<Sabre> Attacking with Point

What is the correct call for this action:

Fencer A attacks with a point and fencer B attacks with a cut. These are
simaultaneous actions; both attacks land. Whose touch?

I was told that attacking with a point in no longer considered an attack in
sabre. Is this true? That would mean touch for fencer B.

I stopped fencing for a few years and some rules changed inthe meanwhile; is
this one of them?

Thanks,
Y.L.

An attack with the point is still a valid attack.
If the referee cannot distinguish which attack started first, then they are
deemed simultaneous, and no touch is awarded.

Bruce J. Heidebrecht



> What is the correct call for this action:
>
> Fencer A attacks with a point and fencer B attacks with a cut. These are
> simaultaneous actions; both attacks land. Whose touch?
>
> I was told that attacking with a point in no longer considered an attack in
> sabre. Is this true? That would mean touch for fencer B.
>
> I stopped fencing for a few years and some rules changed inthe meanwhile; is
> this one of them?
>
> Thanks,
> Y.L.
>
>

"Y. Lee" <inane@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<zWupc.64883$Ut1.1638255@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> What is the correct call for this action:
>
> Fencer A attacks with a point and fencer B attacks with a cut. These are
> simaultaneous actions; both attacks land. Whose touch?
>
> I was told that attacking with a point in no longer considered an attack in
> sabre. Is this true? That would mean touch for fencer B.
>
> I stopped fencing for a few years and some rules changed inthe meanwhile; is
> this one of them?
>
> Thanks,
> Y.L.

This is a call many referees get wrong, mostly because they are
ignorant of the rules or because they are mis-applying rules. Some of
them think it's a failed attempt to put point-in-line and therefore a
counter-attack. Other referees, usually those who have refereed foil
before they tried refereeing sabre, either give priority to point
attacks because they look familiar or never allow point attacks
because they're trying too hard to understand sabre. This is in
addition to the referees who just call it one way or another because
they have a mental image of an attack, and either point or edge
doesn't fit their image.

It should be called a simultaneous attack.

The attack with the point is valid if it lands with the point- if it lands
with the edge then it is a renewal and out of time.

In article <c8afua$am4$1@athena.ukc.ac.uk>,
"Laura Callaghan" <lmc9@ukc.ac.uk> wrote:

> The attack with the point is valid if it lands with the point- if it lands
> with the edge then it is a renewal and out of time.


I asked about this recently, and I was told that this is the "old" rule
from dry saber. With electric saber, they said, there's no "passe" for
point attacks (although there is with point in line), although the rules
haven't really been updated.

At least, this is how I remember it.

--Harold Buck


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

Think about it it's absolutely logical why a point attack landing with the
edge would be a renewal

1- Both fencer attack. Fencer A point in line. Fencer B cut to the mask.
2- Fencer A point miss. Then both hit with the blade.

It's the part missed that is important, as would a missed cut renewed in
point in line attack.
The first attack part is exhausted and every new attemp is a renewal.

Agleos



> > The attack with the point is valid if it lands with the point- if it
lands
> > with the edge then it is a renewal and out of time.
>
>
> I asked about this recently, and I was told that this is the "old" rule
> from dry saber. With electric saber, they said, there's no "passe" for
> point attacks (although there is with point in line), although the rules
> haven't really been updated.
>
> At least, this is how I remember it.
>
> --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 <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote

> I was told that this is the "old" rule
> from dry saber. With electric saber, they said, there's no "passe" for
> point attacks (although there is with point in line), although the rules
> haven't really been updated.


It's still in the rule book and it's still called by the better
referees. ( In fact I benefitted from it twice recently, the ref was
Derek Cotton. Surprised me, but there it was. )

"Y. Lee" <inane@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:zWupc.64883$Ut1.1638255@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> What is the correct call for this action:
>
> Fencer A attacks with a point and fencer B attacks with a cut. These are
> simaultaneous actions; both attacks land. Whose touch?
>
> I was told that attacking with a point in no longer considered an attack
in
> sabre. Is this true? That would mean touch for fencer B.
>
> I stopped fencing for a few years and some rules changed inthe meanwhile;
is
> this one of them?

That's wrong. Attack with point or cut are equally valid in sabre. The
correct call is thus simultaneous.

The only time it would make a difference is one fencer started to attack
with point and changed to cut (or vice versa) which is regarded as second
intention.

"Neo" <Neo@nospam.come-to-chat.com> wrote in message news:<40ca211c$0$17765$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.co m>...
> "Y. Lee" <inane@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:zWupc.64883$Ut1.1638255@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > What is the correct call for this action:
> >
> > Fencer A attacks with a point and fencer B attacks with a cut. These are
> > simaultaneous actions; both attacks land. Whose touch?
>
> That's wrong. Attack with point or cut are equally valid in sabre. The
> correct call is thus simultaneous.
>
> The only time it would make a difference is one fencer started to attack
> with point and changed to cut (or vice versa) which is regarded as second
> intention.

I stopped fencing/refereeing 3 years ago, but it sounds like the rules
haven't changed much. My opinion: an attack is an attack, regardless
of how (point or cut). If the point doesn't hit in its own beat of
tempo, then it has failed, and a subsequent light is from a renewal
(remise). Same for a cut.

Too many referees try to split hairs on finer points of priority, when
it should be cut, dried, and simple- this isn't rocket science, nor
was it ever intended to be. It reminds me of that old, tired
discussion: "which sad, pathetic yet classical grip is better, french
or italian?" If you care about the answer, then you shouldn't be
reffing.