The Common Law: How sabre refereeing really works, and how to make it better

 

Let’s start with a statement that’s both dangerous and self-evident:

At professional level, sabre is not refereed according to the rule book. It hasn’t been for decades.

So what’s going on?

It’s worth noting that this essay is not about the first and last sections of the rule book, the procedural stuff. These parts cover an extensive and very clear set of written rules about things like equipment, the field of play, tournament organisation, conduct of bouts, penalties and appeals. That stuff is basically fine.

Even the bulk of “Part 4: The Conventions of Sabre” is perfectly straightforward, and any competent referee should have memorised the content on technical faults and how to deal with them.

Then comes the “Validity or Priority of the Hit”, and at this point the wheels fall off.

4. An attack with a step-forward-lunge is correctly carried out: a) in a simple attack (Cf. t.8.1) when the beginning of the straightening of the arm precedes the step-forward and when the hit arrives at the latest when the front foot hits the piste…

This definition of the attack has not been followed by a professional referee at FIE level in the decade we’ve been involved in this sport.

Why?

It does not reflect the way the modern game works.

So what’s taken its place?

A set of conventions, unwritten rules,  handed down from the top professional referees to their junior colleagues, and which then propagate out through the sport by observation and discussion. We’ve already written about some examples of this before at some length, but let’s revise.

Some of the conventions govern simple and easily codified things, which are presented at pre-world cup referee briefings as direct orders, eg:

A fencer who starts before the command “Allez” should receive a yellow card.

The majority of these conventions, though, relate to the always-prickly problem of allocating priority.

The Common Law

Allocation of priority in sabre is about recognising two things: Intention and Execution. It’s a subjective exercise.

Unfortunately, the formal rules do not provide anywhere near a comprehensive description of priority. Indeed, the concept of priority on the march which is universally followed in modern Olympic sabre does not appear in the rule book at all.

Yet the game largely works, even at professional level where careers are on the line. Why?

Sabre refereeing can be best understood as functioning like a Common Law legal system. There is legislation (the written rules of the game) which provide a relatively stable framework. Then there is precedent (or interpretation) which allows a more adaptable and nuanced implementation of the written framework to the infinite complexities of real situations.

Common Law systems have governed societies with much more complex and important disputes than sabre priority for centuries. Essentially, what has happened in sabre is we’ve developed our own ad-hoc version.

This is why you can’t solve most sabre refereeing questions by looking at the rule book, any more than you can expect to win a court case by representing yourself based on reading the legislation. You’re missing out on an enormous body of critical understanding and information. But where can you get that information from?

The Missing Link

The weakness of the comparison to a Common Law system lies in the documentation.

In a legal system, decisions are published, allowing interested parties to read and understand the existing interpretation.  In sabre, there are obviously no written decisions, and more broadly there is no system for publishing updates on the current interpretation. Indeed, there is no formal acknowledgement that such a thing even exists.

Luckily for everyone involved, the advent of complete video streaming of major tournaments is going some way towards closing the gap. A sufficiently motivated sabre nerd can sit down and examine the patterns of decisions across a season and figure out what the current interpretation is. We now have data.

At Sydney Sabre, we have been attempting to streamline the process by publishing compilations showing the trends. We can make things like this:

It would be a lot more elegant for the sport, though, if it wasn’t up to people like us to figure this out in our spare time.

Allowing Progress

Formal recognition of the situation will require no small amount of courage. It will mean public acknowledgement of the fact that the sport has not been refereed according to the rule book, at professional and Olympic level, for some time.

But leadership on this issue would have enormous benefits. If the reality of refereeing by convention is openly recognised by the international federation, it will free the leaders in professional sabre refereeing to begin to formally and publicly discuss the way the rules of the game are evolving. It would open the door to dramatic improvements in education, understanding, consistency and professionalism at all levels.

So let’s get it done.


In future posts, we’ll be taking a look at what would actually have to be done to create a working system out of this. Stay tuned!

Women’s Squad Drills #1: Deception of Attack

Some notes from the womens’ sabre squad training session at Sydney Sabre on Wednesday 8/11/2017:
Sabre is all about deception.

The types of deception used are generally different for women’s sabre and men’s sabre. For men – and frankly, only the young guns before their joints start to go and their brains start working – deception is mainly around speed and distance. Pretend to be slower than you are, with shorter range, and hit your opponent by surprise from further and/or sooner than they expected.

For women’s sabre, this usually isn’t an option especially if they are training in a mixed environment with men who are physically more suited to blazing speed. Deception in women’s sabre (and old man game) is primarily around intention. The most common deception of this type is to fake the intention to attack. There are two basic applications:

1. Fake the attack at the start of the bout: this deception is based on simulating the speed, sound, and body language of making an attack in the 4m zone while hiding your minimal insertion distance into the 4m zone and your intention to parry riposte their immediate attack.

2. While on the march: this deception is based on simulating the speed, sound, and body language of finishing the attack, while hiding your real distance being too far away for your opponent to counterattack or beat your blade, and your intention to trick your opponent into retreating so that you can anticipate when they will subsequently slow down (and thus give you an opportunity to actually accelerate to finish your attack and hit).

We complemented these applications with backup actions should the initial deception fail.

For application 1 (faking the attack in the 4m zone), we practiced an initial backup to take the opponent’s blade should they not be deceived by the fake attack and proceed to continue their attack while holding back. We also practiced a secondary backup to takeover priority if the opponent decided to also make fall short instead.

For application 2, we practiced an initial backup of flunge (K-style) for opponents who refused to retreat from the fake attack, and a secondary backup of jump back/parry riposte for opponents who decided to parry forward or counterattack instead.

The drills we executed were as follows:

  1. Drill 1: Fake attack to make fall short, fake finishes during march
  2. Drill 2: As per 1, with backup 1 (take blade) in the 4m zone.
  3. Drill 3: As per 2, with backup 1 and 2 (takeover) in the 4m zone.
  4. Drill 4: As per 3, with backup 1 (flunge) during the March
  5. Drill 5: As per 4, with backup 1 and 2 (jump back/parry riposte) during the March.

More to follow.

 

This work is made possible by the research work done by the staff and students at the Sydney Sabre Centre, so if you like this I would really appreciate you leaving a review on Facebook and Google – 5 stars would be great but even better if you tell us why!
 
We read every single review and are always looking to improve how we do things because ultimately Sydney Sabre is all about  sharing this great sport and making it accessible to everyone. I know that this sport is a big part of who I am today, and wish this place was around when I was growing up.
 
If that isn’t enough motivation for you, here’s another reason: we will give you a stackable 5% discount off on anything we sell (services and stuff) for each review that you leave for us, for one transaction. You can spend it on yourself or use it to subsidise a friend (or a whole bunch of friends, if you want to bring along a horde).
 
Thanks in advance.
 
John