Saber directing question

[Harold Buck]

Fencers A and B both come forward and begin extending simultaneously on
"Fence!" Fencer A intentionally makes contact with B's blade, sliding
along B's blade on the way to a head cut. It is not a beat, and he does
not land on B's guard.

Both A and B land valid.

Ruling?

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

[David H]

"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:no_one_knows-C7C683.07124605022003@netnews.attbi.com...
> Fencers A and B both come forward and begin extending simultaneously on
> "Fence!" Fencer A intentionally makes contact with B's blade, sliding
> along B's blade on the way to a head cut. It is not a beat, and he does
> not land on B's guard.
>
> Both A and B land valid.
>
> Ruling?
>

IANASF, but I would say it is A's attack, A's touch. Even though it is not a
beat, A is technically still taking B's blade. I don't believe there are
double touches in Sabre, is that correct?

[Dirk Goldgar]

"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:no_one_knows-C7C683.07124605022003@netnews.attbi.com...
> Fencers A and B both come forward and begin extending simultaneously
on
> "Fence!" Fencer A intentionally makes contact with B's blade,
sliding
> along B's blade on the way to a head cut. It is not a beat, and he
does
> not land on B's guard.
>
> Both A and B land valid.
>
> Ruling?

Depends on whether A's contact with the blade had any effect on the
progress of B's attack, and that is impossible to tell from the
description. A press or graze can be a successful attaque-au-fer, but
it can also be mere "incidental contact". If the blade contact was
early in the action, it's much more likely to have been sufficient;
less so if late in the action.

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

[Alison1daland]

Fencer A's prise de fer. at least thats how I and every other director I've
ever seen calls it....

[David H]

>
> My best guess was that it was an attempt to do an opposition which
> failed to stop the attack from landing. If this is the case, shouldn't
> it be B's touch?
>

I thought of it first as if there was no blade contact at all. He began by
saying right on the word Fence, both extended. Let's say both continued
their attacks and landed. It would be thrown out, right? So now you add the
blade contact, A moving his blade into B's blade. Although the poster
specifically says it is "not a beat", I would think that if someone
contacted someone else's blade it would be considered a beat or a parry. I
never heard of a move in fencing that refers to "just making contact with
someone else's blade". If I watched that I would consider A's actions a
beat, as no real attack has been defined before that blade contact (just
extending) according to the poster. Although some other director might just
have thrown it out.

I'm assuming this is a hypothetical situation? Cause if someone is going to
make contact with someone else's blade, they're gonna make damn sure they do
something with it.

[David H]

"Alison1daland" <alison1daland@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030205142007.10049.00000846@mb-md.aol.com...
> Fencer A's prise de fer. at least thats how I and every other director
I've
> ever seen calls it....

Aah...thank you...and even using actual sabre fencing terms too!

[Alison1daland]

>I'm assuming this is a hypothetical situation? Cause if someone is going to
>make contact with someone else's blade, they're gonna make damn sure they do
>something with it.

Ive seen it done thousands upon thousands of times. they are doing something
with the opponents blade: they are making a prise de fer which is making the
action go from simultaneuos to fencer A's right of way. Although im pretty sure
this is a move you really have to see to understand; its one where you might
loko at it and say I know its his touch, but I can't explain why...

[Tim Schofield]

In article <no_one_knows-2F000D.12582105022003@netnews.attbi.com>,
Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> writes
>In article <v426ph66e34v0d@corp.supernews.com>,
> "David H" <dahingos@nospam.monarchelectric.com> wrote:
>
>> "Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> news:no_one_knows-C7C683.07124605022003@netnews.attbi.com...
>> > Fencers A and B both come forward and begin extending simultaneously on
>> > "Fence!" Fencer A intentionally makes contact with B's blade, sliding
>> > along B's blade on the way to a head cut. It is not a beat, and he does
>> > not land on B's guard.
>> >
>> > Both A and B land valid.
>> >
>> > Ruling?
>> >
>>
>> IANASF, but I would say it is A's attack, A's touch. Even though it is not a
>> beat, A is technically still taking B's blade. I don't believe there are
>> double touches in Sabre, is that correct?
>
>
>My best guess was that it was an attempt to do an opposition which
>failed to stop the attack from landing. If this is the case, shouldn't
>it be B's touch?
>
[snip sig]

I'd suggest (as a spectator):

- good odds on this being ruled simultaneous

- if the referee does make a call, he'll say something about which
parts of the blade meet: you cannot take the forte with the foible.

In foil of course it's much simpler. Whatever the referee calls will be
wrong.

--
Tim S.

[Delia M. Turner]

Much depends on where the referee is standing, too. Quite often a
graze like that, if it happens directly opposite the referee, is
called simultaneous because it is not clear who has control of the
blade.

[Harold Buck]

In article <v42pq4hkm19oe0@corp.supernews.com>,
"David H" <dahingos@nospam.monarchelectric.com> wrote:

>
> I'm assuming this is a hypothetical situation? Cause if someone is going to
> make contact with someone else's blade, they're gonna make damn sure they do
> something with it.


Bope, not hypothetical. I don't know why he was doing it. He certainly
wasn't controlling the blade contact, just gliding his attack along the
blade.

Again, it looked kind of like he was trying to attack with opposition,
but he wasn't successfully closing the line. Thus, I'm inclined to think
that it was his opponent's touch, since he was making blade contact but
not achieving the desired result.

I looked over the saber rules, and there didn't seem to be anything
really on point (so to speak). From seeing the action, I think you'd
really be hard pressed (so to speak, again) to call the action a beat or
pris de fir.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

[HMS Lion]

In real competition? A's attack is called parried due to blade contact. B
gets the touch.

Something I always taught my saber students - if the director hears blade
contact, he WILL call a parry. Forget all the counters and prises de fer of
the point weapons. In the real world, saber blade contact falls into three
categories: Whipovers, beats, and parries. Whipovers land simultaneously with
blade contact. Beats get the opponent's blade out of line for your attack.
Everything else is a parried attack.

V/R:
Mike McDaniel

[William Marshal]

hmslion@aol.com (HMS Lion) wrote in message news:<20030205212605.11342.00000934@mb-ch.aol.com>...
> In real competition? A's attack is called parried due to blade contact. B
> gets the touch.
>
> Something I always taught my saber students - if the director hears blade
> contact, he WILL call a parry. Forget all the counters and prises de fer of
> the point weapons. In the real world, saber blade contact falls into three
> categories: Whipovers, beats, and parries. Whipovers land simultaneously with
> blade contact. Beats get the opponent's blade out of line for your attack.
> Everything else is a parried attack.
>
> V/R:
> Mike McDaniel

I think that's exaggerating matters a bit. Many directors will call an
"attack not parried" or a "closeout", depending on the order/timing of
the lights and so forth. No decent referee will consider just any
blade contact to be a sufficient parry...

[Harold Buck]

As a follow-up to this, I was able to demonstrate the action to a
director that I think is very knowledgeable, and was told
that--surprise--it's kind of a judgment call. If you don't think that
the person initiating the blade contact is controlling the blade but
merely making contact, you can call it simultaneous attacks (which is
what I did when directing this bout). If you think the contact is
deflecting the opponent's blade, you can call it a beat or pris de fir.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

[David H]

"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:no_one_knows-79F81A.09261407022003@netnews.attbi.com...
> As a follow-up to this, I was able to demonstrate the action to a
> director that I think is very knowledgeable, and was told
> that--surprise--it's kind of a judgment call. If you don't think that
> the person initiating the blade contact is controlling the blade but
> merely making contact, you can call it simultaneous attacks (which is
> what I did when directing this bout). If you think the contact is
> deflecting the opponent's blade, you can call it a beat or pris de fir.


Which brings up a very important point - that different directors see and
interpret the action differently. Sometimes a director will call something
and you have no idea where in his ass he pulled the call from. By asking a
question or disputing a call, you can learn quickly what it is that
particular director is looking at or how he is interpreting your fencing,
and adjust your fencing to his directing, giving you a bit of an edge.

[William Marshal]

>By asking a
> question or disputing a call, you can learn quickly what it is that
> particular director is looking at or how he is interpreting your fencing,
> and adjust your fencing to his directing, giving you a bit of an edge.


And would that one were always able to have this information BEFORE
the bout. If one has to do the inquire-and-adjust thing, one has
probably already lost a touch over an interpretative
idiosyncrasy...which may mean you lose the bout...which may affect
your seeding or placement. For want of a nail, and all that.

Too bad someone doesn't publish a tout sheet on the beliefs and
preferences of the most commonly encountered referees...

[Winter Trail]

It would be Fencer A's pris de fer attack (fencer A gets the touch). At least
as long as the blade didn't slide down too low on the blade (which in that case
it would turn into a parry). I absolutly disagree with the fact that "
directors call only parries in sabre, so you should try for no blade contact
like a beat or pris de fers". Beat attacks are essential, especially on the
retreat! And the directors call them (in my experience). If the blade's out
there, by golly, beat the heck out of it, and bop 'em on the head, or whatever.
THIS is why they outlawed the fleche in sabre. So we don't look like maniacs
running at each other without any bladework. Sorry if this sounded a little
angry, but you've got to understand that blade work (yes, pris de fers
included), are what get you far in sabre. Without these, you cannot fence good
sabre. Please teach your students to use their blade!

[Harold Buck]

In article <20030210194015.02960.00000446@mb-mn.aol.com>,
wintertrail@aol.com (Winter Trail) wrote:

> It would be Fencer A's pris de fer attack (fencer A gets the touch). At
> least
> as long as the blade didn't slide down too low on the blade (which in that
> case
> it would turn into a parry). I absolutly disagree with the fact that "
> directors call only parries in sabre, so you should try for no blade contact
> like a beat or pris de fers". Beat attacks are essential, especially on the
> retreat! And the directors call them (in my experience). If the blade's out
> there, by golly, beat the heck out of it, and bop 'em on the head, or
> whatever.
> THIS is why they outlawed the fleche in sabre. So we don't look like
> maniacs
> running at each other without any bladework. Sorry if this sounded a little
> angry, but you've got to understand that blade work (yes, pris de fers
> included), are what get you far in sabre. Without these, you cannot fence
> good
> sabre. Please teach your students to use their blade!



Oh, I do. But this action just does not appear to be an attack on the
blade. There's no control of the blade contact, just contact for what
appears to be contact's sake. Because of this, I have a hard time seeing
it as being anything but simultaneous attacks.

OTOH, if A managed to deflect B's blade, there's no question: B's beat
attack is good.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

[Matthew Cox]

This is too non-descript to analyze.

"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:no_one_knows-C7C683.07124605022003@netnews.attbi.com...
> Fencers A and B both come forward and begin extending simultaneously on
> "Fence!" Fencer A intentionally makes contact with B's blade, sliding
> along B's blade on the way to a head cut. It is not a beat, and he does
> not land on B's guard.
>
> Both A and B land valid.
>
> Ruling?
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson