Sabre Rules Quiz

[Craig]

Sabre rules quiz now up also. Check the "quiz" link at the top of this page.


Or, go to http://www.fencing101.com/vb/quiz.php

Spoiler Space added - Only scroll down after you've taken the quiz to take part in the discussion. Otherwise, you're cheating!

Cheers,
Craig


.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[edew]

31 out of 32. And without even having the rule book next to me. Who's yo daddy?

The only one I got wrong was about X's attack, Y's counter-attack, but X's mask cord was off. I thought that since it's still X's attack, his point will count independent of what Y did (since it was out of time). Guess not.

Did better than my epee result. 26 out of 30 (or something like that).

[Repechage]

That one got me as well. And I thought that only a correctly executed action gets a touch against an opponent who crosses over--does a counter-attack against a fleche-attack get the touch for the counter-attacker as well as earning a card for the fleching fencer?

[edew]

That's correct, if fencer X crosses his back foot in front of his front foot, it's as if he never hit anything, PLUS he gets a yellow card. So, even an out-of-time counter-attack by Y will count on X (provided Y hits the counter-attack before the halt is called by the referee for X's crossing feet).

[Repechage]

Good to know. Thanks.

[veeco]

29 is good enough for me thanks.

Most of the questions I got wrong, the depth of the metallic fabric inside the cuff of the glove, some questions that I should have read more carefully, and one ROW that I got wrong...

Seems like I have to get at least 4 questions wrong...

[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?

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...

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...

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'...

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.

Thanks for the quiz, nevertheless.

PK

[pkt]

Now that we have some people here who know the rules, maybe I shall ask the question here and perhaps someone can give me some answers. I've asked the questions of the FIE, the USFA and have yet to receive any reply.

(b) Glove

m.33 The regulation glove for the sword hand must be covered by conductive material, either detachable or fixed, on the back of the hand as far as the fingers and on the whole of the gauntlet.

But the original French rules says,

REGLEMENT DU MATERIEL, édition septembre 2000

m.33 Le gant réglementaire de la main armée du tireur doit être recouvert de tissu amovible ou fixé sur toute la manchette jusqu’au dessous du styloïde cubital extérieur (petit os saillant du poignet), aussi bien dans la position « en garde » que dans la position « bras allongé ».

By applying the English rules, the manchette is not covering the proper target.

By applying the French rule, one can put a strap on the end of the lame's cuff and meet the same requirements of covering the styloiede cubital exterior bone in both the 'en garde' and 'arm extended' positions.

Q1. If that's the case, then the manchette would be redundant, wouldn't it?

Q2. When will the FIE, the British and the USFA correct the English version of the rule?

PK

[veeco]

Originally posted by pkt

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?

Not really the same. In one case Y advances at the final moment of the action and in the other Y lunges.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by edew
That's correct, if fencer X crosses his back foot in front of his front foot, it's as if he never hit anything, PLUS he gets a yellow card. So, even an out-of-time counter-attack by Y will count on X (provided Y hits the counter-attack before the halt is called by the referee for X's crossing feet).

slight correction: the counter-attack has to START before teh cross, not finish.

-m

[pkt]

Veeco,

So what're your calls to those tow scenarios?

PK

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by pkt
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...

It sounds like you are arguing for the correct answer, which is kinda confusing.... I said "award a touch for y" and got the question right.....

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...

the idea is that you can't "penalize" fencer Y for fencer X's mistake with the mask cord. thus, the mask cord being detached is an automatic annulment.

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'...

you are just dead wrong on this one. go ask your coach. A line is a line is a line. advances, retreats, lunges notwithstanding, as long as your arm/blade don't change lines, its all good.

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.

the use of the term "continuation" IS problematic, but I thought it was relatively clear what they meant.

-m

[veeco]

Originally posted by pkt
Veeco,

So what're your calls to those tow scenarios?

PK

Same thing, touch for the line is valid. Y gets the point. See epeemike's answer above.

However, I think there was a rule at some point where they were making a difference for the line on whether you were advancing, lunging or retreating. One of the three would mean that you lost the line. I can't remember now... Maybe that's why they have these 2 questions, it's to make sure people don't use the old rule anymore...

[pkt]

epeemike81

In reverse order:

1. so what do you think 'continuation' meant?
It's not the attack.
As I explained:
first there is the attack, when the attack did not land immediately and continues in the same line, and finishes, it becomes a 'continuation' or 'remise'.
In sabre this is a lot clearer than in foil with the definition that an attack is complete when the front foot lands.
when tha happens, the RoW passes to the opponant.

2. As for 'le ligne' my interpretation is as per a FIE-A (3As) ref. one of the 11 in the world as per the list in the FIE website. Do you have any A-referee rating from the FIE? Unless you do, I'll listen to my ref coach. Besides, you're an epeeist, no? LOL (Sorry, can't resist that.)

3. About penalising the fencer who made the counter-attack, I think that sums it up: the counter-atack did not exist. The attack has the RoW.

4. I confered with another 'N' referee and he agreed with my understanding - as far as the FIE is concerned, the line has to be stationary. NO 'if, buts or maybes'. You move, be it you blade, lunge or step in, especially in the attacker's final action, you're then attacking into an attack, hence your action becomes a counter-attack. Again, no 'if, buts of maybes'.

This brings up another more fundamental question:
Why doesn't the USFA adopt the FIE rules as is and be done with it? There's nothing worst for those fencers who cross the border to compete to have to adapt o changes in the rules...

PK

[veeco]

Originally posted by pkt
epeemike81

2. As for 'le ligne' my interpretation is as per a FIE-A (3As) ref. one of the 11 in the world as per the list in the FIE website. Do you have any A-referee rating from the FIE? Unless you do, I'll listen to my ref coach. Besides, you're an epeeist, no? LOL (Sorry, can't resist that.)

Who is that? Is that Cri-Cri? Last I heard he was in Toronto, not in B.C.

4. I confered with another 'N' referee and he agreed with my understanding - as far as the FIE is concerned, the line has to be stationary. NO 'if, buts or maybes'. You move, be it you blade, lunge or step in, especially in the attacker's final action, you're then attacking into an attack, hence your action becomes a counter-attack. Again, no 'if, buts of maybes'.

Can you quote the rule that says so?

This brings up another more fundamental question:
Why doesn't the USFA adopt the FIE rules as is and be done with it? There's nothing worst for those fencers who cross the border to compete to have to adapt o changes in the rules...

PK

Actually, they do. Maybe they are interpreted differently, but the FIE rules and the USFA rules are the same on ROW.

[epeemike81]

[quote]Originally posted by pkt
[b]epeemike81

In reverse order:

1. so what do you think 'continuation' meant?
It's not the attack.
As I explained:
first there is the attack, when the attack did not land immediately and continues in the same line, and finishes, it becomes a 'continuation' or 'remise'.
In sabre this is a lot clearer than in foil with the definition that an attack is complete when the front foot lands.
when tha happens, the RoW passes to the opponant.

the way they mean it is the feint, and then the "continuation", which in this case is the end of the compound attack. the important issue is that his opponent follows the feint.

2. As for 'le ligne' my interpretation is as per a FIE-A (3As) ref. one of the 11 in the world as per the list in the FIE website. Do you have any A-referee rating from the FIE? Unless you do, I'll listen to my ref coach. Besides, you're an epeeist, no? LOL (Sorry, can't resist that.)

I think you are misinterpretting what this ref is saying. No, you can't break the line without reason (i.e. to avoid a search). however, that has only to do with arm. what your legs do is irrelevant. PLEASE double check this with the ref.

3. About penalising the fencer who made the counter-attack, I think that sums it up: the counter-atack did not exist. The attack has the RoW.

well, I'm glad you feel that way, but it doesn't change the rules....

4. I confered with another 'N' referee and he agreed with my understanding - as far as the FIE is concerned, the line has to be stationary. NO 'if, buts or maybes'. You move, be it you blade, lunge or step in, especially in the attacker's final action, you're then attacking into an attack, hence your action becomes a counter-attack. Again, no 'if, buts of maybes'.

As I THOUGHT I had made clear earlier, I agree with your interpretation on this. X breaks line, Y's touch. what is confusing me is how I got the right answer and the quiz told you its wrong.

This brings up another more fundamental question:
Why doesn't the USFA adopt the FIE rules as is and be done with it? There's nothing worst for those fencers who cross the border to compete to have to adapt o changes in the rules...

as Veeco said, USFA rules ARE FIE rules.

-m

[pkt]

veeco,

it's nowhere in the rule.

That's the interpretation and the practice adopted by the FIE A-refs. ignore it to your own peril in international comptitions.

Put it this way:
In Canada, I'm right on those 4 rules.
Perhaps I'm wrong in the States.

As I've stated before, unless u r an FIE A ref in all 3 weapons, I know I'm right as far as the FIE is concerned.



I'm an 'N' rated ref in both Foil and sabre in Canada and that's the way we are taught by the one whom we call 'God' in the refing circle.
So, I'll do as God tells me... rules quiz or no.


PK

[Peach]

Well, I did better than usual but that was because I cheated and read this thread first. Also, I guessed on the dropped weapon one, and lucked out. When I'm refereeing, if someone drops the weapon I'm too busy laughing to call the action. I also answered the ones about line according to the rules, but I've never seen anybody get line unless they were waaay out of distance in sabre.

But explain to me how 32 out of 32 is 96%?

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by pkt
veeco,

it's nowhere in the rule.

That's the interpretation and the practice adopted by the FIE A-refs. ignore it to your own peril in international comptitions.

No, that WAS teh way it was interpreted, and at the time it WAS in the rules. a few years ago, the rules changed. footwork is now irrelevant re: PIL.

-m

[veeco]

Originally posted by pkt
veeco,

it's nowhere in the rule.

That's the interpretation and the practice adopted by the FIE A-refs. ignore it to your own peril in international comptitions.

Put it this way:
In Canada, I'm right on those 4 rules.
Perhaps I'm wrong in the States.

As I've stated before, unless u r an FIE A ref in all 3 weapons, I know I'm right as far as the FIE is concerned.



I'm an 'N' rated ref in both Foil