Maybe I am too late to join this discussion but I completely agree with the ref's call at 13:13. Left's search caused right's attack to pull a change of line at the last minute as he land his foot. Left wasn't attacking, so right landing his foot while the hand is changing line and clearly blade pulled back should be the end of the attack motion, and left saw that and capitalized on that, good timing and execution.
13-13 From the angle this video was recorded at, it looks like Bazadze looks for the blade as well - in some kind of attack "no" circle attack. If you couple that with the fact that it looks like his foot lands before he hits his first attack, it supports the idea that it was Szilagyi's point. An argument for the other hand would be that Szilagyi looks like he was originally going to do a defensive action when Bazadze originally started; this can be shown by how he goes up and back a bit as soon as he sees this attack, but still decides to stay in the box. Unclear touch, definitely controversial. (Also maybe a little too late to join the discussion)
Well it depends on the timing of the searching of the parry, it did not happened after the attack. It happened while the priority was still with Bzadze. Take into consideration you are repeating it in a very slow motion. Watching it in real time, you will see it as attack no, attack right.
The call at 13-13 is 100% correct btw - it's a simple attack "no", riposte. The fact that Szilagyi searched at the same time is irrelevant because he wasn't attacking anyway.
Completely disagree with your say on the 14th hit. Attack no happens at the same time as Szilagyi search and so the parry is irrelevant. Attack no, riposte left
I'm pretty sure it was from a recording of the stream. They unfortunately can't be posted anywhere, else risk the wrath of the IOC. But you could try and ask the people over on the fencing Discord server.
You can view these from the olympics website. Click on Tokyo 2020 Olympics, then highlights, then choose fencing. Then you see all videos of all events.
From what I can see. It seems that Badzadze's action of extending the arm, then pulling it back and then moving forward again (at a very high speed)... seems to be why?? The time his feet lands as he pulled his arm back might be why attack was initially no?? But it might just have been an inconsistent refereeing. Was Bazadze out of Video challenges?
@@Dancingtuna the one at 13-13? It definitely was not given as attack-no, search-no, attack touche. That would be the call if it was given as Sandro's. The call is like this because Sandro's action is an indirect low-line attack from chest to flank that draws a half chest parry from Áron on the chest feint. Then, having already aimed at flank and Áron having already completed his search on the first feint, Sandro pulls his arm back as his foot lands and hits to flank as Áron makes his hit. That pull is what makes it 2 actions and attack-no, which is what the call was given as.
@@brynmorticus 1) not the call that was given. 2) not how that action would be called during this entire Olympic season. 3) what you described was not the explanation given by the ref either
@@Dancingtuna Medhat is saying Sandro's attack misses because Sandro is making a search, not that Áron is searching. You're misinterpreting "(Sandro's) attack-no (first attack is searching), (Áron's) attack-touche" as "(Sandro's) attack-no, (Áron's) first search no, (Áron's) attack touché". (Which doesn't make any sense as a phrasing) The call is correct, and you're fundamentally misunderstanding how refs have been calling compound actions. If it is a smooth feint/indirect attack, the foot can land slightly early and it's fine. If it is a bigger feint that commits a parry and you have to pull a bit to go around the parry, that is fine. What is not fine is doing the feint and then pulling and breaking rhythm after you've landed and are already aiming at the final target. If Áron made 2 attempted parries and Sandro made that action to hit a new target then maybe that would be OK depending on the timing. If Sandro doesn't make that pull and just hits smooth to flank after the chest feint then it's 100% his, with a bit of a pull as he changes line to avoid the parry is also his, but you don't get to change lines, land, and then wind up and hit into the same line with broken timing.
@@brynmorticus @Brynmor Saunders Ah I see your point now. In your argument I believe it is Sandro search; Aron search; Sandro attack no; Aron attack touche - correct? But I still disagree with that being what actually happened. I don't think that Bazadze's first arm movement was a search - especially given how far they were from each other when he actually started - I would interpret it as a change in line. Then Szilagyi reacts to Sandro's advance by searching. Then Bazadze finishes his attack. Then in this case it would considered as a compound attack because the convention within the last few seasons has found that if the defender chose an incorrect defensive option in reaction to the attacker's attack, then the attacker's foot may land a little earlier than the hand. And in any case if what you had described had happened, then the ref's call would be either 'right search no, left search no, attack right no, remise left touche' or 'left search no, attack no, attack touche' but the ref said neither of those calls - he said 'attack no, first search no, attack touche' which would mean that Aron had made an incorrect attack first, then Bazadze search and got nothing, then Aron attacks and hits - which was not what happened
![Luigi Samele [Gigi's Bizarre Adventure] Sabre Fencing Compilation | このギギ・サメレには夢がある](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/S6wnkmr73uU/mqdefault.jpg)
![Luigi Samele [Gigi's Bizarre Adventure] Sabre Fencing Compilation | このギギ・サメレには夢がある](/img/tr.png)
![Tokyo 2021 [T8] Korea v Egypt | Olympic Fencing | Men's Sabre Team Highlights 도쿄 올림픽 펜싱 남자 사브르 레](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AWwMRPBU4mU/mqdefault.jpg)
Maybe I am too late to join this discussion but I completely agree with the ref's call at 13:13. Left's search caused right's attack to pull a change of line at the last minute as he land his foot. Left wasn't attacking, so right landing his foot while the hand is changing line and clearly blade pulled back should be the end of the attack motion, and left saw that and capitalized on that, good timing and execution.
13-13 The ref did say
“Attack non, **premier cherche* attack touche
so pretty much Szilagyi searched the blade first, then bazadze missed
13-13
From the angle this video was recorded at, it looks like Bazadze looks for the blade as well - in some kind of attack "no" circle attack. If you couple that with the fact that it looks like his foot lands before he hits his first attack, it supports the idea that it was Szilagyi's point.
An argument for the other hand would be that Szilagyi looks like he was originally going to do a defensive action when Bazadze originally started; this can be shown by how he goes up and back a bit as soon as he sees this attack, but still decides to stay in the box.
Unclear touch, definitely controversial.
(Also maybe a little too late to join the discussion)
Completely agree with you on the 14th point.
Well it depends on the timing of the searching of the parry, it did not happened after the attack. It happened while the priority was still with Bzadze. Take into consideration you are repeating it in a very slow motion. Watching it in real time, you will see it as attack no, attack right.
The phrase is Attack no attack touch from right. It was bazadzes point.
The call at 13-13 is 100% correct btw - it's a simple attack "no", riposte. The fact that Szilagyi searched at the same time is irrelevant because he wasn't attacking anyway.
Completely disagree with your say on the 14th hit. Attack no happens at the same time as Szilagyi search and so the parry is irrelevant. Attack no, riposte left
szilagy said that 14 point wasnt right and apologise🤓 And this referee will never judge again for such a mistake.😄👍
@@giorgiurushadze2377 I doubt that
Is searching for the blade while defending seen as an attack? I don't understand why it wouldn't be attack no from the right.
It was attack no from the right. Searching for the blade loses priority. So it would be remise right
Do you know where do you get these videos because I would love to watch,but I dont know where to find it :((?
I'm pretty sure it was from a recording of the stream. They unfortunately can't be posted anywhere, else risk the wrath of the IOC. But you could try and ask the people over on the fencing Discord server.
You can view these from the olympics website. Click on Tokyo 2020 Olympics, then highlights, then choose fencing. Then you see all videos of all events.
@@mrking5819 ohhh thank you
@@mrking5819 I saw some team sabre bouts but im not sure tbere is individual sabre ;(
@dokmanqqq I already did on olympic official but there is only team not individual sabre
From what I can see. It seems that Badzadze's action of extending the arm, then pulling it back and then moving forward again (at a very high speed)... seems to be why?? The time his feet lands as he pulled his arm back might be why attack was initially no?? But it might just have been an inconsistent refereeing. Was Bazadze out of Video challenges?
No. That's not the reason that the ref gives. This went to video and was given as attack no, first search no, attack touche
@@Dancingtuna the one at 13-13? It definitely was not given as attack-no, search-no, attack touche. That would be the call if it was given as Sandro's. The call is like this because Sandro's action is an indirect low-line attack from chest to flank that draws a half chest parry from Áron on the chest feint. Then, having already aimed at flank and Áron having already completed his search on the first feint, Sandro pulls his arm back as his foot lands and hits to flank as Áron makes his hit. That pull is what makes it 2 actions and attack-no, which is what the call was given as.
@@brynmorticus 1) not the call that was given. 2) not how that action would be called during this entire Olympic season. 3) what you described was not the explanation given by the ref either
@@Dancingtuna Medhat is saying Sandro's attack misses because Sandro is making a search, not that Áron is searching. You're misinterpreting "(Sandro's) attack-no (first attack is searching), (Áron's) attack-touche" as "(Sandro's) attack-no, (Áron's) first search no, (Áron's) attack touché". (Which doesn't make any sense as a phrasing)
The call is correct, and you're fundamentally misunderstanding how refs have been calling compound actions. If it is a smooth feint/indirect attack, the foot can land slightly early and it's fine. If it is a bigger feint that commits a parry and you have to pull a bit to go around the parry, that is fine. What is not fine is doing the feint and then pulling and breaking rhythm after you've landed and are already aiming at the final target. If Áron made 2 attempted parries and Sandro made that action to hit a new target then maybe that would be OK depending on the timing. If Sandro doesn't make that pull and just hits smooth to flank after the chest feint then it's 100% his, with a bit of a pull as he changes line to avoid the parry is also his, but you don't get to change lines, land, and then wind up and hit into the same line with broken timing.
@@brynmorticus @Brynmor Saunders Ah I see your point now. In your argument I believe it is Sandro search; Aron search; Sandro attack no; Aron attack touche - correct?
But I still disagree with that being what actually happened. I don't think that Bazadze's first arm movement was a search - especially given how far they were from each other when he actually started - I would interpret it as a change in line. Then Szilagyi reacts to Sandro's advance by searching. Then Bazadze finishes his attack. Then in this case it would considered as a compound attack because the convention within the last few seasons has found that if the defender chose an incorrect defensive option in reaction to the attacker's attack, then the attacker's foot may land a little earlier than the hand.
And in any case if what you had described had happened, then the ref's call would be either 'right search no, left search no, attack right no, remise left touche' or 'left search no, attack no, attack touche' but the ref said neither of those calls - he said 'attack no, first search no, attack touche' which would mean that Aron had made an incorrect attack first, then Bazadze search and got nothing, then Aron attacks and hits - which was not what happened
Where did you find these? I've been looking for videos like these forever. The only ones I can find are of London 2012 and Beijing 2008
Try the Olympics website
@@Dancingtuna Thank you!
It is funny how you give yourself the right to judge better than 2 of the best experienced referees.
it's funny how you assume that all experienced referees are always correct/neutral
@@Dancingtuna you need to watch it at real-time. It is not a clear call at all. Doubting people honesty is also not funny btw!!
@@elbakry8629 I disagree. It is a very clear call. Szilagyi chose the wrong defensive option against an attack. And 'not funny' - I wasn't joking
@@elbakry8629 What I considered 'funny' was your assumption that just because they are experienced referees, their decisions should not be questioned
@@Dancingtuna the search happens at the same time as the attack is falling short via the foot landing. Remise right, attack left. Aron won that point
1:41 nice JoJo reference
That match was bazadzes. Not Szilagyis.
Dislike Button