One of my small pet peeves (which I've had for a while) concerns Rule t.47, which defines the target in foil. More accurately, my peeve concerns referees and t.47, of which the pertinent part states:

Originally Posted by Rule Book, t.47

The target in foil excludes the limbs and the head. It is confined to the trunk, the upper limit being the collar up to 6
cm above the prominences of the collar bones; at the sides to
the seams of the sleeves, which should cross the head of the
humerus; and the lower limit following a horizontal line across
the back joining the tops of the hip bones, then by straight
lines to the junction of the lines of the groin.

(emphasis mine).

This weekend, in Dallas, I saw a lot of fencers in Women's Division 2/3 and Vet wearing illegal lames, if I'm interpreting the rule correctly. One young lady's lame in the same pool as one of my fencers certainly had her lame covering her hipbones in front, but was probably 3-4 inches too high in back. This becomes a big deal when you have a left handed student who may be trying to step around to make a flank shot against a right handed fencer,(esp on the riposte) only to see the target suddenly climb up the rib cage. It also impacts you fencing if you opponent is one of those fencers that puts their weapon arm in front of their chest to make a remise, leaving only the shoulder and the flank to hit.

In the past, I've occasionally mentioned this to a referee before the bout started. Every time I have done this, the referee has diligently checked that the lame cover the top of the hip bones and stopped there. refusing to check for the rest of the lame requirement.

I wonder if anyone else has had this problem, and if a referee has every rejected a lame because it didn't cover target in the back? Perhaps I'll xerox off that part of the rule book and carry it with me before I ask again