Sabre Rules Quiz

[pkt]

Thank you, epeemike, that's the correct answer to the lines.
The RoW is established irrespective of footwork.

that's the way it was interpreted. It IS still the way it is interpreted.

I forgot the section of the rule, but I've explained to the beginner so many times:
there are 4 conditions of an attack:
1. the initial extending of the arm
2. with the point - or blade in sabre
3. continuously
4. threatening the target.
take any one of these 4 factors away then it's not an attack.

Hence in foil, the point in the air, though with the arm fully extended is not an attack: the point is not continuously threatening the target.

Hence sabre in this regard is a lot purer than foil. Bend your arm in an attack and you would have lost yur RoW.

But then my bias is showing.
Yes, I do fence foil too.

PK

[edew]

Originally posted by pkt
I noticed that the questions and the answers are not in the same sequence.
Suggestion: number the answers.

Furthermore, Q25 and Q32 are te same question:

Quizzes - Sabre Rules - Question 25
Fencer X makes an attack against fencer Y?s point in line. At the final moment of X?s attack, Y advances. Both fencers hit.

Quizzes - Sabre Rules - Question 32
Fencer X makes an attack against fencer Y?s point in line. At the final moment of X?s attack, Y lunges. Both fencers hit.

Just checking to see if we?re paying attention?

They're not the same in that in case 1, Y advances, in case 2, Y lunges. They're the same in that in both cases, Y scores the point. It was only around mid-90s or later that the FIE changed the "interpretation" so that a lunge from a point in line keeps the priority of the point in line. It used to be that one may advance or retreat, but not lunge. People wondered why the possible discrepancy. It was changed so that a point in line which has priority does not lose priority by advancing, retreating, or lunging. Ducking, twisting, and other goofy actions do nullify the line.

I got according to your interpretation 7 'wrongs'.

For the sake of gaining a better understanding of the rules, here are my rebuttals / justifications for my calls on 4 of the 'wrongs'.

So, if my 4 'wrong' calls are correct then I'd have 28/31 or 90.32%. or 29/32 = 90.62%

I guess I might have been handicapped by doing the test using the FIE rules in stead of the USFA rules.

Re Q.4 Fencer Y makes a direct attack with advance-lunge against fencer X?s point in line. Expecting the beat, X makes two disengages. Both fencers hit..
- According to my refereeing coach, who?s one of the 11 FIE-As in all 3 weapons, when you move a line ? no matter how small the disengagement is - chances are the attacker will be given the RoW especally in this case when Y made a direct attack. i.e. Y did not look for the blade.
Yes, I'm cognizant of the 'advance- lunge' Y made...

The point is, Y's attack is straight with no attempt to take X's blade. X makes multiple disengages (even one is sufficient to nullify it) against an attack that does not attempt to find the blade. Point in line by X is thus lost.

Q16. ? Fencer X makes an attack and fencer Y makes a counter-attack. The lights indicate that only Y was hit. X?s cord from the metallic jacket to the mask had become disconnected prior to the attack.
- The call: attack / counter-attack. The attack has the RoW. 99% of the time, even without the head wireconnection, there's enough gounding to register the hit.
Now, on the other hand if Y made a riposte...

As I mentioned above, if X's cord is disconnected, it does not matter whether X had right of way or not. Touch (by X) is annulled.

Q25 - Fencer X makes an attack against fencer Y?s point in line. At the final moment of X?s attack, Y advances. Both fencers hit.
- See my rebuttal for Q4 above. The ligne has to be stationary! no 'if, buts or maybes'...

See my explanation: a point in line allows one to advance, retreat, and lunge without losing the point in line.

Q 28 Fencer X begins an attack with a feint. Fencer Y momentarily follows the feint and then counter attacks and hits valid into X?s continuation, which also lands valid.
- The operative words in the question was ?X's continuation?. A continuation, as I understand it arises when the attack did not land, then it becomes a ?continuation? = ?remise?. Therefore the correct answer is Y scores.
The Call:
?attack, 'NO';
counter-attack ?Yes?;
?remise (continuation)? Yes.
Touch for Y.
Now, if the question had said '...into X's attack' I'd agree with your verdict.

You're reading too much into the question. The question did not stipulate that X's initial attack failed. Perhaps the question could be better phrased, such as, "...then counter attacks and hits valid into the completion of X's attack, which also lands valid."

Continuation does not mean remise, as continuation is not a technical fencing term. In the colloquial sense, it would mean the continuation of whatever was happening.

[edew]

Concerning the mask cord question, I once saw this happen at the NCAA championships. Fencer P (Penn State) made an attack, fencer Y (Yale) made a counter-attack. During the attack, or just prior to it, the mask clip came off.

Fencer Y protested, fencer P tried to put the mask clip back on, Derek Cotton, the referee requested P not touch her equipment. Y tested the mask, and -- obviously -- did not work. P's touch annulled.

P's coach did not protest (which pretty much convinces me that the rules were properly applied).

Don't know why the fencers had to test, but that was part of the show.

[veeco]

Originally posted by edew


P's coach did not protest (which pretty much convinces me that the rules were properly applied).

Don't know why the fencers had to test, but that was part of the show.

Especially after what I've heard about Penn State's coach...

[pkt]

Thank you, edew and veeco for your considered response.

As far as the head wire question is concerned, or for that matter the other 'correct' answers to the questions I'm questioning, I'll stay with the interpretations from the FIE A ref.

According to the FIE's 'Liste des arbitres FIE, saison 2002-2003', Derek Cotton is an FIE B in all 3 weapons. Not A in all 3 weapons.

Guess who I'll listen to, a ref who has 3As or one who has 3Bs? No disrespect to Mr. Cotton meant.

Sorry about my ignorance, but is Maitre Kaidanov still the coach for Penn State? Veeco, what have u heard about him? Watch it now, nothing defamatory...

So, edew, are you saying that in the year of our Lord 2003, the FIE condones the interprettion that the line with priority can lunge or step forward and keep his priority?

Not according to the FIE A ref.

In Q.4 'Fencer Y makes a direct attack with advance-lunge against fencer X's point in line. Expecting the beat, X makes two disengages. Both fencers hit.'
You seem to agree with me but the webmaster ruled my answer of giving the point to Y as WRONG.

Q 28 Fencer X begins an attack with a feint. Fencer Y momentarily follows the feint and then counter attacks and hits valid into X?s continuation, which also lands valid.

Given the fact that the words of the questions is all we have to go by I don't think I'm reading too much into the question. Obviously I'm taking the stand that Craig worded the questions with careful and due consideration. Why would Craig or whoever created these quizzes use the word 'continuation' when 'attack' was what he meant?

"You're reading too much into the question. The question did not stipulate that X's initial attack failed. Perhaps the question could be better phrased, such as, "...then counter attacks and hits valid into the completion of X's attack, which also lands valid.""

A clearing of the air: we're still talking sabre, right? Right.

If the attack is good, then X has priority. Then the counter-attack is out of time. I'm sure you know that for the counter-attack to be valid it has to be at least one fencing-time ahead of the attack. Then the attack would have been called an attack, not a continuation.

In sabre. for an attack to become a continuation, that means the attack landed after X's front foot has landed already or 'immediatly afterward' in the case of a compound attack which this case is. See rule t.75 (b)1 second part.
Then my call would be correct:
Attack from X: NO.
Counter-attack by Y: YES.
Continuation (=remise) by X: YES.
Point for Y.
This is the only logical answer - as Mr. Spock would have said.

I have to chuckle about your argument about 'continuation'.

I agree with you, 'continuation' is not one of the 19 FIE-approved fencing terms that the FIE A informed us that we can use while refereeing. That said, people nevertheless still use it to mean 'remise' the correct and FIE-approved term, especially those refs who are shy about using the French terms.

So, shall we throw out Q28 and card Craig for inappropriate language?

Craig, what say you to all these exchanges? See what you've started?

BTW, who supplied the questions and answers. Perhaps we should go back to the source and get the 'correct' answers. I sure hope the author is an FIE A ref.

Thank you for this, Craig, a forum on this will go on forever. Next thing you should do is to do it with illustrations. Ha! that'll really get blood boiling.

This proves yet again that sabreurs are an argumentative lot. And in spite of the costs, thank God for electric sabre. It sure cuts down a lot of the BS.


PK

[Repechage]

Originally posted by pkt
<snip>

In Q.4 'Fencer Y makes a direct attack with advance-lunge against fencer X's point in line. Expecting the beat, X makes two disengages. Both fencers hit.'
You seem to agree with me but the webmaster ruled my answer of giving the point to Y as WRONG.
PK
<snip>

Are you sure? When I took it, the correct answer was "award the touch to Y." There is either an error in the quiz program or an error in your recollection. (I printed out the question-by-question analysis given after the test is taken, so I am not depending on my memory here)

[Craig]

pk - The key to the question is that it doesn't matter if it is the direct attack or a continuation of the attack. Fencer Y follows the feint, thus losing the opportunity to gain tempo. When Fencer Y does decide to try to attack, Fencer X is already completing the action. Because Y does not successfully take over the tempo (ie, hit before the start of X's final action), Y has given up the touch.

This is how the question is worded in study guides and written exams for the USFA rules.

As to the point in line/multi-disengage question - I believe that your memory deceives you. Take the quiz again and let me know if you still get the question wrong. You seem to be the only one that has input the correct answer to have it scored wrong.

Also, there is how the rules are written and how some choose to interpret them. Even the best umpires in baseball ignore what the rules say about the strike zone sometimes. Doesn't mean the rules are wrong, just means that that ump doesn't care about the letter of the rule. This test cares about the letter of the rule so that you can know what the rules are until you get to be a triple-A referee and decide on your own.

Cheers,
Craig

[Craig]

Originally posted by pkt
Q25 and Q32 are te same question:

Quizzes - Sabre Rules - Question 25
Fencer X makes an attack against fencer Y’s point in line. At the final moment of X’s attack, Y advances. Both fencers hit.

Quizzes - Sabre Rules - Question 32
Fencer X makes an attack against fencer Y’s point in line. At the final moment of X’s attack, Y lunges. Both fencers hit.

Not the same question, one is with advance, one is with lunge. The questions are checking to see if you know the correct answer for each situation.

Originally posted by pkt
Fencer X makes an attack and fencer Y makes a counter-attack. The lights indicate that only Y was hit. X’s cord from the metallic jacket to the mask had become disconnected prior to the attack.

See rule t.73 in the USFA rule book for this one: ...touches just awarded, in accordance with the signal from the apparatus, must be annulled if it can be established, by tests carried out under the Referee's attentive supervision, before the bout has effectively restarted and with no changes having been made to the equipment (cf t.35/d)
- that a touch made by the fencer judged to have been touched does not cause the apparatus to register;
...

So, according to the rules for materiality of touches in sabre holds that an equipment malfunction of the fencer touched annuls that touch. There is no provision for right of way.

Originally posted by pkt
Fencer X makes an attack against fencer Y’s point in line. At the final moment of X’s attack, Y advances. Both fencers hit.
- See my rebuttal for Q4 above. The ligne has to be stationary! no 'if, buts or maybes'...

The current correct interpretation is that a line is a line. The fencer with the line is allowed to advance, retreat, or lunge with the line and still maintain priority. It is up to Fencer X to deflect the line or to cause Fencer Y to remove the line. See t.76 parts 1 and 2.

Originally posted by pkt
Fencer X begins an attack with a feint. Fencer Y momentarily follows the feint and then counter attacks and hits valid into X’s continuation, which also lands valid.
- The operative words in the question was ‘X's continuation’. A continuation, as I understand it arises when the attack did not land, then it becomes a ‘continuation’ = ‘remise’. Therefore the correct answer is Y scores.

Remember to keep with exactly what the wording of the question is. If the action was attack-remise, then the question would have said "remise". Refer to t.76 part 3 which allows for multiple feints and t.77 (f) on the timing that must occur for Fencer Y's counter attack to be "in time".

Know the rules, love them, they are your friend.

Cheers,
Craig

[edew]

Originally posted by pkt
Thank you, edew and veeco for your considered response.

[...]

So, edew, are you saying that in the year of our Lord 2003, the FIE condones the interprettion that the line with priority can lunge or step forward and keep his priority?

Not according to the FIE A ref.

[...]
PK

The FIE has ALWAYS accepted the idea that a point in line has priority while the fencer (with the PIL) advances or retreats. Indeed, many fencers do retreat with PIL and then step in to finish.

In the mid-90s, maybe after the 96 Olympics, maybe before, the FIE clarified the situation of a PIL and a lunge (hence the two similarly worded questions). Prior to the "clarification", the FIE claimed that an attack from the PIL via a lunge would lose the PIL's right of way. In other words, if X has PIL (in foil or sabre), Y makes attack, X attacks into Y's attack with a lunge, then Y gets point. That was the interpretation until the clarification in the mid-90s.

The clarification was made loudly and clearly to all fencing associations of the world, so that people were clear on it: a PIL maintains right of way even when the fencer with the PIL lunges. In other words, in the situation I described just above, X gets the point (assuming both hit valid).

Maybe your FIE "A" referee didn't hear that loud call. I'd suggest you ask that person again, using the hypothetical as stated here.

[magma]

i just took the test, i failed it miserably, with 13 correct. i'll take it again after reviewing the rules, but here's what i saw: if x iniates an attack, and y counters, they both miss, then resume their original actions and both hit valid surface, the i would give to x. i think. it's because x started the attack initially, then if they resume their initial attacks then x would get the point,not y. my other area of weakness in reading the questions was: both hit valid, i made an assumption that they both hit simultaneously. wow, what a test, it is very good. My other area of weakness was Point in line; if x has pil, and y doesn't take the blade, or beat/parry the blade, then he hasn't esblished right of way [this is where i am with row now]

see you guys later, i'm going out now.

[veeco]

Originally posted by pkt
Thank you, edew and veeco for your considered response.

As far as the head wire question is concerned, or for that matter the other 'correct' answers to the questions I'm questioning, I'll stay with the interpretations from the FIE A ref.

The "mysterious FIE A ref" who wishes to remain anonymous???

[pkt]

veeco,

you wrote the answer to your last question already. Since I haven't had his permission to use his name in vain, he'll have to stay nameless.

I have to admit, yes, I do live in Vancouver, and that the 'coaching' I got from 'God' was at least 3 years old. That said, the instruction from 'God' was drummed into us. Furthermore, to make sure that i remember the lesson correctly, I did confer with another 'N' ref - in Canada we have 'National', 80% correct in the exams and 'Provincial' rankings for refs - and he concurred with my memory, i.e. as far as 'God' is concerned, you lay out 'le ligne' you'd better not move with a step forward or a lunge unless you want to have the RoW taken from you.

Nevertheless, I'll check from this side of the border. And if Veeco calls 'God' since you wrote that he's a personal friend and perhaps he can clarify the answers for all of us.

PiL has always been iffy, hence we discourage beginners to refrain from using it too often unless he'she is absolutely of the rule and understand hwo the ref sees the rule.

Thank you Craig, for your answers. Let me read your points over again before I respond.

Thank you all for a most exciting and educational discussion. I'm too busy over thewkend to do much discussions. I'll stay tuned.

PK
I'd rather be fencing.

[pkt]

hey, anyone out there want to tackle my question re rule m.33 concerning the conductive material on the back of the sabre glove?

The basic question is this:
1. since the French rules say the conductive material ahs to cover as far as the styloiede cubital exterior bone in both the 'en garde' and 'arm extended' postions,
2. if one puts a strap at the cuff of the lame', thus keeping the target properly covered as per 1. above, then one doesn't have to wear a lame' unless
3. the USFA, as one tpurnament organiser in the WWD of the USFA contends that the wearing of the manchette is for, under USFA rules, safety reasons.

Come on, all you knowledgeable people - Craig, veeco, epeemike, et al - dont' keep me on tenterhooks.

PK

[pkt]

veeco,

I have not had a chance to talk to him to get his permission to use his name, so anonymous he'll have to remain.

PK

[Inquartata]

If he is making pronouncements about rules which affect fencers and fencing in general, and influencing the way others are calling actions as he has with you, he can have no expectation that his instructions be kept private. They have entered the public realm. Moreover if he is giving out correct information he should have no objections to being cited as an authority. Only if he is not should there be any reason to remain anonymous.

Well, I was tripped up mostly by those dratted technical specifications again---how many meters, centimeters, blah, blah, blah. That and the mask cord coming off. Bah.

By the way, what's with the one answer #30, re what the ref should check on the saber---"to make sure thepommel has no rectangular". No rectangular what?

[veeco]

Yes, it appears some of the answers proposed in the questions have been cut off. I could make them out because I had read the study guide before and I could remember what the answer was, but it could affect some people...

[pkt]

in4,

#30 has to do with the guard, so the answer concerning the pommel was there to check if you were paying attention. The pommel afterall is not the guard...

PK