FIE suspends transparent visor mask requirement for foil

[Joe biebel]

Originally Posted by downunder

t.15. 1. Fencers arm, equip and clothe themselves and fence at their own
responsibility and at their own risk.
2. The safety measures specified in the Rules and in the standards
contained in the annexe to them and the methods of control laid down
in the present Rules (cf. Material Rules) are only designed to increase
the fencers’ safety and cannot guarantee it. They cannot,
therefore, whatever the manner in which they are applied, impart responsibility to the FIE, or to the organisers of competitions, to the
officials or personnel who carry out such organisation, or to those
who may cause an accident.

This statement in the rules book would offer the FIE no real protection against a lawsuit, -Denny Crane.

[Warrior Princess]

Originally Posted by Joe biebel

This statement in the rules book would offer the FIE no real protection against a lawsuit, -Denny Crane.

ANd what if the rules don't make it safer? What if the old requierments (35K punch on mesh) were safer and the FIE knew there were greater risks with the visor masks? (I'm not saying there are, I'm not totally sure, but I wouldn't trust one).

[Bran]

An interesting video from the PBT Hungary website:

http://www.pbtfencing.com/images/video/PBT_MASK21.wmv

[Empty Wallet]

Well, it seems as though the little windows are back:

this is an interesting letter from FIE;

http://fie.ch/download/letters/2008/...4-08%20ANG.pdf

Scares me for the kids

[Timberwolf_CY]

It irritates me that the original person the original letter and this letter regards, who had their visor broken, wouldn't turn their mask over to the relevent commitees. I know to some of you it would probably make no difference, but I would feel better if they could test the mask that broke.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by Timberwolf_CY

It irritates me that the original person the original letter and this letter regards, who had their visor broken, wouldn't turn their mask over to the relevent commitees. I know to some of you it would probably make no difference, but I would feel better if they could test the mask that broke.

It would irritate me if I were the person the letter regarded.

You don't know that he asked to be named, and you don't know that he refused to turn over his mask.

I'd be a little pissed off if some organization came up with a hair brained scheme to put windows in masks and I got raked across the face. Then, they put out a letter stating I refused to turn over my property to them, like I was the bad guy.

[Medinilla]

Bad luck for the guys that bought the mask...i still dont understand the reason

[erik_blank]

So, does this mean that we ARE going to be required to get these *@^^ masks? If so, when? At what level should a person be concerned about it? My club is pretty poor, and having to purchase an entire new set of masks for competition (if we should ever get back into competitive mode again) would be a REALLY big hit for us.

[rudd]

From last 32 of Grand Prix events, World Championships and Olympics. So unlikely to affect many people at all.

[erik_blank]

Good to hear that, but for some reason I thought that there were plans to push this requirement all the way down to the local level over the next few years....

[KD5MDK]

You are not attending World Cups, therefore it doesn't matter.

[rudd]

The FIE brought in their current Clothing requirements about 20 years ago. They have never been pushed down to the USFA. The same will be true for the visor masks. FIE couldn't care less how things are run at a local level. There are very few national federations that require 800N clothing and none require the visor mask.

[HDG]

Originally Posted by erik_blank

Good to hear that, but for some reason I thought that there were plans to push this requirement all the way down to the local level over the next few years....

No, we just have to worry about foil masks with lamé bibs.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Timberwolf_CY

It irritates me that the original person the original letter and this letter regards, who had their visor broken, wouldn't turn their mask over to the relevent commitees. I know to some of you it would probably make no difference, but I would feel better if they could test the mask that broke.

What if the fencer needed to keep the mask as evidence in some suit?

Craig

[KD5MDK]

Yeah, the chain of custody argument came up immediately to me.

[Warrior Princess]

Originally Posted by HDG

No, we just have to worry about foil masks with lamé bibs.

So that's really happening then? If so, when does it go into effect?

[rudd]

Jan 2009 for FIE events.

[erik_blank]

Has the USFA looked at the mask lame issue yet?

[SJCFU#2]

Originally Posted by erik_blank

Has the USFA looked at the mask lame issue yet?

I wouldn't expect any immediate changes, especially since the FIE's date (1 January, 2009) falls right in the middle of the season. Mid-season changes are possible but if past history is any indication then the earliest these changes would take effect would be August 2009.

First off, it's unlikely that any changes will be proposed to the USFA rules until the FIE determines exactly what changes they will be making to their own rules (otherwise the USFA might find itself having to go back and revise the rule changes to whatever the FIE settles on).

Then just because the rule changes have been approved by the FIE does not mean that they are immediately adopted by the USFA - a number of changes made to the FIE rules back in May and June of last year have yet to be incorporated into the USFA rules (the motion to incorporate those changes was made a few weeks ago so hopefully they will be in place in time for next season).

Plus there are some changes to the FIE rules which have never adopted by the USFA (anyone remember the FIE épée tips of the early 90's?).