Carding for a missing Plastron

[LordShout]

At a recent collegiate event one of the fencers sweated so much that the leading shoulder of his jacket became conductively attached to his lame, he asked to switch out his jacket and was of course allowed to.

However when he stripped out of his lame and wet jacket an interesting piece of clothing seemed to be missing. Now I, and my team, might have just missed it and the one that seemed to be tossed to him by his coach (dry and wrinkly) was a replacement...

The ref was not watching him change, he had, I think, went to talk to the BC for a second. Had he indeed not been wearing one could he have been carded and if so would it be the same card as if he had come to the strip without wearing one?

Quite comical, and an awesome bout.

[erooMynohtnA]

Ok, everyone who was there knows who you're talking about, so everyone else doesn't have to wonder, I'll name names. At the midwest conference championships, Mark Kubik was fencing Andras Horanyi in the men's foil finals.

Kubik asked to have Horanyi test on his jacket after Horanyi's 13th touch. It registered valid. Kubik asked if the touch could be annulled (or at least his facial expression seemed to suggest that's what he was asking). While the director went to go ask the BC what the call was going to be, Kubik changed jackets.

I didn't see Kubik change jackets, so I don't know if you guys just didn't see it or if he really wasn't wearing one. It's my suspicion that he just took it off quickly.

(Touch was obviously not annulled, by the way)

[peet]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

(Touch was obviously not annulled, by the way)

I believe it should have been:

t.54 2. The Referee must, on the other hand, take into account possible failures of the electrical equipment, in particular: (a) He must annul a touch which he has just awarded as a result of a touch signalled as on the valid target (coloured lamp) if he establishes, by tests made under his personal supervision, before the bout has effectively recommenced (the command ‘Fence’) and without any of the equipment in use having been changed (cf. t.35/d):
— either that a touch registered as ‘valid’ against the competitor against whom the touch has been awarded can be made without there being in fact a valid touch;

I've been the fencer in that situation before, and had the touch annulled after appeal to the BC.

-p

[Greg_D]

Originally Posted by peet

I believe it should have been:

I've been the fencer in that situation before, and had the touch annulled after appeal to the BC.

-p

Take a glance at t.54(c) and see if that changes your mind... Generally, these touches are not annulled.

Greg

[Jay Young]

I'd agree. I was a bout in foil at SN 2006 where the fencer sweat through his mask. It was registering as valid about halfway through the final. The touch stood. He got a new mask.

Back to the plastron, I believe he could be carded for it.* Yes, the bout already had begun, but he still would have reported with it off.

*If the ref is humble enough to admit he/she made a mistake. BTW, please don't use the ref's name here.

[erooMynohtnA]

I think Horanyi looked so amused during the break because he was the one with the sweaty mask in 2006. He knew which way the call was going.

[Heavenguard]

I've been to a (very) local event where a plastron was not needed so long as the jacket was FIE approved. I was a little bit surprised by this; does this sort of thing ever really happen at all?

Points from this event did not count towards ranking.

[KD5MDK]

That would not be in compliance with the USFA rules.

With regard to the original question: What did the referee do during their initial check?

[bunbury]

Originally Posted by Heavenguard

I've been to a (very) local event where a plastron was not needed so long as the jacket was FIE approved. I was a little bit surprised by this; does this sort of thing ever really happen at all?

Points from this event did not count towards ranking.

An FIE jacket provides more protection than a non-FIE jacket+plastron together. Plastrons are silly.

[peet]

Originally Posted by Greg_D

Take a glance at t.54(c) and see if that changes your mind... Generally, these touches are not annulled.

Greg

I have read that part, and did again before posting, and I still think the touch should be annulled. t.54 (c) provides for exceptions to the annulment rules in t.54 (a) when the fencer's equipment fails to comply with certain materials rules. Those are m.27 and m.28, which state that the mask mesh must be insulated, and that the lame must (among other things) be lined with a non-conductive material.

I don't think this exception includes when the fencer's equipment has become sweaty. The construction of the equipment is just as compliant as when (s)he started fencing, it's just that now the salty water it is soaked with is defeating its insulating qualities.

Of course, if the FOC were to instruct me not to annul a touch in this situation, I'd do as instructed. At the same time, I would suggest that doing so is against the spirit of the annulment rules in general, which say in essence: "if it can be demonstrated that there's a chance that the touch was recorded incorrectly by the machine, we annul the touch unless it's the fencer's fault." I don't think you can call it the fencer's fault that (s)he got sweaty.

Originally Posted by Jay Young

I'd agree. I was a bout in foil at SN 2006 where the fencer sweat through his mask. It was registering as valid about halfway through the final. The touch stood. He got a new mask.

Which would be correct, since if the mesh itself is conducting to the lame, it would be because lots of the paint is worn off, so the mask no longer conforms to m.27.


For everyone's reference:

Originally Posted by t.54 (c)

If a fencer’s equipment does not conform to the provisions of Articles m.27 and m.28, a touch made off the target which is registered by the apparatus as valid will not be annulled.

Originally Posted by m.27

The mesh of the mask must not extend below the chin. It must be insulated internally and externally by a plastic material resistant to impact.

Originally Posted by m.28

The interior of conductive jackets must be electrically insulated by a lining or by an adequate treatment of the conductive lamé material.

-p

[ifencesabre]

I have never been in this situation myself but I would think that you
would get carded. There are some directors (sometimes at national
tournaments) who don't even check for plastrons. There's also
not really any point of a plastron. You can buy one thats as thin as paper.
So............. basically there is no point of plastrons. Even though some
people (directors/coaches) take them VERY seriously.

[peet]

Originally Posted by ifencesabre

I have never been in this situation myself but I would think that you
would get carded. There are some directors (sometimes at national
tournaments) who don't even check for plastrons. There's also
not really any point of a plastron. You can buy one thats as thin as paper.
So............. basically there is no point of plastrons. Even though some
people (directors/coaches) take them VERY seriously.

The plastron is not there for its thickness, it's there to add a layer that doesn't have a seam in the same place as the underarm seam in your jacket. That seam is a weak point in the jacket's protection.

-p

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by bunbury

An FIE jacket provides more protection than a non-FIE jacket+plastron together. Plastrons are silly.

You might want to say that to the kid who got killed in eastern Europe a few years back by a blade that went though his jacket...and he wasn't wearing an underarm protector.

You come to my strip, I'm checking...it ain't there, you got a minute to find one...period, stop, end of discussion.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by Heavenguard

I've been to a (very) local event where a plastron was not needed so long as the jacket was FIE approved.

I had like 3 or 4 Canadian kids come up to me while checking in for pools at the Atlanta NAC asking if it was okay not to have a plasteron because they had an FIE jacket. The answer is no.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by bunbury

An FIE jacket provides more protection than a non-FIE jacket+plastron together. Plastrons are silly.

No, the correct conclusion there is "non-FIE jackets and plastrons are silly."

[mfp]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

You might want to say that to the kid who got killed in eastern Europe a few years back by a blade that went though his jacket...and he wasn't wearing an underarm protector.

If you are referring to the 2004 fatal accident in Ukraine, reports are the fencer was actually wearing an underarm protector, however he had cut sleeve off because it was uncomfortable.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by peet

Of course, if the FOC were to instruct me not to annul a touch in this situation, I'd do as instructed. At the same time, I would suggest that doing so is against the spirit of the annulment rules in general, which say in essence: "if it can be demonstrated that there's a chance that the touch was recorded incorrectly by the machine, we annul the touch unless it's the fencer's fault." I don't think you can call it the fencer's fault that (s)he got sweaty.
-p

Hmm. Maybe it's because I'm an epee specialist and we don't trust our fencers at all. My understanding is that unless the touch can be proven to be non-valid (referee saw it clearly, no valid surface was in reach, etc) that you allow the touch.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

No, the correct conclusion there is "non-FIE jackets and plastrons are silly."

All you have to do is convince the French and British...

[peet]

Well, I've been told via PM not to annul touches for sweaty gear, so here's my retraction of my above assertions.

Greg was too nice to smack me down in public, but I'm happy to acknowledge it.



cheers-
-p

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by peet

I have read that part, and did again before posting, and I still think the touch should be annulled. t.54 (c) provides for exceptions to the annulment rules in t.54 (a) when the fencer's equipment fails to comply with certain materials rules. Those are m.27 and m.28, which state that the mask mesh must be insulated, and that the lame must (among other things) be lined with a non-conductive material.

I don't think this exception includes when the fencer's equipment has become sweaty. The construction of the equipment is just as compliant as when (s)he started fencing, it's just that now the salty water it is soaked with is defeating its insulating qualities.

Peet's view is in accordance with what I observed in the final MF bout at Nationals, back in, oh, around 1990. Peter Lewison was fencing ... Nick Bravin, maybe? I'm not sure. George Kolombatovich was refereeing.

Anyway, as I recall, Lewison's opponent became so sweaty that a touch was demonstrated to register valid on his sleeve. George K. annulled the touch. Subsequently, a touch registered valid on that fencer's mask. After a brief discussion with the fencers, George announced to the audience that, while the touch on the sleeve was required to be annulled by the rules, the touch on the mask ought -- by the rules -- to stand, because the mask was required to be insulated. However, he continued, Lewison declined the touch, and he would annul it. We all applauded Lewison's sportsmanship.


[Edit: I see that peet says he was instructed by PM that his original view was incorrect. I have to conclude that the FOC has arrived at a different interpretation from the one that George applied back then. I still think a touch scored on a sweaty jacket ought by rights to be annulled, but if that's not the way the FOC wants it done any more, that's that.]