Does anyone know what the USFA is planning on doing regarding Lame bibs in foil?
Is it going to be enforced for the 08/09 Nac's?
The rules come in in Jan 09 which is half way through the season how will that work?
What about non USFA tournaments?
Please can this thread not go down the "this is a stupid rule what are the FIE thinking?" route as we need to look for solutions ASAP.
Alex I know this is probably not what you're looking for but here goes anyway....
I think the rule is regressive, and it needs to be opposed, I've heard rumbling from the local Italian Maestro that there might be some kind of back flip on this by some of the FIE. I recognise that Leon Paul as well as other manufacturers would stand to profit long term from this development, so feel free to not respond to this if you do not feel comfortable doing so.
My question is as follows:
Would you, your family and your the members of your buisness be willing to support an organised movement/campaign to bring this rule into serious re-consideration by the FIE with the hopes of repealing it long before it takes effect?
It was the Italians that were behind the whole thing I believe.
After the Essen WC's a proposal for exactly this was passed in a rush and LP organised a refusal to produce by all of the manufacturers. The rule was put on hold and has only now come in as a direct result of our action.
Back then the number of suppliers were limited especially for FIE kit now that there are far more suppliers I don't believe that this is practical. Persuading all of the suppliers not to produce them would be almost impossible and we would be comiting commercial suicide to not at least start working on a system in case the rule isn't rescended. In answer to your question we certainly wouldn't organise a refusal to manufacture again but we would consider registering our concerns about the changes with the FIE.
If people want discuss the topic of organised resistance of some kind can you please start a new thread? I will be happy to chime in on other threads related to this topic.
Please could we keep THIS thread on the original topic? PRETTY PLEASE?
Does anyone have answers to my initial questions or has the USFA not yet had a chance to look at the options?
The USFA Board of Directors meets 3 times a year, in September, February and July. Since we haven't had a meeting yet there has been no time for an official position of any sort to be released. For that matter, we'll be electing a new set of officers for the 2009-20012 season in July, so the current Board may choose to defer making a formal decision until then.
I certainly would not ask you to boycott manufacture of goods simply on the ground that yourself perhaps along with many others oppose these changes, that could be close to economic suicide for your company and I nor anybody else would endorse it.
A letter provided by Leon Paul and other manufacturers as part of a mass appeal to the FIE to re-examine the introduction of these changes would however provide a powerful token of support to any and all involved.
I will not contribute further to the derailment of this thread, and will spend my time coming up with something more solid to present to everybody on this board who feels the same way as I do. People Amy feel free to PM me if they have any thoughts in the meantime.
Sorry, monash I would just like to keep this on track. I look forward to hearing what you come up with. Unfortunately the FIE can be fairly stubborn and have forced many unpopular things through despite public outcry. I suspect that we could join in on a protest but the final decision would rest with Barry.
KD5MDK I fear that waiting until Feb will not leave much time especially if it is the end of Feb! July would give you 6 months which would be a big risk IMO.
Your top athletes will no doubt want to be competing domestically for some time with the new rules before they have to do so at A grades in Jan 08. A decision in July will not allow much time for manufacturers to start design and production and fencers to get sorted with the correct gear.
Errr... Isnt the board supposed to have ad-hock meetings as needed as well as the standard meeting schedule?Originally Posted by KD5MDK
Last edited by erik_blank; 12-11-2007 at 09:32 AM.
"Rub her feet!" - Lazarus Long, Time enough for Love, Robert A. Heinlein
"Never moon a werewolf."
Mike Binder
Wow you're optimistic.
Alex:
I have some ideas, from a practical standpoint, on how this change might be accomplished. Let other threads pursue whether it should be attempted.
There has been talk about using Velcro or zippers to:
Modify existing bibs to meet the new standards, and
Create "convertible" bibs usable for both Foil and Epee.
The Velcro applied to the bib (probably the "loop" version, while the "hook" version would applied to the removable Lame skirt) would enhance the likelihood that touches would result from grazing attacks. But this small but finite disadvantage may be acceptable to Foil/Epee fencers when the alternative is two masks.
How would we attach the Velcro? It is not very practical to use a sewing machine on a bib while it is mounted on a mesh cage. Leon Paul and other conscientous manufacturers would not recommend wholesale removal of bibs from the mesh cage and reattachment by the average fencer or even armorer. Hand sewing would be tedious but possible.
Velcro with adhesive backing is commercially available. But how well would it hold up over the years of use that a typical mask undergoes? Sweat, washing and accumulated hits on the Velcro would cause deterioration of the bond. Replacement of adhesive Velcro may be inhibited by the remnants of adhesive from prior applications, the bonds would be weakened.
Two part "snaps" (popper buttons to those east of the atlantic) offer the possibility of supporting and reinforcing, or even providing an alternative to, Velcro. They are available in sewing supply stores like Joanns almost everywhere in the US. They should be practical for armorers, and even fencers, to apply adequately. Failed or missing snaps can be replaced and would represent less of a danger than missing rivets on a mask.
I can envisage LP or others selling conversion kits of slip over Lame assemblies with about 8 snaps and snap setters. It wouldn't really matter if the Lame assembly was larger than the bib since it would be target area overlapping target area.
Whoopee! My avatar is back.
There is new super Velcro now that claims to strengthen its bonds during washing. There is also industrial Velcro that requires no heat to apply.
Well, The Rock says you didn't get that touch because your roo-dee-poo director missed the call. No, The Rock says you didn't get the touch because you absolutely suck!
http://coletrainfencing.blogspot.com
I know this is absurdly optimistic but I am hoping the USFA will simply ignore the FIE this time and not require this change for normal level US fencers. Maybe if enough of the fencing world balks at this it won't happen!
Fail until you succeed!
Ka-riposte back atcha Purple!
Disgruntled Employee of the Month.
Aaaaamen!
Been There. Done That. Too Bad.
I was starting to warm to the idea until I took a shot to the Adam's Apple last night...
+1 imo. But I've seen epee guys get wacked every now and then. They seem no worse for the wear and tear.
I have no idea what this means.
Personally, I'm still hoping the target area on the bib goes up the absolute bare minimum required to alleviate any potential issues with bib covering target (which I get the impression was the main reason for the change?), and that the whole bib doesn't get made to be target area.
Also, HDG, I believe he was just agreeing with you in a rather obscure way, but I may be wrong as well!
I agree with that, in my opinon
nicely put. and +1 imo. ymmv.
Last edited by samster; 12-12-2007 at 11:07 PM.
Okay, I give up. What the heck does that mean?
Been There. Done That. Too Bad.
+1 = I agree
imo = In my opinion
ymmv = your experience may be different ("your mileage may vary")
Posting Permissions
