How do you call this action?

[rcmatthews]

Important considerations

Which one yells the loudest after the referee says halt?

Which coaches are present at the side of the strip?

Voila

ONE LIGHT

[KD5MDK]

Yeah, but I don't think I have ever heard "Beat attack, preparation" or some such thing.

How about "Preparation, beat-attack"? That sounds quite normal to me.

[FencingKitten]

I say why mention the preparation? It's a beat attack. You mention the beat because if you don't, people start getting snippy and fencer A (even though it wasn't his blade action) starts asking why you didn't call his blade action. If when you call "Fence" fencer A stands on the en guarde line and doesn't move, and fencer B makes a beat attack, would you mention A's preparation? The preparation is only relevant if it explains why what would otherwise be a counter-attack is correct.

The reason I'm inclined to call (from what I've read here) a beat-attack in preparation is because I check myself at giving the retreating fencer a plain old attack. It very much confuses me when I'm fencing when the ref says that the attack from the retreating fencer arrives. To me, an attack generally involves being the aggressor and moving forward, not running like a bunny while your opponent chases you and you take advantage of it. The call "prep" would only really be relevant in a two light situation, I'd think, but it would be good to keep in practice.

[Inquartata]

Generally speaking, brevity is desirable in making calls as a referee. I would not call the beat, myself, because it's superfluous and because it gives information to at least one fencer...which might be interpreted as "helping" him. If there is any confusion or a request for a more complete analysis of the action, then I might mention the beat. Otherwise, my call would be "Preparation ( A ), attack ( B ), touch, point". With hand signals only, generally.

One mentions the preparation because otherwise A is almost certain to question why it wasn't his attack, since he was "moving forward". This is different from the case of A "just standing there", which someone brought up. Although if the action is obvious enough one might then dispense with the preparation call.

Also, technically a beat is different from a prise-de-fer. The first is a tap, the second a pressure with the blades in comparatively lengthy ( I use the word loosely, this being sabre ) contact. And I would not usually call "prise-de-fer" when parsing the action, either...

[Inquartata]

The reason I'm inclined to call (from what I've read here) a beat-attack in preparation is because I check myself at giving the retreating fencer a plain old attack.

So what do you call when A is moving forward but his arm is clearly not extending, B is retreating and then makes a fast cut or point action against A which arrives and ( with the new box timing ) gets a single light?

Apart from "Preparation, attack" the only thing it could be is a stop cut/thrust, right? And there are not separate hand signals for "stop cut/thrust", so...?

I know it feels wrong, but it is quite possible to attack from a retreat. Forward motion of the feet is not mentioned in the definition of an attack; only extension of the arm while threatening valid target, etc. ( Plus almost always the retreat stops or even reverses, if only for a second, when an attack is made by a retreating defender. )

[keropie]

Also, technically a beat is different from a prise-de-fer. The first is a tap, the second a pressure with the blades in comparatively lengthy ( I use the word loosely, this being sabre ) contact. And I would not usually call "prise-de-fer" when parsing the action, either...

Right right, which is why I refer to it a 'tactical pris de fer.' It's clearly not a literal pris de fer (doesn't maintain control of the weapon all the way to the target), but has been a commonly accepted term for awhile in many coaching circles. Literally speaking, I suppose it's a tac a fer into preparation, but whatever

[FencingKitten]

So what do you call when A is moving forward but his arm is clearly not extending, B is retreating and then makes a fast cut or point action against A which arrives and ( with the new box timing ) gets a single light?

Apart from "Preparation, attack" the only thing it could be is a stop cut/thrust, right? And there are not separate hand signals for "stop cut/thrust", so...?

I know it feels wrong, but it is quite possible to attack from a retreat. Forward motion of the feet is not mentioned in the definition of an attack; only extension of the arm while threatening valid target, etc. ( Plus almost always the retreat stops or even reverses, if only for a second, when an attack is made by a retreating defender. )

I call it an attack in preparation, leaving off the beat, because there has to be a reason it supercedes (this is a bad word and not what I mean but it's the best I can do, work with me) A's forward motion. Just calling it the attack leaves me with a two light situation three or four calls down the road where the action is the same, but A lands, and I need the phrase "in preparation." It's mainly for consistency in my calling, I think.

I like this thread. Makes one think about how and why one would call a given, clear set of actions.

[Inquartata]

I call it an attack in preparation,

If you use the hand signals, though, this is not an available call, because the pertinent signal is for 'attack'...just plain 'attack'. You'd need to call preparation ( the pumping fist ) for one fencer and 'attack' for the other---two separate actions, on opposite sides. There's no one combined signal for "attack in prep"...

And if you do it this way, everyone understands what you're saying and it leaves nothing open to question. In effect, it says "You were preparing, A, and B attacked and hit".

[FencingKitten]

If you use the hand signals, though, this is not an available call, because the pertinent signal is for 'attack'...just plain 'attack'. You'd need to call preparation ( the pumping fist ) for one fencer and 'attack' for the other---two separate actions, on opposite sides. There's no one combined signal for "attack in prep"...

And if you do it this way, everyone understands what you're saying and it leaves nothing open to question. In effect, it says "You were preparing, A, and B attacked and hit".

Okay. I do use the hand signals, and I'm not sure how you figure it's not an available call. Literally, I go:

1) Right prepares or Preparation right (right hand signals preparation)
2) Attack or Attack left (left hand signals attack)
3) (right hand signals arrival)
4) (left hand signals touche)

It flows from side to side. It follows all guidelines I've been given, it totally works. I, as a fencer, have been and usually am confused by hearing just "attack" and the hand signals. It doesn't reconstruct the phrase, it reconstructs only the scoring action.

[jBirch]

I usually just call it "touche B". If asked for an explanation, I usually just shrug my shoulders and say, "one light is one light". When using hand signals, I just raise my arm on B's side and gesture to A's side: Touche for B, Touche against A. No need to signal attack.

James.

[rcmatthews]

I usually just call it "touche B". If asked for an explanation, I usually just shrug my shoulders and say, "one light is one light". When using hand signals, I just raise my arm on B's side and gesture to A's side: Touche for B, Touche against A. No need to signal attack.

James.

Thats a gooq way to boost fencers confidence in your directing.

[fencerbill]

I usually just call it "touche B". If asked for an explanation, I usually just shrug my shoulders and say, "one light is one light". When using hand signals, I just raise my arm on B's side and gesture to A's side: Touche for B, Touche against A. No need to signal attack.

James.

Did a half day at Reno with the tools of ignorance (blue blazer and gray slacks). Was intimidated by the emphasis on exactitude; whether you hold your fingers together and not to let your thumb waggle, etc.

You really have to practice these hand signals. Having to think about doing them right is really a distraction from getting the calls right. So you should try to do them all the time to avoid being distracted.

Practice, practice, practice.

[jBirch]

Thats a gooq way to boost fencers confidence in your directing.

LOL! Well, it sure beats having to explain why you called a retreating fencer attacking. *grin* Why introduce ambiguity where none exists?

James.

[Inquartata]

1) Right prepares or Preparation right (right hand signals preparation)
2) Attack or Attack left (left hand signals attack)
3) (right hand signals arrival)
4) (left hand signals touche)

It flows from side to side. It follows all guidelines I've been given, it totally works. I, as a fencer, have been and usually am confused by hearing just "attack" and the hand signals. It doesn't reconstruct the phrase, it reconstructs only the scoring action.

Yes, that's how I'm saying it's done. There is no separate call ( or signal ) for "attack in prep", as distinct from "preparation, then attack". You said that you were reluctant to call B's action as just an attack, because he's retreating. But if you do it as you have laid it out here, that's just what you're doing: calling B's action an attack, just an attack...because A was preparing, but still just "attack".

A semantic difference only, perhaps.

[Inquartata]

You really have to practice these hand signals. Having to think about doing them right is really a distraction from getting the calls right. So you should try to do them all the time to avoid being distracted.

Practice, practice, practice.

Indeed.

I even use them when it's my turn to ref practice bouts at the club, and am always being exhorted by certain, ahem! impatient fencers not to bother but just to "get on with it". Somehow it escapes them that I have to wait for the lights on the box to go out anyway, by which time I am always done with the signals already....

[Inquartata]

LOL! Well, it sure beats having to explain why you called a retreating fencer attacking. *grin* Why introduce ambiguity where none exists?

James.

Meh, where are you finding these fencers who are so clueless that they don't understand such things? I never get these sorts of arguments from decent sabre fencers. ( Other arguments, yes. )