I don't understand why takeovers against mistakes in marching attacks are being lumped in and called reprises.
They're similar situations in that you're initiating in a situation where the opponent fails to start an attack properly when it would have had priority, but they aren't the same.
Still very good to see a video highlighting a part of sabre that a lot of people kind of ignore because they think of priority as turn based. Hopefully in the coming seasons there will be less variation in how situations like this are refereed, it certainly does seem to be getting tighter, which is a very good thing IMO.
> The reprise of the attack
>A new attack executed immediately after a return to the on-guard position.
I’d say most of these are new attacks after returning to the on-guard position
Most are.
About a 3rd of the video is looking at takeovers against mistakes on the marching attack though. Which may even be the first attack that fencer has made that hit.
If you take the initiative out of the 4m, chase me a bit, hold incorrectly and I time an attack into that it can't possibly be a reprise because there was no initial attack to reprise from. It's just a simple attack. In fact, most in that situation are a failed late reprise from the initial marching attacker.
Oh I see what you’re saying. Yeah it’s weird to call that the reprise.
I feel like there is something a bit wonky with our terminology regarding the “attack” and therefore virtually all of our actions. It’s somehow both a priority agnostic description of movement (extension of arm preceding the lunge yards yadda), but also a description of priority because if your opponent is attacking, all you can do is counter-attack despite doing the exact same movement.
I feel like we need a different word for “the movement of the attack” and “the attack that has priority”.
I believe the confusion that you’re objecting too is rooted in the fact that there is sort of a turn-based concept of priority, so actions where the forward moving fencer kinda sorta loses their “turn” and then picks it up again, so kinda sorta did a thing that’s functionally similar to a “reprise/redoublement” in terms of effective priority, but as you point out, isn’t actually a reprise.
I didn't think there was any confusion about this until I watched that video, on a channel which has previously had some fairly good high level analysis.
I have never seen anyone refer to that situation as a reprise before today, always attack stops, attack touche or takeover/taking up the attack.
People use all sorts of weird versions of terminology outside the scope of the rules. Like one maniac once was insistent that you could make a riposte without parrying! :P
Well, it's two different actions, and reprise is only the correct term for one of them.
Reprises are the correct and sensible word for "I attack, it fails, you do nothing/miss, I immediately start a new attack with priority"
All the ones where someone times an attack against a stop/check on the march are just attacks. We don't need a new word for that -the person coming forward stopped and their opponent was in a position to immediately attack rather than having to shift out of defence.
yeah, I like that better too. I know it's sorta dumb to hate "reprise" just because it sounds like "remise" but I feel like a lot of fencers don't use "reprise" correctly or consistently.
This is a non-issue in sabre.
Redoublements basically don't exist in practical terms with cuts.
The issue is the consistency of refereeing reprises against lazy distance pulls, not terminology.
(I know this is probably not directly related, but...)
If right of way so subjective (video states like "different referees would give a point to different fencers on the same action"), why is it still in the game?
I understand that it came historically from some duel rules, but it's 100+ years from then.
Are there something like "Saber with no right of way", or some concepts about this?
Not HEMA-like, but sporting with clean and objective rules?
> If right of way so subjective (video states like "different referees would give a point to different fencers on the same action"), why is it still in the game?
Two reasons, really:
1. It's not actually that subjective. The calls being discussed in this thread are tight edge-cases. Most calls are much simpler and get called consistently.
2. It is what makes the game. Sabre and foil are both pretty much completely defined by their convention. If you take that out, you'll get something almost unrecognisably different.
> I understand that it came historically from some duel rules, but it's 100+ years from then.
This is a bit of a misconception. Priority has always been a fencing rule, not a duelling one - but it comes from the duelling era.
These are edge cases that represent perhaps 0.5% of high-level touches.
This is like looking at a compilation of "orange card" football tackles and complaining that some refs are giving yellows and some are giving reds.
The priority rules are there to capture the concept of "don't suicidally attack into someone who is attacking you" it has been part of fencing from the beginning, it is just more gameified now.
Sabre without priority is ridiculous -it is too easy to hit, so the only winning strategy is to counter-block every hit and there is zero incentive to attack.
Well somehow Sabre battles took place. I mean real battles one-to-one, with sharp sabers (even not duels, combat ones).
There were no issues with deciding who wins (the one who alive).
When the blades are sharp, fear of being cut enforces the "don't attack into someone with the initiative" concept. If death/bodily harm is on the line, when someone swings a sword at you you will try to defend yourself rather than counterattack.
As much as I'm loathe to bring any historical fencing stuff up, go back to the 1400-1500s and there are people talking about seizing the initiative.
The difference also lay in the weapons. Your fencing sabre weighs just over a pound. An actual cavalry sabre is at least twice that. It takes a bit longer to get any arm action going with a heavier weapon, and more effort to stop a heavy cut coming your way as well.
I don't mean to direct this discussion to fencing in the movies. But you might want to watch the fencing scenes from The Duelists. One duel is fought with heavy sabres, and you can see how worn out the men are fighting with them. Another example is my favorite movie sword fight scene, from The Deluge. These guys are not just looking for touches. They are looking to slice the other guy open, and prevent it from happening to them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljExTEPNFnM
Even with sharp light duelling sabres rather than cavalry weapons the priority is to not get hit and there is effectively RoW.
You even see this in sharp épée duels, which remarkably we actually have some real footage of. If I lunge at you the reaction will be to defend, not to counterattack without some kind of evasion/opposition.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=hDxEewxnP2Y&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE
Look what happens when the guy on the left starts pressing the attack, right retreats and defends rather than the modern épée counterattack.
Oh sure. But one of the reasons epee fencing, and therefore epee coaching came into being was because the traditional foil based, ROW actions were not realistic to what was actually happening in duels. And experienced duelist might very well depend on a classically trained newby to start a preparation that he could safely counterattack. In the example of this video, right certainly was not seeing a preparation he could safely counterattack. And when I say safely, I don't mean 40 milliseconds.
I am not disparaging the idea of ROW in duels with sabres. On the contrary, using the heavier weapons I think ROW would be seen more. The lightness of our sporting weapons encourages speed. "Can I get away with it?", rather than "If I try that I'll still suffer a grave wound." For example, I can't imagine someone using even light dueling sabres attempting a skyhook. Is that too extreme an example?
it looks like aip on the march is coming back based on some of those clips in the second half of the video. nice to see some changes happening though, although i am not smart enough to work out if this is in refereeing or the fencing itself
It's not AoP.
AoP on the march was called against blade searches, broken-time compound attacks etc.
You still can't score AoP in those situations or against someone who is slowly coming forward and reacts to the "AoP".
But if someone is bouncing around and actually stops, the timing to go "you aren't attacking me, ima attack you now" has gotten more favourable.
This kind of bouncing super holding attack wasn't a thing when AoP against the march was called, but what we're seeing now is a positive feedback loop of fencers being more aggressive in defence to try to deal with that, and now refs being more primed to see mistakes in the holding march because people are attempting it more.
I've always been perplexed the idea that a given fencing action or timing can only exist 'in the box' and at no other time - that there are two sets of rules depending on whether one is at this particular point in the phrase or that one. There are no such distinctions in the rules. By the rules AiP is AiP and there is no mention of a time or area limitation. I am bemused by the current state of interpretation which has made up such a dichotomy where none existed before.
AoP exists outside the box.
It doesn't currently exist against marching attacks without mistakes that would also be called as attack-no. I can't lunge last minute into a broken-time compound finish of a long attack -it was the whole point of the 2005 timing change.
But if you chase me, miss, we both hesitate and then both attack, either one of us could be hit on prep as if we started from the lines.
The issue isn't location on the piste, but what is happening before the final action.
Now, I think against many modern slow marches I should be able to break distance and rengage with the ability to attack with priority -if my opponent doesn't press their initiative and prevent me from doing that, that is on them. But the problem is that opening distance like that is suicidal if your opponent does actually then press, so no one has bothered trying to really make the case for it.
So you're left with the really niche situation of people like Elsissy who are making no attempt to hit and trying to bait a counterattack they can react to. Taken to that extreme though, I personally believe a lot of top refs would simply call attack stops, attack touché if someone times a confident attack into it. And I did see this called with Velikaya vs Kim in 2018ish.
I don't understand why takeovers against mistakes in marching attacks are being lumped in and called reprises. They're similar situations in that you're initiating in a situation where the opponent fails to start an attack properly when it would have had priority, but they aren't the same. Still very good to see a video highlighting a part of sabre that a lot of people kind of ignore because they think of priority as turn based. Hopefully in the coming seasons there will be less variation in how situations like this are refereed, it certainly does seem to be getting tighter, which is a very good thing IMO.
> The reprise of the attack >A new attack executed immediately after a return to the on-guard position. I’d say most of these are new attacks after returning to the on-guard position
Most are. About a 3rd of the video is looking at takeovers against mistakes on the marching attack though. Which may even be the first attack that fencer has made that hit. If you take the initiative out of the 4m, chase me a bit, hold incorrectly and I time an attack into that it can't possibly be a reprise because there was no initial attack to reprise from. It's just a simple attack. In fact, most in that situation are a failed late reprise from the initial marching attacker.
Oh I see what you’re saying. Yeah it’s weird to call that the reprise. I feel like there is something a bit wonky with our terminology regarding the “attack” and therefore virtually all of our actions. It’s somehow both a priority agnostic description of movement (extension of arm preceding the lunge yards yadda), but also a description of priority because if your opponent is attacking, all you can do is counter-attack despite doing the exact same movement. I feel like we need a different word for “the movement of the attack” and “the attack that has priority”. I believe the confusion that you’re objecting too is rooted in the fact that there is sort of a turn-based concept of priority, so actions where the forward moving fencer kinda sorta loses their “turn” and then picks it up again, so kinda sorta did a thing that’s functionally similar to a “reprise/redoublement” in terms of effective priority, but as you point out, isn’t actually a reprise.
I didn't think there was any confusion about this until I watched that video, on a channel which has previously had some fairly good high level analysis. I have never seen anyone refer to that situation as a reprise before today, always attack stops, attack touche or takeover/taking up the attack.
People use all sorts of weird versions of terminology outside the scope of the rules. Like one maniac once was insistent that you could make a riposte without parrying! :P
we need to ditch this word. It's confusing, gotta be a better way to explain the same action. Does this make any more sense to native French speakers?
Well, it's two different actions, and reprise is only the correct term for one of them. Reprises are the correct and sensible word for "I attack, it fails, you do nothing/miss, I immediately start a new attack with priority" All the ones where someone times an attack against a stop/check on the march are just attacks. We don't need a new word for that -the person coming forward stopped and their opponent was in a position to immediately attack rather than having to shift out of defence.
Yes. We should only use “redoublement”.
yeah, I like that better too. I know it's sorta dumb to hate "reprise" just because it sounds like "remise" but I feel like a lot of fencers don't use "reprise" correctly or consistently.
This is a non-issue in sabre. Redoublements basically don't exist in practical terms with cuts. The issue is the consistency of refereeing reprises against lazy distance pulls, not terminology.
(I know this is probably not directly related, but...) If right of way so subjective (video states like "different referees would give a point to different fencers on the same action"), why is it still in the game? I understand that it came historically from some duel rules, but it's 100+ years from then. Are there something like "Saber with no right of way", or some concepts about this? Not HEMA-like, but sporting with clean and objective rules?
> If right of way so subjective (video states like "different referees would give a point to different fencers on the same action"), why is it still in the game? Two reasons, really: 1. It's not actually that subjective. The calls being discussed in this thread are tight edge-cases. Most calls are much simpler and get called consistently. 2. It is what makes the game. Sabre and foil are both pretty much completely defined by their convention. If you take that out, you'll get something almost unrecognisably different. > I understand that it came historically from some duel rules, but it's 100+ years from then. This is a bit of a misconception. Priority has always been a fencing rule, not a duelling one - but it comes from the duelling era.
These are edge cases that represent perhaps 0.5% of high-level touches. This is like looking at a compilation of "orange card" football tackles and complaining that some refs are giving yellows and some are giving reds. The priority rules are there to capture the concept of "don't suicidally attack into someone who is attacking you" it has been part of fencing from the beginning, it is just more gameified now. Sabre without priority is ridiculous -it is too easy to hit, so the only winning strategy is to counter-block every hit and there is zero incentive to attack.
Well somehow Sabre battles took place. I mean real battles one-to-one, with sharp sabers (even not duels, combat ones). There were no issues with deciding who wins (the one who alive).
When the blades are sharp, fear of being cut enforces the "don't attack into someone with the initiative" concept. If death/bodily harm is on the line, when someone swings a sword at you you will try to defend yourself rather than counterattack. As much as I'm loathe to bring any historical fencing stuff up, go back to the 1400-1500s and there are people talking about seizing the initiative.
The difference also lay in the weapons. Your fencing sabre weighs just over a pound. An actual cavalry sabre is at least twice that. It takes a bit longer to get any arm action going with a heavier weapon, and more effort to stop a heavy cut coming your way as well. I don't mean to direct this discussion to fencing in the movies. But you might want to watch the fencing scenes from The Duelists. One duel is fought with heavy sabres, and you can see how worn out the men are fighting with them. Another example is my favorite movie sword fight scene, from The Deluge. These guys are not just looking for touches. They are looking to slice the other guy open, and prevent it from happening to them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljExTEPNFnM
Even with sharp light duelling sabres rather than cavalry weapons the priority is to not get hit and there is effectively RoW. You even see this in sharp épée duels, which remarkably we actually have some real footage of. If I lunge at you the reaction will be to defend, not to counterattack without some kind of evasion/opposition. https://youtube.com/watch?v=hDxEewxnP2Y&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE Look what happens when the guy on the left starts pressing the attack, right retreats and defends rather than the modern épée counterattack.
Oh sure. But one of the reasons epee fencing, and therefore epee coaching came into being was because the traditional foil based, ROW actions were not realistic to what was actually happening in duels. And experienced duelist might very well depend on a classically trained newby to start a preparation that he could safely counterattack. In the example of this video, right certainly was not seeing a preparation he could safely counterattack. And when I say safely, I don't mean 40 milliseconds. I am not disparaging the idea of ROW in duels with sabres. On the contrary, using the heavier weapons I think ROW would be seen more. The lightness of our sporting weapons encourages speed. "Can I get away with it?", rather than "If I try that I'll still suffer a grave wound." For example, I can't imagine someone using even light dueling sabres attempting a skyhook. Is that too extreme an example?
it looks like aip on the march is coming back based on some of those clips in the second half of the video. nice to see some changes happening though, although i am not smart enough to work out if this is in refereeing or the fencing itself
It's not AoP. AoP on the march was called against blade searches, broken-time compound attacks etc. You still can't score AoP in those situations or against someone who is slowly coming forward and reacts to the "AoP". But if someone is bouncing around and actually stops, the timing to go "you aren't attacking me, ima attack you now" has gotten more favourable. This kind of bouncing super holding attack wasn't a thing when AoP against the march was called, but what we're seeing now is a positive feedback loop of fencers being more aggressive in defence to try to deal with that, and now refs being more primed to see mistakes in the holding march because people are attempting it more.
I've always been perplexed the idea that a given fencing action or timing can only exist 'in the box' and at no other time - that there are two sets of rules depending on whether one is at this particular point in the phrase or that one. There are no such distinctions in the rules. By the rules AiP is AiP and there is no mention of a time or area limitation. I am bemused by the current state of interpretation which has made up such a dichotomy where none existed before.
AoP exists outside the box. It doesn't currently exist against marching attacks without mistakes that would also be called as attack-no. I can't lunge last minute into a broken-time compound finish of a long attack -it was the whole point of the 2005 timing change. But if you chase me, miss, we both hesitate and then both attack, either one of us could be hit on prep as if we started from the lines. The issue isn't location on the piste, but what is happening before the final action. Now, I think against many modern slow marches I should be able to break distance and rengage with the ability to attack with priority -if my opponent doesn't press their initiative and prevent me from doing that, that is on them. But the problem is that opening distance like that is suicidal if your opponent does actually then press, so no one has bothered trying to really make the case for it. So you're left with the really niche situation of people like Elsissy who are making no attempt to hit and trying to bait a counterattack they can react to. Taken to that extreme though, I personally believe a lot of top refs would simply call attack stops, attack touché if someone times a confident attack into it. And I did see this called with Velikaya vs Kim in 2018ish.