I think both calls were correct in the final. The simultaneous video at 3:06 illustrates this well, in the 13-11 hit, he's fully landed and not hit the target, but in the 14-11 hit he has made the hit when his foot lands. Pause it, go frame by frame and see how much earlier the second hit gets the light by comparison. Of course this is all opinion, but this isn't the only area where we have a great amount of interpretation, simultaneous attacks in the box are worse than this (and frustrating the hell out of me at the moment), it's all on the referee on the day. Until we have an AI making decisions for us, the human factor will always come into the equation. Also consider 99.9% of fencing has no video replay available.

I think that the modern refereeing is too forgiving as an over-correction of the unforgiving and biased / unjustified refereeing of the past generations. Back in the 80's-00's there was clearly a bias in refereeing to particular fencing styles...Italians and Russians got a lot of freebies. Now the cadre is super fair and professional / unbiased in practice, but their application of the rules can often fly in the face of the official rulebook (which is what most coaches are teaching by, although you'll notice the exceptionally successful modern coaches teach to the current active refereeing cadre's dynamic rules/application, not strictly the book). I think that Szilagyi's 2 actions contextually were slightly different, even if his execution of them seemed 95% identical, and so these calls were actually correct. The window in time between foot-hand on the 1st call was larger than the 14-14 call, relative to contact with Pianfetti. But the real issue isn't the consistency in the calls, but how loosely and subjectively attack no/attack compose is being called, seeming to subjectively ignore the foot or not when it suits the referee. I really think Sabre refereeing needs to be unanimously stricter and more consistent in this particular action, for sure.

Obviously it needs fixing! Must consider that every referee can judge simply without video, for example when we play in clubs, there is no video review, so there must be a simple and clear rule

I think a better way to go about it is for FIE referees to communicate their changes in convention annually in the form of stuff such as “Patch Notes”, highlighting certain calls and points as ways to show how and why they gave the call. It would give insight as to which calls we should see as “mistakes” and which as “changes to convention”, while possibly encouraging higher-level discussion among even High-Ranking FIE referees to discuss different aspects of a call outside of daily meetings in an open environment. Just having it be an annual conference, perhaps even in the form of a livestream with a QnA, could make for a relatively convenient yet easily-accessible way for referees to illustrate these convention changes. Not only would it be more flexible than mere “rulebooking”, but it’d encourage more consistency and cooperation not only between referees but with fencers, while being a great learning aid to learn about thought processes for a referee and his relationship with the fencer. The featured tight-call clips can be training points for all fencers to study, and raise awareness for oft-forgotten rules. Not only that, it’d allow for FIE referees to become friendly personalities beyond just appearances, allowing us to understand and interact with them, encouraging a level of sympathy and empathy - possibly inspiring future fencers and referees.

As with any kind of video like this it's hard not to cherry pick clips to some extent, so take everything with a grain of salt. Edit: People pointing out that the rule is already fairly objective. The problem is we have got to the point where the rule book is largely ignored as it doesn't reflect how the game is currently played. My point was that rather than going back to playing the game as it was intended to be played decades ago when these rules were written, it would make sense to update rules to match current conventions and keep them up to date.

I think this is the biggest thing hurting our sport. Either the rules should be enforced as they are written. Or re-write the rules to reflect current conventions. I think I’m one of the few people who liked the old (middle?) tight timing. It took the referee out of the equation more. I’m for the rules being made as simple and less subjective as possible.

2:08 that OOOH VIDEO is so funny XD

Back to the Future? I believe it was up until 2008 that these calls would be considered correct, provided the arm was extending at all. That is, the front food did not have to land with or before the touche. After 2008, that hand after foot was considered Attack No, Remise. And it stayed that way till around 2016, 2017, when you started hearing refs call Attack Compose, aka Compound attack. That is, the attacker did not have to finish with the hand with or before the foot, provided the defender was searching for the blade. Traditionally, this is correct. But in the majority of the calls shown in this video, the opponent is not searching for the blade, they are just waiting for the attackers front foot to land, and getting burned for assuming they could go. Have we come full circle? It would appear the refs are now counting that delayed hands the same as part of a legitimate attack. Does anyone remember the 45 degree cutting edge rule? On all these attack, the fencer is purposely pulling the blade tip way behind the hand, making it impossible to parry. The reason that old 45 degree rule was there was to force the fencer to actually risk getting parried. Now, the attack can put the defender in the position of waiting and waiting until he decides when to finish. And yes, I do remember the story of the ref who said he is not a protractor. No, he's not, but he does have to see that someone is committed to attack and when someone is in preparation. A blade tip behind the hand has to be preparation. Has to be. So, Slicer Sabre, you are asking if sabre needs fixing. I have to point out that the high level, FIE refs keep doing this to sabre. It's the refs who need fixing. No one from the FIE is going to call the ref on not following the rules. They never did before, so why start now? Edit: replaced "coaches" with "refs". Sorry.

There will always be marginal calls. Sabre is the best it's been in my long lifetime.

See I am going to go with what I am sure will be a unpopular opinion. To me the problem is the rule is being softened to fit what people want it to fit.i don't see the rule being subjective but how it is being interpreted or applied .The rule states basically hit must arrive by the time the front foot lands. Period. Not in the same continuous action , not within x number of seconds. foot and blade should arrive together or blade slightly before. I fully agree how it is being enforced is all over the place but that's an entirely different series of videos*s*

Part of it, at least from my perspective, is when do you say the foot has landed? Most fencers roll their foot from heel to toe, and I've had people tell me that obviously once the heel lands attack is over, and obviously when the toe lands the attack is over. I personally think a natural lunge has some 'follow through' that is correct form. It's also worth noting that if you are looking at the lights from the stream vs the lights on the actual box, your gonna have a bad time. Timing was way off on the stream.

My first reaction with both actions in the Szilagyi Pianfetti bout--before i saw the call--was actually with the ref both times. 😅 But I agree that in general the reffing of these touches has not been great

There's a couple of ways to approach this. Firstly though, it only matters when there's two lights. If I attack and hit after my foot lands and there's only one light, who's going to quibble. Of course "after my foot lands" is subjective but I'd say we're not talking about seconds later. If we approach this from the point of view that the right-of-way convention is attempting to simulate sharp weapons, then who cares when the foot lands, you'll still bleed. And so the foot rule is bogus from that perspective. Perhaps the answer is for refereeing to go a back to concentrating on what the arm is doing? AFAIK the FIE have never altered the definition of the attack wrt the threat to target.

Calls like this are so subjective they need to be fixed. I think another example of a call that needs to be fixed is reprise versus attack no repost. I don’t know how this would be fixed though

Absolutely correct calls after review. No need for correction.

Great side by side comparison.

Gu is definitely the first fencer I think of who uses this to his advantage. He can hold his arm even until after his foot lands but it's quite hard to call the touch

I've noticed this frequently when watching world class competitions.

You guys got it all wrong. (Former FIE referee here.) If the foot lands before contact is successfully made with the blade, it’s a faulty attack, so it’s ruled as “attack no”. BUT! here’s the thing. If the defender happens to attept a parry in the meantime (like basically do a defensive motion with the arm against an attack not even coming) they miss their chance of a “reposte”. Therefore most of these ones here are actually 1.: attack no, 2.: reposte no, 3.: attack touche. But, since fencers themselves know damn well what happened, the referees often shorten this whole thing and only call “attack compose” / “repriesed attack”

I think it really is an issue with the continuing forward movement after the foot lands. If you think the basic definition of an attack is that it continuously threatens the valid target and keeps moving forward. With these more athletic lunges it clearly is a case that the blade still progresses in one action to the target, it continuously threatens and there is no stop in forward motion. So when you then approach sabre right of way as a question that requires an effective answer. The opponent must either successfully parry, evade or make a counterattack in time. If they didn't successfully defend they have no right to respond.

As an epeeist who fences saber, 80% of my hits are one light. Sometimes I fence saber just to throw my opponent off.

It’s not a subjective rule: must hit before foot lands. That is as objective as it comes. Its just sometimes hard to make that call when it is close. We just need to do better. Plus, these rules need to be applicable to those competitions without video playback, so measuring by “frames” does not work.

It's just like the lady at Sydney Sabre said. You don't just look at the video frame by frame. It's the overall momentum of the fight, which leaves a lot for the ref to interpret the flow of the game.

The rule is not subjective. It's as clear as it can be made. It was changed to make it so - it used to say when the foot lands "or immediately thereafter", they eliminated that phrase to make it clear. The referee community has just decided they don't like it, they know better and they are going to call the attack the way they want regardless of what the rule says. But it is also one of the harder things to see happen given the speed of sabre.

The Olympic saber can be anything but fencing...

It has to be made in such way that it is easy for the non-expert audience to understand.

I think this is what they call "following the spirit, not the letter of the law" i.e. it looks like Szilágyi's attack even if *technically* his foot touched the piste milliseconds before his hit landed.

I think the biggest visual difference between the two points is that for the 13-11 one although his arm is extended at the same time as the 14-14 one, he blade is still back and he still performs a swiping action. As for the 14-14 touch, the timing is the same but his blade is already in a swiping motion when he extends his arm. I agree that the rules are so subjective and hard to define but I think it definitely passes the eye test. The 14-14 point seems like the touch and the feet land at the same time (Or at least is up for debate) whereas the 13-11 clearly has him land his feet before extending his arm. Cool video though.

Simplest solution: change the rules. At the moment it's being applied really inconsistently. I've had particularly keen eyed club mates apply the rule as written on myself and others and call an attack no if your foot lands first. If FIE referees are letting pros get away with doing the same thing, it feels kind of ridiculous. Make it a million times simpler. Forget all this bullshit about when the foot lands. Define an attack as one smooth motion from when the arm is extended properly. Come forward, start extending your arm towards target and as long as you hit with your first arm action (that is you don't misjudge distance and have to extend a second time) it's your attack. Under that rule, the first one would still be Pianfetti's cause Szilagyi missed by a whisker with his first arm movement, but we can do away with being picky about the feet. I dunno it just seems really stupid to me to say your attack ends when your front foot lands. I mean in a hypothetical real bout you wouldn't be any less dead if an attack hit you before or after the foot had landed. If the arm keeps going forward as one fluid motion as part of the same lunge, then just give them the damn attack

What is the reason for this rule originally? I do not meant to discredit it, but I do not see why sabre has it to begin with

One thing hits me as I watch those: whatever happened to parry-riposte? Or am I missing them?

I haven't fenced in decades, but I used to compete and instruct (sabre). No matter how one slices it (lol), refereeing any match is TOTALLY subjective. End of story. You fence your director. If you cannot figure what the bloody hell THEY call an attack, remise, reprise, riposte, etc., then you have three options: [1] = Hit and don't be hit WAY more often. This is obviously very difficult. #duh [2] = Make any double-lights *so* clean on the riposte or whatever, any bloody fool could see who's point it was. [3] = Lose and review the footage later on to see how THAT PARTICULAR REFEREE calls things. Option 3 sucks, and it might not matter next time if you face a different referee, but... "thems the breaks" #Boris Oh. The fourth option is to just fence recreationally, and give zero sheetz about the outcome, win or lose. ;) After all, it's just a stupid sport. Stupid like golf, like tennis, like badminton, baseball, football, soccer, etc. LOL ALSO... I guess a 5th option is to pick a sport where the rules are straight up mathematical and completely invulnerable to subjectivity--such as chess. You either DID or DIDN'T make the right moves. Video games are basically like this as well, because they're bound by computer code, not personal opinions or biases.

I always wonder what would happen if sabre has no ROW rule, and just has doubles like epee...

With image/video recognition, we might eventually get to a more "objective" referring. In this particular case, I can easily see the difference between the first touch where the foot clearly lands before and the second where the tip of the sabre is just a little bit behind (but the arms is already full extended), so I'd make the same calls as the referees. It's better for everything to be clear cut, but not sure if it'll ever be possible.

Absolutely needs to be changed or at the very least made consistent between all refs. The rulebook clearly states the attack must land before the foot lands. Referees need to decide on one consistent ruling, otherwise you’ll have bouts where one ref calls it attack no and the next ref calls it a hit. Even worse, you’ll have situations like this where a call is made on one touch and then the exact opposite call is made on a diffirent identical touch. Competitors need consistent rulings in order to compete

What about in line rules?

What you don't want is lunge, front foot lands, then cut. That would clearly be two actions. What should be permissible to be considered as a single action (and this has been debated since, oh, 1998, if not before), is if the cut has already started. That is, the weapon arm is extending while in the middle of the lunge, and then the front foot lands and the continuation of the cut arrives. Then that should just be called a single action or phrase.

Obviously needs to be fixed and rules must not be subjective, must be objective. And I think that more than 2 video appeals must be available as it was seen that some referees needs more videos to take the correct decisions.

This foot landing thing is only one from many rules which can be interpreted "this way or that way". Im my opinion the issue is taht we do not judge according to the rule book, but based on our own opinion, which is mixed with what other, more experienced referees say, and this will lead to subjective judging. And the rulebook has never worked like it should. The rules changed, fencers changed only the rulebook has stayed.

It needs fixing. Should be more like epee rules.

I noticed a lot of sabreurs confused by/angry at calls in Cairo. I only watched one stream/piste though (the one with bazadze)

Foot landing needs to be clarifed to mean if the heel of the foot is in contact with the ground or the toes.

me, a szilágyi fan: “oh no! anyway”

I think that rules are very very stupid.Could anyone explain me why did they decided, that attack isn't correct, if hand hits later than front foot?

NB: On compound attacks, the rule is clear (and it was enforced that way in the Bazadze v Szilagyi Olympic final): t.101.4b) "in a compound attack (cf. t.10) when the beginning of the straightening of the arm for the first feint (Cf. t.103) precedes the step-forward, followed by the lunge, and the hit arrives at the latest when the front foot hits the piste." A downloadable crib sheet of all the two light rules can be found here:static1.squarespace.com/static/5a4b948e268b966898de942e/t/5cc8a3dff4e1fcb1e71ad257/1556653023327/Sabre_Double-Hit_Guide_A4_V2.pdf

Personally I believe both strikes should count and full body targets are in order. Is it a sport or a game? As a sport it should seek to emulate actual combat and as I see it no one normally wishes to exchange a mortal wound for the sake of giving the opponent the same. All the rulings have seemed to serve is to obfuscate, making preferential victories more ready.

Change referees to AI bots. It sometimes depends on the player's yelling. 🤣

It needs corrections.

Fucked up foot fall rule from 2008ish days. Along time ago a compound attack was allowed to finish just a bit after the front foot landed on the lunge but what the hell is a just a bit. Go have a look at some of the fishing stuff on the lunge Kothny was doing to get a medal in juniors before they changed this or Nemcsik's sort of lean into a drawn chest cut well after his foot had landed. Then they came up with footfall rule and went too far. Dudes literally doing skyhooks or sweep 5's but not getting blade were getting touches cause of milisecond fucked up footfall rule, so refs started allowing a bit more. For me both touches in this bout are attack left. What needs fixed is not running proper scientific tests with orginal Russian box of death or giving the kangaroo attack with retreat the ROW. Things that could help: call AIP outside of box, put lame material on back of hand making it valid target giving more power to counter attack, or just reduce timing to 90ms and allow running.

This clearly needs fixing.

Rulebook has to be adjusted so we can't allow subjective things like this to happen

TIL, they just give a point to whoever celebrates... but when both plyers celebrate then they have to call in a judge to figure out wtf happened..

Make the sabres heavier? Go back to the whole what a man can do vs what a man will do concept?

Sabre is so screwed up lol

Vendu l’arbitre

ρяσмσѕм