Failed beat attacks - sabre

[lindajdunn]

Would a sabre director please help me understand the proper way to make a call regarding failed beat attacks? Yes, I'm trying to direct again.

Explicitly, I called FENCE! and Fencer A and Fencer B started at the same time, both extending their blades at the same time and Fencer A attempted to beat Fencer B's blade, but hit on the lower third of Fencer B's blade rather than the upper third. Both touched and we had a double light.

Then it happens two more times in the same pool.

For future reference:
How should this action be called?

Thank you in advance for any guidance you can offer in helping me better understand this action.

[RITFencing]

You could probably just call it B's beat attack, or even B's attack.

[J-B]

B's parry-riposte

[RITFencing]

B's parry-riposte

I thought about this, but is B really parrying? To do parry is to make a defensive action, which B never did.

[OROD]

You could probably just call it B's beat attack, or even B's attack.

Wow, you can get a beat-attack in sabre without actually doing a beat?? LOL... how sad.

.

[lindajdunn]

I thought about this, but is B really parrying? To do parry is to make a defensive action, which B never did.

This was my thought as well and since I am rather new at this, I took what I thought was the simple approach and said attack (B's) arrives, point to B.

A's coach discussed this with me later, saying I'd called the action incorrectly and in a way in which his fencer could not figure out what I was doing.

I note that there were times when Fencer A's beat was correct and I called it his attack and thus all he could see was that sometimes he got the point and sometimes he didn't.

This was a youth competition. I ref frequently in practice but my only competitive referring has been at E rated competitions. Local. I am well aware of my limitations.

[OROD]

I thought about this, but is B really parrying? To do parry is to make a defensive action, which B never did.

You can get a parry without "doing anything" in certain cases (i.e. your opponent hits your bell guard). At least that's how it is in foil.

.

[noodle]

I thought about this, but is B really parrying? To do parry is to make a defensive action, which B never did.

yup .

THE BEAT VERSUS THE PARRY

In foil and sabre, it is very important for the referee to differentiate between the beat and the parry. Whenever there is a meeting of the blades, the referee must decide which fencer is then able to have the right of way.

It is equally true in foil as it is in sabre that the parts of the two blades that meet are critical in deciding whether the meeting is a beat or a parry. If one fencer’s weak [foible] part of the blade meets the strong [forte] part of the opponent’s blade (not a mere grazing of the blades), it is a parry by the opponent. If it is the strong that meets the weak, it is a beat.

This determination is not as easy as it may sound. The referee requires extensive experience to make this judgment. This is especially true as all meetings of blades are not always a weak on strong. The referee should generally give priority to the offensive fencer, the fencer who initiates the contact, where it cannot be distinguished if the action is a beat or a parry.

[RITFencing]

Well, I'll be jiggered. I'll call it that way, then, but it still seems odd to me.

[noodle]

Well, I'll be jiggered. I'll call it that way, then, but it still seems odd to me.

like the quote says, its a tough call to make and you shouldn't make it unless its pretty obvious. and its a lot easier to make that kind of call in saber.

[Purple Fencer]

not at all...if a beat is attempted and hits tha far down -- especially if the beat;s on the guard itserlf -- that's automatically a parry.

B's parry riposte.

[OROD]

The referee should generally give priority to the offensive fencer,

Words to live by!

.

[lindajdunn]

yup .

Thank you.

I greatly appreciate the fencing.net community for its ability to give me a quick and decisive answer.

I will make a mental note that when I call such actions in the future, I should always call it an attack/parry-riposte.

[fencerbill]

Would a sabre director please help me understand the proper way to make a call regarding failed beat attacks? Yes, I'm trying to direct again.

Explicitly, I called FENCE! and Fencer A and Fencer B started at the same time, both extending their blades at the same time and Fencer A attempted to beat Fencer B's blade, but hit on the lower third of Fencer B's blade rather than the upper third. Both touched and we had a double light.

Then it happens two more times in the same pool.

For future reference:
How should this action be called?

Thank you in advance for any guidance you can offer in helping me better understand this action.

My style for that situation is:

Beat by A; Low; therefore parried. B riposte; touch.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

In practice situations, I've also heard "beat-attack is onto guard"---- Useful in practice, because it tells the fencer exactly what they're doing wrong.... But in fencing outside of practice, I always hear "parry riposte".

The practice phrase regarding this action that makes me want to HURT PEOPLE is "self parried". No. That would be if you tried to hit yourself with one hand and blocked with the other. That doesn't really express a situation in which you hit your opponent's guard.

[RITFencing]

In practice situations, I've also heard "beat-attack is onto guard"---- Useful in practice, because it tells the fencer exactly what they're doing wrong.... But in fencing outside of practice, I always hear "parry riposte".

Be careful with things like this... they can be useful in practice, but calls like that have no place on the strip in competition. Personally I find it better to make the call in practice like I would at any tournament and then explain afterwards if anything is necessary.

I've seen too many referees who think "Left attack is to the guard" is an acceptable call.

[AndrewH]

I'd like to add that sometimes a beat attack is low on the blade, but context can make it a valid beat nonetheless. For example, fencer A moves forward and makes a strong beat on fencer B's blade, enough to visibly deflect the blade. Fencer B moves backwards, off balance, and fishes for a counterattack. A finishes his attack. In this situation, I would award the attack to A because despite being low, his beat deflected the blade and B made no immediate attempt to riposte.

[keropie]

And the 'correct' call there is 'Attack - parried; riposte - no (or no riposte); continuation of attack, counterattack, continuation arrives, touche.'

Or just 'continuation arrives.' Though I have also abbreviated it as beat attack.

[fencerbill]

I'd like to add that sometimes a beat attack is low on the blade, but context can make it a valid beat nonetheless. For example, fencer A moves forward and makes a strong beat on fencer B's blade, enough to visibly deflect the blade. Fencer B moves backwards, off balance, and fishes for a counterattack. A finishes his attack. In this situation, I would award the attack to A because despite being low, his beat deflected the blade and B made no immediate attempt to riposte.

How about:

Attack, parried;

Reprise arrives, touch.

[bigdawg2121]

Ehh, in practice at least if there's clear control of the blade it's probably still going to be called beat attack. Really great (albeit highly uncommon example): A week or two ago in practice I was fencing with a kid that tends to do dumb stuff. Following a touch in which I took a rather late shot below the belt from said fencer I advanced and took a somewhat POd beat (circle 1) and connected the top 5 inches of my blade with the bottom 5 or so of his and then finished my attack. You could, I suppose, have called it his failed riposte but you would have looked rather silly as the kid ended up disarmed with his saber 6ft away and never had a chance to even consider hitting something.