if disarmed you lose the point

[armandv]

im not sure if this has been discussed but i feel that
when I knock the sword from my opponents hand
I should be awarded a point
or they should be yellow carded (then red ...and so on)

I mean come on, this is sword play, if in a real bout, if you lost your
sword you would probably lose your life.

[AdamH]

When knocking someone down by smacking them upside the head playing sabre, I fully expect to receive a point. Likewise, if I draw blood, I want a point. If I attempt to smash my opponent and they disengage or any other girly action, I want the option to duel with cannon and will complain to the referee.

edit: and I want a point. I fence foil but sabre is supposed to be the hardman weapon. Why even have a referee, really. Smash to win.

If someone is disarmed during the same tempo as being touched, doesn't the opponent still receive the point?

Also, I'm not voting. You don't vote in a real sword fight.

[Phaeton]

The last thing fencing needs is more brutality by those inexperienced and this only invites it. The response (atleast in sabre) "Oh his blade is in 2 I'm going to whack his hand off" isn't a good thing. All it does is encourage bad, dangerous actions, and would have little to no effect in the upper echelons of fencing. How often have you seen Fabrice Jeanette drop his blade? What about Becca Ward? Podzniakov?

There's a reason we have cards for excessive force and trying to hurt someone. It's not only bad fencing, but stupid in general.

Want to give points for disarment? You should go fence classical, or some other type of fencing, preferablly made up of a hodge podge of myth and history. This woudln't be good in sport fencing at all....

I even wonder how many classical fencers aim to disarm.

[AdamH]

t.18.5 The order 'Halt!' is also given if the play of the competitors is dangerous, confused or contrary to the Rules, if one of the competitors is disarmed or leaves the piste, or if, while retiring, he approaches too near the spectators or the Referee (cf. t.26, t54.5 and t.73.4.j).

Should an action which has priority be acknowledged if the opponent is disarmed during the course of the action?

t.18.3 Directly the order 'Halt!' has been given, a competitor may not start a new action; only a movement which has been begun before the order was given remains valid. Everything which takes place afterwards is entirely non-valid (But cf. t.32.1/2)

So, yes.

If you perform a beatattack, disarming the opponent and hit. Attack, touch. Same goes for riposting by prix de fer, anything that takes one period of fencing time.

Regarding the second option in your poll; if an opponent is disarmed, how are they to hit you without penalty? If they attempt to kick your kneecaps, pull distance and set your dog on them. Obviously.

[Rabid Monk]

I'm with the status quo on this one.
If the oponent is disarmed during the same motion as my touch, it's my point.


Otherwise, I normally stop and let them scramble around trying to pic up their sword (or fish for it on the wire). I would expect them to do the same for me.

'tis more polite, methinks.


And Phaeton: Non all the classical fencing is a "hodge podge" of myth and history. Just most of it, unfortunately. Comes from being self-taught from old manuals, with no one to correct things (like their use of smallsword manuals for learning rapier, etc).

[noodle]

lets also change the rules so that the first one to draw blood immediately wins the bout.

[Fechter1]

I think some of us might be missing the OP's point here... He (or she) wants a point or penalty just for disarming, regardless of any touches scored...
Which will never happen.

I mean come on, this is sword play, if in a real bout, if you lost your
sword you would probably lose your life.

Only if you can't outrun the other guy.
You really want to reignite the discussion how fencing is not like a real sword fight?

[cl00bie]

Originally Posted by armandv

im not sure if this has been discussed but i feel that
when I knock the sword from my opponents hand
I should be awarded a point
or they should be yellow carded (then red ...and so on)

I mean come on, this is sword play, if in a real bout, if you lost your
sword you would probably lose your life.

We've been told over and over this is not a real bout.

(And also, in a gentleman's bout, I'd imagine you'd only lose your life if you didn't immediately surrender. It's so gauche to strike down an unarmed opponent).

[riceboy]

Originally Posted by cl00bie

We've been told over and over this is not a real bout.

(And also, in a gentleman's bout, I'd imagine you'd only lose your life if you didn't immediately surrender. It's so gauche to strike down an unarmed opponent).

Actually, when we talk about a fight with sharps, we are talking about the duel, and the duel had very specific rules on what was and was not accepted. The italian dueling codes even into the 19th century were specific, codified, and often ran into many pages. These were not all back-alley affairs, where whoever was left standing won, but publicized events with a strict moral code. Your behavior would be reported the next day in the newspaper, and any deviation from the rules of dueling would probably land you in the slammer (since the judge for the duel was probably a real Judge as well).

Specifically to the disarmarment, it was much like today. If one fencer lost his weapon by accident. (i.e. he dropped it) then his opponent should let him pick it up and the duel would resume. If the weapon was lost through a disarming action, then the opponent had the opportunity to hit or ask surrender (if he could). If he couldn't, no sane judge would ever let a disarmed fencer crawl around on the dirt looking for his weapon while avoiding the weapon of his opponent, that would be dishonorable.

[armandv]

Let me explain the situation I talking about explicatly

say we are out of distance for a attack, but I'm using my pistol grip and the opponent is using a french grip and I beat his blade, with no intention of a attack, more just to keep him guessing, and he drops his sword, because of my beat.

thats when I'm saying I should get a point or the opponent earns a card at least, being able to hold on to your sword should be important

[RebelFencer]

Originally Posted by armandv

Let me explain the situation I talking about explicatly

say we are out of distance for a attack, but I'm using my pisto grip and the opponent is usinf a french grip and I beat his blade, with no intention of a attack, more just to keep him guessing, and he drops his sword, because of my beat.

thats when I'm saying I should get a point

No, you shouldn't.

[riceboy]

Originally Posted by armandv

Let me explain the situation I talking about explicatly

say we are out of distance for a attack, but I'm using my pisto grip and the opponent is usinf a french grip and I beat his blade, with no intention of a attack, more just to keep him guessing, and he drops his sword, because of my beat.

thats when I'm saying I should get a point

You have to make an attack to score in fencing, that's the deal. You don't get to get free touches whenever your opponent is looses control of their sword.

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by armandv

Let me explain the situation I talking about explicatly

say we are out of distance for a attack, but I'm using my pistol grip and the opponent is using a french grip and I beat his blade, with no intention of a attack, more just to keep him guessing, and he drops his sword, because of my beat.

thats when I'm saying I should get a point or the opponent earns a card at least, being able to hold on to your sword should be important

Certainly not! You're far too much of a gentleman to attack an unarmed man.

[Phaeton]

Originally Posted by armandv

Let me explain the situation I talking about explicatly

say we are out of distance for a attack, but I'm using my pistol grip and the opponent is using a french grip and I beat his blade, with no intention of a attack, more just to keep him guessing, and he drops his sword, because of my beat.

thats when I'm saying I should get a point or the opponent earns a card at least, being able to hold on to your sword should be important

I'm not sure about what category card this is, but if he is intentionaly dropping his sword for the halt he could be charged with delay of bout. Apart from that I don't see why a card in this situation would make sense.

[RPI Epeeist]

I think if he dropped it intentionally you could say he was "throwing" his weapon. Which is definitely illegal. Its in the rules kind of as a "No! Bad fencer!" kind of rule. But I don't see it as a cardable offense.

As for the disarming.... just no.... you will/should never get a point for that

[Joe biebel]

Dropping as opposed to having it knocked out of your hand. The two are quite different. Last year, I fenced in a tournamnet when my wrist and fingers were pretty messed up. I was wearing pads and stiffeners and had to keep a very loose grip on my handle. Several fencers complained about halts saving me from touches when the contact (relatively light contact) disarmed me. It seems when my opponants beat or parried they were not ready to make a hit right away, or were so surprised that they did not react to the situation immediately. The referees correctly disallowed the late hits. One fencer went so far as to accuse me of doing it on purpose.

On the other hand, I have also purposely "let go" of my weapon when it was "effectively" knocked out of my hand. In other words I had only a single prong left in my hand with no way to regrip the weapon properly without using the unarmed hand. I have never been carded for this and would not think it appropriate if it happened. I would not argue or protest it if I was carded, as it is against the letter of the law. I think it would really be an error by the referee (not calling halt when the weapon was effectively knocked loose) and not cheating by the fencer, to "let the weapon go". Also, I'm pretty sure that throwing the weapon penalties refer to attempting to hit the opponant with a "baslistic" weapon.

It is never a good idea to be without a weapon in your hand while fencing. It is impossible to score a hit and there is a good chance the referee might not call halt at the appropriate moment.

There is ample reason not to reward heavy handed blade play. Since this is a game and not real fencing for your life, it is important that both "combatants" walk away and live (uninjured) to fight another day. We have no weight classes in fencing, and I believe that it is not the biggest and strongest that should have the advantage. The rules are designed to give advantage to the fencer that plays the best, not the hardest.

[dekko]

Sounds like someone lost a foil bout because their opponent dropped their foil locking out any action he might have done or the ref didn't know how to handle a disarm situation.

What if the reverse was true, if you are so out of control that you cause your opponent to be disarmed, you should get the card not the one who dropped their weapon.

As for what was described, you were fencing while injured, and shouldn't have been, and you admit to dishonest fencing. Very nice.

I like the draw blood idea and for those who think this isn't a real bout haven't seen Bob Cottingham, Aki Spencer-El or Adam Crompton fence. Trust me, I have fenced all three and it's a real sword fight. Best option for you is to keep that sabre in your hand or 'bad things' will happen.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by armandv

im not sure if this has been discussed but i feel that
when I knock the sword from my opponents hand
I should be awarded a point
or they should be yellow carded (then red ...and so on)

I mean come on, this is sword play, if in a real bout, if you lost your
sword you would probably lose your life.

The general principle is that you can never get a point unless you score a touche OR the other guy gets a red card. That principle should be upheld IMO - you should not get a point until you have disarmed and scored. Now, that is only legal if it is done in one fencing time, as pointed out above.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[keropie]

Originally Posted by armandv

Let me explain the situation I talking about explicatly

say we are out of distance for a attack, but I'm using my pistol grip and the opponent is using a french grip and I beat his blade, with no intention of a attack, more just to keep him guessing, and he drops his sword, because of my beat.

thats when I'm saying I should get a point or the opponent earns a card at least, being able to hold on to your sword should be important

And I'm pretty sure everyone who reads this post should send me a dollar just cause I'm a cool guy... or maybe a twenty dollar bill. And that observation has equal merit to the OP, nay, more! For after all, I may actually be a cool guy, whereas the OP is merely... dumb. (Note: in this case OP = Original Post, not Original Poster. I do not know the Original Poster, and thus will not call him dumb, but both the Original Post and the quoted post are, indeed, dumb.)

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by RPI Epeeist

I think if he dropped it intentionally you could say he was "throwing" his weapon.

I've never seen it called that way, and I'd certainly object if I got carded because the ref didn't like the way I dropped my weapon.