Well done. Thank u so much for this video, it is very educational for me, and I'm trying to prepare myself to take part in the national referee test in Venezuela. Hope you can upload more videos like this :)
It could have been decided that way as well. In this case the referee ruled that his attack did not fell short. His foot did not hit the floor before he hit and he also hit „first try“. It is a close call. I hope this helps.
Nice video, it helps to understand the rules, but at 10:14 the Egyptian goes from 13 to 14, I don’t understand the call, the Georgian attacks, continuous movement, hits, and is denied the point ? 🤔
I have made a mistake at that point. Originally the referee called "counter-attack | attack". After the call Elsissy took a video replay, after which it was ruled that the Georgian didnt directly hit , but rather fell short first. That is because he finished his lunge before hitting the opponent. It is indicated by his forward foot being fully on the ground and him only moving his upper body forward. So the right call would be a Riposte by Elsissy. Hope this helps
Yes that’s exactly how that works, if you have right of way it doesn’t matter if you hit at the exact same time or if you get the hit right at the millisecond the lockout period ends, if you have right of way it’s your point if the light goes off
Not attacking you here … and I actually agree the touch you're referring should have been simul, but so should *many* of the two light touches here, and the arm is *not* the defining factor in any. (Hashtag never going back?) There are two possible responses to the 'well, call based on the hands' argument: One is to argue that the rules require some interpretation and this is the only valid one: One can make an attack over multiple steps. The rule says: "extending the arm and continuously threatening". There is no requirement that you make a single full extension all at once. Sabre fencers (generally) start with their hands very far back and then push forward off the line. They then try to hit with 'continuous' footwork. People being persnickety about the extension are trying to shorten the concept of the attack in a way the rules *explicitly* don't. I disagree with this, but this is the FIE's (current) "official" position, and the way a lot of weak referees will argue the basis of their calls. I think it's especially weak because: Another is to argue that there must be some meta. The rules don't specify in enough detail, so we make some definition that separates attack and counter. In 2014-2018ish this was *entirely* driven by the hand to the detriment of real attacks. This led to fencers like Gu and Abedini (and thousands of national and local level copycats) who (in their own ways) stepped really far into the box and stuck their hands out very hard, but could always add a step because they weren't attacking with their feet. We've since adjusted and now give more emphasis on the feet. (In my opinion, correctly) This (i.e. playing with the meta) is what the FIE actually does. (CF Sydney Sabres videos from a few years back.) Referees won't argue this because it equates to either 'the FIE said screw you yesterday' or 'this is just my vibes, friend', none of which refs like arguing. So they pretend that their interpretation is absolute. A good referee should be able to appeal to the rules without pretending they're an infallible pope-referee (potpourri?). Maybe: "I made that call because I think it makes for the most logical fight, given current trends." However, the current meta (combined with the fact that they use video on every call) has led to referees seeing fairies in every *single* touch and separating things super inconsistently. Everything is now grindy, there are fewer marches, and bouts can go either way based on who is refereeing. (And how much they were paid.) I assume you're complaining about this latter problem, to which I am *totally* sympathetic. However, the solution is not to just call things based on who stabs harder. I have *way* to many bruises, both physical and emotional) to want to see that bull**** anymore. The solution is to either break symmetry so that there is no centre (starting off-centre with priority that goes back and forth via some mechanism), or to make things consistent by eliminating self-video referral and using backup referees, voting by consensus, or by just calling more simultaneous and accepting the pre-2016 muddiness that we nearly ruined the sport to correct, or by some additional mechanism that I haven't listed here and don't know. Do you disagree? Which above solution do you prefer?
I really appreciate your work and dedication!! It's a very detailed explanation video!
Sandro foot lands first before the hit... I think this is attack "no"
Well done. Thank u so much for this video, it is very educational for me, and I'm trying to prepare myself to take part in the national referee test in Venezuela.
Hope you can upload more videos like this :)
Very nice video helps out newer fencers for sure I’ve sent it to multiple friends
Thank you a lot mate :)
Great match. At 5:03, isn't Bazadzes' first try/hit short!? He hits in "Rimesse"? I see somehow short, reposte!?
It could have been decided that way as well. In this case the referee ruled that his attack did not fell short. His foot did not hit the floor before he hit and he also hit „first try“. It is a close call. I hope this helps.
Love the video. Good job
Nice video, it helps to understand the rules, but at 10:14 the Egyptian goes from 13 to 14, I don’t understand the call, the Georgian attacks, continuous movement, hits, and is denied the point ? 🤔
I have made a mistake at that point. Originally the referee called "counter-attack | attack". After the call Elsissy took a video replay, after which it was ruled that the Georgian didnt directly hit , but rather fell short first. That is because he finished his lunge before hitting the opponent. It is indicated by his forward foot being fully on the ground and him only moving his upper body forward. So the right call would be a Riposte by Elsissy. Hope this helps
@@AvgSabreGuythanks, it clear
At 8:49, doesnt the egyptian fencer hit first?
Yes, but he does not have the right of way.
@@AvgSabreGuy oh, so if you hit first but don't have right of way and then the other guy hits, it's the point for the other guy?
Yes that’s exactly how that works, if you have right of way it doesn’t matter if you hit at the exact same time or if you get the hit right at the millisecond the lockout period ends, if you have right of way it’s your point if the light goes off
@mrkitloin alr, makes sense, thx
"Holds Back first" is not an Argument according to fie rule book. Starting attack with extending the arm is...
Not attacking you here … and I actually agree the touch you're referring should have been simul, but so should *many* of the two light touches here, and the arm is *not* the defining factor in any. (Hashtag never going back?)
There are two possible responses to the 'well, call based on the hands' argument:
One is to argue that the rules require some interpretation and this is the only valid one: One can make an attack over multiple steps. The rule says: "extending the arm and continuously threatening". There is no requirement that you make a single full extension all at once. Sabre fencers (generally) start with their hands very far back and then push forward off the line. They then try to hit with 'continuous' footwork. People being persnickety about the extension are trying to shorten the concept of the attack in a way the rules *explicitly* don't.
I disagree with this, but this is the FIE's (current) "official" position, and the way a lot of weak referees will argue the basis of their calls. I think it's especially weak because:
Another is to argue that there must be some meta. The rules don't specify in enough detail, so we make some definition that separates attack and counter. In 2014-2018ish this was *entirely* driven by the hand to the detriment of real attacks. This led to fencers like Gu and Abedini (and thousands of national and local level copycats) who (in their own ways) stepped really far into the box and stuck their hands out very hard, but could always add a step because they weren't attacking with their feet. We've since adjusted and now give more emphasis on the feet. (In my opinion, correctly)
This (i.e. playing with the meta) is what the FIE actually does. (CF Sydney Sabres videos from a few years back.) Referees won't argue this because it equates to either 'the FIE said screw you yesterday' or 'this is just my vibes, friend', none of which refs like arguing. So they pretend that their interpretation is absolute. A good referee should be able to appeal to the rules without pretending they're an infallible pope-referee (potpourri?). Maybe: "I made that call because I think it makes for the most logical fight, given current trends."
However, the current meta (combined with the fact that they use video on every call) has led to referees seeing fairies in every *single* touch and separating things super inconsistently. Everything is now grindy, there are fewer marches, and bouts can go either way based on who is refereeing. (And how much they were paid.)
I assume you're complaining about this latter problem, to which I am *totally* sympathetic. However, the solution is not to just call things based on who stabs harder. I have *way* to many bruises, both physical and emotional) to want to see that bull**** anymore.
The solution is to either break symmetry so that there is no centre (starting off-centre with priority that goes back and forth via some mechanism), or to make things consistent by eliminating self-video referral and using backup referees, voting by consensus, or by just calling more simultaneous and accepting the pre-2016 muddiness that we nearly ruined the sport to correct, or by some additional mechanism that I haven't listed here and don't know.
Do you disagree? Which above solution do you prefer?
amazing tradition
pls make more like this sir