpret section e as saying if you have PIL, you have to be OUT of position for your opponent to make a beat on the blade.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Since I'm replying, I'll post my thoughts:

- On all of the actions, I would call it attack for the left.
- In all of the actions, the left attack (point moving towards and threatening target) began before the line was fully established.
- Slow-Mo: Didn't change any of my calls. I could argue that #5 in particular had the line completed just before the attack starts, but not by enough to overrule my original call.
- I am now a 6 in foil, but out of practice, so I will defer to the refs on the board whom I know are good to set me right.

6 in foil as well....and I agree with all of this.