Saber directing question

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

"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?

"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?

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 09:09:52 -0500, "David H"
<dahingos@nospam.monarchelectric.com> held forth:

>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?

Yep. Although if it happened a lot, I'd be inclined to halt, give them
both a Paddington-hard-stare and not split it.
--
Cheers,
wreckferret
Use ROT13 to reply ICQ#163264

"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)

"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)

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?

--Harold Buck


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

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

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

>
> 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.

>
> 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.

"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" <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!

>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...

>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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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