Make the Call- Chest/Breast Protectors

[oso97]

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

If it was a big/important/qualifier tourney and the BC threw a black card for this I would hope the fencer in question would sue the hell out of the FIE, USFA, the Division, the BC and the Ref in question. It may be the only way to fix these poorly thought out half assed rullings that the FIE keeps handing down. For once a LOT of bad press for the sport may be the only thing to get cockroach and his paid for toads in the Whereveristan fencing "federations" to back off.

Hrmm... really constructive attitude there. Yes, lets sue. A great response whenever we don't get our way. Hey, I know, lets sue anyway, on the grounds that the "new timings have irrevocably altered the sport in such a manner that all of our previous time, effort and money spent are meaningless."

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by kalivor

But there are penalties lay down. The rulebook says what the penalties are if the clothing does not conform to the rules.

Now you are getting into circular logic. The rulebook says what the penalties are for non-conforming equipment, but it also says what counts as non-conforming equipment! You can't say her clothing equipment does not conform to the rules if the rules don't say anything about her equipment, other than she must have it! It does not say how it shall be worn except for the obvious like it can't be outside the lame, etc.

For the group three ... Well, if they show up complying with the most recent ruling (whether it's "under the jacket" or "directly on the skin" or whatever the tournament in question is using), then switch it before their first bout in an attempt to get hits to bounce off ... well, they're showing knowledge of the rule, and deliberately breaking it in hopes of gaining an unfair advantage. That's EARNING the group 3 red.

The rules say I must wear a glove and socks. I have two gloves, one that is comfy and poofy and an LP that is stiff as a board but hides my hand behind my guard very well. If I show up on the strip wearing my poofy glove and see that I am fencing bob, who loves hand touches, I may switch to my LP glove. Am I cheating? Do I get a red card? I think it would give me an advantage against fencer Bob don't I? Of course this is not cardable and is a bit absurd as I am not breaking the rules even If I were to turn my glove inside out or wear my socks on the outside of my shoes because there are not rules against this! (okay, you could make a case about socks over the traction surface of the shoes being a safety hazard, but hopefully you get the point)

Besides that was never what was stated by the original poster. Now you are assuming that fencer X had cheating in mind and that is a bad thing to get into for a judge. We are supposed to interpret the facts of an issue and apply the rules in a fair and impartial manner. Trying to interpret the intent of the fencer is rather discouraged as it can be a slippery slope and our job is not to be mind readers or physiologists.

Honestly, I think any tournament that's using non-rulebook rules should include this information beforehand. That includes new timings, chestplate rules, non-FIE-guidelines format, whatever.

They should say "we're using FIE/USFA/Whatever rules, with the following modifications ..." then they'd probably reference the FIE/USFA/Whatever announcements regarding timings and chestplates. Or, at least, that's how it *should* work.

Then there's no doubt. Everybody knows (or ought to know), get on with it.

I agree completely, and unless this is done the BC/Judge should not act the despot and start throwing cards like Frisbees. This is how we do things in my division, and before the start of every tourney all the fencers are called to the BC table, any new rules or special circumstances are clearly stated, questions are asked and answered and everyone goes off to the strip well informed.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

How about something like it's not in the USFA rules!!!

Well, that would be a reasonable argument if it were true... Just because the USFA does a poor job of publishing their rules changes and actions of the executive committee doesn't mean they don't happen. The EC made a ruling stating that fencers may not wear any rigid object on the outside of their jacket or knickers. This is a rules change and is in effect in the US. The FIE ruling is not yet in effect until the EC approves a further change to mirror the FIE actions (which I would expect to have be the case in the next 2 weeks or so).

Now can you complain that the EC puts tournament organizers and participants in a horrible position by issuing rules changes and then not publicizing their actions? Absolutely. Doesn't mean that the actions didn't take place and don't apply however.

-B :)

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

Now you are getting into circular logic. The rulebook says what the penalties are for non-conforming equipment, but it also says what counts as non-conforming equipment! You can't say her clothing equipment does not conform to the rules if the rules don't say anything about her equipment, other than she must have it! It does not say how it shall be worn except for the obvious like it can't be outside the lame, etc.

The rules say I must wear a glove and socks. I have two gloves, one that is comfy and poofy and an LP that is stiff as a board but hides my hand behind my guard very well. If I show up on the strip wearing my poofy glove and see that I am fencing bob, who loves hand touches, I may switch to my LP glove. Am I cheating? Do I get a red card? I think it would give me an advantage against fencer Bob don't I? Of course this is not cardable and is a bit absurd as I am not breaking the rules even If I were to turn my glove inside out or wear my socks on the outside of my shoes because there are not rules against this! (okay, you could make a case about socks over the traction surface of the shoes being a safety hazard, but hopefully you get the point)

I'll answer this with more quoting:

Originally Posted by foc_official_website

Chest Protectors

The Executive Committee of the FIE has issued a ruling regarding the use of chest protectors for Foil:

"Breast protectors/chest protection : The use of breast protectors/chest protection at Foil is authorised for Men and Women providing that they are worn directly on the skin for Men and over the T-shirt for Women. Urgent decision. Immediate application."

This appears to be a ruling on how a chest protector is to be worn. If you can find something similar for gloves and socks, then please direct me to them.

I get your point: There's no rules as to how these things should be worn, so you can wear them however you like (unless it creates a safety hazard). What you're ignoring is a ruling by the FIE, which is apparently being implemented by your National federation, which indicates how one may and may not wear a chest protector.

Hence, you either wear it in a way that complies (no penalty) or does not comply (group one).

As I said, anything not directly out of the rulebook should really be mentioned before fencing begins, but don't pretend that there isn't a ruling out there on this stuff. There is, and you know there is. It says what is and is not acceptable -- it doesn't mention penalties because it doesn't need to: The actual rule for non-conforming equipment doesn't list what does and doesn't conform. All I did was quote this rule, and note that the manner in which a chestplate must be worn is covered by this rule. It says "clothing which does not conform to the Rules." Doesn't point to any specific one. If there is an official ruling which covers the competition, then it is covered here. No circular reasoning required.

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

Besides that was never what was stated by the original poster. Now you are assuming that fencer X had cheating in mind and that is a bad thing to get into for a judge. We are supposed to interpret the facts of an issue and apply the rules in a fair and impartial manner. Trying to interpret the intent of the fencer is rather discouraged as it can be a slippery slope and our job is not to be mind readers or physiologists.

There's no intent to judge. There are two possibilities:

1. The chest protector was not previously inspected and found to conform to the rules.

OR

2. The chest protector was previously inspected and found to conform to the rules (or, if not, the fencer was forced to change the way they were wearing it).

Now, the fencer comes to the piste with the protector between the jacket and the lame.

Case #1: Group 1.
Case #2: Group 3.

Originally Posted by t.45

3. If, when a fencer appears on the strip, or during a bout, it is established that the equipment used by the fencer:
...
(c) has been passed by the preliminary check, but presents irregularities that could have been made deliberately
...
-- in cases (c) and (d) the Referee will penalize him as specified in Articles t.114, t.118, t.120 [a group 3 offense] ...

Note that the rule says "could have been made deliberately." No need for actual intent, just the possibility of intent.

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Well, that would be a reasonable argument if it were true... Just because the USFA does a poor job of publishing their rules changes and actions of the executive committee doesn't mean they don't happen. The EC made a ruling stating that fencers may not wear any rigid object on the outside of their jacket or knickers. This is a rules change and is in effect in the US. The FIE ruling is not yet in effect until the EC approves a further change to mirror the FIE actions (which I would expect to have be the case in the next 2 weeks or so).

Well that changes things just a little bit! I had not gotten word of this EC update, and I am a division officer! The only thing I had heard of was the FIE ruling, which I still contend is not binding on US fencers until it is ratified by the USFA.

Now can you complain that the EC puts tournament organizers and participants in a horrible position by issuing rules changes and then not publicizing their actions? -B

I do in fact complain about that, frequently and loudly!

Okay, I change my vote to a yellow card, but considering the problems and lack of information from our governing body would strongly encourage judges to give a verbal warning for the first offense. As stated earlier this thing should have been checked for before the bout. Only if it was inspected and then changed by the fencer without any reasonable excuse (without for example, a long break in between fencing and then that fencer having had to grab things and run to the strip due to poor BC/DE management, etc) should it even fall under the possiblity of a group three.

Kalivor, as to your quoting of the FIE, they can think/vote/feel whatever they want. Until it is USFA rules or policy it does not really matter for USFA tourneys. FIE kit, some articles of the Publicity Code, Names on legs and jackets, lexan masks, country colors/codes etc all being examples of FIE policy which the USFA and a lot of other federations ignore on a local level for various reasons.

Since Oiuyt assures us that the USFA has made such a ruling (and if it were from a less reliable source I would question that it happened since I can't find it anywere, but Oiuyt has never led me astray in this type of thing before) that changes things just a bit as I said above.

[oiuyt]

I think it's absoutely rediculous that they DON'T make any such announcement, or, for that matter, that the note on the FOC website is the FIE equivalent rather than the USFA equivalent (although, who knows, perhaps by now the EC has voted to mirror the FIE ruling so THAT'S what's in force in the US).

The EC ruling that I'm citing was posted conspicuously around the venue in Kansas. Among other places at the BC and all of the seeding posting locations. Of course if you weren't in KS (which 90% of the USFA wasn't) you have nothing but word of mouth to go on. I know of no other distribution channel that has been used (and I'm a section chair and a member of the BoD, neither of which have resulted in my being notified, although, as a BoD member it should be on the list of EC actions which the board will be asked to approve in 2 weeks, so I should officially hear of it by then....). It should be listed in the BoD minutes from this upcoming meeting, once they eventually get posted (Junish? July?).

-B :)

[counter riposte]

Let's hope before Summer Nationals.

[mrbiggs]

I think that the director should use his own judgement. If you think it was intentional, a card would be called for. Otherwise, why card her? If it goes to the bout comittee, let them sort it out.

Fencing has far too many rules and regulations. There comes a certain point where I just think "why can't we just fence?"

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by counter riposte

Let's hope before Summer Nationals.

The minutes are frequently not posted prior to the next meeting. They are generally distributed to the BoD members. I've made a habit of posting agendae and minutes here on f.net as I get them, given the habitual delays of their appearance on usfencing.org.

For reference, an agenda for the meeting in 2 weeks has not yet been distributed, expect to see it here once I have a copy. Expect minutes a week or so after the meeting (and my notes on the meeting a day or two after I return from JO's). In the event that minutes aren't distributed, obviously I can't post them, but you'll still have my notes and comments.

What I would hope is that in the competitor confirmation packets that there's an insert the details the new rule(s) enacted by the BoD or the EC.

-B :)

[counter riposte]

Thanks Brad, Please keep us posted....