Video: Mariel Zagunis wins NYC World Cup

• 

  Jerzy, June 25, 2010 @ 12:22 pm

  I have a problem with validity of Zagunis atacks. She very often moves forward without threatening the valble target In accordance with my experience of over 40 years and definitions of sabre attacks including FIE refereeing video such actions are not considered attack. Arthur Cramer at ‘Arbitrage sabre’ also explains that if two fencers are atacking target like Benko and other atack with his arm below target like Zagunis point shoul be awarded to the Benko. In my opinion on this video it is clear that refereree recognise Zagunis preparations as attacks what is against FIE rules and instructions.
• 

  Jerzy, June 25, 2010 @ 8:22 am

  I have a problem with validity of Zagunis atacks. She very often moves forward without threatening the valble target In accordance with my experience of over 40 years and definitions of sabre attacks including FIE refereeing video such actions are not considered attack. Arthur Cramer at ‘Arbitrage sabre’ also explains that if two fencers are atacking target like Benko and other atack with his arm below target like Zagunis point shoul be awarded to the Benko. In my opinion on this video it is clear that refereree recognise Zagunis preparations as attacks what is against FIE rules and instructions.
• 

  Craig Harkins, June 25, 2010 @ 2:09 pm

  Arthur Cramer’s assertion that low line attacks were not valid in sabre was overturned by the FIE Arbitrage committee about a month after his video was published. (See the article here: Low Line Sabre Attacks: Legal)

  In fact, many of the assertions from that video series are currently under review by the FIE for clarification.
• 

  Craig Harkins, June 25, 2010 @ 10:09 am

  Arthur Cramer’s assertion that low line attacks were not valid in sabre was overturned by the FIE Arbitrage committee about a month after his video was published. (See the article here: Low Line Sabre Attacks: Legal)

  In fact, many of the assertions from that video series are currently under review by the FIE for clarification.
• 

  Jerzy, June 26, 2010 @ 10:16 am

  Thanks Craig. FIE overturned some interpretation but the rule is the same i.e.“When the blade and the arm form an obtuse angle of about 135°, with the blade threatening a valid part of the target, and the arm is extending, it is correct from any angle: for head cuts, flank cuts, and cuts from the low line. And as far as I remember there was generaly no problem with interpretation of this rule in steam saber. There were some exceptions like introduction of attack with bend arm by Russian fencers in 70-ies, to withdraw opponent’s action. It was banned after several years as not conforming to above mentioned FIE rule of attack.

  We will not resolve this here but it is interesting that two world top coaches from old generation and two coaches from younger generation have identical view on the issue of attacks in sabre. Marco Siesto, top sabre referee, interprets attacks similar to those coaches. Of course we all know that it is impossible to teach and referee properly without clear interpretation of rules. For some reasons misinterpretation of rules spread out and it is now difficult to eliminate this. It is not surprise that fencers are confused because they don’t know how to fence, which action will referee count as valid. Of course referees, particularly less experience, are confused as well. I don’t know why it takes so long to FIE to make decisions on this. This is no good for sabre. It looks like introduction of electric sabre and changes of some rules, i.e. valid hits made with flat, complicated interpretation of sabre actions.
• 

  Jerzy, June 26, 2010 @ 6:16 am

  Thanks Craig. FIE overturned some interpretation but the rule is the same i.e.“When the blade and the arm form an obtuse angle of about 135°, with the blade threatening a valid part of the target, and the arm is extending, it is correct from any angle: for head cuts, flank cuts, and cuts from the low line. And as far as I remember there was generaly no problem with interpretation of this rule in steam saber. There were some exceptions like introduction of attack with bend arm by Russian fencers in 70-ies, to withdraw opponent’s action. It was banned after several years as not conforming to above mentioned FIE rule of attack.

  We will not resolve this here but it is interesting that two world top coaches from old generation and two coaches from younger generation have identical view on the issue of attacks in sabre. Marco Siesto, top sabre referee, interprets attacks similar to those coaches. Of course we all know that it is impossible to teach and referee properly without clear interpretation of rules. For some reasons misinterpretation of rules spread out and it is now difficult to eliminate this. It is not surprise that fencers are confused because they don’t know how to fence, which action will referee count as valid. Of course referees, particularly less experience, are confused as well. I don’t know why it takes so long to FIE to make decisions on this. This is no good for sabre. It looks like introduction of electric sabre and changes of some rules, i.e. valid hits made with flat, complicated interpretation of sabre actions.
• 

  Eric, June 28, 2010 @ 5:56 pm

  Jerzy, most of the rules with regards to right of way (arm extending, the 135 degree angle and such) assumes the situation where both fencers are going towards each other. In other words, from the on guard line, both fencers advancing, and attempting to threaten or hit the opponent. Then, the fencer whose arm extends first or has the blade at the 135 (or greater) angle will have the right of way over the fencer who is holding the arm back or whose blade is pointing straight up. Indeed, the last two points for Mariel were scored precisely on these criteria: the opponent (Benko) did not extend the arm first for Mariel’s 14th touch and Benko’s blade was pointed straight up at the ceiling during Mariel’s 15th touch.

  On the other hand, when one fencer is advancing and the other is retreating, there’s a clear acknowledgement by the retreating fencer that she doesn’t have right of way. The advancing fencer may also not have right of way either (merely advancing doesn’t give one the RoW after all), but if the retreating fencer changes directions to make an offensive action, the advancing fencer just has to “complete the attack”. It’s unstated in the rule book, but it’s what one might call that the advancing fencer has provisional right of way. The advancing fencer will have right of way provided that the advancing fencer doesn’t do a number of things, like keep holding the arm back, flinch, make multiple cuts against the simple counter attack, attack and miss and then continue forward, etc. If all the attacking fencer did against a change of direction by the retreating fencer is “complete the attack” by extending the arm (or more precisely, complete the already extending arm) and follow through without missing or being blocked, then the provisional right of way is right of way and so the advancing fencer gets the point.

  If not, there’s no incentive for the advancing fencer to continue advancing. Now, that in itself may or may not be a bad thing, but it will change the game significantly.
• 

  Eric, June 28, 2010 @ 9:56 pm

  Jerzy, most of the rules with regards to right of way (arm extending, the 135 degree angle and such) assumes the situation where both fencers are going towards each other. In other words, from the on guard line, both fencers advancing, and attempting to threaten or hit the opponent. Then, the fencer whose arm extends first or has the blade at the 135 (or greater) angle will have the right of way over the fencer who is holding the arm back or whose blade is pointing straight up. Indeed, the last two points for Mariel were scored precisely on these criteria: the opponent (Benko) did not extend the arm first for Mariel’s 14th touch and Benko’s blade was pointed straight up at the ceiling during Mariel’s 15th touch.

  On the other hand, when one fencer is advancing and the other is retreating, there’s a clear acknowledgement by the retreating fencer that she doesn’t have right of way. The advancing fencer may also not have right of way either (merely advancing doesn’t give one the RoW after all), but if the retreating fencer changes directions to make an offensive action, the advancing fencer just has to “complete the attack”. It’s unstated in the rule book, but it’s what one might call that the advancing fencer has provisional right of way. The advancing fencer will have right of way provided that the advancing fencer doesn’t do a number of things, like keep holding the arm back, flinch, make multiple cuts against the simple counter attack, attack and miss and then continue forward, etc. If all the attacking fencer did against a change of direction by the retreating fencer is “complete the attack” by extending the arm (or more precisely, complete the already extending arm) and follow through without missing or being blocked, then the provisional right of way is right of way and so the advancing fencer gets the point.

  If not, there’s no incentive for the advancing fencer to continue advancing. Now, that in itself may or may not be a bad thing, but it will change the game significantly.

Comments are closed.