Attack-Counter Attack. Who can riposte?

[fencerbill]

Sabre.

A fencer attacks. His opponent retreats but drops his point in an attempt to score on the cuff.

To me, that is an Attack and an immediate Riposte. Some might call it Attack and Counter Attack.

Now this is the question. Who then has the right of way to riposte, the attacker or the counter attacker?

I have been told by some low to mid level Sabre fencers that their coach, who is also an International "B" Sabre referee, says that the counter attacker has the right of way to riposte.

This seems wrong to me. If the person who originally is being attacked either counter attacks or ripostes immediately and unsuccessfully then I think they have used up their right of way and the original attacker has the right of way to counter riposte.

And please don't tell me "That is the way they are calling it in Europe!" That doesn't necessarily make it right.

[whtouche]

The way I've always heard and seen it called is that the counter-attacker has the right to a riposte. This might not be useful as I believe I am of the same group of fencers that you're referring to, taught by the same coach - tho I was not present I don't think when whatever sparked this question happened.
Scenario: Fencer A makes an attack with advance lunge. Fencer B attempts a stopcut (which is basically the premise of your question, I believe). No lights, both immedietly make new attacks (lunge, whatever). Touch for B.
For this to be the case tho there are subtle timing differentials that must be paid attention to. For example, is the stopcut(counterattack) coming at the time the attack is, or is the attack clearly ended before the stopcut is attempted? The latter scenario could be more easily called for A, tho even if the timing is close B will still get the right to riposte.

[Inquartata]

I'd call it the other way, assuming As attack does indeed end ( the initial question is unclear on this ) before or as the stop fails.

Attack no, counterattack no, redoublement of the attack has the ROW. I cannot see how making a failed cut ( in this case a stop ) gives you the right of "riposte" in any circumstances.

However, this is going to be a judgement call, as it might very well look as though B was only dropping to a low line guard rather than attempting a stop cut. In which case it's just attack no, attack yes. ( Technically the distance "parry" isn't really a parry, and the "riposte" isn't really a riposte but an attack itself... )

[telkanuru]

I'm also in the same grouping, but I see it as "Initial attack from A is no, attack (/riposte) from B arrives".

A had the attack, and missed. If, on the initial action, both lights had gone off, it would be attack, counter-attack, touch A. If enough distance is opened between the fencers, you could probly see it as a new phrase, but otherwise, it's B made A fall short (sure he wiggled his blade around, but that's not the point), and then hit A. Touch for B...

[Allen Evans]

It is always difficult to parse out a phase on paper - especially in saber. But to call the second action by "B" a riposte seems to be simply sticking labels on things without any distinction.

Using the same logic, "A" could very well have "parried" the counter-attack by "B" (since it, too, failed to score) and be making a "riposte" of his/her own!

I would definately side with Inquartata on this:

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Attack no, counterattack no, redoublement of the attack has the ROW. I cannot see how making a failed cut ( in this case a stop ) gives you the right of "riposte" in any circumstances.

[rcmatthews]

Firstly, just because both lights go off does not mean it is A's attack.

Second, if B makes A fall short, then "wiggles his blade" before hitting A, I would give As remise/redouble/whatever priority. I suppose it depends what you mean by "wigges his blade".

We are however playing an incomplete information game and are left to assume a few things. We are not told if B's counter to the wrist lands.

The phrasing makes it much more complicated then it really is. A "distance parry" is not a parry. If A misses and B lands with a direct attack in response, it is clearly B's. If A misses and B misses, right of way passes to A again.

[whtouche]

Originally Posted by rcmatthews

The phrasing makes it much more complicated then it really is. A "distance parry" is not a parry. If A misses and B lands with a direct attack in response, it is clearly B's. If A misses and B misses, right of way passes to A again.

That's not necessarily true. Not if they both miss at the same time, and A had right of way to begin with. Then it doesn't really matter what B does while A's attack is failing.
People are complicating this too much. Suppose instead of a stop cut as a counter attack, A starts his attack with an advance lunge and B stands there. When A gets close, B takes a swing. They both miss. Somehow. Then they both hit.
Touch for B. A lost right of way, B gains right to riposte and it doesn't matter if his counter attack missed. Why would it?

[rcmatthews]

If they both miss at the same time, it would depend on who started first after the two of them missed, but that is outside the scope of the argument.

I disagree with your example. If they both miss, I see the action as the beginning of another phrase. I assume we are talking about outright misses, no parries or anything. In this case, whoever launched the initial offensive action of the second phrase would get the touch, assuming they landed. If they both start at the same time, the action is clearly simultaneous, a final.

Attack for A no, counterattack for B no, riposte for B good. Now that I think about it, we may be seeing the same action, just using different terms. See my explanation of the action above and see if you do not come to the same conclusion.

[HDG]

Originally Posted by whtouche

B gains right to riposte

Where's the parry?

[whtouche]

Originally Posted by rcmatthews

If they both miss at the same time, it would depend on who started first after the two of them missed, but that is outside the scope of the argument.

That would be true if it were a simultaneous action where they both missed. Then, whoever started first would get the attack. But in the exaggerated example I used, A has the attack, B is counterattacking. B's counter attack during A's attack does not negate his subsequent right to riposte which comes about by virtue of the fact that A missed his attack.

Maybe another example will help get everyone on the same page. A makes an attack, B stands still and attemps a parry. B positions his blade for a head parry, A's attack completely misses B, hits neither target nor blade, anything. B now has the riposte by virtue of the fact that A missed his attack. B's searching for a parry and not finding it does not negate the fact that A missed his attack, giving B the right to riposte.

[rsy]

fencerbill

It is difficult to respond to your question because you are mixing terms inaccurately. A riposte follows a parry of an attack, a counter-riposte follows the parry of a riposte and a parry is a defensive action made with the weapon to prevent an offensive action arriving. See t.7. In your question there is no blade action, therefore there is no parry and thus no riposte nor counter riposte.

If A lauches a simple attack and before the attack ends B attempts to score on A's cuff, then B is counter attacking. If A's attack is compound, then B's attempt to score on A's cuff is a stop cut if it arrives in time or a counter attack if it is out of time.

You don't say if A's attack is simple or compound, you don't say if A's attack lands, you don't say if B's action arrives either, and if it does whether it is in time against a compound attack or not. You seem to imply that both A and B fail to arrive and if so then it doesn't matter, simple or compund, it is: A's attack has ROW but fails, B's counter attack has no ROW but fails also.

The question is: What happens next? Does B withdraw his blade or continue to search for the cuff? Does A remise, redouble or countertime? Once A's attack and B's counter attack both fail, it is the nature and timing of the next actions which determine who has ROW.


-r

[rsy]

Originally Posted by whtouche

Maybe another example will help get everyone on the same page. A makes an attack, B stands still and attemps a parry. B positions his blade for a head parry, A's attack completely misses B, hits neither target nor blade, anything. B now has the riposte by virtue of the fact that A missed his attack. B's searching for a parry and not finding it does not negate the fact that A missed his attack, giving B the right to riposte.

t.76(c)2 says: If, when attempting to find the opponent’s blade to deflect it, the blade is not found (dérobement), the right of attack passes to the opponent.

If A attacks but fails to arrive while B attempts to parry A's balde but fails to find it, no one has a ROW. If both fencers were to then immediately and simultaneousy replace without withdrawing their arms, it would be a simulataneuos engaement for which neither would have ROW. See t.80 1&2. In this case the fencers are both at fault, A for missing his attack and B for searching and failing to find A's blade.

-r

[edew]

Was there a parry? If there's no parry, there's no riposte. You can say, "A attacks...failed. B attacks....lands. Touch for B" or you can say, "A attacks...and B counter-attacks. Both land, touch for A."

[whtouche]

Originally Posted by rsy

t.76(c)2 says: If, when attempting to find the opponent’s blade to deflect it, the blade is not found (dérobement), the right of attack passes to the opponent.

If A attacks but fails to arrive while B attempts to parry A's balde but fails to find it, no one has a ROW. If both fencers were to then immediately and simultaneousy replace without withdrawing their arms, it would be a simulataneuos engaement for which neither would have ROW. See t.80 1&2. In this case the fencers are both at fault, A for missing his attack and B for searching and failing to find A's blade.

-r

Argh.
Pay attention people.

Yes, in my example B attempts to parry. He's just standing still, in parry 4, doing nothing. A meanwhile makes an attack and whiffs. The attempt to parry by B arguably gave right of way to A. But that doesn't matter becuase A was attacking already anyways. THEN A's attack, failing, gives right of way BACK to B. B doesn't lose right of way again because 12 actions ago he tried to parry. Follow the right of way, it goes back and forth.

And for all the people arguing semantics, specifically "if there is no blade parry there can be riposte" - that's not helpful for the thread, AND you're kindof wrong. What it is IS a riposte, how else would you describe the right of way gained by making your opponant miss? Even if the technical wording is not "riposte", that's still what it is and there is dissention among very high level referees as to how to call it.
Watch the olympics. Plenty of "attack NO, RIPOSTE" calls.

[rcmatthews]

Calling it a riposte causes confusion. What your saying, I think, is Attack by A no, counter by B no, then a new attack by B. In which case B would have right of way, but not by virtue of some right to riposte.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

Sabre.

A fencer attacks. His opponent retreats but drops his point in an attempt to score on the cuff.

To me, that is an Attack and an immediate Riposte. Some might call it Attack and Counter Attack.

Now this is the question. Who then has the right of way to riposte, the attacker or the counter attacker?

I think that you've confused multiple people by the way you've phrased your question. If you want to ask a right-of-way question and get any useful information, you either need to specify everything, or you and the person you're asking need to be watching the same fencing bout.

I think that I can give some explanation of the "counter attacker has the right to riposte" opinion.

• Fencer A begins moving forward with a proper attack (arm, blade angle, etc.)
• Fencer B begins retreating. While retreating, B attempts a stop cut to wrist but falls short (no light; no touch). At this point, Fencer B probably withdraws his arm.
• Fencer A finish his attack with a lunge, failing to hit. There is no blade contact; he probably just falls short.
• As Fencer A lands his lunge, Fencer B immediately stops retreating, changes directions, and lunges to hit A.
• On Fencer B's lunge, Fencer A also hits. Again, no blade contact, but both lights are on. (Maybe Fencer A didn't recover and just stuck out his point. Or Fencer A might have made a redoublement. Or Fencer A recovered, making a cut as he tried to retreat back.)

I'd call this as A's attack (no), B's "riposte" (after a distance parry), A's remise of the attack. Touch for B.

Watch foil fencers trying to defend against a "marching" attack. They throw multiple counters into the coming attack and wave their blade from line to line in initial attempts to parry. That doesn't take away their ability/right to gain right of way at the end of the attacker's lunge. Really, what's important for deciding the question you asked is what happens as/just after A finish his attack. I don't care if B had just attempted a failed counter-attack or attempted a parry or danced a little jig on his way back. As A finish his attack and misses, does Fencer B start an attack before Fencer A can start a remise or reprise? If so, then Fencer B gets the touch in this situation.

Now, if Fencer B attempted and failed to hit a counter-attack, Fencer A lunged and fell short, and then Fencer B danced a little jig or something before Fencer B started forward again and hit, then Fencer A might have a remise in time, while Fencer B's action would be a counter to the remise.

Note that even if the final actions look almost simultaneous, as long as Fencer A clearly misses his initial attack, and Fencer B then immediately launches an attack, I don't care what Fencer A is doing. So, Fencer A lunges and falls just short. Fencer B immediately stops retreating and lunges, as Fencer A appears to cut again (simultaneously with B's direction change/lunge), I still call it as a touch for Fencer B. The immediate attack after you succeed in a distance parry has right of way before the attacker's remise.

[oso97]

I'd call it a completely different way. Well, not completely, but still its a slightly different way of looking at it.

"Preparation" (from A)
"Attack is no" (from B)
"Attack arrives" (from A)

This is of course based upon the inital presentation of the action that was discussed, not the other, while interesting, completely additional discussions.

Let the flames continue....

[oiuyt]

Case 1:
* A is making an attack
* As A finishes (missing), B swipes at A (also missing)
* Both fencers immediately take another swipe, both arriving

The misses come effectively at the same time, the hits come virtually at the same time (both the beginning and end of the swipes that hit are at the same time).

This is a fairly common occurance and, in my opinion, what fencerbill is asking about. FB: care to comment on whether or not this is true and/or suggest modifications to the phrase as I've described it?

Case 2:
A similar, although different, common occurance has the same first two steps as above, followed by B initiating an offensive action into A's recovery (possibly followed by A either retreating in defense or making a counter-offensive action into B's offensive action, both of which I see frequently).

Case 3:
Then there's another common occurance where A starts an attack, B sets up a distance parry, A whiffs, B takes a swipe towards the end of A's whiffing, also whiffing, A, having just whiffed takes another swipe, hitting, as does B. Generally in this case there are clear temporal differences as the exchange goes A-B-A-B (although the end of each action overlaps the beginning of the next action in the sequence). It's not uncommon to get any of three calls ("attack no, counter-attack no, remise yes, touch A", "attack no, counter-attack no, remises simultaneous", and "attack no, riposte yes, touch B") in my experience. Obviously these phrases can be more or less subtle depending on how big the gaps between the ends of the various actions are.

Case 2 and 3 have, I believe, easy answers (touch B in case 2, touch A in case 3, although I think I see it as one of the other two answers more often). Case 1 is the interesting situation (and is generally actually case 2 or 3, which makes it harder to talk about in text). I guess to be complete there also needs to be case 4 where B's counter action finishes prior to the finish of A's initial attack, but that should clearly be B's (then again I thought whtouche's example in post #10 was clear until he received some arguments about it).

-B :)

[edew]

Brad, your descriptions seem quite spot-on. Generally, when I see a case of slappies after an initial series of whiffs, I just throw up my arms and say, "I don't know." At a higher level, you're not going to get too many whiffs. At the lower level, they may and if they're not done with acknowledging right-of-way, I'm going to throw it out because it's just sloppy fencing and basically luck on who gets hit. Maybe there will be one light, in which case I just say, one-light. Those actions aren't deserving a score, even if there's just one light.