How would you call this? [Saber]

How would you call the following action?

Fencer A and fencer B move forward on "fence!" Both begin to extend and
move forward at the same time, and both begin what appears to be a
lunge. However, B cuts off the lunge and recovers, causing A's attack to
miss short. After A's blade is below horizontal, B cuts at a and lands
valid.

Now, there's no question that this is B's touch (distance-parry
riposte). However, I'm interested in how people around the country think
the referee should call this. Is it:

a) attack from A is no, riposte from B is good

b) attack from A is no, counterattack from B is good

c) attack from A is no, attack from b is good

I have some notes from a refereeing seminar about 6 years ago that say
what the "correct" answer is, but I'm curious what referees are actually
doing.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Harold Buck wrote:

> Fencer A and fencer B move forward on "fence!" Both begin to extend and
> move forward at the same time, and both begin what appears to be a
> lunge. However, B cuts off the lunge and recovers, causing A's attack to
> miss short. After A's blade is below horizontal, B cuts at a and lands
> valid.

I would call it B - attack no, counterattack yes.

I would not call it a riposte, because there was no parry, and I wouldn't
call it as C because it's Fencer B's second action (option C would be for
the situation where both fencers start their actions simultaneously, A
misses and B hits, with no pulling back and doing a second cut).

>
> a) attack from A is no, riposte from B is good
>
> b) attack from A is no, counterattack from B is good
>
> c) attack from A is no, attack from b is good
>

Cheers,
Holly

What are the hit when this case happen, in saber or foil.

Fencer A and fencer B move forward on "fence!" Both begin to extend and
move forward at the same time, lunge then both hit without blade contact.

Who is given the point, is there a double hit ? I know that the ref can
always chose depending on the case who was the attacker but if this happen
exactly that way, is there any rule stating this?

..... Why is there a ref in epee anyway ...






"Holly E. Ordway" <hollyOUTordway@WITHverizon.THISnet> a écrit dans le
message de news:P2j6c.40218$F9.14492@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Harold Buck wrote:
>
> > Fencer A and fencer B move forward on "fence!" Both begin to extend and
> > move forward at the same time, and both begin what appears to be a
> > lunge. However, B cuts off the lunge and recovers, causing A's attack to
> > miss short. After A's blade is below horizontal, B cuts at a and lands
> > valid.
>
> I would call it B - attack no, counterattack yes.
>
> I would not call it a riposte, because there was no parry, and I wouldn't
> call it as C because it's Fencer B's second action (option C would be for
> the situation where both fencers start their actions simultaneously, A
> misses and B hits, with no pulling back and doing a second cut).
>
> >
> > a) attack from A is no, riposte from B is good
> >
> > b) attack from A is no, counterattack from B is good
> >
> > c) attack from A is no, attack from b is good
> >
>
> Cheers,
> Holly

In article <MNj6c.5921$Q16.263480@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:

> What are the hit when this case happen, in saber or foil.
>
> Fencer A and fencer B move forward on "fence!" Both begin to extend and
> move forward at the same time, lunge then both hit without blade contact.
>

Simultaneous attacks, both valid, no touch. In saber, if one of the
attacks is off target, there will only be one light on and the touch
will be awarded


> Who is given the point, is there a double hit ? I know that the ref can
> always chose depending on the case who was the attacker but if this happen
> exactly that way, is there any rule stating this?
>
> .... Why is there a ref in epee anyway ...
>

Have you ever seen a fencing meet?

First of all, you need someone to run the show: call people to the
strip, check weapons, say "En garde...ready...fence," etc.

But more importantly you need someone to make sure the rules are
followed, that cards are awarded when appropriate, that people are
penalized for leaving the strip, to judge when hits are on the floor (on
ungrounded strips) or not on the opponent, and to keep people from
cheating.

At lower levels, epee is the easiest weapon to referee. I've been told
that it's the hardest to direct at the higher levels.


--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

I know, I was kidding for epee
True it is hard to direct at high level, lots of corp a corp and event that
call a halt however when high level touch land even when the halt is called,
has it gone before the action that caused the halt after. Easier to argue
about gone before then about a priority, foil and saber are more cleaner
weapon. Epee fencer, tend to be more agressive.

However in epee a halt is more a matter of security than rules.


"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:no_one_knows-008B99.12512318032004@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> In article <MNj6c.5921$Q16.263480@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
>
> > What are the hit when this case happen, in saber or foil.
> >
> > Fencer A and fencer B move forward on "fence!" Both begin to extend and
> > move forward at the same time, lunge then both hit without blade
contact.
> >
>
> Simultaneous attacks, both valid, no touch. In saber, if one of the
> attacks is off target, there will only be one light on and the touch
> will be awarded
>
>
> > Who is given the point, is there a double hit ? I know that the ref can
> > always chose depending on the case who was the attacker but if this
happen
> > exactly that way, is there any rule stating this?
> >
> > .... Why is there a ref in epee anyway ...
> >
>
> Have you ever seen a fencing meet?
>
> First of all, you need someone to run the show: call people to the
> strip, check weapons, say "En garde...ready...fence," etc.
>
> But more importantly you need someone to make sure the rules are
> followed, that cards are awarded when appropriate, that people are
> penalized for leaving the strip, to judge when hits are on the floor (on
> ungrounded strips) or not on the opponent, and to keep people from
> cheating.
>
> At lower levels, epee is the easiest weapon to referee. I've been told
> that it's the hardest to direct at the higher levels.
>
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson

> Harold Buck wrote:
>
> > Fencer A and fencer B move forward on "fence!" Both begin to extend and
> > move forward at the same time, and both begin what appears to be a
> > lunge. However, B cuts off the lunge and recovers, causing A's attack to
> > miss short. After A's blade is below horizontal, B cuts at a and lands
> > valid.
>
> > a) attack from A is no, riposte from B is good
> >
> > b) attack from A is no, counterattack from B is good
> >
> > c) attack from A is no, attack from b is good
> >
>
> Cheers,
> Holly

C) - attack from A no. Attack from B good. Technically speaking,
what B has done is not a riposte, even though many sabre referees will
use that language. It is a new attack. The hand gestures make this
clearer.

"Delia M. Turner" <dmturner@dmturner.org> wrote in message
news:a02e0196.0403181212.628ffcb9@posting.google.c om
>> Harold Buck wrote:
>>
>>> Fencer A and fencer B move forward on "fence!" Both begin to extend
>>> and move forward at the same time, and both begin what appears to
>>> be a lunge. However, B cuts off the lunge and recovers, causing A's
>>> attack to miss short. After A's blade is below horizontal, B cuts
>>> at a and lands valid.
> >
>>> a) attack from A is no, riposte from B is good
>>>
>>> b) attack from A is no, counterattack from B is good
>>>
>>> c) attack from A is no, attack from b is good
>>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Holly
>
> C) - attack from A no. Attack from B good. Technically speaking,
> what B has done is not a riposte, even though many sabre referees will
> use that language. It is a new attack. The hand gestures make this
> clearer.

I agree with Delia. That is both how I would call it, and how I've seen
other, *good* sabre referees call it. :-)

Delia, I've been out of the loop for a while, so maybe you can tell me:
what is the hand signal for an attack that is passé or short?

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

>>> Fencer A and fencer B move forward on "fence!" Both begin to extend and
>>> move forward at the same time, and both begin what appears to be a
>>> lunge. However, B cuts off the lunge and recovers, causing A's attack to
>>> miss short. After A's blade is below horizontal, B cuts at a and lands
>>> valid.
>>
>>> a) attack from A is no, riposte from B is good
>>>
>>> b) attack from A is no, counterattack from B is good
>>>
>>> c) attack from A is no, attack from b is good
>>>

>
> C) - attack from A no. Attack from B good. Technically speaking,
> what B has done is not a riposte, even though many sabre referees will
> use that language. It is a new attack. The hand gestures make this
> clearer.

If B has not done a riposte (I agree), and B has done a new attack (I
agree), then this new attack is done into, or immediately after, A's attack,
and therefore is a counterattack.
I agree with Holly's call: B


>>>I've been out of the loop for a while, so maybe you can tell me:
>>>what is the hand signal for an attack that is passé or short?

Just as the signal for an off-target is a wave of the hand below the waist,
a "missed" action is a wave above the waist.


Bruce J. Heidebrecht

wrong. That is the only wrong answer of the 3.

"Holly E. Ordway" <hollyOUTordway@WITHverizon.THISnet> wrote in message
news:P2j6c.40218$F9.14492@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Harold Buck wrote:
>
> > Fencer A and fencer B move forward on "fence!" Both begin to extend and
> > move forward at the same time, and both begin what appears to be a
> > lunge. However, B cuts off the lunge and recovers, causing A's attack to
> > miss short. After A's blade is below horizontal, B cuts at a and lands
> > valid.
>
> I would call it B - attack no, counterattack yes.
>
> I would not call it a riposte, because there was no parry, and I wouldn't
> call it as C because it's Fencer B's second action (option C would be for
> the situation where both fencers start their actions simultaneously, A
> misses and B hits, with no pulling back and doing a second cut).
>
> >
> > a) attack from A is no, riposte from B is good
> >
> > b) attack from A is no, counterattack from B is good
> >
> > c) attack from A is no, attack from b is good
> >
>
> Cheers,
> Holly

Dirk Goldgar wrote:
>
> Delia, I've been out of the loop for a while, so maybe you can tell me:
> what is the hand signal for an attack that is passé or short?

Any action that misses totally, you just wave your finger at
them (no...the other finger!!).

And if you really want to make them feel bad, you can shake
your head and make a "tsk, tsk" noise at the same time :-)
Simon.

"Dirk Goldgar" <dgoldgar@NOalumni.SPAMprinceton.edu> wrote in message news:<A0o6c.7908$CJ5.490@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net>...
> "Delia M. Turner" <dmturner@dmturner.org> wrote in message
<snip>
> >
> > C) - attack from A no. Attack from B good. Technically speaking,
> > what B has done is not a riposte, even though many sabre referees will
> > use that language. It is a new attack. The hand gestures make this
> > clearer.
>
> I agree with Delia. That is both how I would call it, and how I've seen
> other, *good* sabre referees call it. :-)
>
> Delia, I've been out of the loop for a while, so maybe you can tell me:
> what is the hand signal for an attack that is passé or short?

The signal I've heard recommended is arm bent at the elbow with index
finger pointing to ear, then unbend the elbow to about 135 degrees and
then rebend back to the elbow. Actually, in practice, what I mostly
see is a variant of the "off-target" scrubbing motion, which is never
used in sabre for its official meaning anyway.

In article <a02e0196.0403181212.628ffcb9@posting.google.com >,
dmturner@dmturner.org (Delia M. Turner) wrote:

> > Harold Buck wrote:
> >
> > > Fencer A and fencer B move forward on "fence!" Both begin to extend and
> > > move forward at the same time, and both begin what appears to be a
> > > lunge. However, B cuts off the lunge and recovers, causing A's attack to
> > > miss short. After A's blade is below horizontal, B cuts at a and lands
> > > valid.
> >
> > > a) attack from A is no, riposte from B is good
> > >
> > > b) attack from A is no, counterattack from B is good
> > >
> > > c) attack from A is no, attack from b is good
> > >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Holly
>
> C) - attack from A no. Attack from B good. Technically speaking,
> what B has done is not a riposte, even though many sabre referees will
> use that language. It is a new attack. The hand gestures make this
> clearer.


This is the "correct" answer, at least according to the FOC seminar I
took a few years back. The experienced officials in my area at the time
had been fond of calling it A, since you're "parrying with distance,"
but I always found that troublesome: since there's no blade contact, I
saw no way to justify it according to the rules. But they felt it was
better to say A than B, since it makes it clear to the fencers that you
actually *saw* them do something to prevent the attack from landing.

I think C covers all the bases; I just wanted to make sure that it was
being called this way, since it's possible the official interpreation
never got disseminated or that it had changed over time. Thanks!

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

In article
<no_one_knows-06E752.16505419032004@comcast.ash.giganews.com>,
Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote:

> > > Harold Buck wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fencer A and fencer B move forward on "fence!" Both begin to extend and
> > > > move forward at the same time, and both begin what appears to be a
> > > > lunge. However, B cuts off the lunge and recovers, causing A's attack to
> > > > miss short. After A's blade is below horizontal, B cuts at a and lands
> > > > valid.
> > >
> > > > a) attack from A is no, riposte from B is good
> > > >
> > > > b) attack from A is no, counterattack from B is good
> > > >
> > > > c) attack from A is no, attack from b is good


I forgot to mention the other point: since B starts the attack after A's
attack has ENDED, it cannot be a counterattack. It's simply a new
attack, so C is the answer.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson