PDA

View Full Version : Keep hearing the word Tempo.



Barry Paul
-8th December 2003, 11:36
At sabre the word Tempo keeps being mentioned, it's creeping into foil refereeing. Cannot find it in the rules book. Are referees or the F.I.E. making the rules up again? Barry Paul

Mantis
-8th December 2003, 11:51
Or is it just a fad word for fencing time? Being an epeeist, maybe I'm not the best person to comment on this, but as far as I understand it, having 'tempo' just means that it is your attack and your oponents counter-attack rather than the other way round. Ie, your final action started first and your opponent didn't parry.

Gav
-8th December 2003, 12:15
Seems to be a made up term that has crept in from somewhere.

hokers
-8th December 2003, 12:47
Tempo is used to mean that the counter attack (or more accurately, attack into the preparation) has gained time.

We've discussed the various nuances of this on here before, but basically if your opponent has ROW, you can gain time with a counter attack that ARRIVES before their final hand action begins.

cue vocal disagreements..

hokers

pinkelephant
-8th December 2003, 13:14
It's cos sabreurs have to do everything in a hurry, so they haven't got time to say "attack on the preparation". (Actually, DO they do EVERYTHING at that speed???):o

fencingmaster
-8th December 2003, 15:52
Barry for an explanation of tempo go to:-
www.ii.uib.no/~arild/fencing/text/tactics-txt.html !!

I was recently reffing at a competition, giving the phrase so that the fencers knew how I was reading the phrase, but throughout the the ref on the next piste only used the word 'tempo'. I think it's laziness or the inability to give (or at least to articulate) the phrase. The ref might as well call 'hit' 'hit in time' 'first' etc. Surely it's no more than polite to let let fencer know why a hit has been given, to know if the ref is giving a stop hit in time, or an attack on preparation, a remise or a riposte etc.

Barry Paul
-8th December 2003, 21:45
the old fashioned but in the rules one peiod of fencing time. We now allow a counter attack by calling it tempo.

Lets do the same with foil and we have one weapon epee and two sub weapons Sabpee and Foilee. Progress? I think not? Barry Paul

Rdb811
-9th December 2003, 00:13
I have has (sabre) tempo described to me as a catch-all for whn you kow which way the hit went, but can't work out ehy.

Winwaloe
-10th December 2003, 16:16
"you can gain time with a counter attack that ARRIVES before their final hand action begins".

Not sure how you "gain" time but if you counter before the final action then that must surely be an attack on the opponents prep as anything prior to the final movement has to be a prep. using the standard def of fencing time. (However, it can't be a counter attack as there is no attack, only a prep from the other side) Have also had tempo described as the deciding factor when two sabreurs appear to attack at teh same time and the ref is looking for a good excuse to award it to the person he/she knows/likes OR the reason given by a sabreur who thinks that he/she should be given the priority when most refs would say together!

randomsabreur
-10th December 2003, 16:43
Or alternatively, where one person has done 2 big steps, the other has done 1 small and their lunge and final hand action has started before the opponent has finished their 2nd step!

There is not a huge amount of bias in sabre. A person who is constantly getting tempo given against them should look at the size of their initial preparation steps and get someone to watch from the size to see if their hand goes forward and then comes back preparatory to smacking their opponent full force!!!

Tempo hits are all very well but can lead to serious pain for the fencer doing them!! A nice safe stop cut and run, or parry, or making the opponent fall short leads to a smaller number of bruises!

doobarz
-10th December 2003, 20:41
Originally posted by randomsabreur
Or alternatively, where one person has done 2 big steps, the other has done 1 small and their lunge and final hand action has started before the opponent has finished their 2nd step!


So an attack into the preperation?

srb
-10th December 2003, 20:57
Doobarz,

Have a look at the following:

http://www.leonpaul.com/download/armoury.htm

See THE BRITISH FENCING ASSOCIATION
REFEREE’S COMMITTEE
GUIDANCE FOR REFEREES

Re: Counter Attack

"This may be made into the attack of the opponent. If made on the preparation of your opponent, it is not the counter attack, but the attack"

Worth a read.

srb

hokers
-10th December 2003, 23:27
Originally posted by Winwaloe
"you can gain time with a counter attack that ARRIVES before their final hand action begins".

Not sure how you "gain" time but if you counter before the final action then that must surely be an attack on the opponents prep as anything prior to the final movement has to be a prep.

I was making the point that if your opponent clearly has ROW, for example has just parried your initial attack, or just made an obvious beat to your blade, your counter attack can only be in time if it arrives before your opponent's final action starts, starting first is not enough.

Marcos
-11th December 2003, 08:53
two sabreurs lunge at the same time - one attacks to the forearm, the other a point attack to the body


because the forearm is nearer, sabreur A hits slightly before his opponent

is it A's point or simultaneous?

hokers
-11th December 2003, 09:08
Should be simultaneous, provided both fencers are making only one action, and B has clearly begun his attack when hit.

That's how I would call it anyway, I'm sure there are more qualified presidents on here than me.

ceprab
-11th December 2003, 09:51
Two sabreurs lunge at the same time and both hit, regardless of where is a simultaneous attack and should be called together.

Hokers, the situation where B has clearly begun his attack when hit is not necessarily the same. Consider:

A attacks (extension of arm, beginning of lunge)
B reacts beginning counter attack (to body to continue the example)
A hits arm
B hits body
neither seeks or finds blade.

This is clearly A's ROW as B is reacting and making a counter attack. Not the same as:

A attacks and B attacks
A hits arm
B hits body
neither seeks or finds blade.

hokers
-11th December 2003, 10:02
ceprab, I agree with both your cases but don't quite understand the point you are making?

B needs to be into his final action when hit, otherwise it's an attack on the preparation.

My last post was a bit ambigous:
"provided both fencers are making only one action, and B has clearly begun his attack when hit."
Is meant to mean:
Provided:
A) Both fencers are making only one action
AND
B) Fencer B has clearly begun his attack when hit.

I think we're agreeing here. :)

Marcos
-11th December 2003, 10:02
Originally posted by hokers
Should be simultaneous, provided both fencers are making only one action, and B has clearly begun his attack when hit.

That's how I would call it anyway, I'm sure there are more qualified presidents on here than me.

I would agree - unfortunately the referee who presided my 1/4 final bout in the Ulster didn't and I lost 15-14!:mad:

doobarz
-11th December 2003, 16:40
Originally posted by srb
Doobarz,

Have a look at the following:

http://www.leonpaul.com/download/armoury.htm

See THE BRITISH FENCING ASSOCIATION
REFEREE’S COMMITTEE
GUIDANCE FOR REFEREES

Re: Counter Attack

"This may be made into the attack of the opponent. If made on the preparation of your opponent, it is not the counter attack, but the attack"

Worth a read.

srb

Yes, that is what I meant!

UglyBug
-11th December 2003, 18:10
I think the word is used quite often by coaches and referees who want to appear knowledgeable but aren't...

My favourite example is watching two girlies be presided over by a rather pompous individual. One chased the other down the piste and missed (opponent parried with distance rather smartly) and the opponent then riposted to head. Referee indicates the hits with hands and loudly calls "tempo". Many chuckles all round :grin:

gladiator
-11th December 2003, 21:09
As a sabre ref, I can safely say that I can't remember ever using the word tempo in the phrasing of any action. However when I was learning to referee I remember asking around to find out what tempo was to see if I wasn't giving something (despite no complaints!). The majority of people I asked just said it was really difficult to explain and you either knew it was or knew it wasn't tempo! Really useful! Finally someone actually said whatever it was I was calling it correctly and therefore OK. Sound to me like no-one actually knows what tempo means, but everyone is happy to use it and say they know what it means!

Have no idea where the phrase came from but I heard it used in the corble cup final last year where a fencer asked if he had gained tempo. He was promptly told no by david sach!

Winwaloe
-12th December 2003, 09:44
"So an attack into the preperation"



Yes!!

randomsabreur
-12th December 2003, 12:09
Then again watching 2 girlies fence sabre can cause the best referee's brain to go to mush!!!!!!!!!!

Before I get accused of being sexist, I am a female sabreur and am quite aware that there are times when boringness sets in, usually due to interesting stuff not working that day!

ceprab
-12th December 2003, 14:48
Originally posted by hokers
ceprab, I agree with both your cases but don't quite understand the point you are making?

B needs to be into his final action when hit, otherwise it's an attack on the preparation.

My last post was a bit ambigous:
"provided both fencers are making only one action, and B has clearly begun his attack when hit."
Is meant to mean:
Provided:
A) Both fencers are making only one action
AND
B) Fencer B has clearly begun his attack when hit.

I think we're agreeing here. :)

I suspected as much, but didn't want to leave the ambiguity alone ;) . My point was that your phrasing seems to allow the posibility that B starts his final action between the commencement of A's final action and the hit resulting from that action landing, and this would be counter attack and lack ROW. I think my post should have numbered successive lines to indicate the progression in time.

Edit: or option B; I am wrong :confused: . I am not a sabruer and have only come across someone who I would accept as a good sabre referee about 3 times, so my understanding has come from the rule book. And I can't honestly say that I have memorised that (though I have a pretty good idea).

Cheetara
-12th December 2003, 15:29
Then again watching 2 girlies fence sabre can cause the best referee's brain to go to mush!!!!!!!!!!


Especially at BUSA individuals. More than one 'sabruer' had to be helped to get dressed ready to fence :(

Dave Hillier
-12th December 2003, 15:36
That might have been one of ours. We had a spare womens sabre slot so one of our novices gave it ago. She started fencing this term and picked up a sabre for the first time that morning.

fencingmaster
-16th December 2003, 15:32
At sabre the word Tempo keeps being mentioned, it's creeping into foil refereeing. Cannot find it in the rules book. Are referees or the F.I.E. making the rules up again? Barry Paul

................

Reading the rule book 4 t 42 "the referee reconstructs briefly...phrase"

So, if the ref says 'tempo' should the fencer ask for the phrase as that is what is required by the rule book?

Barry Paul
-16th December 2003, 17:41
The real reason Sabre had to invent the whole concept of tempo is that it is too easy for the sabre attack to be successful. Hence it was always better to attack than defend, hence all the double attacks. To make it a better weapon and for fights to last longer than the normal 10 seconds. Tempo was introduced so that referees had an excuse to give the defender a better chance. Allowing stop hits out of time on perfectly good direct attacks to be given by saying the magic word Tempo. Or is this all a dream????
Barry Paul M.D. Leon Paul

Homer
-17th December 2003, 06:59
As far as i'm aware the only time 'tempo' can be gained is from the word fence when both fencers go forward.
As they both step forward neither have right of way, when they both lunge both have right of way?!! - not always as if one lunge is quicker (or 1 hits fore arm and 1 hits body) 1 person is deemed to be quicker and will therefore be awarded 'tempo'
There are obvious occasions when 1 person is hit as they finish their first step (attack on prep.) but when the timing is very close this is when the term 'tempo' is used

hokers
-17th December 2003, 08:10
Don't agree with that at all Homer. Tempo should ONLY be used for a successful attack on the preparation. If two fencers attack immediately and the president thinks one is significantly ahead of the other it should be "attack-counterattack" not tempo. Area where the hit lands doesnt matter, only whether the fencer's final action of his attack has begun when hit.

I think thats a bit cynical Barry, Sabre is not easy to preside, but I don't think "stop hits out of time" are being given deliberately, not in my experience anyway. :grin:

Homer
-17th December 2003, 08:20
if 2 fencers go 2 step lunge (one faster than the other) together how can that be attack, counter attack. If you try explaining that to a beginner as to why they were counter attacking they would get very confused. The best way to explain this is attack on preperation: i.e as one fencer is ending their step the other fencer lunges and hits!! But again many fencers still get confused by this as they can't see why their attack isn't being given, they can't underdtand how their opponent has found enough time to score a hit.

Less time is needed to score on 'tempo' in the middle than is needed for a counter attack down the end of the pieste. (this is an observation not an opinion) again this depends on the ref and whether they favour attackers or defenders.

ceprab
-17th December 2003, 10:30
I'm with Hokers. If two fencers attack from the word go and both hit then they have both hit simultaneously unless one of them broke time eg. by seeking (and failing to find the other's blade). Where they hit is not relevant, when they hit is only relevant if there is a sufficient temporal gap for the second light to be blocked.

Speed isn't relevant. Exactly when they extend their arm may very well be. Tempo sounds like rubbish to me.
When I use tempo it means that I have noticed that my opponent likes to fence fast so I am trying to slow him down or vice versa. As far as I am aware all sabreurs like it fast unless they totally outmatch their oponent and are relaxed and confident about winning. I'm an epeeist btw.

ceprab
-17th December 2003, 10:32
Originally posted by hokers
Don't agree with that at all Homer. Tempo should ONLY be used for a successful attack on the preparation.

Clarification: I don't agree with this bit. If it's attack on preparation then call it attack on preparation. That way Homer's confused beginners get to find out why the hit went the way it did.

Homer
-17th December 2003, 10:35
Originally posted by ceprab
I'm an epeeist btw.

you're an epeeist!! say no more!!!!!!!!!!!
Speed is very relevant. Also to be given a hit in the middle an opponent dosen't have to look for the blade, or attempt a parry! if 2 fencers go at exactly the same time, do exactly the same move but 1 fencer is faster, you give the point to the faster 1 (assuming they have gained sufficant time.........Which IS possible)

randomsabreur
-17th December 2003, 11:38
Faster is perhaps the wrong word. The best time to do tempo is when someone is charging in fast!!! They take 2 big steps covering loads of ground and then lunge. You do a small controlled step and then accelerate your lunge, starting before they finish their 2nd step. It is usually easiest to get the ref to see it if you go to flank and hit them while their hand is raised preparatory to smacking you one.

Admittedly, when I ref I never call something tempo, it is either attack counter attack, or attack on preparation, usually the first. If questioned by a fencer, explain that their hand went back before going forwards, or that the opponent's attack started while they were still stepping (preparing)

The context I have most often heard tempo used by referees is "you were looking for tempo, but you didn't get it so it is attack counter the other way", or "You're both looking for tempo so it's together"

That tends to successfully shut up most sabreurs, as they know that you saw what they were trying to do.

gbm
-17th December 2003, 21:22
It is absolutely vital that all those who wish to referee sabre do so regularly and at a good level. The top sabreurs now make great use of breaking the distance and scoring with tempo hits rather than the more traditional parries. Your regular refereeing at competitions will help to gain the confidence of the fencers.

1. Stand where you can see the fencers and the box. With the advent of electric sabre this is vital. Try to stand a reasonable distance from the piste as it gives you a better sense of the “tempo hits”.
A section of "THE BRITISH FENCING ASSOCIATION, REFEREE’S COMMITTEE, GUIDANCE FOR REFEREES" edited by Keith Smith and Mike Thornton.
What is this tempo anyway?

rory
-18th December 2003, 10:02
You might find that reading the preceding two pages of postings will enlighten you. It is after all what the thread's about.

ceprab
-18th December 2003, 10:02
Randomsabreur,

for me that clears that up.... basically by tempo it is meant that someone attacked on preparation (or tried to) and either got the attack in in time or didn't and it was given as counter attack and the point the other way, and the referee isn't bothering to say which, yes? So tempo is basically just grouping these various types of timing based attacks together.

Assuming I am right (about this) I stand by my point that it should never be used as a refereeing call and either 'on prep.' or 'attack- counterattack' should be used.

Incidentally, the fact that I choose epee as my weapon isn't particularly relevant. I generally preside sabre as the best person handy for most of the BUSA matches we do, and after the event I look up rules I wasn't certain on (I have been incorrect once and sent an email of apology to the team concerned). My own team mates have complained several times about points I failed to give their way and usually get the rules quoted to them as a response. I don't get the opportunity to do as the guidance suggests and preside regularly at a high level, and (catch-22) before I would I would want to get the qualifications to do so.

I agree with the original post about the whole tempo thing, on grounds that a phrase needs to be correctly called (or at least the referees reasoning needs to be made clear to the fencers can adapt their style), and a one word phrase of 'tempo' is only fractionally more useful than 'hit'.

pinkelephant
-18th December 2003, 10:03
Oh dear, haven't we been here before? It's a lazy way of saying attack on the preparation.

gbm
-18th December 2003, 16:38
Originally posted by rory
You might find that reading the preceding two pages of postings will enlighten you. It is after all what the thread's about.

Sorry, that was very lazy of me.:confused: I had skipped over the thread before, and found no agreed definition of 'tempo', so I more wanted just to bring up my quote than seriously ask what it was. I have now given it a re-reading.

The rules say any attack into your opponents attack is a counter-attack.
Nowhere in the rules does it describe "attack on the preparation", which I would describe as "an attack whose final action begins while the opponents attack is still in the preparatory phase (i.e. doing preparations) before the final action of the attack".
Therefore, the description "attack on the preparation" should not be given.
These are the official FIE signals (off the rules at the top of this page):
http://www.leonpaul.com/download/rules/BFA%20Rules%202002%20MJT%20Version_files/image008.jpg
All counter attacks which are successful (i.e. final action of stop hit begins before final action of attacker) should be given as "Attack or Stop Hit (counter attack)", which is clearly the FIE hedging their bets. I would say that "attack on the preparation" would be a suitable term to be used in the phrasing of the actions which must be given by the referee.
Who wants to shoot my arguments down in flames? (Come on, it's not that hard).
So is tempo an all-encompassing term for any form of double hit given either way?
What's counter time though? The rules give it as:

Every action made by the attacker against a stop hit made by the opponent.
Maybe it's just me, or maybe it lost something in the translation, but I have no idea what that means. Is that a parry of the stop hit? I had this idea counter-time was when you cunningly drew an attack while slowly extending the arm, to get attack given your way (hopefully) in foil.

nahouw
-19th December 2003, 00:07
There is tempo -- tempo is defined as 1 fencing action. Some referees can see tempo, and others cannot.

Best example to explain tempo that I can come up with is a bout I had in the Boston WS World Cup: My opponent starts advancing (barrelling) down the strip; I stop cut and take parry four to stop her continuation, however, she barrells through within the lock out time -- 2 lights and the referee awards her the touch even though I am 2 tempos ahead even before she starts her final action.

So, I apparently have a referee that cannot see tempo, so I have to make it clearer to him -- so I work harder, and on the next several actions, I stop cut, parry four, and then parry eight (oh, I guess it is really parry 2 in sabre; I also fence épée) -- so, I have now done 3 actions -- 3 tempos ahead-- before she started her final action, and by that time, the box lockout goes into effect and her continuation does not light a light, so it is 1 light, and the referee has to award me a touch.

That is what tempo is. Another example is when you have 2 fencers making simultaneous advance lunges. Finally, one makes a ballestra-lunge. That fencer is a tempo ahead of the other, because he started his lunge before his opponent even finished his advance.

fencingmaster
-19th December 2003, 08:51
Sorry nahouw, but I believe what you are describing is 'a period of fencing time' rather than tempo.

"by the expression Tempo we mean the moment which is the most favourable for the beginning and execution of fencing action... in such a moment the opponent is helpless and not capable of makeing a defensive moment".
quoted from www.ii.uib.no/~arild/fencing/text/tactics-txt.html

Personally I would substitute 'a hit' for 'fencing action'

Tempo does not describe any one fencing action, and does not appear in the rule book. The concept is related to an abstract concept otherwise known as "timing" in Englsih or "a propos" in French.

gbm
-19th December 2003, 09:53
Firstly, I don't think that what fencingmaster is describing, although what a fencing master might mean by tempo, is what these referee's mean when they say tempo.
Secondly, I must admit that I am not familiar with sabre, but I am spending some time familiarising myself with the rules in order to try to understand what people mean by this 'tempo'.

nahouw said:

Best example to explain tempo that I can come up with is a bout I had in the Boston WS World Cup: My opponent starts advancing (barrelling) down the strip; I stop cut and take parry four to stop her continuation, however, she barrells through within the lock out time -- 2 lights and the referee awards her the touch even though I am 2 tempos ahead even before she starts her final action.
When your opponent starts advancing, is she attacking i.e. was she extending her arm as she attacked? If she was, then you stop cut and parried (instead of the more traditional parry and riposte, but hey, if it works?), then her attack loses right of way at her parry, and there is a period of fencing time between your hit and her hit (in which case it is clearly your hit). Presumably the shorter blocking time being implemented would help prevent these late remises?
The rules state situations in double hits, and to who the point goes in these situations (e.g. a stop hit against a simple attack), but at the top of this section says:
Therefore, when there is not an interval of fencing time between the hits:
The rules do not seem to explicitly state what happens when there is a period of fencing time between the hits, but I think it is assumed that if you hit your opponent a period of fencing time earlier than your opponent hits you, then it is your hit that is valid.
It does say, specifically, that for a stop hit to be valid against a compound attack, then it must precede it by a period of fencing time (i.e. hit before the commencement of the final action.
Fencing time is defined as the period of time required to do one action. Is this absolute (which I doubt), individual or universal? In other words, is it a fixed length of time e.g. 100ms or so, is it individual to each fencer (so that one fencer may experience one period of fencing time, while the other does 3 actions and so experiences three periods of fencing time), which I also find unlikely, or is it the times marked out by both fencer's actions, such that if one fencer starts and completes one or more actions in the time that the other fencer is only doing his/her single action, then is the first fencer a period of fencing time 'ahead' of the slower fencer?

Prometheus
-19th December 2003, 10:00
Originally posted by goodbadandme
or is it the times marked out by both fencer's actions, such that if one fencer starts and completes one or more actions in the time that the other fencer is only doing his/her single action, then is the first fencer a period of fencing time 'ahead' of the slower fencer?

The opposite actually.

fencingmaster
-19th December 2003, 11:56
Exactly goodbadandme! Tempo is a concept used by fencing masters and fencers, it does not appear in the rule books and in answer to Barry's original posting...

At sabre the word Tempo keeps being mentioned, it's creeping into foil refereeing. Cannot find it in the rules book. Are referees or the F.I.E. making the rules up again? Barry Paul

should not be used by referees as the rule book quite clearly states that a brief analysis of the phrase be given. The use of this term out of context causes confusion, and only demonstrates the reluctance of a referee to actually give the phrase.

gbm
-19th December 2003, 13:03
I agree that tempo should not be used, and the phrase should be given instead. Anybody who says it's a simple way to describe something that is well understood should be made to look at this thread. Also, anything that slows down those damn sabreurs has got to be a bad thing! It's just not fair when you turn up for a competetion at 9:00, still asleep, then by lunchtime you've finally got to the DE, and the sabreurs stroll in, fence, and leave before you've even finished the second round! (that's a bit of an exaggeration, but Mens Foil always gets the worst check-in time)

randomsabreur
-19th December 2003, 14:11
should not be used by referees as the rule book quite clearly states that a brief analysis of the phrase be given. The use of this term out of context causes confusion, and only demonstrates the reluctance of a referee to actually give the phrase. [/B]

I agree entirely, but there is a move in refereeing not to phrase anything, because it is effectively coaching on the piste. Certain referees have been told to do this!

How do people feel about this

gbm
-19th December 2003, 14:32
(I was only joking sabreurs!):)
The rules say that a brief phrase must be given, so I am very unhappy that such a movement to not phrasing exists.
I think this rule is very well justified. When I am fencing, and a hit is given against me, and I think it is mine, but it given the other way without explanation, it makes me annoyed, as I'm sure other people feel too. I know that I can ask for a phrasing, but I am nervous about doing so, and the very people who would benefit most from it (beginners) are the people least likely to do it!
Furthermore, it is very important from a spectating point of view, which from a fencer's point of view is not important, but in any high-level final where non-fencers/less experienced fencers are spectating, then it should definitely be given.
And as for coaching on the piste, so what if you are told what you are actually doing (coaching is different because it tells you what you SHOULD be doing anyway), as long as it is clearly not biased ("Hit Left. Very bad. You need to come en-garde a fraction further into sixte and I would recommend using a counter-parry more." then next hit "Hit Right. Excellent hit. Fine use of a disengage-coupe, but I wouldn't try it again. Incidentally, notice he's exposing his shoulder? Try to exploit that more).
It will help beginners who often don't know what they have done, and I'm there are many rather arrogant individuals who could do with being told why they have been hit instead of blaming the referee (not that they are likely to believe them, after all they are amazingly good fencers, but it's worth a try).

Rdb811
-19th December 2003, 16:46
Originally posted by randomsabreur
I agree entirely, but there is a move in refereeing not to phrase anything, because it is effectively coaching on the piste. Certain referees have been told to do this!

How do people feel about this

I do learn a lot by listening to the phrasing.

doobarz
-19th December 2003, 18:02
I believe the move is to push refs to use the FIE hand signals more, and talk less....

ihunter
-20th December 2003, 10:58
I,ve been reading this thread with interest and would make the following comments. Fencers are entitled to have the action phrased. They just may not like what they are told. Hand signals are NOT optional as a referee. They must be used in conjunction with the phrase, delivered verbally to the fencers, at the time.
In my experience, good, fast and committed attacks into the preparation invariably only produce one light. The sabreur who hits fast and runs away, survives to hit another ........!
By the way, ALL world class epee is fought almost entirely in the state that sabreurs would call 'tempo'

randomsabreur
-21st December 2003, 16:08
Hand signals is all well and good when they are actually used to phrase the action rather than a attack touch signaled when it is actually a parry, a riposte and then an attempted attack onto the preparation of the counter riposte. Seems to me like a cop-out, and one not likely to give the fencers confidence in the decision making abilities of the referee, who should possibly be forced to prove that he has followed the full phrase!

Sorry, this is one of my bug bears, along with a desperate and dispairing wish to have consistent refereeing, and a vague hope that one day I will be able to recognise an attack at foil either as a referee or as a fencer.

Keith.A.Smith
-21st December 2003, 19:42
Dear All,

In my opinion and that of the FIE you have to explain the final phrase which actualy leads to the awarding of a hit or of the non awarding at foil, if an off target light has priority. Thus if there is an attack at sabre which is short and then another attack followed by a parry riposte, you need to explain all of this to the fencers. I think it is important for fencers and their coaches annd the public to know why hits are being awarded.The use of hand signals was to make it easier for the public and also non french speaking referees. They do make your decisions clear but you must explain the phrasing to the fencers (or they might think you are guessing!!). This is very impoartant in close calls or if for example you are not going to give the point in line even though they hit with the point as it was too late(just an example).

Turning to tempo. You cannot just stand there and keep saying tempo. In reality it becomes the attack as there has to be a pauze to allow a "tempo" hit to succeed. It is when the attack is made in broken time or if the attack pauses or in modern sabre is delivered slowly, thereby allowing the opponent to hit one period of fencing time ahead. Tempo hits are a product of fencing moving towards real time and away from fencing time at sabre.Hence the FIE wants to keep shortening the blocking time to take decision making away from the referee.

Hope this helps,

Keith

Barry Paul
-22nd December 2003, 10:32
Originally posted by Keith.A.Smith
Dear All,

Tempo hits are a product of fencing moving towards real time and away from fencing time at sabre.Hence the FIE wants to keep shortening the blocking time to take decision making away from the referee.

Hope this helps,

Keith

So am I correct that the move to real time at Sabre is to give the defender a better chance of defending?

Or The F.I.E. still cannot trust referees to be competent or straight ( G.B. referees not included) Barry Paul

Keith.A.Smith
-22nd December 2003, 18:19
Dear Barry,

In answer to your question, I think a bit of both. The official view is they want to eliminate subjectivity. The Spanish Federation says the new shorter blocking time really helps parries.

Merry Christmas,

Keith

JohnL
-22nd December 2003, 21:06
I'm so glad that the FIE are listening to the Spanish federation.

That well known arbiter of all that is right and good about fencing. Together with their non-biased referees.

tigger
-28th December 2003, 15:20
quote - The Spanish Federation says the new shorter blocking time really helps parries.

QUE? Surely it helps replacements of a failed attack??


Tempo - Not sure what all the fuss is about here folks! Tempo = timing = EITHER attack on preparation OR attack-counter attack depending on the situation.

Also for the foilists and epeeists: as a rule in sabre if both attacks start together but one lands first (this usually happens from the word play), less time is needed to award 'attack/counter-attack' (real time?). If one fencer already has priority then usually the defender will have to gain a full period of 'fencing time' with a tempo action to have the hit awarded.

I doubt this is in the rule book, but it is how every experienced sabre ref seems to give it. And how every decent sabreur seems to fence.

Am I right in thinking that with the new blocking time the defender will require a single light to gain a hit on preparation? removing the ref's discretion.

nahouw
-29th December 2003, 01:35
Am I right in thinking that with the new blocking time the defender will require a single light to gain a hit on preparation? removing the ref's discretion. [/B]

Yes, you are correct -- the new lockout timing will show a true attack in preparation, since it will be only 1 light -- attack/counter-attack will show as 2 lights within this lockout timing. Also, with this shortened lockout time, the attacker who chooses to remise after having been correctly parried and riposted by the defender will be locked out from lighting a light on their remise. This will take the subjectivity away from the referee, since it will only be 1 light for the defender. In this case, it eliminates the referee's subjectivity as to what is a mal-parry.

ceprab
-29th December 2003, 18:27
Cobblers. What about the renewal where a parry is taken in prime (? Cut to head so parry with blade horizontal) but then the attacker maintains pressure on the blade so as soon as the defenders weapon is removed for the ripost the attackers blade renews on to head. I have seen mal parry (incorrectly) given when the attackers weapon has been brought to a complete halt and driven back in this situation. Removing referee's subjectivity indeed - pah!

Keith.A.Smith
-29th December 2003, 21:46
The way Nahouw has explained it is exactly how the FIE think the new sabre timing will work. We will not know till we have seen it in action.

Keith

tigger
-30th December 2003, 10:43
quote - Also, with this shortened lockout time, the attacker who chooses to remise after having been correctly parried and riposted by the defender will be locked out from lighting a light on their remise.


But if the remise lands first that will block out the riposte?? So leading to fast renewals of failed attacks and more epee-like timing? And if the remise and riposte land together both lights come on still giving the referee discretion to call riposte or malparry. I think the solution to both sabre and foil problems is to address the refereeing standards and interpretations, not fiddle about with rules, box timing etc.