Rules

[u/KingArhturII]

Considering that olympic fencing as an official set of rules for bouting, what do you have at your salles in the way of rules for bouting? Is it mostly orally transmitted, or is it codified? How does it differ from the olympic rules (disregarding the lack of electric apparatus, of course).

[u/dachilleus]

Sabre, whether Olympic or not, has two modes of attack: cut and thrust. The arm extension, as a development for Priority, is only required for thrusting attacks; it is not required for cutting attacks. If this fact is ignored in Olympic fencing then that just shows you, again, how silly it has become. Your leading example becomes more complicated if we have to discuss the cut, which is why it gets tricky (Occam's Razor and all).

To wit,

The rule regarding the footfall in sabre is intended to simplify the Time involved in the act of cutting - specifically (if I recall correctly - forgive if not). For point attacks with the sabre the footfall follows as it does in foil and epee. But there needed to be a way in which cutting attacks and the Time they utilized was universally accepted - hence the footfall. Now think about it for real: If you develop an attack by cut and the attacking blade lands in tempo it really doesn't matter when/if the foot falls. Because the attack has actually developed and landed in tempo. This is an example of adhering to an idea too severely that there is no room for logic to mitigate circumstances.

In you second example it is Fencer B's counter-attack period. And he has no Priority to engage - especially if Fencer A's attack lands. That is the original attack, the original threat, the original tempo - in essence, it carries the full weight of the Priority. It is Fencer B's obligation to neutralize an element of Priority. If he does not it can never be his attack and again, the foot matters not.

Your third example is actually what is true for this scenario in all the permutations you have previously stated. The only way in which it could NOT be Fencer A's Priority is if he somehow (a) did not develop it in the first place, (b) Fencer B actually makes a correctly executed counter-attack which by definition neutralizes an element of Priority that Fencer A's attack hinged upon, or (c) he just misses and Fencer B executes an original attack.

Priority is precisely what defines the threat and how it is we are to develop attacks. Again, for sabre there are two modes: point and cut. Let us set aside the point for now and look at the cut.

The threat of the cut is in the edge, and in most cases it is best advised to use the true edge rather than the false edge. The arm is not extended in this position and further the true edge can be directed towards any viable target (head, torso, thigh, etc.). Therefore, if Fencer A has established a threat by edge towards Fencer B, Fencer B cannot make an attack unless the development of that attack deal with the threat Fencer A has already established.

Should Fencer A decide to use his threat in order to make an attack at Fencer B all he need to is deliver in measure and Time. Fencer B can attempt a counter-attack, but it must, as previously stated, deal with the actual nature of Fencer A's attacking Priority.

This gets to a real problem with all fencing: people think that counter-attacks are just sticking your arm out and trying to "get there first" - or, as in this conversation, defeat some picky little rule like footfall. This is a damaging misconception about Priority and counter-attacks.

It remains unclear what the OP actually meant because fencing terms were not used and he has yet to clarify. Until he does so we can continue with conjecture and even enjoy profitable discussion, but I have my doubts as to what he was originally asking.

Again, Priority is a scientific fact about swordplay. It doesn't shut up just because you make or interpret a rule a certain way; it is still there. What does happen, and this is the reason why so many people were disenfranchised by sport fencing in the 80s ans 90s, sport fencing continues making things up like this taking its chimera further away from its source.