Whipovers in Saber

[Masterfulks]

Do whipovers count?

I tought they did, but one of our newer saber coaches said they didnt. I had a single light, but he said no due to whipover........

[D'Artagnan1673]

I was under the impression that if you get a light, its your point, period.

[neevel]

[quote]Originally posted by Masterfulks:
<strong>Do whipovers count?

I tought they did, but one of our newer saber coaches said they didnt. I had a single light, but he said no due to whipover........</strong><hr></blockquote>

Materiality is determined by the apparatus alone-- if the light's on, the touch arrived, and in the case of a one-lighter, it's yours. One question: did he honestly seem to think that he could disregard a light in a competitive bout because he thought is wasn't 'proper', or was this a case of situational bouting, where your coach was trying to get you to work on some particular item (such as not relying on whipovers) and thus not allowing you to score on actions which didn't meet the criteria set for you?

Now, in an attack-parry-riposte situation there can be some latitude for a referee to determine that the whipover was a remise and award the touch to the riposte. That, however, is a judgement call on the priority of the touch, not the materiality.

-Dave

[AndrewH]

Neevel's right, the whipover is supposed to be called as a remise, but in a one-light situation that would mean that:

1) You attacked
2) He parried
3) There was no riposte (or a delayed riposte), in any case the remise would take ROW)
4) Your remise lands

But whipovers are getting much rarer with S2000 blades, and in that case it would almost have to be a byproduct of hitting with the side of the blade- so watch your hand position when you attack.

[Peach]

Occasionally you will see an attack to hand in which the attacker's light comes on marginally after the sound of the blade hitting the bell guard. In cases where there are two lights, my call (affirmed by national referees) is always attack-riposte-remise--in other words, the attacker's first action was on the guard, followed by the remise (or whipover).

In cases where there is no delay, even if the touch happened with guard contact, I regard that as a laid-on touch, that is, one which was not sufficiently parried.

[Masterfulks]

What happened was...

My opponent was keeping his guard low. I attacked for his wrist, and it hit the bell guard as well. It was a single light. He said whipovers dont count. He goes off a lot of old rules because he's been out of the game for a little while so I attributed it to that.

I just wanted to check and make sure. I there any rule against attacking with the flat of the blade? I do it sometimes to intentionally get a whipover.......

[AndrewH]

Technically you aren't supposed to hit with the flat, but especially with electric sabre its impossible to tell either way. It's a very bad idea to hit flat trying to get a whipover! Bad!

Also, if you have ANY hit that comes across the guard and the opponents light goes off, it's theirs no matter what because a hit to the guard is the same as a hit to the base of the blade, i.e. it's a parry whether the opponent meant it or not. A simultaneous touch where one person hit across the guard is awarded to the other person. Well, it's supposed to, at least.

So bottom line is, don't intentionally hit with the side, don't try for whipovers, and most of all never hit across the guard!

Sorry if this sounded too much like a lecture, it's my coach's voice playing over and over in my head.

[Inquartata]

[quote]Originally posted by AndrewH:
<strong>Technically you aren't supposed to hit with the flat, but especially with electric sabre its impossible to tell either way. It's a very bad idea to hit flat trying to get a whipover! Bad!</strong><hr></blockquote>


Well, drat, there go at least half my touches...


[quote]<strong>
Also, if you have ANY hit that comes across the guard and the opponents light goes off, it's theirs no matter what because a hit to the guard is the same as a hit to the base of the blade, i.e. it's a parry whether the opponent meant it or not. A simultaneous touch where one person hit across the guard is awarded to the other person. Well, it's supposed to, at least.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's still not that cut( forgive me )-and-dried. There are three possibilities.
(1) Blade hits guard, then target. Parried.
(2) Blade hits target, then guard. Valid.
(3) Blade hits both at approximately the same time. Malparre, valid.

Unfortunately, at sabre speed it's really hard to tell one from the other. The sound can sometimes help, but not always. So the default position is "if it hits guard it's parried", because human perceptions just aren't up to scratch. As fencers we have to know this and fence accordingly..

[Masterfulks]

[quote]Originally posted by AndrewH:
<strong>Technically you aren't supposed to hit with the flat, but especially with electric sabre its impossible to tell either way. It's a very bad idea to hit flat trying to get a whipover! Bad!

Also, if you have ANY hit that comes across the guard and the opponents light goes off, it's theirs no matter what because a hit to the guard is the same as a hit to the base of the blade, i.e. it's a parry whether the opponent meant it or not. A simultaneous touch where one person hit across the guard is awarded to the other person. Well, it's supposed to, at least.

So bottom line is, don't intentionally hit with the side, don't try for whipovers, and most of all never hit across the guard!

Sorry if this sounded too much like a lecture, it's my coach's voice playing over and over in my head.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I get what you're saying. One reason I like to hit with the flat is the extra chance that even if parried I may get a light. If I get a light then maybe the director will swing my way. If I dont get a light then I dont have a leg to stand on.....

[sabreur]

[quote]Originally posted by Inquartata:
<strong>

It's still not that cut( forgive me )-and-dried. There are three possibilities.
(1) Blade hits guard, then target. Parried.
(2) Blade hits target, then guard. Valid.
(3) Blade hits both at approximately the same time. Malparre, valid.

Unfortunately, at sabre speed it's really hard to tell one from the other. The sound can sometimes help, but not always. So the default position is "if it hits guard it's parried", because human perceptions just aren't up to scratch. As fencers we have to know this and fence accordingly..</strong><hr></blockquote>


Actually, Delia (Peach) and Dave Neevel have it right. In case (1), if the light goes on, it's a valid touch. As others have stated, in case (1) if there is a riposte, then the action would be called: Attack-riposte-remise, but if there is only one light, then you have to give the touch, unless the touched fencer made a riposte, no light went on, and the touched fencer immediately asks for an equipment check, which shows a problem.

Cheers, MR

[ 04-25-2002: Message edited by: sabreur ]</p>

[Inquartata]

Read it again. It says "Blade hits target, then bell". You may mean case #2...

[sabreur]

[quote]Originally posted by Inquartata:
<strong>


(1) Blade hits guard, then target. Parried.

</strong><hr></blockquote>


I mean case number (1). If the light goes on in this case, it is considered a valid touch. The director still has to determine right of way (ie., is there a riposte that takes priority), but if the above situation causes the light to go on, the touch is valid and has to be adjudicated (and awarded in a one light situation, unless there is a technical defect).

Cheers, MR

[Philistine]

[quote]Originally posted by AndrewH:
<strong>Technically you aren't supposed to hit with the flat, but especially with electric sabre its impossible to tell either way. It's a very bad idea to hit flat trying to get a whipover! Bad!

{snip}
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Technically, hits with the flat are now specifically allowed by the rules of sabre.

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

Oops! Should've taken my own advice and read my own post first!

sabreur, you are ( and were ) absolutely correct. It is "parried" only if there is a riposte which arrives.

[Stryder]

Good referees from this century do not award touches based on whether or not the imaginary cutting edge of the weapon touched the lame' rather than the flat. The entire weapon is live and will register a valid hit, ther referee will disallow touches scored with the bell guard, but not those scored with the flat or the back of the blade.

I would not counsel fencers to avoid hitting with the flat in order to get a touch for whipover. The cutting edge is usually faster, but the light goes on with either one and the flat does whip better.

If the light goes on, the parry was insufficient.

The reason you are told not to intentionally hit over the guard is if the light does NOT go on, you have been parried and are now in a weakened position. The light almost always goes on when you hit the lame clean, and usually goes off when you hit the lame over the guard.

If you can, hit the lame clean, but if you are a referee, and a hit occurs over the guard, it is a hit and should be counted as a hit without prejudice.
Coaches can hate things like the flick and the whipover, but referees must simply award the touch without lecture.

[Mo]

Good referees from this century do not award touches based on whether or not the imaginary cutting edge of the weapon touched the lame' rather than the flat.
Stryder!!!
From what I heard about the reffing from Louisville these creatures do not exist!

(no I have not been drinking)

[Peach]

There was some pretty good sabre refereeing in Louisville; one guy who was a little odd, and one rather experienced referee who really blew a number of calls in a final. A final in which a large number of people of a certain Eastern European background profoundly disagreed with the calls of an American referee, but which struck me and the rest of the spectators as correct and very consistent, but then I never quite understand how that particular group calls actions and have lost more than one bout to a director who was in the group; a team final in which an experienced American fencer who gets away with murder (can you say "Mormando rules"?) managed to make the lugubrious Russian referee smile. In other words, normal.

[AndrewH]

A smiling Russian? No way..... Did anyone get a picture? That's one for the record books!