Fencing.net You make the Call!! Sequence #2

[Bonehead]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBMV8pfQ3Jc[/YOUTUBE]

Following sequence number #1, we find that we have our highest rated ref with an FIE B saying that Action #5 in Sequence #1 is a line from the right.

Sequence #2 deals with this timing. I should note an attempt was made to ensure that in every action, the fencer on the right extends his arm completely while the fencer on the left pulls his arm back during the lunge.

Once again, giving your rating helps us determine the merit of your call.

I'll start.

Rating: Canadian P

Action #1

Call: Line in time

Reasoning: The fencer on the left clearly pulls his arm back while the fencer on the right is presenting a line. The final extension of the arm does not occur until the line is in place.

Different with Slow Mo: Yes, very yes. I would be hard pressed to call this one a line in real time, but watching the hands in slow motion makes it very obvious to me that the line is extended before the final extension of the attack.

This action is very similar to Action #5 in Sequence #1

[Purple Fencer]

Every single action results in touch right for me....because in EVERY case, left pulls his arm back, thus withdrawing his attack, even if he's coming forward in a lunge.

And for #1, I would not call it a PIL in time...the line was not fully extended (thus properly established...I'll ignore the lack of tempo definition here) before left started coming forward. The way Derek Cotton taught it, the moment left comes off the line (and presuming right doesn't move at all), right cannot get PIL...he's too late.

I would call this one attack left, withdrawal of the attack, counter right (touch), remise left.

And again...on these videos...

the....fencers...need....to....be...moving...like. ...in....a....real....bout.

[Molinjir]

I think one will find that reversing the statements made by the comment above me will result in the right calls.

All of the actions I believe are clearly touch for the left, attack counterattack.
Sticking out your arm, after the other fencer's attack starts, has nothing to do with a line. This should not be a terribly difficult concept. It's not a line because right fencer's is perfectly straight before left fencer's. That's roughly equivalent to basing your call off the color of their shoes.
There is nothing in the tempo to suggest anything other than attack, counterattack.

[Purple Fencer]

I think one will find that reversing the statements made by the comment above me will result in the right calls.

All of the actions I believe are clearly touch for the left, attack counterattack.
Sticking out your arm, after the other fencer's attack starts, has nothing to do with a line. This should not be a terribly difficult concept. It's not a line because right fencer's is perfectly straight before left fencer's. That's roughly equivalent to basing your call off the color of their shoes.
There is nothing in the tempo to suggest anything other than attack, counterattack.

In every case, left pulls his arm back...I've seen and had that call made against me MANY times (ask Notalent....), both in the past and recently.

They would be attack left, counter right if left had not pumped his arm...pulling it back cannot be considered threatening target.

Bonehead...btw....I'm unfamiliar with Canadian ref ratings....what does a P equate to?

[Bonehead]

Bonehead...btw....I'm unfamiliar with Canadian ref ratings....what does a P equate to?

It's not very good. It means I'm qualified to Referee a final provincially, I actually haven't done my written yet, but I've passed the practical, I'm told I'm allowed to say I'm a P though. Go figure.

A P can referee up until the finals of a provincial tournament. The level varies wildly from province to province, but Alberta is reasonably strong, so I'd say it's like an A level tournament, but not a NAC, so Level 6 I guess?

The funny thing is that it's way harder to referee a crappy tournament than a good one.

[epeemike81]

I think one will find that reversing the statements made by the comment above me will result in the right calls.

This. Every one of them is attack left, counterattack right.

-m

[Purple Fencer]

It's not very good. It means I'm qualified to Referee a final provincially, I actually haven't done my written yet, but I've passed the practical, I'm told I'm allowed to say I'm a P though. Go figure.

A P can referee up until the finals of a provincial tournament. The level varies wildly from province to province, but Alberta is reasonably strong, so I'd say it's like an A level tournament, but not a NAC, so Level 6 I guess?

The funny thing is that it's way harder to referee a crappy tournament than a good one.

The level sounds about right, if I understand your description correctly.

Crappy bouts are hard because it's hard to follow the action...."flail, counter-flail" and all that.

But directing good fencers is no picnic either. That gold medal foil one I referenced in one of these threads?? David Dewberry (looking to upgrade his existing A07 to an A09) and Cameron Sprowles (B09 at the time). You probably don't know them, but SoCal people do (Notalent, for example)

Probably the hardest one I've ever done.

Both are energetic with lots of infighting....I lost the action quite a few times.

Both are also tired...we had 44 for foil and 39 for epee that day....we were still fencing long after we would normally have gone home....so David and Cameron were missing a LOT. More off-targets than you can shake a stick at...very unusual for either of them.

They also moved a great deal, and since I move with them....I was working it as well.

In the end, Cameron won (15-13, I think...might've been 15-14)...obviously he was happy. David....not so much (duh).

A few notes about directing commentary that day.

There was a bit of a crowd watching the bout, including a few people far more experienced than I at fencing and directing that level of a bout (Bill Gelnaw and Mark Segal, to name 2). In general, they spoke up and supported my calls when either fencer argued (and they argued calls quite a bit).

I was told by someone else at the next tourney that David -- after he'd calmed down -- agreed with my directing. Cameron did as well (but at the time).

I EXPECT people to argue a call if they intend to win...that doesn't bother me....because I remember the very FIRST thing Derek Cotton teaches.... apply the rules as you know them and don't give a #### who wins (I gave a red card to my own teammate in a match a few years back. He said "Dude, I'm on your team!" I responded (pointing to the spot on the floor in front of me) "Not when I'm up here I'm not."))

I have no illusions about my directing...but I'm confident in my abilities at a local tournament....if I wasn't, I would've not directed for the cycle at the last San Bernardino tourney and done the gold in all three weapons.

[vivoescrimare]

Anyway care to volunteer an opinion as to why? As Dekko said in one of the sister threads, these are great teaching tools - but the elite all saying "Yep, that's definitely attack left" doesn't help the scrubs learn much.

Lack of commitment to make it an AiP on FotR's behalf?
Is FotL's action considered a coupe, so its all one compound attack?
Does the squirm really invalidate the action?
Is FotR extending his arm, but never actually using any footwork make his action "Not an attack" ?

[Superscribe]

I have no illusions about my directing

Yes you do. You see the same thing everybody else sees. Other people are saying one thing. You are saying the opposite.

Somebody is right, and you are wrong. It's not okay to be wrong.

[Purple Fencer]

Anyway care to volunteer an opinion as to why? As Dekko said in one of the sister threads, these are great teaching tools - but the elite all saying "Yep, that's definitely attack left" doesn't help the scrubs learn much.

Lack of commitment to make it an AiP on FotR's behalf?
Is FotL's action considered a coupe, so its all one compound attack?
Does the squirm really invalidate the action?
Is FotR extending his arm, but never actually using any footwork make his action "Not an attack" ?

If left had not extended (or started to) at all, I might say AiP...but for me, he clearly withdrew every time.
I saw no coupe action at all
Can't comment on the squirm
For me, simply extending the arm is an attempt to establish PIL...but he also isn't breaking distance/tempo here.

[Purple Fencer]

Yes you do. You see the same thing everybody else sees. Other people are saying one thing. You are saying the opposite.

No...having no illusions means I don't direct like I think I'm at Downunder's level. Seeing an action differently than someone else is not the same deal.

I also don't pull rules out of my hind quarters like some directors (Notalent knows who I mean)....I would never red card a fencer for a weapon suddenly ceasing to function properly as the result of bouting....after this same weapon had passed weight and lame testing immediately before being used (I still can't believe that one...cost the fencer the bout, in fact)

[vivoescrimare]

I appreciate and understand your reasoning, but the highly rated referees (Epeemike in this thread, Downunder when he referenced Sequence 2 in one of the other) are saying attack left. Every time. I happen to agree, (though Action #1 gives me trouble) but I'm curious to know their reasons for calling it FotL's attack.

[Purple Fencer]

I appreciate and understand your reasoning, but the highly rated referees (Epeemike in this thread, Downunder when he referenced Sequence 2 in one of the other) are saying attack left. Every time. I happen to agree, (though Action #1 gives me trouble) but I'm curious to know their reasons for calling it FotL's attack.

Good....'cause I've given what I'VE got!

[Bonehead]

Epeemike was firmly in the Attack All Day camp of Sequence 1, so it's no surprise that he is still there in sequence 2.

I would be interested to hear what Allen, Down Under, Craig, and Debreke think about these actions, since I feel they expand upon Action #5 in Sequence 1.

[downunder]

Every time. I happen to agree, (though Action #1 gives me trouble) but I'm curious to know their reasons for calling it FotL's attack.

Action 1 is definately the tightest. I've going out to watch AC Milan destroy ManU, so I'll try and post a reply when I get back.

[Superscribe]

Oh eff that, i hope you got somebody to hold your hand after Rooney savagely laces the ball in through Abbiati over and over again.

[Superscribe]

In each of the actions, FOTL starts an action but then withdraws his arm.

I earlier learned that this is what the British are calling a "compound" attack.

[jeff]

I wonder how people feel t.56(a), especially #2 and #4 might not apply...

[keith]

I wonder how people feel t.56(a), especially #2 and #4 might not apply...

.. because that's just not the way it's done these days young man.

I suspect some of the verdicts might have been different had FoL not just been sticking the arm out to make line. A little bit of front foot movement and some of those might have ended up as AiP, or not.

[Purple Fencer]

I wonder how people feel t.56(a), especially #2 and #4 might not apply...

Not me....the withdrawal is a bent arm....no RoW.

Interestingly, for some reason I thought you were referring to actions 2 and 4 on the vid...which have Right doing an inquartata and landing with a foot off the strip....then I realized you were talking about the subsections of the rule.