Lamé bibs at Foil - comment from UK board.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Barry Paul

The F.I.E. have just past some regulations stating that from 2009 foil bobs will be partially covered with lame which must be attached by a wire to the lame jacket .(Just like sabre) Here is a note which is an attempt to start a discussion of how U.K. fencing should implement these regulations.

10/12/2007.
Lame bibs at Foil.

After the last F.I.E. Congress meeting it was decided that in 2009 foil fencers would have to have the valid target extended by including the bib, it is not yet decided exactly what will be the regulation coverage of the bib but best guess is a line drawn horizontally below the chin of the mask. Does this mean the regulation is being introduced mid season for some age groups?

Although this seems a simple change there are a lot of problems associated with such a rule change, British fencing and the home countries will have to make a series of decisions and explain to the fencers within the next few months how U.K. fencing is going to manage/ embrace this proposed change. Not least the manufacturers and re-sellers of foil masks are going to have to decide what to make and sell to fencers in the coming year.

To stimulate debate prior to some urgent decision making, here are some of the issues that need to be considered.

Scope of Application.

Traditionally U.K fencing has followed every new F.I.E. regulations. As 95% of U.K. fencing is not F.I.E. perhaps it is time to be more discerning or less slavish in following all F.I.E. regulations.
1. Only F.I.E. events.
2. Only British Championships and Ranking Opens.
3. All electric size 5 fencing.
4. All size 5 fencing
5. All fencing.

Time Scale.

1. All on 1st January 2009.
2. Staged? If so how and when?

Safety Considerations and Permissible Design.

Both the fencers and the manufacturers/re-sellers are going to have a problem in what to buy what to sell.



Non-Electric fencing.

1. Identification of valid area. At the moment there is no requirement to have the valid area delineated in any way. But if the valid target finishes in a horizontal line should this be marked in some way? On some fencers because of their physical shape of head neck and torso the line will not be horizontal when the mask is worn, is this OK?

Electric Fencing.

1. After consideration of the F.I.E. medical report regarding dangers near the throat, I understand it has been decided to limit the area of lame coverage to a straight line below the chin.
2. It has been suggested that manufacturers can make a sort of sock that can be retro fitted onto an existing bib, however this is likely to leave an open seam between the lame and the bib surface unless the lame is some how attached to the bib surface continually. (This is not some thing which it is easy/possible to retro-fit.). Would an open pocket be acceptable? It could be argued we already have an open seam between the lame jacket and the fencers arm and this does not seem to cause any safety problems.
3. If say from the new year we start adding a line of Velcro along the outer surface of the bib, at the proposed junction of the valid and non valid target, would this work? Would the epeeist decide this was a catching point at epee so we would now have to make masks for foil and different ones for epee?
4. Connection between the foil lame bib and the jacket. It was originally suggested by the original Italian proposers of the new rule that if the lame was on the inside edge of the bib it would not be necessary to attach the bib to the jacket with a head wire. As the foil point hit the mask it would ensure contact between the mask and lame jacket. It has been decided that this was not safe as fencers would deliberately lift their head/bib away from the target to avoid being hit and this was unsafe as the neck would be exposed. I think that this is a typical argument made without any examination of real fencing and/or testing. I would like to see some experimentation of using the proposed bib with out a connection to see what actually happens. (I don’t think fencers have time to react and try to avoid hits by lifting their head when being attacked). It may be that the provision for such a lead needs to be made but only used by U.K fencers in F.I.E. events.
5. If a mask lead is required do all lame jackets need a tag similar to sabre jackets.


Barry Paul M.D. Leon Paul. Ref Lame Bibs at Foil 1.

This came up on the UK board and I can't find anything similar here on Fnet.

Does anyone know what the other fencing nations are doing?

Read the original thread here.

Apologies if this is already posted and I've just missed it.

[Blakeian]

The AFF haven't made any official comment that I am aware of but generally speaking adopt most of the changes made by the FIE quickly. Having little in the way of equipment produces* in Australia the issue of timing may be a bit sticky in this case. I don't think it will be a staged introduction here. They may allow a certain grace period. But the bigger question which is how it is actually going to be physically made possible is up to the FIE and manufactures. Whilst it is all well and good for the FIE to declare this proposal they should release what the physical changes will look like.

*Jeff Grey does produce some equipment but is mainly a vendor of gear produced overseas.

The questions I have are: I am close to buying a second lame so I can have one for club and one for competition. Is it worth buying it considering that it may be void as such within a years time?

And what are the chances of this change being scrapped or put off?

[KD5MDK]

I asked this question before the decision was made here:
Policy Question – Is the USFA willing and able to make the bib target in foil?

[Gav]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I asked this question before the decision was made here:
Policy Question – Is the USFA willing and able to make the bib target in foil?

I am not asking the same question as you - though it would be nice to see a definitive answer to what the USFA are proposing to do*. I am interested in more than just the US and I know a few people from other non US or UK do read this board.

In addition Barry is soliciting feedback on his thoughts so I am interested in what people have to say on them (yes yes I know this isn't the armoury).

Really two questions: what are the other nations doing and what are people's thought on Barry's musings?

* It would also be nice to get an answer sans that threads noise.

[Alex_Paul]

Hi Gav, I am afraid I only realy read the armory pages so I missed this thread and posted the same here: Stimulating discussion about the Foil Lame bib

could you merge the two?

(Preferably in armory so I don't have to stray outside of it! )

[KidLazy]

Originally Posted by Gav

*snip* I am interested in what people have to say on them *snip*

I just don't get it. How does this help foil fencing? In what way?
Neck area is a valid target for both Sabre and Epee since... forever!?
However, in both weapons, the neck area is never the primary, the secondary, or an intended target;
A hit in the neck is mostly accidental.
Making bib a target in foil accomplishs nothing except more equipment headache for everyone involved.

If bib gets too big and covers up body is the main issue,
then limiting the size of the bib would be a much better (more logical and easier to implement) solution.

my 2 cent

[downunder]

Originally Posted by KidLazy

If bib gets too big and covers up body is the main issue,
then limiting the size of the bib would be a much better (more logical and easier to implement) solution.

my 2 cent

Regardless of the size of the bib, it still covers valid target.

[peet]

This whole bib-as-target thing is a classic case of the cure being worse than the disease. That seems to be a theme with the FIE these last few years



*notices how often the rolleyes smiley ends up in posts with the initials "FIE"*


*wishes he had the f.net database, so he could run a query:*
SELECT count(*) FROM posts WHERE post_content LIKE '%FIE%' AND post_content LIKE '%rolleyes%'


-p

[OROD]

Originally Posted by downunder

Regardless of the size of the bib, it still covers valid target.

So does your weapon arm some of the time. I suppose then you're for making the weapon arm valid target?

.

[Blakeian]

Well he is an Epeeist.


On another point does anyone think that...

"1. After consideration of the F.I.E. medical report regarding dangers near the throat, I understand it has been decided to limit the area of lame coverage to a straight line below the chin."

...does nothing? For me generally speaking my chin sits within the mesh of my mask and my throat is covered by the bib. All this provision seems to do is rule out some of the area on the side of the neck whilst still leaving the throat and the rest of the neck susceptible to dangerous (at the very least unpleasant) hits which are encouraged by that area being target. It also by virtue of making this area target increases the likelihood of the area they have deemed unsafe of being hit by off target hits.

Furthermore this is an increase in target area and is as such not a reclaiming of valid target but more a general increase in target area. If it were to be a simple reclaiming of what would otherwise be valid but inadvertently covered target the line from which the lame material would descend on the bib would be in line with lame jacket collar.

[KidLazy]

Originally Posted by downunder

Regardless of the size of the bib, it still covers valid target.

What is the valid target area?

60 years ago (from a 1948 fencing book), "For women, the foil target is the same as for men, except the lower limit is a horizontal line passing across the tops of the hip bones, front and back." This is because...? Since this move is to go back to the old valid target area, then why stops there, why not take all the way back and limit women fencer's foil target area?

Also, like Blakeian said, The target area actually increased by making the bib a target.
"Th arms, legs and head are excluded. The target therefore extends from the top of the collar to the groin line..."
I don't know about you, but my throat is above my collarbone,
so it shouldn't be a valid target in foil.

Originally Posted by Blakeian

Well he is an Epeeist.

Yes, and... having the bib as a valid target area forever, maybe I should know something about it, right!?

My point was this, adding the bib as a valid target is not going to add anything useful for foil fencing except more problems (equip, rules, ref., etc.), if the bib size is limited and equal for both fencers, then it is fair.

[KD5MDK]

I think that's a misunderstanding on Barry's part. What the Medical commission said is a line below the throat or collarbone.

[stu]

Originally Posted by KidLazy

Making bib a target in foil accomplishs nothing except more equipment headache for everyone involved.

Isn't that the point? Haven't you noticed that a lot of rule changes in the last few years have required new kit, and that they come along just often enough to keep the suppliers doing good business? Of course, I could just be feeling cynical this morning.

[Zelda]

errr why cant we just tuck the bibs inside the lames somehow??

[KD5MDK]

Try that. Turn your head a few times.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Blakeian

Well he is an Epeeist.
"1. After consideration of the F.I.E. medical report regarding dangers near the throat, I understand it has been decided to limit the area of lame coverage to a straight line below the chin."

<snip. 'I don't like it...'<snip>

Furthermore this is an increase in target area and is as such not a reclaiming of valid target but more a general increase in target area. If it were to be a simple reclaiming of what would otherwise be valid but inadvertently covered target the line from which the lame material would descend on the bib would be in line with lame jacket collar.

Actually, this IS a reclaiming of valid target area, and (armorers, help me out a bit here), there WAS/IS a limit to the size of bibs: It's just that it changed in like '93...and all bibs that WERE 'NOT too big', were NOW 'Not big ENOUGH'...

THis resulted in covering an additional portion of the foil lamé - a crescent shape maybe 20 cm at the 'thickest' point,and stretching from side-to-side of the bib.

It sounded like the Italians proposed this change to pre-empt a move to validate the entire bib...Frankly, I am not sure I like either proposition, I am just glad I didn't buy a new mask last fall! (cleaned up & repaired an old Uhlmann, instead!)

But I thought this background was relevant.

[Blakeian]

I was going by the provision that the line was to be from the chin down in which case it would result in parts of the neck extending above the existing cut of a lame.

In the event that it is from the collar bone down it is just the reclaiming of target.

[brtech]

Turns out we needed to know this for Richmond: we had a protest on a bib size.

The rule is in Appendix A, Section 4.3. It reads:
The bib must be fixed to the exterior of the grille starting from
the reinforcement band onwards and extending as protection
for the neck for a total height of the order of 10–12 cm.