Sabre Attack Clarifcation

I was bouting with a few folks from my club the other day and need some
clarification on these two scenarios:

#1 fencer A establishes a point in line. Fencer B advances. From point in
line, Fencer A attacks with point as Fencer B launches his attack. Both
touches land but Fencer A's touch lands first but not in tempo. But it's
still Fencer B's touch, correct?

#2 A proper sabre attack ends when the arm is fully extended (if not
lunging). When does the attack end when the fencer swings the weapon instead
of extending the weapon? I was refing a bout with one inexperienced sabreur
(Fencer A) and one somewhat experienced sabreur (Fencer B). Fencer A attacks
with a swinging head cut and Fencer B attempts to parry 5 and repoists. Two
lights go off. Fencer A's touch lands first. Is the action:

1) Fencer B malpare. Touch Fencer A
or 2) Fencer B parry and repoist. Fencer A's first attack no, then
continues.

3) Same scenario as #2 but Fencer A makes a swinging heat cut over Fencer
B's parry 5. There is some blade contact, then Fencer B repoists. Two
lights. I called the action as attack Fencer A, malpare Fencer B. I don't
see how one could properly parry a swinging head cut that goes over the
other fencer's parry 5.

Thanks for any input. Sometimes I called to ref beginning sabreurs (i.e.
kids). The actions get a tad messy and I want to make sure I'm making the
correct calls.

--Ed

in article cgmFc.53372$OB3.19864@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Cal
Fencer at inane@worldnet.att.net wrote on 7/2/04 7:32 PM:

> I was bouting with a few folks from my club the other day and need some
> clarification on these two scenarios:
>
> #1 fencer A establishes a point in line. Fencer B advances. From point in
> line, Fencer A attacks with point as Fencer B launches his attack. Both
> touches land but Fencer A's touch lands first but not in tempo. But it's
> still Fencer B's touch, correct?
>
t.10 the 'in-line' position is a specific position in which the fencer's
sword arm is kept straight and the point of his weapon continually threatens
his opponent's valid target.
t.76 if the attack is initiated when the opponent has his point 'in line'
the attacker must first deflect his opponent's weapon....
t.80 the fencer who attacks is alone counted as touched: (a) If he initiated
his attack when his opponent had his point 'in line' and without deflecting
the opponent's weapon.....

A fencer with point in line may advance, retreat, stay stationary, even
lunge and retain the point in line.
[There is a tempo at the END of the lunge when the point in line is
considered an attack with point that fell short (failed to arrive) and that
attack has ended and is subject to a counterattack, but that does not seem
to be the case according to your description.]

So, touch for Fencer A: "Point in line"



> #2 A proper sabre attack ends when the arm is fully extended (if not
> lunging). When does the attack end when the fencer swings the weapon instead
> of extending the weapon? I was refing a bout with one inexperienced sabreur
> (Fencer A) and one somewhat experienced sabreur (Fencer B). Fencer A attacks
> with a swinging head cut and Fencer B attempts to parry 5 and reposts. Two
> lights go off. Fencer A's touch lands first. Is the action:
>
> 1) Fencer B malpare. Touch Fencer A
> or 2) Fencer B parry and repoist. Fencer A's first attack no, then
> continues.
>

A swing is going to be in one plane in space (parallel to the ground,
perpendicular down to the ground, or at some other angle). When that swing
passes the opponent's body (arm, head, whatever) then that attack failed (it
went "passe"). If that swing arrived before it changed line (changed into a
different plane), then the attack is valid.


t.79 .... The parry is properly carried out when, before the completion of
the attack, it prevents the arrival of the attack by closing the line in
which that attack is to finish.

The question back to you is if you feel that Fencer B not only "attempted" a
parry 5, but actually succeeded in this parry. If the parry was correct,
and closed the line of attack, then the riposte has right of way, and Fencer
A is making a remise after being parried.

t.79... When a parry is properly executed, the attack by the opponent must
be declared parried, and judged such by the Referee, even if, as a result of
its flexibility, the tip of the opponent's weapon makes contact with the
target.
(Basically, whip-over is not counted as "malpare")




> 3) Same scenario as #2 but Fencer A makes a swinging heat cut over Fencer
> B's parry 5. There is some blade contact, then Fencer B repoists. Two
> lights. I called the action as attack Fencer A, malpare Fencer B. I don't
> see how one could properly parry a swinging head cut that goes over the
> other fencer's parry 5.
>

When you state that the head cut was "over the parry", it sounds as though
the parry was too low if the attack was able to arrive. Keep in mind the
whip-over statement above (t.79). Did the attack arrive, or was it
whip-over?
If the attack truly arrived, then yes, Fencer A earned the touch.
If it was whip-over, then Fencer B had a successful parry and earned the
touch with his riposte.
With your statement of "the is some blade contact" it sounds as though you
really felt that the attempted parry did not successfully prevent the
arrival of the attack.



> Thanks for any input. Sometimes I called to ref beginning sabreurs (i.e.
> kids). The actions get a tad messy and I want to make sure I'm making the
> correct calls.
>
> --Ed


Many times reffing novices is much more difficult than reffing experienced
fencers because their actions are not clearly defined. I don't referee
sabre, but in foil, some actions are called as "the last poke-and-hope from
the right/left arrives!"


Bruce J. Heidebrecht

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 23:32:24 GMT, "Cal Fencer"
<inane@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> I was bouting with a few folks from my club the other day and need some
> clarification on these two scenarios:
>
> #1 fencer A establishes a point in line. Fencer B advances. From point in
> line, Fencer A attacks with point as Fencer B launches his attack. Both
> touches land but Fencer A's touch lands first but not in tempo. But it's
> still Fencer B's touch, correct?

No. If A has established the point in line before B begins his
attack, and if B does not deflect A's blade, then it's A's touch.

> #2 A proper sabre attack ends when the arm is fully extended (if not
> lunging). When does the attack end when the fencer swings the weapon instead
> of extending the weapon? I was refing a bout with one inexperienced sabreur
> (Fencer A) and one somewhat experienced sabreur (Fencer B). Fencer A attacks
> with a swinging head cut and Fencer B attempts to parry 5 and repoists. Two
> lights go off. Fencer A's touch lands first. Is the action:
>
> 1) Fencer B malpare. Touch Fencer A
> or 2) Fencer B parry and repoist. Fencer A's first attack no, then
> continues.

It's difficult to tell exactly what happened from your description,
but when you say "attempts to parry" it sounds as if B's parry was
late--i.e. A hit B's target before there was any blade contact. If
that's the case, then it's A's touch on the attack.

To answer your question more generally, if A swings and hits, then his
attack hit. If A swings and misses, and then swings again and hits,
his attack did not hit, and B has the right to riposte. It's the duty
of the referee to keep the scoring machine in view so he can see which
of the actions actually landed.

> 3) Same scenario as #2 but Fencer A makes a swinging heat cut over Fencer
> B's parry 5. There is some blade contact, then Fencer B repoists. Two
> lights. I called the action as attack Fencer A, malpare Fencer B. I don't
> see how one could properly parry a swinging head cut that goes over the
> other fencer's parry 5.

I'm not sure what you mean by "goes over" the parry. I can think of
several possibilities:

1. A's attack was parried, but the blade hit B's target due to the
flexibility of the blade. This is called a "whipover", and is not a
valid touch. If this is what happened, the touch should be awarded to
B's riposte.

2. A's attack was parried, and he hit with a remise. If this is what
happened, the touch should be awarded to B's riposte. (Unless the
riposte was delayed.)

3. B's parry was imperfectly formed so that A ended up taking B's
blade. This may happen, especially with beginners, if the fencers get
the distance wrong so they're too close. In this case, the touch goes
to A (prise de fer attack).

4. B's parry was too low, and A's attack slid down B's blade and hit
valid target. In this case, the touch goes to A's attack.

5. A's attack landed before the blade contact because A's arm was
much higher than B's parry. This can happen when a tall fencer attacks
a short one. In this case, the touch goes to A's attack.

> Thanks for any input. Sometimes I called to ref beginning sabreurs (i.e.
> kids). The actions get a tad messy and I want to make sure I'm making the
> correct calls.

With beginners, the actions frequently get *very* messy. :-) It's
often more difficult to call the action with beginners than with
experienced fencers.

-Mark-

"Bruce J. Heidebrecht" <bjheidebre@comcast.net> wrote

> [There is a tempo at the END of the lunge when the point in line is
> considered an attack with point that fell short (failed to arrive) and that
> attack has ended and is subject to a counterattack,

Can you clarify this? I've never seen a PIL called "over" at the end
of a lunge ( not that I've seen a lunge with a PIL, that I can recall,
but anyway! ). Upon which rule, or interpretive rationale, is this
loss of priority or change in status based?

in article dc7987e.0407032118.539250b6@posting.google.com, William Marshal
at trebuchet30303@yahoo.com wrote on 7/4/04 1:18 AM:

> "Bruce J. Heidebrecht" <bjheidebre@comcast.net> wrote
>
>> [There is a tempo at the END of the lunge when the point in line is
>> considered an attack with point that fell short (failed to arrive) and that
>> attack has ended and is subject to a counterattack,
>
> Can you clarify this? I've never seen a PIL called "over" at the end
> of a lunge ( not that I've seen a lunge with a PIL, that I can recall,
> but anyway! ). Upon which rule, or interpretive rationale, is this
> loss of priority or change in status based?


Attack falls short (maybe either by it starting from too long a distance, or
the defender steps back so that the attack does not arrive).

t.75 an attack with a lunge is correctly carried out in simple attack when
the arm is extended with the lunge and the touch arrives at the latest when
the front foot touches the strip.

So, the attack is not correctly carried out if it does NOT arrive "at the
latest when the front foot touches the strip." Therefore, the attack has
failed. When an attack fails, the opponent has a tempo to make a
counterattack.


Imagine this situation:
Fencers A and B both establish Point-In-Line at the same time. After a few
seconds, Fencer A lunges, and both hit with point.
In this situation, Fencer A has lost his PIL due to his lunging onto Fencer
B's PIL. Touch for B.

Comments? Questions? Discussion?


Bruce J. Heidebrecht

Thanks all for the input. I thhink from the comments I (more or less) made
the right calls.

One last question: what do they precisely mean when the rules say the blade
must be "deflected" against a point in line? When I first started fencing
sabre, I was taught the blade had to move a bid (circular, lateral, or
vertical) to be considered "taken." However, I have seen some calls where
just grazing the blade or making some metal contact without moving the blade
was sufficient to have taken away priority against the point in line.













"Bruce J. Heidebrecht" <bjheidebre@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BD0B917E.1343%bjheidebre@comcast.net...
> in article cgmFc.53372$OB3.19864@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Cal
> Fencer at inane@worldnet.att.net wrote on 7/2/04 7:32 PM:
>
> > I was bouting with a few folks from my club the other day and need some
> > clarification on these two scenarios:
> >
> > #1 fencer A establishes a point in line. Fencer B advances. From point
in
> > line, Fencer A attacks with point as Fencer B launches his attack. Both
> > touches land but Fencer A's touch lands first but not in tempo. But it's
> > still Fencer B's touch, correct?
> >
> t.10 the 'in-line' position is a specific position in which the fencer's
> sword arm is kept straight and the point of his weapon continually
threatens
> his opponent's valid target.
> t.76 if the attack is initiated when the opponent has his point 'in line'
> the attacker must first deflect his opponent's weapon....
> t.80 the fencer who attacks is alone counted as touched: (a) If he
initiated
> his attack when his opponent had his point 'in line' and without
deflecting
> the opponent's weapon.....
>
> A fencer with point in line may advance, retreat, stay stationary, even
> lunge and retain the point in line.
> [There is a tempo at the END of the lunge when the point in line is
> considered an attack with point that fell short (failed to arrive) and
that
> attack has ended and is subject to a counterattack, but that does not seem
> to be the case according to your description.]
>
> So, touch for Fencer A: "Point in line"
>
>
>
> > #2 A proper sabre attack ends when the arm is fully extended (if not
> > lunging). When does the attack end when the fencer swings the weapon
instead
> > of extending the weapon? I was refing a bout with one inexperienced
sabreur
> > (Fencer A) and one somewhat experienced sabreur (Fencer B). Fencer A
attacks
> > with a swinging head cut and Fencer B attempts to parry 5 and reposts.
Two
> > lights go off. Fencer A's touch lands first. Is the action:
> >
> > 1) Fencer B malpare. Touch Fencer A
> > or 2) Fencer B parry and repoist. Fencer A's first attack no, then
> > continues.
> >
>
> A swing is going to be in one plane in space (parallel to the ground,
> perpendicular down to the ground, or at some other angle). When that
swing
> passes the opponent's body (arm, head, whatever) then that attack failed
(it
> went "passe"). If that swing arrived before it changed line (changed into
a
> different plane), then the attack is valid.
>
>
> t.79 .... The parry is properly carried out when, before the completion of
> the attack, it prevents the arrival of the attack by closing the line in
> which that attack is to finish.
>
> The question back to you is if you feel that Fencer B not only "attempted"
a
> parry 5, but actually succeeded in this parry. If the parry was correct,
> and closed the line of attack, then the riposte has right of way, and
Fencer
> A is making a remise after being parried.
>
> t.79... When a parry is properly executed, the attack by the opponent must
> be declared parried, and judged such by the Referee, even if, as a result
of
> its flexibility, the tip of the opponent's weapon makes contact with the
> target.
> (Basically, whip-over is not counted as "malpare")
>
>
>
>
> > 3) Same scenario as #2 but Fencer A makes a swinging heat cut over
Fencer
> > B's parry 5. There is some blade contact, then Fencer B repoists. Two
> > lights. I called the action as attack Fencer A, malpare Fencer B. I
don't
> > see how one could properly parry a swinging head cut that goes over the
> > other fencer's parry 5.
> >
>
> When you state that the head cut was "over the parry", it sounds as though
> the parry was too low if the attack was able to arrive. Keep in mind the
> whip-over statement above (t.79). Did the attack arrive, or was it
> whip-over?
> If the attack truly arrived, then yes, Fencer A earned the touch.
> If it was whip-over, then Fencer B had a successful parry and earned the
> touch with his riposte.
> With your statement of "the is some blade contact" it sounds as though you
> really felt that the attempted parry did not successfully prevent the
> arrival of the attack.
>
>
>
> > Thanks for any input. Sometimes I called to ref beginning sabreurs
(i.e.
> > kids). The actions get a tad messy and I want to make sure I'm making
the
> > correct calls.
> >
> > --Ed
>
>
> Many times reffing novices is much more difficult than reffing experienced
> fencers because their actions are not clearly defined. I don't referee
> sabre, but in foil, some actions are called as "the last poke-and-hope
from
> the right/left arrives!"
>
>
> Bruce J. Heidebrecht
>

In article <BD0D9EBE.1351%bjheidebre@comcast.net>,
"Bruce J. Heidebrecht" <bjheidebre@comcast.net> wrote:

> in article dc7987e.0407032118.539250b6@posting.google.com, William Marshal
> at trebuchet30303@yahoo.com wrote on 7/4/04 1:18 AM:
>
> > "Bruce J. Heidebrecht" <bjheidebre@comcast.net> wrote
> >
> >> [There is a tempo at the END of the lunge when the point in line is
> >> considered an attack with point that fell short (failed to arrive) and that
> >> attack has ended and is subject to a counterattack,
> >
> > Can you clarify this? I've never seen a PIL called "over" at the end
> > of a lunge ( not that I've seen a lunge with a PIL, that I can recall,
> > but anyway! ). Upon which rule, or interpretive rationale, is this
> > loss of priority or change in status based?
>
>
> Attack falls short (maybe either by it starting from too long a distance, or
> the defender steps back so that the attack does not arrive).
>
> t.75 an attack with a lunge is correctly carried out in simple attack when
> the arm is extended with the lunge and the touch arrives at the latest when
> the front foot touches the strip.
>
> So, the attack is not correctly carried out if it does NOT arrive "at the
> latest when the front foot touches the strip." Therefore, the attack has
> failed. When an attack fails, the opponent has a tempo to make a
> counterattack.
>
>
> Imagine this situation:
> Fencers A and B both establish Point-In-Line at the same time. After a few
> seconds, Fencer A lunges, and both hit with point.
> In this situation, Fencer A has lost his PIL due to his lunging onto Fencer
> B's PIL. Touch for B.
>
> Comments? Questions? Discussion?

Yeah, I have one: then how come they now say the interpretations have
been changed so you can lunge with a point in line without affecting
it's priority?


--Harold Buck


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

"Bruce J. Heidebrecht" <bjheidebre@comcast.net> wrote

> Attack falls short (maybe either by it starting from too long a distance, or
> the defender steps back so that the attack does not arrive).
>
> t.75 an attack with a lunge is correctly carried out in simple attack when
> the arm is extended with the lunge and the touch arrives at the latest when
> the front foot touches the strip.
>
> So, the attack is not correctly carried out if it does NOT arrive "at the
> latest when the front foot touches the strip." Therefore, the attack has
> failed. When an attack fails, the opponent has a tempo to make a
> counterattack.


For an attack this is clearly the case. However, the PIL is not
classified as an attack. It's just a...a state, or condition, which
the opponent must change before he can being an attack. Hence it does
not fall under the same rules as an attack would. ( An attack would
end when, with the arm fully extended, the attacker retreats, but PIL
retains priority in this case. So too with the rules regarding forward
motion. ) At least this is my understanding.


> Imagine this situation:
> Fencers A and B both establish Point-In-Line at the same time. After a few
> seconds, Fencer A lunges, and both hit with point.
> In this situation, Fencer A has lost his PIL due to his lunging onto Fencer
> B's PIL. Touch for B.
>
> Comments? Questions? Discussion?


I would call that a simultaneous action, myself...

I mean, what if in the above scenario A merely steps forward instead
of lunging and both hit? Then the "end of the lunge" condition has not
been met, but all other circumstances are identical. It would be
inconsistent to say that THEN both still had PIL, but not in the case
of a lunge. No?

in article no_one_knows-EAF512.15441004072004@c...a.giganews.com,
Harold Buck at no_one_knows@attbi.com wrote on 7/4/04 4:44 PM:

>> Imagine this situation:
>> Fencers A and B both establish Point-In-Line at the same time. After a few
>> seconds, Fencer A lunges, and both hit with point.
>> In this situation, Fencer A has lost his PIL due to his lunging onto Fencer
>> B's PIL. Touch for B.
>>
>> Comments? Questions? Discussion?
>
> Yeah, I have one: then how come they now say the interpretations have
> been changed so you can lunge with a point in line without affecting
> it's priority?
>
>
> --Harold Buck

It's very possible that I have missed this latest interpretation. I really
just stay local, not doing NAC or Nationals, so this info may not have
gotten filtered down.

Can anyone else verify this from Harold Buck?

Bruce J. Heidebrecht

in article dc7987e.0407042109.21eb1a40@posting.google.com, William Marshal
at trebuchet30303@yahoo.com wrote on 7/5/04 1:09 AM:

> "Bruce J. Heidebrecht" <bjheidebre@comcast.net> wrote
>
>> Attack falls short (maybe either by it starting from too long a distance, or
>> the defender steps back so that the attack does not arrive).
>>
>> t.75 an attack with a lunge is correctly carried out in simple attack when
>> the arm is extended with the lunge and the touch arrives at the latest when
>> the front foot touches the strip.
>>
>> So, the attack is not correctly carried out if it does NOT arrive "at the
>> latest when the front foot touches the strip." Therefore, the attack has
>> failed. When an attack fails, the opponent has a tempo to make a
>> counterattack.
>
>
> For an attack this is clearly the case. However, the PIL is not
> classified as an attack. It's just a...a state, or condition, which
> the opponent must change before he can being an attack. Hence it does
> not fall under the same rules as an attack would. ( An attack would
> end when, with the arm fully extended, the attacker retreats, but PIL
> retains priority in this case. So too with the rules regarding forward
> motion. ) At least this is my understanding.
>

How then, would you differentiate between a PIL with lunge and an attack
with point that falls short?

Just curious to see how you would view them differently.

Let's also take into consideration what Harold Buck stated about a lunge NOT
negating the PIL. This could certainly change things for the PIL/lunge to
retain right of way until deflected. Would a lunge that falls short
immediately become a PIL because it "really was a PIL, even before the
lunge"? Is this something that a fencer can claim when his attack with
point falls short?



>
>> Imagine this situation:
>> Fencers A and B both establish Point-In-Line at the same time. After a few
>> seconds, Fencer A lunges, and both hit with point.
>> In this situation, Fencer A has lost his PIL due to his lunging onto Fencer
>> B's PIL. Touch for B.
>>
>> Comments? Questions? Discussion?
>
>
> I would call that a simultaneous action, myself...
>
> I mean, what if in the above scenario A merely steps forward instead
> of lunging and both hit? Then the "end of the lunge" condition has not
> been met, but all other circumstances are identical. It would be
> inconsistent to say that THEN both still had PIL, but not in the case
> of a lunge. No?


If a fencer walked/lunged/otherwise moved into a PIL he is hit. If someone
is "dumb" enough to move into a weapon pointed directly at them, they are
hit.

Bruce J. Heidebrecht

In article <BD0EDBBC.1362%bjheidebre@comcast.net>,
"Bruce J. Heidebrecht" <bjheidebre@comcast.net> wrote:

> How then, would you differentiate between a PIL with lunge and an attack
> with point that falls short?
>


The big difference is that the arm must be extendED before the opponent
begins the final advance + lunge of their attack. If not, then it isn't
a point in line at all. Also, point attacks often don't satisfy the PIL
requirement of being extended straight from the shoulder; often, my
point attacks are aimed for the abdomen.

--Harold Buck


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

"Bruce J. Heidebrecht" <bjheidebre@comcast.net> wrote


> How then, would you differentiate between a PIL with lunge and an attack
> with point that falls short?

All a matter of distance and timing, as I understand it. One can make
an attack with point from within step-lunge distance, but cannot
establish a PIL there unless the opponent cooperates by
hesitating...hence in sabre one almost always has to take a step back
out of distance when establishing PIL in sabre. Also, a point attack
is made like any other attack: with the arm extending continuously
while threatening valid target---and as Harold said, for it to qualify
as a PIL the arm must be fully extenDED already.

Certainly an attack with point which falls short can be converted into
a PIL...but only if the opponent does not seize the ROW immediately
and there is sufficient time to permit establishment. A PIL cannot
become an attack with point, though, unless the PIL is first
broken---otherwise it maintains its priority indefinitely.





> Would a lunge that falls short immediately become a PIL because it "really
> was a PIL, even before the lunge"? Is this something that a fencer can
> claim when his attack with point falls short?

Only if the opponent fails to capitalize on his right to riposte in a
timely manner, as I see it. One sees this very often: an attack,
whether with point or not, falls short and the fencer immediately
extends point...and the opponent makes a relatively leisurely attack
and gets the touch, while the point is a remise. ( How long the
opponent has to do this varies from one referee to the next, but this
is the general pattern. )

More effectively, the fencer whose attack falls short may throw out a
point to slow the opponent's attack or interrupt his "flow" ( so to
speak ), but doesn't rely on it having any priority. That is, he
doesn't intend it as a PIL. Rather it's just a way of getting the
blade out there, the better to beat or attack into any preparation
that may haply present itself, and to give the opponent pause...

"Cal Fencer" <inane@worldnet.att.net> wrote

> One last question: what do they precisely mean when the rules say the blade
> must be "deflected" against a point in line? When I first started fencing
> sabre, I was taught the blade had to move a bid (circular, lateral, or
> vertical) to be considered "taken." However, I have seen some calls where
> just grazing the blade or making some metal contact without moving the blade
> was sufficient to have taken away priority against the point in line.


It's largely at the discretion of the referee to determine what
constitutes a sufficient deflection to remove the PIL. Some call
almost any contact enough, others require more...IMO the latter is
more proper, but at sabre speeds it isn't always possibly to parse
amounts of force. ( The angle from which the ref has to look at the
fencers sometimes makes a search or an evasive attempt by the holder
of a PIL difficult to see sometimes. )

Another wrinkle is that the ref needs to determine WHERE on the
extended blade a beat or prise occurs. As with any other such blade
contact, a beat on the opponent's forte is, or should be, adjudged as
a parry by the receipient. So finding a PIL too high up it shouldn't
count as a proper removal, either...