You Make the Call: Video Clip

[Artisan]

Originally posted by DanInMI
.....but the guy on the right DID extend first. And he began extending too soon after the other started changing direction for it to be condidered a reaction to that. All in all, I am with you, I would have called it simultaneous.

In slow-mo you see he extends first, but in real time, and as the Ref apparently saw it, the initial extension was a preparation, not an attack, he was searching. As Edew put it, he then saw the opponents attack coming and put a lunge behind the extension. Its Gutkovskiy's attack into preparation.

[prototoast]

Reviewing it carefully, I would be inclined to give it to the fencer on the right, however if I was directing that at full speed, I would not award either fencer the touch (though fencers of that level generally would not want to be directed by me).

[veeco]

Yes, Gutovski isn't changing line. His point (as Nontapat's) is clearly up in the ceiling and he's extending in a low line before Nontapat starts to extend in a high line. You get the feeling that Nontapat is extending first because his point travels less distance, but Gutovski's extension starts before.

After all, Nontapat's conceded the touch, so he himself knew that it wasn't his touch

[I see dead people]

What is going on here proves that ROW, as it is, will never have a fan base. And, foil, and sabre for that matter, will never become popular.

The rules of ROW are pathetically vague!!

Give it up, and start fencing epee.

[Cerian]

In slow motion it looked like the right began to extend first. However, his forward movement seemed like a reaction to the left. Either way, I couldn't make a call.

[Dan H]

Attack from the left arrives. Easy call. Charles Washburn was indeed there, although I took off before the finals, so I don't know for sure that they put him on the gold medal bout. There were several officials there qualified to take that bout. I suspect they put Charles on it, but I'm sure the bout had a competent director regardless.

[westcoastsabre]

Isn't it a one light action?

[Namir]

Originally posted by westcoastsabre
Isn't it a one light action?

No , you can very clearly see both lights go on.

[Delmont]

What is going on here proves that ROW, as it is, will never have a fan base. And, foil, and sabre for that matter, will never become popular.

The rules of ROW are pathetically vague

Give it up, and start fencing epee.

Exactly what i did. I became disalusioned with sabre purely because of crappy RoW calls at tournaments.

[edew]

The important point that wannabee referees should take from all these discussions is that one should NOT call simultaneous. It is most definitely not simultaneous. Simultaneous is when both are doing the same action within practically the same moment (of course, it's not likely that both are doing the same thing at the exact same moment).

Here, one is changing directions (Gutkovskiy), the other is making advances and then launching an attack.

Go ahead and call it as attack, counter-attack for the right, or for the left, or, I-don't-know, but don't call it simultaneous.

No one's going to penalize you for saying it's left's attack or right's attack. Everyone saw the incident, but like any eye-witness situation, different witnesses with different perspectives would call it differently.

Simultaneous would not be appropriate due the flow of the action prior to the last phrase. Had there been a moment of hesitation on both parts and then a simultaneous launching of attacks, then perhaps it'll be call simultaneous. But because there were constant flow of movement, it's tough to be able to make a simultaneous call in that case.

[C.J.]

Originally posted by edew
The important point that wannabee referees should take from all these discussions is that one should NOT call simultaneous. It is most definitely not simultaneous. Simultaneous is when both are doing the same action within practically the same moment (of course, it's not likely that both are doing the same thing at the exact same moment).

Here, one is changing directions (Gutkovskiy), the other is making advances and then launching an attack.

Go ahead and call it as attack, counter-attack for the right, or for the left, or, I-don't-know, but don't call it simultaneous.

No one's going to penalize you for saying it's left's attack or right's attack. Everyone saw the incident, but like any eye-witness situation, different witnesses with different perspectives would call it differently.

Simultaneous would not be appropriate due the flow of the action prior to the last phrase. Had there been a moment of hesitation on both parts and then a simultaneous launching of attacks, then perhaps it'll be call simultaneous. But because there were constant flow of movement, it's tough to be able to make a simultaneous call in that case.

I don't think I can agree with you. Simultaneous attacks can occur under various condiitons -- they need not to be two fencers performing the exact action. In fact, they two attacks need not to be executed at the precise instant(which is an improbability anyway). A good director gives a very small, but definite leeway for simultaneous attacks because for otherwise his calls are doomed to be inconsistant and erroneous.

[R. Exnicios]

Wow.

I watch that clip a dozen times at full speed. I am very glad I was not the one having to make that call. One of those " I know one of you was the attacker . . ." I think the fencer on the right's body language gave the ref a break.

Lets get more clips like this! This is how we should be training Refs!

Nice Job!

[pkt]

artisan,

The actual call was posted on the machine: the left got the point: It was 15:14. The score was posted as Stan was taking off his mask.

Quicktime has a higher resolution than Windows Media Viewer.

==)--------------

I agree with Eric, as a ref, one should try NOT to call simultaneous; esp. in this case when artisan let us know that one of the fencers conceded the point, afterwards, so simo is not an option.

==)--------------

I see dead people,

Poor refing should never be the determining factor on which weapon you fence.
I agree with your sentiments, but I simply do NOT like epee. In Vancouver, epee is the strongest weapon. There is a critical mass of strong epeeists here so that we can generate our own rated fencers. But I simply do not like epee.
I can fence it reasonably well, but I do not like epee.
In spite of the poor calls sometimes, electric sabre is much easier to ref than foil. The actions are usu. better defined. The rules are enforced in a more clear manner.
You pull your arm back you are NOT attacking.
If your arm or your blade is not going fwd, you are NOT attacking. You blade lands after your front foot, that's a remise.
You take your opponent's blade's forte, that's a parry.
Your attack lands on your opponent's blade, then the target and he hit you, that's a parry-riposte.
ad infinitum

PK

[pkt]

Actually, I'd like to know what the two fencers actually think who got that hit.
From the body language, it looks like Gutkovskiy was hesitant about taking off his mask; perhaps he thought it was a simultaneous.
Let's be truthful about that.

PK

[Artisan]

Originally posted by pkt
Actually, I'd like to know what the two fencers actually think who got that hit.
From the body language, it looks like Gutkovskiy was hesitant about taking off his mask; perhaps he thought it was a simultaneous.

I dissagree, I think Gutkovskiy kept a poker face... what is not clear since the ref is not shown - and though I was there I was not watching him, so I don't know for certain, but I believe what happened was immediately after the touch, while still recovering from lunge Nontapat looks to the ref (not the lights!) as if to ask "Mine?" Having watched Washburn for two days in a row I suspect he slightly shook his head "no." Nontapat then removes mask, salutes, crowd sighs; then Washburn gives hand signal, scorekeeper posts score and Gutkovskiy removes his mask. I'm sure Washburn was confident in his call. For a less experienced ref, Nontapats body language betrayed his own uncertainty about the hit. The advice once given me regarding foil was, " Ya gotta sell it to the ref."

..... in this case when artisan let us know that one of the fencers conceded the point, afterwards, so simo is not an option.

Not true, ref makes the calls, not the fencer. I've been overruled by a ref when I acknowledged a touch I thought I lost.

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by R. Exnicios
Wow.

I watch that clip a dozen times at full speed. I am very glad I was not the one having to make that call. One of those " I know one of you was the attacker . . ." I think the fencer on the right's body language gave the ref a break.

Lets get more clips like this! This is how we should be training Refs!

Nice Job!

Yeah...I will agree with that. No way is that an easy call.

You know...it occurs to me that prior action might make a real difference in how a ref would call this.
Example:If the fencer on the left has up to this point demonstrated several times to the ref a technique in which he does a little retreat to draw in his opponent, and then close the distance by halting or changing direction, followed by a lunge. That referree might be more inclined to recognize this as a trap that the fencer on the left has sprung. He also might then view the fencers on the right's action more as a reaction to an action that left has executed several times before. Seeing this in the context of the bout really can make a difference in interpreting something like this.

It makes me think of something that a friend of mine said once.
He said something like: " Ilike fencing in front of Mr.____. He knows how I fence." What he meant was that when he executes a disengage in front of that director that director knows that is what his disengages look like....and he calls it a disengage. Whereas, another director might have said he was "searching" for his opponents blade.

As someone in an earlier post said, "this really emphasizes th importance of making an attack look like an attack."

[sabreur]

Eric's dead right that referees have to learn to separate these kinds of actions and not call simultaneous.

I'm no expert on foil, and originally thought that it should have been an attack from the right, watching at full speed, but going through the clip frame by frame, I definitely see the attack is from the left.

One other thing, the perspective, from behind the shoulder of the left-hand fencer, probably causes his action to look later and less offensive than it looked from where the referee was standing.

MR

[DanInMI]

Originally posted by sabreur
Eric's dead right that referees have to learn to separate these kinds of actions and not call simultaneous.

I'm no expert on foil, and originally thought that it should have been an attack from the right, watching at full speed, but going through the clip frame by frame, I definitely see the attack is from the left.

One other thing, the perspective, from behind the shoulder of the left-hand fencer, probably causes his action to look later and less offensive than it looked from where the referee was standing.

MR

Frame by frame you can see that the fencer on the right begins his advance before the left's foot has landed in his final retreat. Also, that the fencer on the right continues to advance and begins extending a full three frames before the left begins extending. The fencer on the left may move his blade first. But he does so in two parts. Initially he lowers his blade. Then he thrusts. As he is lowering his blade the fencer on the right is already extending. He does not pause, he continues extending and advancing until the touch.

[Rolls]

Well, the extention looked to me to be pretty much simeltaneous. But I could see an argument for either side.

I think that after reading everyone's posts that there is a good/valid argument for the point to go to either side.

Here's the arguments as I understand them

Point Right:
He began his advance first. It is a properly executed advance/lunge so he gains RoW with the advance.

Point Left:
The right hand fencer didn't have a properly executed adv/lng (i.e. he didn't begin attacking with the adv). The fencer on the left began extending first, and thus began an attack AND established RoW.

Does that mean that in this scenario either call is acceptable?

Also, it would be nice if each frame had a label. That way we could say, Left begins extending in frame 123... etc. Hey, I know that's WAY more than we should ask for.

Also, just because the fencer conceded the point doesn't necessarily mean that the other fencer should get the point (or that fencer thought it was the others). He may have conceded because the ref called that way. He may have conceded to be a good sport, etc.

Rolls.

[sabreur]

Originally posted by DanInMI
Frame by frame you can see that the fencer on the right begins his advance before the left's foot has landed in his final retreat. Also, that the fencer on the right continues to advance and begins extending a full three frames before the left begins extending. The fencer on the left may move his blade first. But he does so in two parts. Initially he lowers his blade. Then he thrusts. As he is lowering his blade the fencer on the right is already extending. He does not pause, he continues extending and advancing until the touch.

You yourself argued at great length that forward movement doesn't necessarily constitute the attack.

But what I saw was:

1. The fencer on the right starts forward without extension--his arm is cocked and his tip is pointing at the ceiling, and there is none of the sense of threat that you get when a flick is armed.
2. The fencer on the left starts forward without extension.
3. The fencer on the left starts his extension first (I think that what you read as a lowering of the blade, I read as the beginning of the extension).
4. The fencer on the right then begins his extension.

Touch left.

Also, as I noted, I think the perspective is deceptive, and probably causes the extension by the fencer on the left to look less pronounced than what it was. This thread shows that, despite the frequently expressed thought that "if we could just see the action, we would agree and quit talking at cross purposes" is probably not true.

MR