How do you call this action?

[rcmatthews]

Sabre. Fencer A is advancing towards fencer B. While retreating, fencer B beats fencer A's blade and hits him in the head, one light.

I am inclined to just say it is a parry-riposte, but that does not really describe what is going on.

[Damon Scaggs]

First of all for this to happen they must be very close. The phrase "while retreating" I take to mean that he never goes forward. So the two fencers are very close to be able to reach the head. Also you never say that A ever launches an attack. All you say he is doing is advancing. So my call would be:

Preparation on A
Attack from B

[telkanuru]

Depending on timing, etc, it's either beat-attack or parry-riposte. The difference is rather semantic when it comes to practical application.

[FencingKitten]

Sabre.

Beat attack in prep or parry-riposte, doesn't really matter if you just want to award the touch right. With one light, it takes someone dumber than I've met to award it to the wrong person or something :P

In terms of which it is, I would (personally) consider the following:
a. where on each blade the contact occurs
b. who initiated the blade contact

It sounds to me like a beat attack in preparation, because B initiated the blade contact. However, I would call parry-riposte if it was clearly A's foible to B's forte, since that is the textbook definition of parry in sabre.

My $.02. Telkanuru is right about it being semantics in practicality, but in theory it could be a significant difference, especially had it been two lights.

[KD5MDK]

Think about how you would have called it without the beat.

If Fencer A is not attacking, but is instead preparing, then it's a beat attack from Fencer B. If you would have called it Fencer A's attack, then it's a parry riposte, with the parry being a little more active than some are.

[Chafunkta]

Attaque su la mauche. I have absolutely no idea if that's spelled right. It's pronounced something like "attack - shoe - la - mouse". It means "attack into the advance" (and I'm sure somebody who knows french will get on here and correct my spelling).

Either that or you could call it a beat attack into preparation, or even parry-repost would do fine. OR, if you want to make it really easy, say "one light" and point to the side with the light (although I don't think that will earn you any points on your evaluation).

[Inquartata]

Attaque su la mauche. I have absolutely no idea if that's spelled right. It's pronounced something like "attack - shoe - la - mouse". It means "attack into the advance" (and I'm sure somebody who knows french will get on here and correct my spelling ).

"Sur la marche", ie "on the march".

Telk and KD5MDK have explained it to a T. If A is attacking, it's a parry-riposte. If he's only preparing, ie marching or 'carrying the sabre' as we used to say, then it's beat-attack. Or in the interest of brevity, just 'attack'.

[rcmatthews]

First of all for this to happen they must be very close. The phrase "while retreating" I take to mean that he never goes forward. So the two fencers are very close to be able to reach the head. Also you never say that A ever launches an attack. All you say he is doing is advancing. So my call would be:

Preparation on A
Attack from B

Sorry for the apparent lack of clarity. Fencer B can hit on the wrist after beating the blade if you prefer. And yes, they would have to be close, so? The only way this would result is an error on Fencer A's part.

My only cause for concern was whether or not people would call a beat attack when the fencer was moving backwards. Now if it was a two light action, Fencer B would still get the touch but the semantics come in to play.

I have heard "dans le marche" as well, but not from French fencers. Veeco, if you see this would you be so kind as to enlighten me?

[KShan5[PrFC]]

"Sur la marche" and "dans la marche" mean pretty much the same thing, "on the march" and "in the march" respectively.

I honestly don't see how the call could be preperation, because once fencer B beats the blade, it's no longer A's preperation for an attack, but B's attack. So I would just call it beat attack from fencer B.

[KD5MDK]

The question is whether B was making an offensive or a defensive move. If A was making an attack, then B's action on the blade was a parry of their attack. Thus, "Attack is parried*, riposte arrives."

* Even if B had to go out and find A's blade and give it a good whack, not just close the line and let A's movement bring them together like a classic parry does.

On the other hand, if A was preparing, than B was making a beat-attack.

Think of the message it sends to the fencers:
One tells Fencer B "No one had control of the situation, and then you took control."
The other says "Fencer A had control of the situation, and Fencer B took control away from him."

"Attack, counterattack, counterattack arrives" is a common call. Does
"Attack, beat-counterattack" sound a little silly to you? It does to me. Then again, a guy I know was called for "counterattack in opposition" this weekend.

[keropie]

Also commonly called as 'On preparation, pris-de-fer,' referring to the action as a tactical pris-de-fer. But that's really the same thing as beat attack on preparation. I would say that it would be difficult to call it as attack/riposte from the description given.

HTH

[rcmatthews]

"Sur la marche" and "dans la marche" mean pretty much the same thing, "on the march" and "in the march" respectively.

I honestly don't see how the call could be preperation, because once fencer B beats the blade, it's no longer A's preperation for an attack, but B's attack. So I would just call it beat attack from fencer B.

Yeah I know, I'm just curious what the French actually say. It is quite possible that it is neither of the two.

I like KM5MDK's parsing of the action, because it essentially conforms to what I was thinking.

[KD5MDK]

If Fencer A wasn't preparing, just coming in with a clean, simple extension, was advancing, and Fencer B was retreating, then it's very clearly A's attack. (We don't know if this was the case or not.) In a situation where A is making an attack, an action against their blade is either
1) A parry
2) Something that becomes A's parry through improper execution

We interpret it not to be 2) because of the one light situation, lack of description of A's riposte, the description of it as "a beat", which a sabre fencer like rcmatthews wouldn't mistake a guard or forte hit for, etc. Therefor, if A had the attack, as he may well have, then B's action must be a parry.

[rory]

If A is preparing, it's "Attack touche".
With appropriate hand signals.

If A is attacking, it's "Attack parried, riposte touche"
Again, with appropriate hand signals.

[rcmatthews]

We interpret it not to be 2) because of the one light situation, lack of description of A's riposte, the description of it as "a beat", which a sabre fencer like rcmatthews wouldn't mistake a guard or forte hit for, etc. Therefor, if A had the attack, as he may well have, then B's action must be a parry.

I was invisioning Fencer A as not having an attack due to lack of arm extension. Basically, he is getting too close to Fencer B without doing anything.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

I would just call it a pris-de-fer....A allowed B to "take the blade" and transfer ROW.

Fairly simple action.

[oso97]

I was invisioning Fencer A as not having an attack due to lack of arm extension. Basically, he is getting too close to Fencer B without doing anything.

sounds like a text-book description of a preparation to me!

[rcmatthews]

sounds like a text-book description of a preparation to me!

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

[Mr Epee]

How do you call this action?

Sabre. Fencer A is advancing towards fencer B. While retreating, fencer B beats fencer A's blade and hits him in the head, one light.

Important considerations

Which one yells the loudest after the referee says halt?

Which coaches are present at the side of the strip?

Voila

[annacattiva]

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.