Extra testing of masks?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


Maybe this belongs better in the Armoury section, in that case I hope the mods move it.

An as of yet purely hypothetical scenario:
Assume that a fencing ref in his non-fencing life is a PhD. in testing of metallic materials, and practices in that field. Assume furthermore that he has devised a special testing equipment for testing the structural integrity of metallic meshes. This testing equipment has either been described in the technical literature (peer-reviewed journal) or been awarded a patent, but it has not come up on the radar of either FIE, USFA, SEMI, or any official fencing body. Assume furthermore that he takes this (hypothetically portable) testing device with him to an event which he is reffing. He also brings evidence of his professional knowledge with him to the event.

There, he tests several mesh-only masks with the ordinary testing devices specified by the FIE rules, and they all pass those tests. However, his trained eye finds one of those masks to look dodgy, and he tests it with his own device.

The mask fails.

The ref states: "Whatever the rules state in detail, it is my first and foremost responsibility as a ref and professional in the field to minimize risk of personal damage. I will therefore make it impossible to inadvertently use, or rather misuse, this mask." The ref then confiscates the mask, and renders it visibly unfit for use, as if it would have failed the ordinary regulated tests.

Then what?

Does the mask owner have a legal leg to stand on (in an USA jurisdiction) to claim theft, criminal damage, or any other crime?

What will an average bout committee do?

What would you hope that the BC would do?

What actions from others can one expect, and/or hope for?

Would anything change if any of those present in the room were a professional legal expert of some kind (lawyer, law teacher, DA, judge, etc.)


Slight variation:
Assume that the ref is specialized in testing structural integrity of polymer materials. He, with the aid of testing device that he has constructed himself and has gotten tentative acceptance from other specialists in the field, tests and fails a Lexan plate which looked good to the naked eye. Since that fencer can not come up with a replacement mask, he is black-carded.

What then?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[CvilleFencer]

My take if I were on the BC to which the fencer would almost undoubtedly appeal? The rules say a 12k punch. They don't say anything about Bob's coffee grinder/mask tester combo, regardless of what his certifications in real life are. If the mask passed the punch test but failed in some other device that was not proscribed by the rules then the mask passed, according to the fencing rules. And the referee would probably owe some kid a new mask...

[Allen Evans]

I would be very surprised if a "crime" had been committed. The fencers voluntary submit their masks to be tested by armorers, understanding the implications of failing the approved test.

However, since the new test has not been approved by the rules governing the sport, the mask tester has failed to follow those rules, and owes the fencer a new mask.

Of course, I am not a lawyer.

Edited to clarify: What EXACTLY, does "dodgy" mean in this case? That a suspected area passed the punch test? Or there is some other anomoly with the mask that would have rendered it unfit under the current system?


AE

[pinkelephant]

We seem to have a constant battle in the UK with masks failing because bibs are becoming detached or even have holes in them (usually at kids' competitions where they are using dodgy club or secondhand kit). Our solution to the "theft" problem is to confiscate the offending kit for the duration of the competition and keep it in DT; the fencer can claim it back when they leave, very often with advice to get the thing re-bibbed.

[Goldgar]

This reminds me of the movie, "No Highway in the Sky", in which engineer Jimmy Stewart realizes that, according to his own unproven theories, the airplane he's on is due to experience catastrophic failure in just a few hours.

To address your actual question:

It is not within the referee's, armorer's, or bout committee's power to reject a mask that meets the standards laid out in appendix A of the rules. However, I note that those standards are more detailed than a mere requirement that the mask pass a 12Kg punch test. Does this hypothetical engineer's testing equipment identify flaws that would cause the mask to fail those standards?

I note that you said the referee saw that the mask looked "dodgy", prompting the special test. The rules used to say something about a mask passing a visual inspection, but I can't find that in the latest rule book. If that provision still exists, then one might say that the mask doesn't pass a visual safety inspection, and fail it for that reason. However, I'm not sure that requirement still exists.

Assuming the mask does meet all current standards, the referee/armorer would not be justified in failing the mask, and especially not in rendering the mask unusable. If I were that referee or bout committee member, I would move heaven and earth to persuade the fencer to use a different mask, providing a replacement myself if necessary (and possible). If the fencer refuses, I might even withdraw from my official participation in the event.

But the bottom line is that the event officials cannot enforce a higher safety standard than those of the FIE -- not and have a sanctioned competition, anyway.

[HDG]

I would expect the BC to apply some superficial analog to the Daubert standard: what is the accepted norm in that area? If it is not an accepted test in that jurisdiction (fencing community, not materials engineering), then it would have no standing, and would not generally be allowed to be applied.

In the instant case, if your tester has not been homologated by SEMI or your NGB's governing body, then any tests generated by it would not carry any authority in that jurisdiction. If, after applying the test, what you judge to be an unsafe mask is returned to competition over your objection, then really your only recourse would be to refuse to referee.

As far as seizing the mask and destroying it, I believe that this would be well in excess of your authority. (Are referees rather than armorers ever allowed to do this?)

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

My take if I were on the BC to which the fencer would almost undoubtedly appeal? The rules say a 12k punch. They don't say anything about Bob's coffee grinder/mask tester combo, regardless of what his certifications in real life are. If the mask passed the punch test but failed in some other device that was not proscribed by the rules then the mask passed, according to the fencing rules. And the referee would probably owe some kid a new mask...

Could one not see the same kind of opposition in FIE rules, as one does between "Originalism" and "Living Constitution" in constitutional interpretation? Has FIE written anything about how to deal with its rules in tricky cases, follow the letter of the law to the bitter end, try to figure out what the FIE rule voters really meant, some combination thereof, or something totally different?

BTW: there is no need for demeaning-sounding terms such as "coffee-grinder/mask tester combo".


Now, input from Philistine or Dcmdale would be interesting.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

Edited to clarify: What EXACTLY, does "dodgy" mean in this case? That a suspected area passed the punch test? Or there is some other anomaly with the mask that would have rendered it unfit under the current system?

AE

I intended it to mean: Given the professional knowledge and trained eye of the PhD/ref, he suspects that while it passes 12K test right now, there is a significant risk that it will fail to such an extent that the blade or tip comes through the mesh cage during the course of the competition. Furthermore, he would be willing to testify to that as an expert witness in front of a court of law.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Allen Evans]

Except we're not talking about right of way rules here, but material standards with very set requirements and testing procedures, laid out in detail in the rules. That a new testing procedure may be more accurate isn't the question, the question is whether the FIE has adopted those standards and that test.

To suddenly require fencer's equipment to meet a higher, unannounced standard is against the rules. To destroy a fencer's equipment because it didn't meet these new standards is easily grounds for requiring a new mask for the fencer.

AE

Peter, really, Cville was adding a little levity, while answering the question completely.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


To make it even more unpleasant, assume that you are a leading member of the BC in question. The event is held as a University gym. The PhD/ref has taken the mask to the BC table, with the visibly angry fencer - and his coach - in tow. The former presents his credentials, a scientific/technical journal which he claims to show technical proof of the validity/reliability of the test method (you can not read the engineerese!) and the test results, and states that he is willing to "make a big thing of it" if the BC does not hold the mask for the duration of the event. He mentions nothing of mask destruction, however. The fencer is angry, but offers no response to the technical claims by the PhD/ref about the new test.

Apart from the fencers, there are two other people present in the room. Both can see you, but can not hear what is said, due to distance. They could easily notice that an, ahem, tense discussion is going on, if they would turn their heads just a little. One of them is a reporter/journalism major for the student/University newspaper who is there to do a human interest story. He has his dad in tow, who happens to be a senior employee at the Legal affairs department of the University. You notice that dad seems to notice that something is going on.

Some distance in the other direction, you have Purple Fencer at his table, which among other things stocks several brand new FIE masks.

What do you do?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson


BTW: To those who wonder "why does Peter dream up these scenarios?" I answer: it is better to have thought out at least somewhat coherent responses to bad stuff, that to be caught totally unprepared. YMMV.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

Except we're not talking about right of way rules here, but material standards with very set requirements and testing procedures, laid out in detail in the rules. That a new testing procedure may be more accurate isn't the question, the question is whether the FIE has adopted those standards and that test.

To suddenly require fencer's equipment to meet a higher, unannounced standard is against the rules. To destroy a fencer's equipment because it didn't meet these new standards is easily grounds for requiring a new mask for the fencer.

AE

OK then, let us take mask destruction out of the scenario. Assume that the mask was seized for the duration of the event, and then given back to the owner. Assume that the mask changes ownership to someone who is not cognizant of its history, or that it was club property and is subsequently used by another club member, not in the know. Assume furthermore that the mask is used at a subsequent event where it breaks, causing personal injury.

The PhD/ref is called as expert witness at the following legal case.

How would you envision it to be to be in the shoes of the BC of event where it was seized, but nothing more?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[HDG]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

How would you envision it to be to be in the shoes of the BC of event where it was seized, but nothing more?

Due diligence was met by the application of the accepted standard.

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!

BTW: there is no need for demeaning-sounding terms such as "coffee-grinder/mask tester combo".

Sorry Peter, I was not trying to be insulting, just sort of literarily indicative of the point that while many armourers/referees/fencers come up with cool multi purpose gadgets to help them in their fencing lives (the water bottle/coffee termos/lame testers where what I was thinking off at the time) if those devices go against the written rules of how something should be tested, even if the inventor is completely sure that the end result is the same, at the end of the day it is not a valid test according to the rules.

Maybe I am just dense, but I did not really understand anything what you were asking/talking of in the first paragraph of the referenced post... I think what you meant is something along the lines of "is it not our job to decide what the FIE/USFA really meant and if we can come up with a better way than what they wrote down, that's what we should do?". If that is the gist of the question then the answer is no. If I am completely off base in my understanding, please use smaller words...

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

BTW: To those who wonder "why does Peter dream up these scenarios?"

It's because Peter is authoring a new series of Choose your Own Adventure books for adults, featuring moral, ethical, and legal dilemmas.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

What do you do?

If you choose to confiscate the mask, turn to path 7.
If you choose to permit the fencer to use the mask, turn to page 12.

[Allen Evans]

Peter, your revised post does nothing to change the standards for the FIE testing of masks. In fact, you have removed the problem from a testing/rules question into a "smooth running of the tournament" question.

The answer about testing masks remains the same. The answer you're looking for in keeping good relationships with the referee/fencer/coach is much different.

My personal response is that if the referee felt so strongly that he or she was going to "make a big deal" about the mask, then they should buy the fencer a replacement mask, since there is no established rule that would dis-allow the fencer from using the current mask.

AE

[HDG]

Originally Posted by tbryan

It's because Peter is authoring a new series of Choose your Own Adventure books for adults, featuring moral, ethical, and legal dilemmas.



If you choose to confiscate the mask, turn to path 7.
If you choose to permit the fencer to use the mask, turn to page 12.

This would be a great new format for the referee exam.

[KD5MDK]

Page 56:
You have angered Sharon Everson.
You are not assigned to the next round and when you go to the lunchroom you are eaten by a grue.

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

An as of yet purely hypothetical scenario:

Peter, you have stated that this is a hypothetical so let me discuss it in terms of what I would do in a US situation or what I believe you could do if you were visiting and refereeing in a US situation.

First, if you think the mask is unsafe then you can prevent it being used by a fencer over whom you have authority, by a fencer you are refereeing in a pool or DE.

This is based on your responsibilities as a referee:
*************
1. The Referee
t.35
The Referee has many duties.
The Referee:
(c) before each bout he must check the weapons, clothes and
equipment of the fencers, according to the regulations
described below.
*************
There are general conditions applicable to all clothing (which does include masks):
***************
CHAPTER 2. EQUIPMENT AND CLOTHING
1. GENERAL CONDITIONS
m.25 The national clothing includes the socks, the breeches, the jacket,
and the conductive jacket in foil and saber. (Cf. m.28, m.34).
1. Protection. The equipment and clothing must provide the
competitor with the maximum protection compatible with
the freedom of movement necessary for fencing.
(Snip)
3. Characteristics of the clothing. Fencers’ clothing must be
made of sufficiently robust material and be clean and in
good condition.*******************
So what does the fencer do? He can accept your decision and get another mask or withdraw or he can appeal.

The bout committee can call on a technical expert, if one is available. But here we run into some of the local tribal customs. There is no formal fencing technical expert short of a SEMI member or, perhaps, a member of the USFA technical committee (if they can be considered to have official technical status). This is true because the USFA has never established an armorer equivalent to our FOC or armorer certification (because of historical wrangling).

Here is where you as a fencing ref, who in his non-fencing life is a PhD. in testing of metallic materials, and practices in that field, come into your own. In this country a person can have status as a Professional Engineer. Even if you weren’t a PE, your PhD background represents a level of expertise that no Bout Committee that I could imagine would overrule.

So you can prevent the mask from being used. The remaining question is whether the mask can be confiscated and rendered visibly unfit for use?

How is this handled at NACs? As I understand it, a fencer accepts the conditions and requirements of the USFA when it enters a competition. The National Office appoints a Head Armorer who assembles a staff. If they reject fencing equipment on a matter of safety, can they render it unfit for use?

It is a little bit like black carding a fencer for throwing a mask, etc. Does the referee black card the participant or does the Bout Committee, on the recommendation of the referee, black card the participant? Regardless, unless the BC chickens out or the recipient is a National Coach, the participant is excluded. Similarly, does the Head Armorer or the Bout Committee make the decision to render the mask visibly unfit for use?

When a fencer enters a local tournament, he similarly accepts the conditions and requirements of the USFA. In our current litigious society, is any local Bout Committee going to overrule a referee who is a PhD. in testing of metallic materials and practices in that field?

I don’t think it makes much difference whether you make your decision based on an FIE prescribed tester, your own tester, or Bob's coffee grinder/mask tester combo. You, as an established professional, have made a determination of fact.

What do the rest of us do? We can use an FIE mask tester. Perhaps I, having previously served as Head Armorer at NACs and Summer Nationals, could express my opinion and would the Bout Committee then overrule me?

The Lexan mask is another thing. If a fencer dies or loses an eye because of failure of a Lexan mask, RR may find himself in court.