Attack in Sabre -- Clarification

I finally have gotten down to reading the USFA rule book and was surprised
to find that an attack in sabre (as the book defines it) is only an
extension before a lunge. What is it called when you make, for example, a
cut from extension distance -- is this also an attack?

Does this also mean that if sabreur A advances on sabreur B, and both
simultaneously extends their weapon and lands on valid targets with A
making a simple extension and B finishing with a lunge, the touch would go
to B? I've always seen it being called attack by A, counterattack by B.

Also does advancing (more than one step) with the blade threatening a valid
target (arm may or may not be extended) give the sabreur priority?

Thanks
--Y.L.

"Y.L." <inane@worldnet.att.net> wrote


> I finally have gotten down to reading the USFA rule book and was surprised
> to find that an attack in sabre (as the book defines it) is only an
> extension before a lunge.


I think you're defining the attack as iterated in the rule to
narrowly. What you've described is a SIMPLE attack; it is not the ONLY
sort of attack possible. Here's the rule:

"The attack is correctly carried out when the extending of the arm,
with the point or the cutting edge continuously threatening the
valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge."

In other words, the lunge will define the END of the attack. It is not
an indispensable part OF the attack. Thus in your first example,
simply extending and hitting, with or without preliminary steps, is
indeed an attack. So is a looooong action with multiple steps, as long
as the arm is continuously extending and threatening target without
either breaking, missing or terminating in a lunge. In your second, it
is attack for A, because he has begun the action---presumably while
extending---while B is reacting. Always assuming, of course, that B
has not with the speed of his action established a tempo into the
attack.

William Marshal wrote:

> I think you're defining the attack as iterated in the rule to
> narrowly. What you've described is a SIMPLE attack; it is not the ONLY
> sort of attack possible. Here's the rule:
>
> "The attack is correctly carried out when the extending of the arm,
> with the point or the cutting edge continuously threatening the
> valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge."
>
> In other words, the lunge will define the END of the attack. It is not
> an indispensable part OF the attack.

I would also add that *the body moving forward* is not mentioned anywhere
in the rules as a prerequisite for having the attack. You can attack while
retreating.

I have seen several instances (argh!) of inexperienced directors seeing:
"Fencer A advances down the strip in preparation (arm is NOT extending),
Fencer B retreats, B extends first, A extends second, both hit" and calling
it A's attack. Upon questioning: "But A is advancing!" Well, yeah, but it's
B's attack, A's counterattack. As a fencer, it's frustrating to see forward
motion called as the attack, because it dramatically limits the tactical
possibilities of the game. Fortunately, the intermediate-and-better
directors call it correctly: by the hand, not the feet.

--Holly

Holly,

In the good ole days this was called stealing right of way. I still do it out
of habit
when I retreat, but I never get the call during a double touch. I just assumed

the rules have changed, and I have to adapt.

Vince


"Holly E. Ordway" wrote:

> William Marshal wrote:
>
> > I think you're defining the attack as iterated in the rule to
> > narrowly. What you've described is a SIMPLE attack; it is not the ONLY
> > sort of attack possible. Here's the rule:
> >
> > "The attack is correctly carried out when the extending of the arm,
> > with the point or the cutting edge continuously threatening the
> > valid target, precedes the initiation of the lunge."
> >
> > In other words, the lunge will define the END of the attack. It is not
> > an indispensable part OF the attack.
>
> I would also add that *the body moving forward* is not mentioned anywhere
> in the rules as a prerequisite for having the attack. You can attack while
> retreating.
>
> I have seen several instances (argh!) of inexperienced directors seeing:
> "Fencer A advances down the strip in preparation (arm is NOT extending),
> Fencer B retreats, B extends first, A extends second, both hit" and calling
> it A's attack. Upon questioning: "But A is advancing!" Well, yeah, but it's
> B's attack, A's counterattack. As a fencer, it's frustrating to see forward
> motion called as the attack, because it dramatically limits the tactical
> possibilities of the game. Fortunately, the intermediate-and-better
> directors call it correctly: by the hand, not the feet.
>
> --Holly

Vince Dicarlo wrote:

> In the good ole days this was called stealing right of way. I still do it
> out of habit
> when I retreat, but I never get the call during a double touch. I just
> assumed
>
> the rules have changed, and I have to adapt.

Maybe the directors suck where you fence? No, seriously. Apart from issues
with self-directed pools, I see it called correctly more often than not
(both against me, and for me) although admittedly, it's more likely to be
called correctly at the higher levels than at the lower levels.

The call is usually "attack into preparation" if Fencer A is moving forward
but not extending (ie. he's preparing) and Fencer B attacks into that. Of
course, sometimes what looks like a preparation to *me* looks like an
attack to the referee, but hey, it happens.

Also, if I'm barrelling forward with an attack, but I "pump" or hesitate or
look for the blade, and my opponent (retreating) attacks into that, well,
it's clearly his even though I'm moving forward and eventually land for a
two-light touch.

When I'm directing, that's how I call it. Beginning fencers/directors may
not see it, because the feet are more visible than the hand, but that's
just an issue of practice and knowing what to look for (and ideally, having
an experienced fencer/director to point out what to look for, as I do at my
club).

--Holly


> "Holly E. Ordway" wrote:

>> I would also add that *the body moving forward* is not mentioned
>> anywhere in the rules as a prerequisite for having the attack. You can
>> attack while retreating.
>>
>> I have seen several instances (argh!) of inexperienced directors seeing:
>> "Fencer A advances down the strip in preparation (arm is NOT extending),
>> Fencer B retreats, B extends first, A extends second, both hit" and
>> calling it A's attack. Upon questioning: "But A is advancing!" Well,
>> yeah, but it's B's attack, A's counterattack. As a fencer, it's
>> frustrating to see forward motion called as the attack, because it
>> dramatically limits the tactical possibilities of the game. Fortunately,
>> the intermediate-and-better directors call it correctly: by the hand, not
>> the feet.
>>
>> --Holly

Thanks for the input. As for the other question, if Fencer A is now
barreling down the strip with arm extended, does he still have priority;
i.e. does fencer B need to (e.g.) beat the beat before he can attack? After
advancing so much with arm extended is this still considered part of a very
long preparation or is priority lost?

Priority can't be merely a matter of who extends first with the blade
threatening a valid target (except with point in line). When I first started
fencing sabre, I'd see two inexperienced fencers beyond en guard distance
run at each other, still a fair distance from each other the first fencer
extends his arm then the other extends; both hit together, no touch.

Is this where "threatening a valid target" comes in? It is not enough to
have the blade aimed in the right direction but you have to be close enough
to be considered a threat to that target area. I would say anything beyond
double advance lunge distance is no threat at all no with arm extended. So
in the second example, since both extended from so far away, each was not
threatening a line but when both came close enough (i.e. blades close enough
to threaten) one would deem the beginning of their attacks as simultaneous.

Does this sound right?

--Y.L.








"Holly E. Ordway" <hollyOUTordway@WITHverizon.THISnet> wrote in message
news:_Dedc.488$F9.218@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Vince Dicarlo wrote:
>
> > In the good ole days this was called stealing right of way. I still do
it
> > out of habit
> > when I retreat, but I never get the call during a double touch. I just
> > assumed
> >
> > the rules have changed, and I have to adapt.
>
> Maybe the directors suck where you fence? No, seriously. Apart from issues
> with self-directed pools, I see it called correctly more often than not
> (both against me, and for me) although admittedly, it's more likely to be
> called correctly at the higher levels than at the lower levels.
>
> The call is usually "attack into preparation" if Fencer A is moving
forward
> but not extending (ie. he's preparing) and Fencer B attacks into that. Of
> course, sometimes what looks like a preparation to *me* looks like an
> attack to the referee, but hey, it happens.
>
> Also, if I'm barrelling forward with an attack, but I "pump" or hesitate
or
> look for the blade, and my opponent (retreating) attacks into that, well,
> it's clearly his even though I'm moving forward and eventually land for a
> two-light touch.
>
> When I'm directing, that's how I call it. Beginning fencers/directors may
> not see it, because the feet are more visible than the hand, but that's
> just an issue of practice and knowing what to look for (and ideally,
having
> an experienced fencer/director to point out what to look for, as I do at
my
> club).
>
> --Holly
>
>
> > "Holly E. Ordway" wrote:
>
> >> I would also add that *the body moving forward* is not mentioned
> >> anywhere in the rules as a prerequisite for having the attack. You can
> >> attack while retreating.
> >>
> >> I have seen several instances (argh!) of inexperienced directors
seeing:
> >> "Fencer A advances down the strip in preparation (arm is NOT
extending),
> >> Fencer B retreats, B extends first, A extends second, both hit" and
> >> calling it A's attack. Upon questioning: "But A is advancing!" Well,
> >> yeah, but it's B's attack, A's counterattack. As a fencer, it's
> >> frustrating to see forward motion called as the attack, because it
> >> dramatically limits the tactical possibilities of the game.
Fortunately,
> >> the intermediate-and-better directors call it correctly: by the hand,
not
> >> the feet.
> >>
> >> --Holly
>

Y.L. wrote:

> Thanks for the input. As for the other question, if Fencer A is now
> barreling down the strip with arm extended, does he still have priority;
> i.e. does fencer B need to (e.g.) beat the beat before he can attack?
> After advancing so much with arm extended is this still considered part of
> a very long preparation or is priority lost?

Priority is lost, for this reason: the attack is defined by the extendING
arm (threatening valid target). Once the arm is fully extended, that's it:
attack's over. (I'll leave it to someone else to explain how this ties in
with the placement of the front foot in the lunge, as I've never been able
to articulate that well).

This is best exemplified at slow speed, by newbies who stick their arm out
straight and march at the opponent: clearly this is a presentation of the
blade, not an attack.

As a referee, I'd call that preparation/presentation of the blade, and not
give it priority. As a fencer, I'd be inclined to do some sort of beat or
parry anyway, just to demonstrate my control of the blade. (And because,
well, I *like* doing beats...)

> Priority can't be merely a matter of who extends first with the blade
> threatening a valid target (except with point in line). When I first
> started fencing sabre, I'd see two inexperienced fencers beyond en guard
> distance run at each other, still a fair distance from each other the
> first fencer extends his arm then the other extends; both hit together, no
> touch.

Here the key element is: who extends first *in attack distance*, defined as
advance-lunge distance. I can't be at the far opposite end of the strip and
stick out my arm and get right of way! So you could consider that until the
fencers are within advance-lunge distance of each other, it's ALL
preparation.

> Is this where "threatening a valid target" comes in? It is not enough to
> have the blade aimed in the right direction but you have to be close
> enough to be considered a threat to that target area. I would say anything
> beyond double advance lunge distance is no threat at all no with arm
> extended. So in the second example, since both extended from so far away,
> each was not threatening a line but when both came close enough (i.e.
> blades close enough to threaten) one would deem the beginning of their
> attacks as simultaneous.
>
> Does this sound right?

Yes, it sounds right to me, with "advance lunge distance" substituted for
"double advance lunge distance." Note of course that this is a flexible
metric, as some people's advance lunges are longer than others! :-)

Cheers,
Holly

"Holly E. Ordway" wrote:
> I can't be at the far opposite end of the strip and
> stick out my arm and get right of way!

Certainly you can. You've just established a point
in line. Your opponent may not have right of way
until he removes the line with an action against
your blade.

Joe

In article <4075FB74.5B1A5BEC@patriot.net>,
Joe Hoffman <jhoffman@patriot.net> wrote:

> Holly E. Ordway" wrote:
> > I can't be at the far opposite end of the strip and
> > stick out my arm and get right of way!
>
> Certainly you can. You've just established a point
> in line. Your opponent may not have right of way
> until he removes the line with an action against
> your blade.


Extending your arm <> establishing a point in line.

--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 <4075FB74.5B1A5BEC@patriot.net>, Joe Hoffman <jhoffman@patriot.net>
writes:

>"Holly E. Ordway" wrote:
>> I can't be at the far opposite end of the strip and
>> stick out my arm and get right of way!
>
>Certainly you can. You've just established a point
>in line. Your opponent may not have right of way
>until he removes the line with an action against
>your blade.
>
>Joe

Sorry, but I have to agree with Holly on this one. As was explained to me
quite clearly by noted sabre fencer and referee Bill Goering, a point in line
does not gain right of way UNTIL the fencers have closed to one-tempo (i.e.
advance-lunge) distance. Of course, it must be established before that time,
but up until that moment it is just another preparation.

Joe's posting implies that the opposing fencer decides to close distance, thus
yielding right of way to the fencer with point in line..

Ed

On 2004-04-09 06:37:43 -0400, edhutson@aol.com (EdHutson) said:

> In article <4075FB74.5B1A5BEC@patriot.net>, Joe Hoffman <jhoffman@patriot.net>
> writes:
>
>> "Holly E. Ordway" wrote:
>>> I can't be at the far opposite end of the strip and
>>> stick out my arm and get right of way!
>>
>> Certainly you can. You've just established a point
>> in line. Your opponent may not have right of way
>> until he removes the line with an action against
>> your blade.
>> Joe
>
> Sorry, but I have to agree with Holly on this one. As was explained to me
> quite clearly by noted sabre fencer and referee Bill Goering, a point in line
> does not gain right of way UNTIL the fencers have closed to one-tempo (i.e.
> advance-lunge) distance. Of course, it must be established before that time,
> but up until that moment it is just another preparation.
>
> Joe's posting implies that the opposing fencer decides to close distance, thus
> yielding right of way to the fencer with point in line..
>
> Ed

Precisely. This means that if you stick out a line at one end of the
strip and I start a triple advance lunge attack and before I reach
advance lunge distance you start an advance lunge with the point then
as the two of us come into (advance-lunge) distance we're both
attacking and it's simultaneous as nothing that occurs outside of
advance lunge distance has any bearing on priority.

gary hayenga

In article <2004040919361116807%vandg@speakeasyorg>, gary hayenga
<vandg@speakeasy.org> writes:

>Precisely. This means that if you stick out a line at one end of the
>strip and I start a triple advance lunge attack and before I reach
>advance lunge distance you start an advance lunge with the point then
>as the two of us come into (advance-lunge) distance we're both
>attacking and it's simultaneous as nothing that occurs outside of
>advance lunge distance has any bearing on priority.
>

I disagree. The rule clearly states that if A has point in line, then B is
obliged to remove it.

Bill Hall

In article <20040409203922.17713.00000252@mb-m28.aol.com>, fencerbill@aol.com
(Fencerbill) writes:

>I disagree. The rule clearly states that if A has point in line, then B is
>obliged to remove it.

And if B stays outside of (advance-lunge) distance, then A's point in line does
not establish right-of-way...and suddenly it turns into an (bad) epee bout! :>)
(as Minnesota's former Govenor was found of telling the media "Joke, joke,
joke").

The point (no pun intended) I was trying to make was WHEN point in line becomes
an issue that a sabre fencer needs to deal with, and it's dependent on the
distance between the fencers and the actions they both take. And being sabre,
it's pretty much a given that the distance is going to be closed by one or both
fencers!

I had someone argue that he could establish point in line at the guard line,
immediately after the referee said "fence". I'll allow that this could occur,
but only if their opponent stood at their guard line, essentially doing
nothing, for the tempo required to establish a line. If on the other hand,
their opponent begins an attack, the best that could be hoped for would be
simultaneous (attack vs. attack with point)...UNLESS of course the opponent
looks for blade unsuccessfully.

I suspect that I would call that as "line arrives", as the opponent yielded
right-of-way to the line by attempting an action on the (in-line) blade. I
suppose it could also be called as an attack on preparation, depending upon how
the fencers actions appeared from the referee's viewpoint.

Ed

In article <v1ldc.14230$hd3.12803@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>, Holly E. Ordway
<hollyOUTordway@WITHverizon.THISnet> writes
>Y.L. wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the input. As for the other question, if Fencer A is now
>> barreling down the strip with arm extended, does he still have priority;
>> i.e. does fencer B need to (e.g.) beat the beat before he can attack?
>> After advancing so much with arm extended is this still considered part of
>> a very long preparation or is priority lost?
>
>Priority is lost, for this reason: the attack is defined by the extendING
>arm (threatening valid target).

Surely that defines the start of the attack? (t.75(b))

>Once the arm is fully extended, that's it:
>attack's over.

I would argue that an attack with the point isn't finished when the arm
is fully extended. For example, if you make a simple attack and fully
extend in the first half of the lunge, the attack continues until the
end of the lunge.

I guess the same logic could hold with a cut; you could have a fully
extended arm but continue the cut by swinging the arm from the shoulder.
I don't think I've seen it happen, but I'm not very sure I could tell
the difference.

[snip]

--
Tim S.

Tim Schofield <tim@foxtree.co.uk> wrote

> I guess the same logic could hold with a cut; you could have a fully
> extended arm but continue the cut by swinging the arm from the shoulder.
> I don't think I've seen it happen, but I'm not very sure I could tell
> the difference.

Or, more commonly, with the fingers. That's how the cut is SUPPOSED to
be delivered, after all.

In any event, though, we can't extract one element from the rule,
consider it in isolation and then derive any principles from it. The
extension defines the attack if it begins before the lunge; it may be
completed before the lunge and still retain priority, but not
thereafter. Which is why we say that an attack is over when the front
foot of the lunge hits the ground, even if an arm or blade action
follows. In your example, the attack with point would indeed continue
until the lunge terminated, but if the extension of the arm finished
before the lunge that would end the attack. Both conditions are
necessary, neither alone is sufficient.