Armoring Rulebook question for wiring and sockets

[trazom]

At an event over the weekend, I was doing my usual referee check of an epee. When checking the wires inside the guard, my check was as follows:
* 2 wires connected on the outside (guard side) of the socket
* Each wire individually insulated
* Insulation wires are continuous to the socket from the blade opening
* Insulation pad prevents hand from reaching wires
* No tape which could hide a short (or other way of interfering with the wires)

The fencer in question had the wires connected on the inside of the socket. I awarded a yellow card as non-conforming equipment.

Fencer requested bout committee, which in this case, was a very experienced and knowledgeable armorer (whom I believe has been a head armorer at NACs). Said armorer said that there was nothing in the rules which stated the wires need to be on the outside of the socket, and thus overruled the card.

However, at a NAC just over a year ago, I had a discussion with the head armorer at the time - regarding a weapon where the wires had been soldered onto an extension of the socket, on the inside - and this armorer said that it was illegal to have the wires on the inside of the socket, although the soldering portion was otherwise legal.

Having re-read the rulebook, the only applicable passage I can find states:

m.5.
. . .
The connections must be so arranged that it is impossible for
the fencer to break or make contacts while fencing.
On foils, the wire must be protected by an insulating sheath.
On épées, the two wires must be protected by two insulating
sheaths, one on each wire.
Both the wire and the insulating sheath must go right up to
the socket.
In no case may uninsulated wires project beyond the point
where they are attached to the socket

If there is another rule describing how the wires must be attached, please point it out to me - I've been searching and missing.

So.... which high level armorer should I follow in determining whether the weapon is non-conforming in regards to wiring inside the guard?

[Purple Fencer]

#2 is correct....if the wires run up between the guard and the body of the socket -- so the fingers can't get to the wires -- it's legal.

I would not card....but have the fencer move the wires around behind the socket and away from the fingers....if the wires could NOT be moved (too short, for example), however, THEN I'd card.

by the same token, just because a socket may have channels for the wires (Uhlmann, typically) there's nothing that says those channels must be used.

[KD5MDK]

If the wires could be easily maninpulated by a finger while the grip is held normally (and just about every time I've seen them wired on the inside they can be), then I'd say it's a clear violation of the rule you cited.

[keith]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

If the wires could be easily maninpulated by a finger while the grip is held normally (and just about every time I've seen them wired on the inside they can be), then I'd say it's a clear violation of the rule you cited.

...but that is why the rule states no extension of uninsulated wire* (& insulation up to the socket). Assuming those two are correct there is no opportunity for the fencer to manipulate the connection to register a false hit.


* this is the most important thing to check for - since it allows for very easy cheating regardless of which side the wires run.

[KD5MDK]

A fencer could tear out a wire from the socket, which if missed by a poor referee could then allow the improper annulment of the touch.

Also, a very sneaky fencer could tear out the wire from the socket, and then manipulate it with their fingers to touch their other line. (particularly if they had their other line shorted to the guard).

[keith]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

A fencer could tear out a wire from the socket, which if missed by a poor referee could then allow the improper annulment of the touch.

Also, a very sneaky fencer could tear out the wire from the socket, and then manipulate it with their fingers to touch their other line. (particularly if they had their other line shorted to the guard).

well leaving aside the question of referee quality.....

It is important to remember that the wire does not need to be torn free of the socket to produce a switch. If the ref has missed any extending (or unsecured wire) - something many refs who run through the checklist do miss - it is simple to produce a switch in the guard. Flick the free wire loose when plugging in the body wire and hey presto touches at will - and no compromising of real touches.

The question of the wire on the inside or outside of the guard is, IMHO, one of the 'wood for the trees' debates - yes you could pull the wire off the socket but it is going to make a terribly poor switch (assuming the important things are checked) and anyone daft enough to try cheating that way is unlikely to meet much success.

[KD5MDK]

Again, the ability to get a touch annulled when you need it (14-14?) is rather relevant as well.

[keith]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Again, the ability to get a touch annulled when you need it (14-14?) is rather relevant as well.

so refs need to learn a new rule since they can't be bothered learning a current one...

yeah that'll work just great.

[trazom]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

#2 is correct....if the wires run up between the guard and the body of the socket -- so the fingers can't get to the wires -- it's legal.

I would not card....but have the fencer move the wires around behind the socket and away from the fingers....if the wires could NOT be moved (too short, for example), however, THEN I'd card.

by the same token, just because a socket may have channels for the wires (Uhlmann, typically) there's nothing that says those channels must be used.

Alright. So Bill Hall is wrong and the passage I quoted does prevent the wires from being on the hand-side of the socket?

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by trazom

Alright. So Bill Hall is wrong and the passage I quoted does prevent the wires from being on the hand-side of the socket?

Well, the portion of the rule that's relevant is "The connections must be so arranged that it is impossible for the fencer to break or make contacts while fencing"

The wire's gotta go somewhere...if they're on the grip side of the socket (the inside) they ARE in a position for the fencer to mess with them (difficult as that may be. The only other option IS on the outside -- between the socket and the guard -- especially if you use a French socket -- which doesn't have those channels -- or the spaghetti tubing I use, which is too thick to go through those channels. but again, there's no requirement that those channels be used....they're a convenience.

This is another reason why it's good to put some of teh spaghetti underneath the nut....strain relief, it meets the rule about the insulation going all the way to the socket, and it makes it more difficult for someone to break the wire and cheat because it's going to be harder to do so with teh spaghetti in the way.

[brtech]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

This is another reason why it's good to put some of teh spaghetti underneath the nut....strain relief, it meets the rule about the insulation going all the way to the socket, and it makes it more difficult for someone to break the wire and cheat because it's going to be harder to do so with teh spaghetti in the way.

I'm not sure if we've argued this point before, but I think it's not a good idea to do this. What you do when you put the edge of the spaghetti under the washer is that you raise one side of the washer. If you apply even pressure, which is what the nut does, you will cause the opposite side of the washer to be pressed with much greater force on what's underneath that, which is the wire. This has a tendency to break the wire at that point. It's the same reason you don't want more than one turn of wire under the washer; where it crosses, you get a high spot, and that gets crushed, as well as what is on the opposite side of the washer. You want the wire flat, the washer flat, and the nut exerting even force across the wire.

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by brtech

I'm not sure if we've argued this point before, but I think it's not a good idea to do this. What you do when you put the edge of the spaghetti under the washer is that you raise one side of the washer. If you apply even pressure, which is what the nut does, you will cause the opposite side of the washer to be pressed with much greater force on what's underneath that, which is the wire. This has a tendency to break the wire at that point. It's the same reason you don't want more than one turn of wire under the washer; where it crosses, you get a high spot, and that gets crushed, as well as what is on the opposite side of the washer. You want the wire flat, the washer flat, and the nut exerting even force across the wire.

I see your point, but I tend to run across breaks at the socket that are actually closer to the end of the spaghetti than on the far side of teh washer...we have difference experiences.

'Course, I have more of a problem with the nut torquing the wire around when it's tightened...I have a socket design that eliminates that entirely, and uses a lot less wire to make the connection. We're trying to get a metal model of it made now so we can start casting it and get it on the market. I still have to have the mounting bracket made and get the actual receiving sockets....but it will be a good design...I have a bunch of the foil versions out and have yet to hear any complaints. (in fact, Mergs showed the drawings around at the Pittsburgh NAC after he did them and said some armorers were drooling!)

HOW the wires are connected puts them not only on the backside of the socket, but down deeper into the guard...no problem meeting that rule about keeping the wires away from teh fingers!

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by trazom

Alright. So Bill Hall is wrong and the passage I quoted does prevent the wires from being on the hand-side of the socket?

Let's forget about the frosting and talk about the cake.

Who says a referee should annul a touch if a wire is broken inside the guard?

I don't.

Since it doesn't help the fencer to get the touch annulled if the wires are on the inside of the socket or the outside, who cares where they are?

You might question the wisdom of the wires on the inside of the socket. But I don't see any basis for giving a card.

Besides, if a fencer is at a tournament and a wire breaks for the nth time and they only have enough wire left to reattach if they bring it up on the inside of the socket, are you the referee who is going to get spitty with them?

Sounds like someone talking who wants more fencers to have to hire them to rewire blades at tournaments.

The part about not wrapping a wire around more than once or not putting insulation under the washer was first expounded to me by Ted Li. Anyone want to question his judgement?

[trazom]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

Let's forget about the frosting and talk about the cake.

Who says a referee should annul a touch if a wire is broken inside the guard?

I don't.

Since it doesn't help the fencer to get the touch annulled if the wires are on the inside of the socket or the outside, who cares where they are?

You might question the wisdom of the wires on the inside of the socket. But I don't see any basis for giving a card.

Besides, if a fencer is at a tournament and a wire breaks for the nth time and they only have enough wire left to reattach if they bring it up on the inside of the socket, are you the referee who is going to get spitty with them?

Sounds like someone talking who wants more fencers to have to hire them to rewire blades at tournaments.

The part about not wrapping a wire around more than once or not putting insulation under the washer was first expounded to me by Ted Li. Anyone want to question his judgement?

Bill,

I was confused because of the differences I had heard from other armorers (I believe the contradictory ruling I received at a NAC was given by Joe Byrnes). I am just trying to figure out what the correct ruling should be.

As I said, the only part of the rulebook which even seems to come close says that the fencer must not be able to make or break connections while fencing. Now, it is an interpretation question about what that itself means. As it is an armoring question, I am coming to the armorers to see if there is consensus on this. I will happily card or not card once I have a clear understanding of what should be the call in the situation.

If I am supposed ensure that the wires on the outside of the socket, prior to fencing, and a fencer has shown up at a NAC with not enough conforming blades, yes, I will make them get a new one or get it rewired. At a local event I'll be much more forgiving. This was with the 1st weapon I checked from this particular fencer.

The only difficulty comes when fencers never have the technical rules enforced and then at a sectional or a NAC when you card about... lets say the restraining devices to hold the body cord in the socket. They say "noone ever cards for this." Because if the cord comes loose the touch against cannot be annulled.

If these rules are in there only because they prevent a fencer from harming themselves, why are they in there?

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by trazom

Bill,

I was confused because of the differences I had heard from other armorers (I believe the contradictory ruling I received at a NAC was given by Joe Byrnes). I am just trying to figure out what the correct ruling should be.

As I said, the only part of the rulebook which even seems to come close says that the fencer must not be able to make or break connections while fencing. Now, it is an interpretation question about what that itself means. As it is an armoring question, I am coming to the armorers to see if there is consensus on this. I will happily card or not card once I have a clear understanding of what should be the call in the situation.

If I am supposed ensure that the wires on the outside of the socket, prior to fencing, and a fencer has shown up at a NAC with not enough conforming blades, yes, I will make them get a new one or get it rewired. At a local event I'll be much more forgiving. This was with the 1st weapon I checked from this particular fencer.

The only difficulty comes when fencers never have the technical rules enforced and then at a sectional or a NAC when you card about... lets say the restraining devices to hold the body cord in the socket. They say "noone ever cards for this." Because if the cord comes loose the touch against cannot be annulled.

If these rules are in there only because they prevent a fencer from harming themselves, why are they in there?

On my part, I try to interpret rules based on what I understand to have been the impetus for creating the rules.

Rules are somewhat like government regulations. One person takes advantage of a loophole, someone tries to write a rule/regulation to prevent a reoccurrence and multitudes are inconvenienced.

What is the impetus for this rule? A fencer cheated by making a switch to falsely indicate Epee touches. He used it so incompetently that it was suspected and found. So separate insulating spaghetti, one continuous piece of spaghetti, spaghetti right to the jack washer/nut and no bare wire beyond the jack. (Plugs go into jacks for the unenlightened.) Also no tape that could hide a switch, but clear tape is allowed.

Breaking a wire because it runs up on the inside of the socket, instead of on the outside of the socket, has no possible beneficial effect for a fencer if it doesn't result in annullment of a touch. Furthermore, it is a disadvantage to the fencer because he can no longer use that weapon.

He is unwise to do so if he doesn't have to, but that is his business. Maybe he is just clumsy and can't do it the better way.

What does happen is that fencers are subject to the whims of every Tom, Dick and Hairy referee and armorer who waltzes around the block.

They have heard the folklore that "you can't have wires inside of the socket because some long ago Russian cheated". There are no words in the English translation of the original French FIE rules that say so. It is folklore, I heard it from Alfie who heard it from Bob who heard it from Charlie ad infinitum.

Every referee and armorer is obliged to implement the rules as he thinks they should be implemented.

I personally think it is absurd to give a card for wires on the inside of the socket. But you should do what you think is proper.

[fencerbill]

How about some help here. I was reviewing the rules, etc. about the protocol for checking weapons. There used to be something on the FOC site about the order in which you check things and when you find something wrong, stop there.

Now I can't find it. Any suggestions.

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

How about some help here. I was reviewing the rules, etc. about the protocol for checking weapons. There used to be something on the FOC site about the order in which you check things and when you find something wrong, stop there.

Now I can't find it. Any suggestions.

I seem to recall body cord/reel connection first, then weapon at the socket (body cord and connection) and work your way to the tip, testing the tip last....but it's been a while and I might have that reversed.

[KD5MDK]

When doing the initial check before the bout I always go tip to back. Because the most common cause of failure is missing tip screws, then failing thin shim*, then weight, it makes sense to me to check for those things in that order so as to avoid wasting time looking at wires or something else uncommon to fail before failing the weapon for a screw and starting over again.

For testing to determine the annulent of touches, you start at the back and work forwards till you get to the tip.