but a fencer from my club had to change his lame because it was 'non-conformist' or too short. However, the lame reached his hip bone.
After pointing that out, the director said that the lame must reach the bottom of the groin.
I thought that the lame had to reach the hip bone ONLY. must it also reach the bottom of the groin? The lame wasnt cut or shortened in any way and was a standard sized not custom lame.
It has to cover target area. The whole groin is part of it. (As is right above the hip bones). I'm surprised that the ref made a big deal about it, as I've seen fencers get away with ridiculous lamés.
i have a lame that has passed at NACs that only barely passes the hip bone rule. that is the only rule that has ever been tested on the lame. it definitely does not cover all of my groinular area. its passed two separate BC inspections and inspections by at least 2 other 3+ refs.
The sides of the lame have only have to reach the hip bone, but since the groin is a target area in foil, the lame must also have a conductive cuissarde (the triangular piece that goes below the hip bones and between the legs.) The cuissarde is held in place by the groin strap. See the diagram below (copied from the m.28 in the 9/06 USFA Rules.)
If the referee was claiming that the sides of the lame have to extend below the hip bones and down to the groin area, then he/she was mistaken. The sides only have to go down to the hip bone.
I am having a hard time picturing this problem in my head. I don't see how the sides of a (legal) lame could extend to the hip bones and not cover the groin area. If he was wearing a lame that was long enough to reach his hip bones, the why did the cuissarde not extend to the groin area? Did the lame not have a conductive cuissarde at all? I seem to remember that at some point in the past, the groin was not a valid target area in foil. If this is so, could the lame have been an old one that does not conform to the newer rules?
Last edited by Frank Pratt; 02-21-2007 at 12:08 AM.
I think the referee was unreasonable unless it was a Lame that really looked unlike a standard Lame.
Would you have described his (?) knickers as droopy? If the knickers were over size or sagging, then it might have been the knickers, but not necessarily the groin, that was not covered by the Lame. Did the referee check the inseam?
Was the jacket too long? That could also make it seem as the Lame didn't cover enough.
The Lame has to cover the fencer, not necessarily his uniform.
Last edited by fencerbill; 02-21-2007 at 12:21 AM.
The sides of the lame have only have to reach the hip bone, but since the groin is a target area in foil, the lame must also have a conductive cuissarde (the triangular piece that goes below the hip bones and between the legs.) The cuissarde is held in place by the groin strap. See the diagram below (copied from the m.28 in the 9/06 USFA Rules.)
If the referee was claiming that the sides of the lame have to extend below the hip bones and down to the groin area, then he/she was mistaken. The sides only have to go down to the hip bone.
I am having a hard time picturing this problem in my head. I don't see how the sides of a (legal) lame could extend to the hip bones and not cover the groin area. If he was wearing a lame that was long enough to reach his hip bones, the why did the cuissarde not extend to the groin area? Did the lame not have a conductive cuissarde at all? I seem to remember that at some point in the past, the groin was not a valid target area in foil. If this is so, could the lame have been an old one that does not conform to the newer rules?
no it reached the groin, but it didnt cover it, it was a small lame. but barely legal.
like it went half way down. didnt touch the bottom of his jecket
The referee was correct see T.47 in addition to M.28. In M.28 the lame' must cover the whole target area and in T.47 the target area goes in a straight line from the hip bone to the groin.
Let us describe why both is important. The lame' bottom is esentially an equilatrial triange. If the angle is 150 degrees it would go down less and not cover as much as one that was 60 degrees. This is sort of an extension of the emphasis on the curves on the bottom of the lame'. Some manufacturers are bending the rules to cut cost and make fencers happy. The fencers would love to have their target area smaller.
I love the idea of a non-comformist lamé, rather than a non-comforming one. I can just see it talking down to all of the other lamés, berating them for not having ideas or identities of their own and just being followers.
The referee was correct see T.47 in addition to M.28. In M.28 the lame' must cover the whole target area and in T.47 the target area goes in a straight line from the hip bone to the groin.
Let us describe why both is important. The lame' bottom is esentially an equilatrial triange. If the angle is 150 degrees it would go down less and not cover as much as one that was 60 degrees. This is sort of an extension of the emphasis on the curves on the bottom of the lame'. Some manufacturers are bending the rules to cut cost and make fencers happy. The fencers would love to have their target area smaller.
Can anyone really make a positive statement unless they have seen the fencer? The Lame didn't reach the bottom of the jacket. This is meaningful only if you confirm that the jacket wasn't too long and the knickers weren't droopy.
We have all seen teenagers where the crotch of their pants was down at their knees. We have also seen youth fencers where the croissard strap began about 4 inches from the buckle in the back.
Your comment about the angle subtended being significant is true. That is why I qualified my answer by asking whether the Lame looked "standard".
Can anyone really make a positive statement unless they have seen the fencer? The Lame didn't reach the bottom of the jacket. This is meaningful only if you confirm that the jacket wasn't too long and the knickers weren't droopy.
We have all seen teenagers where the crotch of their pants was down at their knees. We have also seen youth fencers where the croissard strap began about 4 inches from the buckle in the back.
Your comment about the angle subtended being significant is true. That is why I qualified my answer by asking whether the Lame looked "standard".
Sorry I was not clear. I was going by the original post. If the referee states that it did not go down to the groin then it is illegal because of M.28 and T.47. This is a judgement call of the referee and it is their decision.
Also not all people are built the same way, so even a standard lame' especially some of the ones I have seen will not be legal on a number of fencers.
no it reached the groin, but it didnt cover it, it was a small lame. but barely legal.
like it went half way down. didnt touch the bottom of his jecket
I agree with DHC. If the cuissarde of the lame did not cover all of the valid target area, then it would be illegal. By that same token, a lame with sides that do not go all the way down to the hip bones is illegal becuase it does not cover all of the fencer's target area. Sounds like the ref made a good jugement call in this case.
Originally Posted by Chî 
I can just see it talking down to all of the other lamés, berating them for not having ideas or identities of their own and just being followers. 
