Question on Fencing Call

[Cal Fencer]

Say fencer A and B are on guard and then both initiate simultaneous attacks,
fencer A with a simple direct attack and fencer B makes a double -- both
touches land together. What's the proper call for this? I'm tempted to call
simultaneous-no touch but am not sure if the double constitutes a search and
thus causes fencer B to lose priority. Would the call the same for both foil
and saber?

How about the same scenario but fencer B makes 1 feint?

Thanks.

[David Neevel]

Simultaneous in both cases (double and feint-disengage). A's action is
simple and B's is compound, but if they are both correctly executed
attacks starting together than it's still simultaneous. A's action could
only be considered to steal time if it were to arrive (not start, but
_arrive_) before the beginning of the final motion of B's compound attack.

-Dave

Cal Fencer wrote:

>Say fencer A and B are on guard and then both initiate simultaneous attacks,
>fencer A with a simple direct attack and fencer B makes a double -- both
>touches land together. What's the proper call for this? I'm tempted to call
>simultaneous-no touch but am not sure if the double constitutes a search and
>thus causes fencer B to lose priority. Would the call the same for both foil
>and saber?
>
>How about the same scenario but fencer B makes 1 feint?
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>
>

[esskreemr]

A double is a compound action. Since they both started together, Fencer A's simple attack retains priority. Fencer B is a fencing action (tempo) behind.

Touch Fencer A. Good luck getting it called for A, though. In most situations, I believe that it would be called as a simul...

[Dirk Goldgar]

"esskreemr" <esskreemr.1ne0e2@timelimit.fencing101.com> wrote in
message news:esskreemr.1ne0e2@timelimit.fencing101.com
> A double is a compound action. Since they both started together,
> Fencer A's simple attack retains priority. Fencer B is a fencing
> action (tempo) behind.
>
> Touch Fencer A. Good luck getting it called for A, though. In most
> situations, I believe that it would be called as a simul...

No, a simple attack doesn't have priority over a compound attack, all
other things being equal. Of course, a simple attack has the
possibility of arriving a tempo ahead, which would render priority moot.

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

[John Huang]

"Cal Fencer" <edingest@infojeeves.org> wrote in message
news:6xz6e.559981$w62.489019@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Say fencer A and B are on guard and then both initiate simultaneous
> attacks,
> fencer A with a simple direct attack and fencer B makes a double -- both
> touches land together. What's the proper call for this? I'm tempted to
> call
> simultaneous-no touch but am not sure if the double constitutes a search
> and
> thus causes fencer B to lose priority. Would the call the same for both
> foil
> and saber?
>

How can that happen? If one does a direct attack and one does a disengage, I
can see both make the touches without crossing the weapon - but a double?

[Piet Wauters]

First of all, what do you mean by double? ( I think it should be spelled
doublé)
If you mean that fencer B is trying to find A's blade in a circular movement
then I would call it: attack from A, preparation of B, therefor B never had
priority. Touch for A.

In some books the doublé is defined as the following action: fencer A and B
have their weapons engaged. Fencer B starts a feinte, fencer A attemps a
parry in contre-de-sixte (circular six), which is avoided by fencer B, and
followed by a hit. Fencer B in this case executes the doublé.

"Cal Fencer" <edingest@infojeeves.org> schreef in bericht
news:6xz6e.559981$w62.489019@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Say fencer A and B are on guard and then both initiate simultaneous
> attacks,
> fencer A with a simple direct attack and fencer B makes a double -- both
> touches land together. What's the proper call for this? I'm tempted to
> call
> simultaneous-no touch but am not sure if the double constitutes a search
> and
> thus causes fencer B to lose priority. Would the call the same for both
> foil
> and saber?
>
> How about the same scenario but fencer B makes 1 feint?
>
> Thanks.
>
>

[Cal Fencer]

A rated director explained it to me recently that the call would be: touch
for fencer A though I'm still unclear on the reason.
Basically, I'm asking if two fencers launch into a simultaneous attack --
one simple the other compound but both touches landing together. What would
be the call and why?



"Cal Fencer" <edingest@infojeeves.org> wrote in message
news:6xz6e.559981$w62.489019@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Say fencer A and B are on guard and then both initiate simultaneous
attacks,
> fencer A with a simple direct attack and fencer B makes a double -- both
> touches land together. What's the proper call for this? I'm tempted to
call
> simultaneous-no touch but am not sure if the double constitutes a search
and
> thus causes fencer B to lose priority. Would the call the same for both
foil
> and saber?
>
> How about the same scenario but fencer B makes 1 feint?
>
> Thanks.
>
>

[Dirk Goldgar]

"Cal Fencer" <edingest@infojeeves.org> wrote in message
news:aqA8e.596997$w62.173721@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> A rated director explained it to me recently that the call would be:
> touch for fencer A though I'm still unclear on the reason.
> Basically, I'm asking if two fencers launch into a simultaneous
> attack -- one simple the other compound but both touches landing
> together. What would be the call and why?

If both attacks are correctly executed, are begun simultaneously, land
simultaneously, and the compound attack doesn't search for the blade,
there's no justification in the rules for preferring one to the other.
A lot is going to depend on exactly how you describe the action. Before
you spoke of one fencer executing a double, and that raised questions in
some respondent's minds as to whether that fencer was searching for the
blade. But if you reduce it to the stipulation that the only difference
between the attacks is that one is simple and one is compound, then they
are simultaneous attacks, and no touch should be awarded.

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

[esskreemr]

But if you reduce it to the stipulation that the only difference
between the attacks is that one is simple and one is compound, then they
are simultaneous attacks, and no touch should be awarded.

And the marching attack is born!!

[Dirk Goldgar]

"esskreemr" <esskreemr.1np4e0@timelimit.fencing101.com> wrote in
message news:esskreemr.1np4e0@timelimit.fencing101.com
> Dirk Goldgar Wrote:
>> But if you reduce it to the stipulation that the only difference
>> between the attacks is that one is simple and one is compound, then
>> they
>> are simultaneous attacks, and no touch should be awarded.
>>
>>
>
> And the marching attack is born!!

This has nothing to do with marching attacks. First, nothing was said
about compound footwork, only bladework. Second, any compound attack is
susceptible to being hit in time, rendering right of way moot.

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

[BillWhoArms]

Why would Fencer B double if there is no opposing parry? In Fencer A is not going to a sixte parry, the double action by Fencer B is just a wiggling of the point. If B makes his action too sloppy and pulls his arm back slightly or makes me believe he's searching for A's blade, I'd give the touch to A.

There's no priority of a simple attack and a compound attack. They're both attacks. It depends on how the compound attack was performed. I've seen some really bad cupe's that cause the attacking fencer rear back their arm and thus lose right-of-way.

This situation depends on the actual fencing action. It's up to the judgement of the referee to determine who attacked first or whether or not the compound attack kept the attack continuous.

[Sarah Morgan]

Cal Fencer wrote:

> Say fencer A and B are on guard and then both initiate simultaneous
> attacks, fencer A with a simple direct attack and fencer B makes a double
> -- both touches land together. What's the proper call for this? I'm
> tempted to call simultaneous-no touch but am not sure if the double
> constitutes a search and thus causes fencer B to lose priority. Would the
> call the same for both foil and saber?

It depends if it is actually a double (ie fencer B is deceiving fencer's A's
blade) [in which case fencer B has right of way] or whether fencer B is in
fact trying to take the blade and fencer A is deceiving the B's blade (in
which case A has right of way.
__________________________________________________ ________________________
grep me no patterns and I'll tell you no lines

Sarah Morgan
mail (at) sarahmorgan.me.uk