In Sabre -- Attacking in Time Clarification

In this situation, who has the right of way:

Fencer A is marching fencer B (me) down the strip. Fencer B draws fencer A
to within lunge distance, extends arm and lunges before fencer A begins his
lunge attack. Whose attack is it if both lights go off? I was fencer B in a
recent situation and they kept on calling it my counterattack.

Am I still correct in think that forward movement of the body has little to
do with attacking but it is more important (in establishing priority) to
extend the arm first, threaten the target, and have the blade at least in a
135 degree angle?

Also, in counterattacking, for an attack to be in time, the counter attack
has to begin before the final action of the other fencer's attack. Even if
the other fencer is making a simple attack, whose touch is it if the counter
attack begins before the other guys extension?

The whole "tiempo" thing really frusterates me with regards to
counterattacking and countertime.

Thanks.

P.S. I prefer this group to the fencing101 boards; despite the spam, the
responses are more, ahem, useful.

On 2005-01-10 15:55:15 -0500, "Cal Fencer" <ehlee_74@yahoo.net> said:

> In this situation, who has the right of way:
>
> Fencer A is marching fencer B (me) down the strip. Fencer B draws fencer A
> to within lunge distance, extends arm and lunges before fencer A begins his
> lunge attack. Whose attack is it if both lights go off? I was fencer B in a
> recent situation and they kept on calling it my counterattack.
>
> Am I still correct in think that forward movement of the body has little to
> do with attacking but it is more important (in establishing priority) to
> extend the arm first, threaten the target, and have the blade at least in a
> 135 degree angle?
>
> Also, in counterattacking, for an attack to be in time, the counter attack
> has to begin before the final action of the other fencer's attack. Even if
> the other fencer is making a simple attack, whose touch is it if the counter
> attack begins before the other guys extension?
>
> The whole "tiempo" thing really frusterates me with regards to
> counterattacking and countertime.
>
> Thanks.
>
> P.S. I prefer this group to the fencing101 boards; despite the spam, the
> responses are more, ahem, useful.

It is difficult to answer your question because you are talking about
extending and lunging but not cutting. When they lunge is not
relevant, it is when they start their final cut vs. when you start your
cut.

Now if fencer B draws fencer A into lunge distance and then cuts before
fencer A has started his cut then fencer B is attacking into
preparation. Typically though, as a practical matter, you will need to
be causing fencer A to hesitate or prepare so you are ready to cut when
he does. Even if he is marching down the strip in preparation a decent
fencer is looking for a sign that the defender, running backwards, is
about to cut before they do and can start their own cut before the
defenders. Not always of course, but very often the defender thinks
they are actually cutting quite a bit before the referee sees it as
such.

gary hayenga

Technically, you are correct.
1) forward movement of the body does NOT constitute the attack.
2) extending arm, threatening target, and the 135 degree angle DOES
constitute the attack.
3) for the counterattack to be in time (should then really be called "attack
in preparation") it must start prior to the attack of the other fencer. Or
(and call it a "stop hit") it must HIT prior to the final change of line of
the compound attack.


Now as to why you were having calls made against you:
1) you may BELIEVE that you were starting first, but the ref correctly saw a
slow attack and your fast counterattack. Slow attack having priority still
earns the touch.
OR
2) the ref may be making the incorrect call and IS seeing the forward motion
of the body of the opponent as their attack.


What to do about it:
watch the ref as he refs other bouts. Do you believe he is calling other
bouts incorrectly? It is one thing to "see" a bout while you are fencing
it, quite another thing to truly see it when you can see the whole picture.
If you believe that he is correctly calling the actions, then it is your
fencing timing that needs adjustment. You may not be seeing the slow attack
properly, and are truly counterattacking into it.
If you believe that the ref is making mistakes, you should politely inform
the bout committee that you would appreciate someone looking over the
shoulder of this ref. In the meantime, CHANGE YOUR TACTICS - quit doing the
same thing that is being called against you even if everyone else in the
room, except this particular ref, would award you the touch. You not only
fence your opponent, but also fence for your ref.


Bruce J. Heidebrecht





> In this situation, who has the right of way:
>
> Fencer A is marching fencer B (me) down the strip. Fencer B draws fencer A
> to within lunge distance, extends arm and lunges before fencer A begins his
> lunge attack. Whose attack is it if both lights go off? I was fencer B in a
> recent situation and they kept on calling it my counterattack.
>
> Am I still correct in think that forward movement of the body has little to
> do with attacking but it is more important (in establishing priority) to
> extend the arm first, threaten the target, and have the blade at least in a
> 135 degree angle?
>
> Also, in counterattacking, for an attack to be in time, the counter attack
> has to begin before the final action of the other fencer's attack. Even if
> the other fencer is making a simple attack, whose touch is it if the counter
> attack begins before the other guys extension?
>
> The whole "tiempo" thing really frusterates me with regards to
> counterattacking and countertime.
>
> Thanks.
>
> P.S. I prefer this group to the fencing101 boards; despite the spam, the
> responses are more, ahem, useful.
>
>
>

Cal Fencer wrote:
> In this situation, who has the right of way:
>
> Fencer A is marching fencer B (me) down the strip. Fencer B draws
fencer A
> to within lunge distance, extends arm and lunges before fencer A
begins his
> lunge attack. Whose attack is it if both lights go off? I was fencer
B in a
> recent situation and they kept on calling it my counterattack.


It is B's attack into A's preparation. The problem, despite the new box
lockout timing, is the same as it has always been: unless the ref is
really sharp it is all too easy for A simply to finish smoothly and
appear to have been making a slow but uninterrupted extension all
along. Plus there are some refs for whom the attack seems to be all
about the feet, not the extending arm...

The new timing, IMO, only exacerbates the problem: refs now seem to all
but expect you to get one light on an attack into prep. If you don't,
it's easier not to try to parse the action properly but rather just to
put it all on the box. I know that was one of the aims of the new
timing---to reduce the number of hard decisions for referees---but
that's the law of unintended consequences for you.

In article <TYBEd.13949$c13.8699@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Cal
Fencer" <ehlee_74@yahoo.net> writes:

>Also, in counterattacking, for an attack to be in time, the counter attack
>has to begin before the final action of the other fencer's attack. Even if
>the other fencer is making a simple attack, whose touch is it if the counter
>attack begins before the other guys extension?

One of the major intricacies of Sabre is the different viewpoint of the fencers
and the referee.

The fencer is in absolutely the worst position to see if his opponent is really
attacking since the motion is directly towards him and small motions and
extensions are difficult to discern.

The referee is, if he is opposite the fencers, in the best position to see
extensions of the arm, hesitations, withdrawals, etc.

Many times fencers are convinced their opponent has stopped but the referee is
much better placed to see if this is what has happened.

This doesn't mean that the referee gets it right all the time. But I say you
shouldn't second guess the referee unless you are looking over his shoulder.

Bill Hall