Usfa Lame' Alert

[fatfencer]

got a strange email about lames having straps and buckles not being allowed after columbus.

I can't think of a lame that DOESN'T have a strap though many have buckles

senior armorers/semi/whomever qualified care to weigh in?

FF

[erooMynohtnA]

Straps and buckles no longer allowed on (back of) lamés

[JayhawkPawn]

It's in reference to the lame that have straps for better fit, -around- the waist, not betwixt the thighs. Those straps and buckles, I believe, are required to be in place, it's just the ones that cinch the lame material in have cause, and will continue to cause problems, creating a potential artificial blade catch.

Imagine parry prime, riposte to the back, and snapping your brand new $150 blade. Also, I'm fairly sure it's against the rules to have a strap do that, I'm sure someone can quote me the exact rule.

-Jay.

[El Chucko]

I looked for a picture of the lame's they are talking about, in case people had never seen them before. I have seen several of them in my travels (I want to say Western PA?), but I just can't seem to find a pic of one. I think Negrini makes them?

Basically, they have an adjustable strap across the lower back like a man's vest would have, and it is supposed to allow you to make the lame more form-fitting.

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by El Chucko

I looked for a picture of the lame's they are talking about, in case people had never seen them before. I have seen several of them in my travels (I want to say Western PA?), but I just can't seem to find a pic of one. I think Negrini makes them?

Basically, they have an adjustable strap across the lower back like a man's vest would have, and it is supposed to allow you to make the lame more form-fitting.

That's the mind of thing that should be on the inside....

[brtech]

Originally Posted by JayhawkPawn

Also, I'm fairly sure it's against the rules to have a strap do that, I'm sure someone can quote me the exact rule.

Ya, here you go:

m.25
...
2. Safety. It must not be possible for the opponent to be
obstructed or injured by the equipment, nor for the
opponent’s weapon to be caught up in or deflected by the
equipment which, in consequence, must have neither
buckles nor openings in which the opponent’s point may be
caught up — except accidentally — and thus held or
deflected.

[HDG]

Originally Posted by brtech

Ya, here you go:

Just to play devil's advocate, surely a buckle on one's back falls within the ambit of buckles that if they hold or deflect the opponent's point do so only accidentally.

[brtech]

The old timer's say that the buckle rule came into being because of some older designs that had large buckles on the front of a lame. I believe that most of us don't consider the buckle per se to be a significant danger. It is the belt itself that is the thing that will catch the blade, as Cvillefencer reported.

[Joe biebel]

Buckles should never be, nor should they ever have been allowed as the closure on a metallic jack. The new rule seems to go after even the "cinching buckles" as possible "catches" of the point.

As a left-handed fencer, fencing (where hitting the back is reltively easy) mostly right handed fencers, I've had more than one bad experience with off-target lights from hitting the plastic liner, inside the lame. I've never seen one of these jackets that closed properly and remained closed properly.

[kalivor]

The rule says "except accidentally" -- has anyone seen somebody purposely trap a blade using the buckle on the back of a Negrini lame?

[downunder]

It might be interesting to note that there have been many fencers on the world cup circuit using these lames without issue.

[Joe biebel]

Originally Posted by downunder

It might be interesting to note that there have been many fencers on the world cup circuit using these lames without issue.

Your referring to the Negrini style right? Not the multibuckle close in the back design.

[brtech]

Originally Posted by downunder

It might be interesting to note that there have been many fencers on the world cup circuit using these lames without issue.

Ya, it's a peculiar American issue: we actually take safety rules seriously. Of course, we're not all THAT consistent, since we don't require FIE uniforms. But, anyway, we think there is a clear safety issue with the back strap. It doesn't matter if the rule was intended to apply to some other design, there is a strap, and a buckle, and it's not that hard to catch a blade in it. It has happened. No one got hurt, but that is the point of the safety rules.

We have no idea why the FIE wouldn't consider the Negrini lame to be compliant, but it seems pretty clear to us.

The fact that they are being allowed in World Cups is the defense offered by the folks that think we should allow them. I don't like that kind of argument. That's the "all my friends are allowed to" line.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by brtech

Ya, it's a peculiar American issue: we actually take safety rules seriously. Of course, we're not all THAT consistent, since we don't require FIE uniforms. But, anyway, we think there is a clear safety issue with the back strap. It doesn't matter if the rule was intended to apply to some other design, there is a strap, and a buckle, and it's not that hard to catch a blade in it. It has happened. No one got hurt, but that is the point of the safety rules.

We have no idea why the FIE wouldn't consider the Negrini lame to be compliant, but it seems pretty clear to us.

The fact that they are being allowed in World Cups is the defense offered by the folks that think we should allow them. I don't like that kind of argument. That's the "all my friends are allowed to" line.

I find it really amusing -- you're extremely worried that a blade might catch and snap, I'm assuming. But if it catches in that strap on the back, the broken blade wouldn't be able to accidentally hit the fencer, the way a blade that breaks on the front would.

Incidentally, if this rule applies to the strap, it should also have to apply to the pocket on every pair of fencing breeches I've seen. The pocket is far more dangerous, as the blade would really be caught there, in a far more dangerous fashion than it would be by the strap on a Negrini lame.

On the other hand, as you point out, the USFA has no rules concerning the quality of the jackets and breeches that the fencers wear. It doesn't only not have to be FIE -- there's actually no minimum standard.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by kalivor

Incidentally, if this rule applies to the strap, it should also have to apply to the pocket on every pair of fencing breeches I've seen.

For what it's worth, my Prieur FIE breeches don't have a pocket.

Originally Posted by kalivor

On the other hand, as you point out, the USFA has no rules concerning the quality of the jackets and breeches that the fencers wear. It doesn't only not have to be FIE -- there's actually no minimum standard.

Sure there is.

Originally Posted by USFA Rulebook m.25

3. Characteristics of the clothing. Fencers’ clothing must be made of sufficiently robust material and be clean and in
good condition.

Oh, you mean a standard that actually MEANS something.

-B

[brtech]

One of the amusing characteristics of the USFA is that the people that write the rulebook are not the same people who decide on the interpretation of the rulebook. If the people that interpret the rules were the rule "deciders" then I am sure we would have an FIE clothing requirement for NACs.

Of course we might also outlaw the transparent visor rule, but that is another story.

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by kalivor

I find it really amusing -- you're extremely worried that a blade might catch and snap, I'm assuming. But if it catches in that strap on the back, the broken blade wouldn't be able to accidentally hit the fencer, the way a blade that breaks on the front would.

Incidentally, if this rule applies to the strap, it should also have to apply to the pocket on every pair of fencing breeches I've seen. The pocket is far more dangerous, as the blade would really be caught there, in a far more dangerous fashion than it would be by the strap on a Negrini lame.

On the other hand, as you point out, the USFA has no rules concerning the quality of the jackets and breeches that the fencers wear. It doesn't only not have to be FIE -- there's actually no minimum standard.

You're forgetting something else....catching the strap could pull someone off balance and cause a falling injury or a pulled muscle....a slim chance yes, but still possile...and more likely than catching hte pocket.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

You're forgetting something else....catching the strap could pull someone off balance and cause a falling injury or a pulled muscle....a slim chance yes, but still possile...and more likely than catching hte pocket.

...and heaven forbid the blade could catch in shoelaces!!!!

slip-ons for all epeeists now.

[Joe biebel]

Personally, I think that hooking up, attaching the "spring clip" to your jacket has caused more injuries than the "back buckle" trapping a blade on a lame. I don't think the strap on the back is a significant danger. At least nothing to make clarifications or extensions of existing rules for, as a safety issue. Certain fencers/referees that have posted here have different experiences and I don't mean to minimize them. It just seems to me that there are many "more dangerous" things that are allowed to go on than a buckle on the back of the lame. I am in agreement with those that think this should not be a "legal" piece of equipment, but not for safety reasons. I think that the vast majority of "trapped" blades result in one or the other fencer getting screwed out of, or into a touch. Probably the most common scenario is the point of the weapon getting inside the opponants body cord. It's pretty rare that this does not result in a touch against the trapee. It is even rarer (more rare, less common?) for a ref to see this and annul a hit so made. This possibilty, for me is the overiding reason to not allow any more "catching surfaces" than can reasonably be attained.

Before anyone flames me for downplaying the possible danger posed by a back buckle, let me ask you about the things that obviously present a clear and present danger. When was the last time you saw a scoring table too close to the strip, or a reel (same for cables) positioned where it would cause a trip hazard. Take a good look at uniforms. Am I the only ref that makes fencers change uniforms that don't safely cover their body, ragged gloves, masks that don't fit right or have a messed up bib that won't stay down or have proper overlaps? When have you seen a ref confiscate a weapon because the guard edges were chewed up into a serated edge or the blade was full of rust and or had obvious slivers? These are the areas that really need our attention. I really get the feeling that most referees could care less or don't want to bother or are afraid of the hassle it may cause.

[brtech]

Actually I agree that the lame clip is a pretty big safety hazard. I think we really should be changing that design to something else. Maybe something like an button snap like they use on a ESD mat, but inside the lame.

Im not sure if the same idea would work with a mask cord. A snap on the collar to an snap on the inside of the bib?