Passe touches in saber?

The USFA rules for saber state:

t.70 The saber is a weapon for thrusting and cutting with both the
cutting edge and the back of the blade.
(a) All touches made with the cutting edge, the flat or the back of the
blade are counted as good (cuts and back-cuts).
It is forbidden to score a touch with the guard. Any touches scored with
the guard must be annulled, the fencer at fault being
penalized as specified in Articles t.114, t.116, t.120.
(b) Point touches which slip over the valid target, or cuts which merely
brush the opponent¹s target (passé touches) do not count.
(c) Touches through the blade, that is to say those which touch the
valid target and the saber of the opponent at the same time, are
valid whenever they arrive clearly on the target.
(d) Straightening the weapon on the strip at any time is forbidden. Any
breaking of this rule will be punished according to Articles
t.114, t.116, t.120.

My question regards (b). Is there anyone out there who actually annuls
touches in saber which turn on a light but which brush or slip over the
target?

If someone had a line in saber which did not hit with the point, I would
call the line "no," but my inclination would be to call a point attack
valid even if it slipped across the target.

Also, if there is only one light on and the touch was passe, are you
supposed to annul the touch?

--Harold Buck


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

No.

t.70 (b) is a leftover from pre-electric days which the FIE have
forgotten to remove from the book. There are a number of such rules in
there (such as the maximum travel for a foil point) which are obsolete
in practical application, but still in there (just like some US state
laws about needing a running with red flags to preceed any automobile,
etc.).

-Dave

Harold Buck wrote:

>The USFA rules for saber state:
>
>t.70 The saber is a weapon for thrusting and cutting with both the
>cutting edge and the back of the blade.
>(a) All touches made with the cutting edge, the flat or the back of the
>blade are counted as good (cuts and back-cuts).
>It is forbidden to score a touch with the guard. Any touches scored with
>the guard must be annulled, the fencer at fault being
>penalized as specified in Articles t.114, t.116, t.120.
>(b) Point touches which slip over the valid target, or cuts which merely
>brush the opponent¹s target (passé touches) do not count.
>(c) Touches through the blade, that is to say those which touch the
>valid target and the saber of the opponent at the same time, are
>valid whenever they arrive clearly on the target.
>(d) Straightening the weapon on the strip at any time is forbidden. Any
>breaking of this rule will be punished according to Articles
>t.114, t.116, t.120.
>
>My question regards (b). Is there anyone out there who actually annuls
>touches in saber which turn on a light but which brush or slip over the
>target?
>
>If someone had a line in saber which did not hit with the point, I would
>call the line "no," but my inclination would be to call a point attack
>valid even if it slipped across the target.
>
>Also, if there is only one light on and the touch was passe, are you
>supposed to annul the touch?
>
>--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 <105uckis53v89f2@corp.supernews.com>,
David Neevel <neevel@execpc.com> wrote:

> No.
>
> t.70 (b) is a leftover from pre-electric days which the FIE have
> forgotten to remove from the book. There are a number of such rules in
> there (such as the maximum travel for a foil point) which are obsolete
> in practical application, but still in there (just like some US state
> laws about needing a running with red flags to preceed any automobile,
> etc.).


But a point in line which is passe is still not valid, correct?

--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-D4C149.16252320032004@comcast.ash.giganews.com>,
Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> writes:

>
>My question regards (b). Is there anyone out there who actually annuls
>touches in saber which turn on a light but which brush or slip over the
>target?

As far as grazing touches, how can you tell them? You might sometimes call
"Point attack misses, remise arrives".

This rule could be enforced against the wrist ticklers who just try to pull the
Sabre tip back across your wrist and then pull their arm away. Sometimes, they
are not making a cut and do not have forward point motion so it is not a point
attack. It is just contact.

In article <20040322182913.12631.00005646@mb-m28.aol.com>,
fencerbill@aol.com (Fencerbill) wrote:

> In article <no_one_knows-D4C149.16252320032004@comcast.ash.giganews.com>,
> Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> writes:
>
> >
> >My question regards (b). Is there anyone out there who actually annuls
> >touches in saber which turn on a light but which brush or slip over the
> >target?
>
> As far as grazing touches, how can you tell them? You might sometimes call
> "Point attack misses, remise arrives".
>
> This rule could be enforced against the wrist ticklers who just try to pull
> the
> Sabre tip back across your wrist and then pull their arm away. Sometimes,
> they
> are not making a cut and do not have forward point motion so it is not a
> point
> attack. It is just contact.



My feeling is that if they turn on the light in one motion, it's okay,
put if a point attack went past the target and then they decided to cut,
I'd call it attack-remise.

But point-in-line is a different animal. I was taught in no uncertain
terms that point in line HAD to land with the point to maintain its
priority over everything else, and that if a PIL landed with the edge
that you should call it a counterattack (assuming that the other person
is attacking).

--Harold Buck


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

fencerbill@aol.com (Fencerbill) wrote

> This rule could be enforced against the wrist ticklers who just try to pull
> the Sabre tip back across your wrist and then pull their arm away. Sometimes, > they are not making a cut and do not have forward point motion so it is not > a point attack. It is just contact.

I'm not sure why you characterize it thus. Were a sharp sabre being
used such a drawing motion would produce a cut ( always assuming of
course that it wasn't with the flat, as so much of sabre is today ).
So why dismiss it as "just contact" in the modern context?

Harold Buck wrote:

>But a point in line which is passe is still not valid, correct?
>
>
>
I suppose you could say that the point-in-line did not arrive and the
contact with the edge is a remise. That's a matter of priority though,
not of materiality. The basic issue which you were raising about t.70(b)
was whether one could disregard the lights on a question of materiality
based on a subjective judgement that the touch wasn't "good enough".
The answer to that question is no. The only conditions under which a
touch registered can be anulled are a demonstrable malfunction in the
scoring apparatus or a broken blade.

-Dave

In article <1060umkcnu8r8ee@corp.supernews.com>, David Neevel
<neevel@execpc.com> writes:

>The only conditions under which a
>touch registered can be anulled are a demonstrable malfunction in the
>scoring apparatus or a broken blade.
>

Give me a written reference because the previously quoted rule DOES allow the
referee to do this.

Bill Hall

(One of the rare time I feel I can question something Dave Neevel says).

In article <20040323144211.21232.00004951@mb-m13.aol.com>,
fencerbill@aol.com (Fencerbill) wrote:

> In article <1060umkcnu8r8ee@corp.supernews.com>, David Neevel
> <neevel@execpc.com> writes:
>
> >The only conditions under which a
> >touch registered can be anulled are a demonstrable malfunction in the
> >scoring apparatus or a broken blade.
> >
>
> Give me a written reference because the previously quoted rule DOES allow the
> referee to do this.


Yeah, there are a *boatload* of cases that allow touches registered to
be annulled. Download the .PDF of the rules and search for "annul."

--Harold Buck


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

Well, the rub is that this is one of those 'barnacle' rules that's still
on the books, but is not
enforced (akin to some US State laws that mandate things like requiring
a runner with a red flag to preceed any automobile on the road).
Therefore, I will e-mail Bill Oliver about it for confirmation. The
basic thing to understand is that the rules do not exist as some
independent prescriptions from heaven above. They are owned by the FIE,
and are to be interpreted and "ignored" in as the FIE Commission
d'Arbitrage decides (if they get lazy about updating the written rules,
then so be it). Anyway, I'll post a response from Bill O. when I
recieve it.

-Dave

Fencerbill wrote:

>In article <1060umkcnu8r8ee@corp.supernews.com>, David Neevel
><neevel@execpc.com> writes:
>
>
>
>>The only conditions under which a
>>touch registered can be anulled are a demonstrable malfunction in the
>>scoring apparatus or a broken blade.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Give me a written reference because the previously quoted rule DOES allow the
>referee to do this.
>
>Bill Hall
>
>(One of the rare time I feel I can question something Dave Neevel says).
>
>

Fencerbill wrote:
>
> In article <1060umkcnu8r8ee@corp.supernews.com>, David Neevel
> <neevel@execpc.com> writes:
>
> >The only conditions under which a
> >touch registered can be anulled are a demonstrable malfunction in the
> >scoring apparatus or a broken blade.
> >
>
> Give me a written reference because the previously quoted rule DOES allow the
> referee to do this.

It is covered under the materiality of the touch (t.40 and t.41):
t.40 basically says that if a light doesn't come on, the referee cannot
award a touch (except by penalty)
t.41 basically says that if a light does comes on, the referee can only
annul it according to rules t.53, t.66 and t.73 (note: no mention of t.70).

As a previous poster stated, (in sabre) a line that "misses" or barely
grazes the target area can be deemed to be passe and the remise to be
good - allowing for a counterattack to have priority. But if a light
comes on, it cannot be ignored by the referee simply because he/she
didn't think the hit was good enough.
Simon.

Surely point-in-lines have no need to 'arrive', since they are not going
anywhere; perhaps this would be better thought of as the point-in-line
having been broken by movement of the point?

Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<no_one_knows-D4C149.16252320032004@comcast.ash.giganews.com>...
> The USFA rules for saber state:
<snip>
> My question regards (b). Is there anyone out there who actually annuls
> touches in saber which turn on a light but which brush or slip over the
> target?
>

Yes. I've hit with the edge from point-in-line and lost the touch, at
the national level. I also do the same thing as a referee. Only for
line, though.

--Delia

In article <a02e0196.0403290712.74e6566e@posting.google.com >,
dmturner@dmturner.org (Delia M. Turner) wrote:

> Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:<no_one_knows-D4C149.16252320032004@comcast.ash.giganews.com>...
> > The USFA rules for saber state:
> <snip>
> > My question regards (b). Is there anyone out there who actually annuls
> > touches in saber which turn on a light but which brush or slip over the
> > target?
> >
>
> Yes. I've hit with the edge from point-in-line and lost the touch, at
> the national level. I also do the same thing as a referee. Only for
> line, though.


Good. I knew this is the right call for the line, but the rules imply
that you should do this for any touch. As someone else pointed out,
they've never updated the rules to reflect the way that it's now called.

--Harold Buck


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