Foil Lame's in Atlanta

[Li'l Bebe]

At Summer Nationals in Atlanta last July, a lot of girls with foil lame's from Absolute didn't pass, not because they were dead, but because of the way the inseam was sewn. If it wasn't perfectly straight, it didn't pass. Any thoughts about why this new qualification was made necessary, and if Absolute Fencing has made any efforts to correct their pattern so that women's lame's will pass now?

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by Li'l Bebe

At Summer Nationals in Atlanta last July, a lot of girls with foil lame's from Absolute didn't pass, not because they were dead, but because of the way the inseam was sewn. If it wasn't perfectly straight, it didn't pass. Any thoughts about why this new qualification was made necessary, and if Absolute Fencing has made any efforts to correct their pattern so that women's lame's will pass now?

It's not new. This has been emphasized from time to time since I came back to fencing in 1978.

[brtech]

The rule (m.28) is quite clear:

The conductive jacket must be so made that when it is laid flat there
is a straight line between the point of junction of the lines of the
groin and the two points corresponding to the tops of the hip bones
(ilium).

There is a diagram showing a straight line.

What part of "straight line" is not clear?

Please note that it says "when laid flat", and not "on the fencer".

Many lames were made so that the edge of the lame in this area is scooped. Sometimes, the scoop is quite small, sometimes it is so big you loose a couple of inches of target. The term employed for these is "french cut".

Now, to be very fair, we have not consistently enforced this rule, which is a very large problem. We need to decide how we will enforce the rule. Apparently, it is common in other countries to ignore the rule pretty much completely. There have been some conflicting reports about its enforcement in various high level non-U.S. competitions. I wasn't there. I don't know, but the rule is about as clear as it can be.

Some vendors have lames which are about as straight as you can get. It's cloth, and it's sewn, and there HAS to be some tolerance, but if you take, for example, an Uhlmann lame and lay it flat, it's a straight line. If you take, for example, the original FWF lightweight lame and lay it flat, it's seriously scooped. If you have the FWF on top of the same size Uhlmann, there is a very big loss of target.

Since the rule says "when laid flat", it's reasonable to assume it's the kind of rule the armorer enforces, as opposed to, for example, the rule that says the lame comes to the hip bones, which has to be interpreted while wearing the lame, and thus is enforced by the director. We should have agreement within the USFA on how armorers should interpret this rule, so the vendors and the purchasers know what is, and is not, permitted. We are not doing that yet.














'

[oso97]

Originally Posted by brtech

The rule (m.28) is quite clear:


There is a diagram showing a straight line.

What part of "straight line" is not clear?

Please note that it says "when laid flat", and not "on the fencer".

Many lames were made so that the edge of the lame in this area is scooped. Sometimes, the scoop is quite small, sometimes it is so big you loose a couple of inches of target. The term employed for these is "french cut".

Now, to be very fair, we have not consistently enforced this rule, which is a very large problem. We need to decide how we will enforce the rule. Apparently, it is common in other countries to ignore the rule pretty much completely. There have been some conflicting reports about its enforcement in various high level non-U.S. competitions. I wasn't there. I don't know, but the rule is about as clear as it can be.

Some vendors have lames which are about as straight as you can get. It's cloth, and it's sewn, and there HAS to be some tolerance, but if you take, for example, an Uhlmann lame and lay it flat, it's a straight line. If you take, for example, the original FWF lightweight lame and lay it flat, it's seriously scooped. If you have the FWF on top of the same size Uhlmann, there is a very big loss of target.

Since the rule says "when laid flat", it's reasonable to assume it's the kind of rule the armorer enforces, as opposed to, for example, the rule that says the lame comes to the hip bones, which has to be interpreted while wearing the lame, and thus is enforced by the director. We should have agreement within the USFA on how armorers should interpret this rule, so the vendors and the purchasers know what is, and is not, permitted. We are not doing that yet.

You also might consider NOT springing this on fencers, parents and vendors without notice at a NAC. Its one thing to announce a rule interpretation that people can adjust their fencing for (say, the recent changes to non-combativitiy). Its another thing to do it with equipment, in such a degree that the vendors RUN OUT OF LAME'S.

Seriously, not the finest hour of the (mostly) otherwise responsive, concerned, and well balanced armouring cadre.

[brtech]

Originally Posted by oso97

You also might consider NOT springing this on fencers, parents and vendors without notice at a NAC. Its one thing to announce a rule interpretation that people can adjust their fencing for (say, the recent changes to non-combativitiy). Its another thing to do it with equipment, in such a degree that the vendors RUN OUT OF LAME'S.

Seriously, not the finest hour of the (mostly) otherwise responsive, concerned, and well balanced armouring cadre.

I agree, actually. Right now, the head tech decides how rules will be interpreted. We need to have the USFA decide, and we need to give notice when we change the interpretation.

I little side note on this particular issue. One of the vendors had a lot of old lames that failed, but all the stock they had at SN passed. That means someone realized the problem (or it was pointed out to them), and they had changed their pattern, but of course they did not refund anyone who purchased the older design. Actually, in most, but not all cases, the vendors understand the rules, but sometimes push the envelope. Someone gets away with it, and then some other vendor pushes the envelope some more.

A clear rule interpretation, uniformly enforced, would be helpful.

[Inquartata]

Don't worry. If history is a guide, there will have been an entirely different rule selected for special attention this time. Maybe an equipment issue, maybe hair on lamés, who knows? It's never the same thing twice in a row.

[mrbiggs]

I believe that the head armorer throws the rulebook into the air, and David Blaine picks a page at random from the resulting pile by stabbing it with a knife. The rule that got the bulk of the stab is the one that will be enforced to the letter at nationals.

[Slim]

How about enforcing something useful instead? They should start making people have to actually put the lame on and have the the distance between the hip and the lame checked. Am I the only one tired of seeing people get away with the bottom of the lame not making it past their ribcage?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Slim

How about enforcing something useful instead? They should start making people have to actually put the lame on and have the the distance between the hip and the lame checked. Am I the only one tired of seeing people get away with the bottom of the lame not making it past their ribcage?

Easy solution is to request that the referee check in such cases.

When a lame is stamped by the armorers there is no way for them to know who is going to be wearing it. This is a check that can ONLY be done at the strip.

-B

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Easy solution is to request that the referee check in such cases.

What, and get a yellow card for delay of bout?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

What, and get a yellow card for delay of bout?

That's not a valid card in that case.

Of course, they can always do a "sir, is his lame too small?" "no. en guarde."

[Alex_Paul]

Originally Posted by oso97

You also might consider NOT springing this on fencers, parents and vendors without notice at a NAC. Its one thing to announce a rule interpretation that people can adjust their fencing for (say, the recent changes to non-combativitiy). Its another thing to do it with equipment, in such a degree that the vendors RUN OUT OF LAME'S.

Unfortunately sometimes us manufacturers need a kick up the backside to get any response! Polite letters often have no effect. As a company we have been asked by some fencers to start cutting our lames either with a curve or just plain higher, we have also been asked to make the bibs on masks bigger to reduce target area in foil. The problem is that when one manufacturer starts to bend the rules fencers start buying their gear to give them a compettitive edge, as a manufacturer it is hard not to conform to the wishes of your customers especially if others are doing it.

On another note, we didn't run out of lames, and ours were and always have been straight

Finally; the vendors were refusing to give refunds on BRAND NEW LAMES that didn't conform to the rules??!!! Are you kidding? It is no different to selling a sabre mask that doesn't conduct or a car that will not start! If I bought something that didn't work for the job it was sold to me for there is no way that I wouldnt get a refund or replacement.

Alex

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Alex_Paul

Finally; the vendors were refusing to give refunds on BRAND NEW LAMES that didn't conform to the rules??!!!

Yeah, reading that surprised me too.

I had a few of the FWF foil lames and as soon as I heard they weren't passing I hid them in a box to rot and replaced/refunded the couple that had been sold that morning. I took one back that had already been stenciled too - full refund as that's was the mfr's fault (and by extension mine), not the fencers.

The LP lames that I had and sold all passed (though a couple did have a little bit of a curve to them - not enough to set off the claxons though.)

FWF has since fixed the pattern to comply with the rules but I don't have those in. I've got a full compliment of the Leon Paul lightweight lames in stock.

Craig

[mackillian]

I took one back that had already been stenciled too - full refund as that's was the mfr's fault (and by extension mine), not the fencers

That was my lame and I still am greatful. I really was expecting you to say no because it was already stenciled.

I was pleasantly surprised.

The armourer was also very nice and apologetic for having to fail the lame. That made it a bit easier to take.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Alex_Paul

Unfortunately sometimes us manufacturers need a kick up the backside to get any response!

It definitely needed to be enforced at some point. The problem was that they didn't tell us until the competition had already started.

Had they announced ahead of time that the rule would be enforced, fencers could get new lames, and vendors could be prepared to sell extras.

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by Craig

Yeah, reading that surprised me too.

I had a few of the FWF foil lames and as soon as I heard they weren't passing I hid them in a box to rot and replaced/refunded the couple that had been sold that morning. I took one back that had already been stenciled too - full refund as that's was the mfr's fault (and by extension mine), not the fencers.

The LP lames that I had and sold all passed (though a couple did have a little bit of a curve to them - not enough to set off the claxons though.)

FWF has since fixed the pattern to comply with the rules but I don't have those in. I've got a full compliment of the Leon Paul lightweight lames in stock.

Craig

It wouldn't be that hard to add a little more Lame fabric, then you could sell them at a discount anf get your money back.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

It wouldn't be that hard to add a little more Lame fabric, then you could sell them at a discount anf get your money back.

Or I just get the manufacturer to take it on themselves. (Which is what we did.)

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

It definitely needed to be enforced at some point. The problem was that they didn't tell us until the competition had already started.

Had they announced ahead of time that the rule would be enforced, fencers could get new lames, and vendors could be prepared to sell extras.

Why should enforcement of rules have to be announced? Duh.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

Why should enforcement of rules have to be announced? Duh.

Were you at nationals?

1. Because the rule was not enforced in the past
2. Because fencers should have had the opportunity to check their own lames to see if they were legal
3. Because fencers should have had the chance to buy their lames ahead of time
4. Because vendors started running out of lames. And though it was not a crisis, to my knowledge, the vendors could have easily had problems with running out of lames in common sizes.
5. Because this rule isn't enforced any other time

What would happen if the USFA decided that the mesh on masks can't extend below the chin? Should they have to announce that rule, or should we all be surprised as we all get there and the only guy who can fence is 84 and brought his original gear?