Weird sabre PIL

[pkt]

this happened in today's tournament:
Sabre final score is 14-14:
A, a lefty, marches fwd,
B, a rightie, stop hits with line
One light for B. B wins the tourney.

Everyone thought B's line landed between A's hand and his sabre's guard.
In fact, the point broke through A's glove's top layer of leather, came out an inch later, then landed on A's gauntlet thus turning on the light. The result of course, A could not untangle his hand intime to do anything.

Obviously, A's glove is a bit old...

A was understandably a bit aggrieved...but there's only one light...



Similarly in foil, one tries to parry and catches the opponent's blade in one's little finger. Keeping the blade there the defender makes the riposte.

Or, one fencer's front foot lands on the other's low-flying blade and end up stepping on and trapping the opponent's blade...

PK

[Peach]

Originally posted by pkt
Or, one fencer's front foot lands on the other's low-flying blade and end up stepping on and trapping the opponent's blade...
PK

The coach and former Olympic epeeist Joseph Vitepsky told me on Saturday that this was his standard tactic against a toe touch--until a veteran's competition in the USA a couple of years ago, in a bout with Dave Micahnik, he never permitted a toe touch against him for his entire (long) career.

[Fechter1]

Originally posted by pkt

Everyone thought B's line landed between A's hand and his sabre's guard.
In fact, the point broke through A's glove's top layer of leather, came out an inch later, then landed on A's gauntlet thus turning on the light. The result of course, A could not untangle his hand intime to do anything.

Obviously, A's glove is a bit old...

A was understandably a bit aggrieved...but there's only one light...



Similarly in foil, one tries to parry and catches the opponent's blade in one's little finger. Keeping the blade there the defender makes the riposte.

Or, one fencer's front foot lands on the other's low-flying blade and end up stepping on and trapping the opponent's blade...

PK

Actually I think this would fall under the "unable to wield the weapon correctly" rule (usually applied to infighting). If I saw any of the above, especially the sabre going through the glove I wouldn't award any touches.

Maybe I'm wrong and this is covered in another section of the rules...

[fence1848]

Originally posted by Fechter1
Actually I think this would fall under the "unable to wield the weapon correctly" rule (usually applied to infighting). If I saw any of the above, especially the sabre going through the glove I wouldn't award any touches.

There is a rule on that, but it does not mention throwing out touches. By practice, I see that referees will stop the bout if they see that a fencer cannot wield their weapon, but if the touch is scored before the halt, it usually stands. It has a lot do to with timing sometimes. In this case, however, you mention that fencer B had a point-in-line. If they are unable to wield their weapon correctly when their opponent didn't even make a move, I'd probably give the point to B.

[npkeith]

Just a second. I'm not a saberist (You know - I can read without moving my lips )
If part of the glove is not covered by Lame (or gauntlet, or whatever its called), is it still considered on target?

If yes then never mind.

But if its not, then obviously the blade landed off target first (it went through glove leather), stopping the action, no touch. (or does that part not apply in saber either?)

I'm thinking about the foil example - you touch my pinkie on the way into my torso, the white light comes on, action stops - right?

[Peach]

Originally posted by npkeith
Just a second. I'm not a saberist (You know - I can read without moving my lips )
If part of the glove is not covered by Lame (or gauntlet, or whatever its called), is it still considered on target?

If yes then never mind.

But if its not, then obviously the blade landed off target first (it went through glove leather), stopping the action, no touch. (or does that part not apply in saber either?)

I'm thinking about the foil example - you touch my pinkie on the way into my torso, the white light comes on, action stops - right?

Good point, theoretically. However, in sabre the off-target (a) does not stop the action, and (b) doesn't cause a white light. So although the action would be considered attack no (that is, off target), followed by a remise, in practice attacks which hit off target on their way to valid target are often allowed.

[Fechter1]

Originally posted by Peach
Good point, theoretically. However, in sabre the off-target (a) does not stop the action, and (b) doesn't cause a white light. So although the action would be considered attack no (that is, off target), followed by a remise, in practice attacks which hit off target on their way to valid target are often allowed.

But i this case we would have proof that the initial attack landed off-target (ie. a big hole in th glove with a sabre blade sticking out of it... )

fence1848: That's what I meant, the incident causes a halt. Any action which started before the halt is allowed. Therefore, if (for example) the blade is caught and tangled by the little finger during the parry, the riposte occurs after the halt => no touch. On the toe attempt, it all depends on when the final thrust started, as mentioned before.

[Peach]

Originally posted by Fechter1
But i this case we would have proof that the initial attack landed off-target (ie. a big hole in th glove with a sabre blade sticking out of it... )

You have a point! And I guess that's what I would say as the referee, too.

[GGK]

Originally posted by Peach
You have a point! And I guess that's what I would say as the referee, too.

And the best argument you can make:
"But sir there's only one light."
So attack, no, remise, yes, touch.

[Peach]

Nope. Attack no, halt, no action.

[Delmont]

But in sabre the action doesn't stop at the first bad touch. I understand what your saying that it should be halt action because it went through his glove. But it still probubly would have hit valid target by sliding down the hand and hitting the lame. If the director doesn't call halt before the touch, e.i. the light, wouldn't it be counted?

[shmagoogin77]

then it would just be bad reffing

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Not necessarily bad directing. If the first attack is off target (the hit on the glove), there is no immediate riposte (and the director sees no evidence of inability to wield the weapon), then the continuation of the attack lands on valid target.

It's really little different than a double tap to the back of the hand. First one off target, second one on. No riposte? No argument.

[deadly lefty]

his sabre really broke through the leather glove? was it aclove from the 1930s? thats really a tough call because the director didnt see all of the little things (or so I assume) I guess I cant call it right without seeing it

[Peach]

An unsafe situation (and a point through the glove is an unsafe situation) causes the halt.

[pkt]

All,
The action happened so fast - - that the ref called the action and awarded the hit and the bout before all three of us realised what actually took place.

Even if the PiL went between the opponent's hand and guard it would still make him unable to wield his weapon...but in most cases this won't land on target.

As I noted originally, Fencer A did feel, rightfully, a bit aggrieved. I would have corrected the ref and re-do the point over, if I haven't done that earlier in the bout already, when in close-quarter fighting, I accidentally riposted to his lame' with my guard. The ref gave the hit against him and I've corrected the ref on the call. I know, that was a yellow card offence but again the ref missed it totally if I hadn't pointed it out to him...and gave up the point I was given. there was only one light in this action, again.

Things like this sometimes get missed.

some common actions that are easily missed by lesser or inattentive refs:
- cut misses target completely but remise lands on the rebound;
- attack landed on the guard or blade and finishes on target;
- beats that get called the wrong way... d'oh!

By all means add to this list.

PK

[whtouche]

I gather from your previous post that you were fencer B in the first post, in which case: congrats for winning the tournament

[Delmont]

- beats that get called the wrong way... d'oh!


I HATE that. It happened so much the last time I did sabre I stopped caring about it for that tourney. Oh well, nothing you can do but gt yellow cards....

[jBirch]

PKT,

Near as I can tell the halt happens whether the ref calls it or not. So the unsafe condition caused by poking through the glove would have been the halt, regardless of whether the blade carried through to valid target or not.

Fencer A should have appealed the decision to the ref'ing commitee on those grounds and you two should have re-fenced the last point. Honourably, you SHOULD have corrected the presider and asked to refence the last point. That you did it earlier in the match is irrelevent.

Take it easy.

James.

[whtouche]

The halt is in the mind of the director - it is not an intangible condition that already exists and the directors job is to notice it.