It's official: conductive bib for foil mask

[Purple Fencer]

My only concern to the change is the cost to the average fencer and club.

Especially since the percentage of people fencing at FIE tourneys vs the REST of the fencing world is so vastly different...

As a vendor I don't mind the ruling....it'll mean a LOT of sales of retrofitting kits if they come out....new masks if they don't and USFA adopts the ruling(presuming it's not overturned).

However, I stillsee an issue with the squirm/duck crowd using crouching and using the mask to hide that tiny part of hteor upper chest...and if there's a big size difference (say Rick Shellhouse at over 6 feet and me at 5' 4") that hiding would be even worse dur to the angle...and the lame on the bib would be pointless because it would not alleviate the issue it was designed to address.

A squirmer/ducker will probably still do it, new bib design or not...FIE put this into the rules without really testing the designs on the strip...there should've been a design agreed upon and then some extensive testing before implementation....but that's not how RR worked.

Hopefully Usmanov will not make these same mistakes with any other changes.

[fatfencer]

At least for me anyways. it will eventually be adopted which means extra revenue for vendors AND armorers. Thats a good thing in this ****e economy...and for once Im actually NOT going to get bit in the hinder on this.

Thanks LP.

Meanwhile,

I fence a little girl with a postage stamp lame and when she lunges she profiles so much and that little chest protector, combined with a regular bib(huge on her tiny body , of course) makes her tough to hit without flicking to the back. Of course I wouldnt do that to a little girl... no really, I wouldn't.

When she converts to LP it will be great since I will be able to hit her. She's about 3.5 feet tall and I'm like 5'9.625''.

Notice I said WHEN. I took a full on coupe to the mask the other day and it didnt even flick off the black coating. Now my POS allstar FIE...its probably going to have a new career as a plant pot.


Moms like safe kids...

I like being safe.

FF

FF

[telkanuru]

Do your posts ever actually make sense?

[fatfencer]

On whether or not you actually read them. Lots of nuance and multiple entendre in my scribblings. If you gloss over you may not detect a small thread often woven in.

But to recap it in outline form, just for you:

1) Simple stmt of opinion on whether or not USFA will adopt eventually.

2) Small nod to LP for giving me a great mask.

3) Story about having to fence small children without flicking and why the conductive bib will help

4) Child's parent buying LP mask so I dont have to feel disadvantaged by postage stamp lame and large bib which covers nearly the whole of her chest.

5) Somewhere in there theres a tiny two sentence vignette about how I got hit in the mask and it didnt harm it at all.

6) general allusion to safety of LP mask and fairness of fencing with it.

Hopefully this clears things up for you, although I do wish you'd pick up the pace some. Young collegiates were mentally faster in my day it seems.

FF

PS: You fence saber?? Sloooooooooooow

[Superscribe]

I hope you don't take offense but this is just theatrical rubbish. This change in regulation will be good for foil fencing at all levels

Both epee and Sabre have the target as all the mask. If you want to be worried,worry about a point hit at sabre (with the small dia point.) with a blade stiffer than an epee blade.

Of course there won't be any offense, because we're entitled to different opinions. I do, however, hope you understand that my hyperbole had some basis to it. The merits of this rule have been discussed by several people on these forums, to some extent. Some very good fencers and referees have different views from you. You probably know this, Barry.

As for the comparison of the relative dangers associated with sabre and epee, consider the use of the weapons and the target area. How often do you go for the neck with the point in either weapon? Is it advantageous to go for the neck?

Making the bib target area in foil implicitly encourages you to go for that area now, and that it is somehow advantageous. I'm assuming there is a large percentage of hits that will be taken on the bib, because the alternative explanation would be that the FIE made this rather broad change to foil for no significant reason. That also sucks.

While we're not offending anybody, let me also add that being in a position to benefit from a "LOT of sales" as a result of this new rule really, really affects my opinion of your opinion.

[oiuyt]

Making the bib target area in foil implicitly encourages you to go for that area now, and that it is somehow advantageous. I'm assuming there is a large percentage of hits that will be taken on the bib, because the alternative explanation would be that the FIE made this rather broad change to foil for no significant reason. That also sucks.

Uhm, Occam might suggest that the FIE thinks there are already a significant number of hits arriving on the lower portion of the bib, rather than that they're trying to encourage people to start targetting that area.

-B

[Superscribe]

Let's look at intent. Before, you have a large portion of hits occuring there, and (barring ill intent) probably not meant to be there. Now, the hits that land there will be intended to be there.

[Superscribe]

If I was getting hit by a big foilist I would rather it be on the 1600N+ padded bib before the jacket than on the 800N jacket and plastron alone.

The bib covers target. The bib is target in the other two weapons, both of which have way stiffer blades.

If we're drawing extremes, the previous incentive would have been to go around or under the bib to land a valid hit, which makes things even more dangerous.

My only concern to the change is the cost to the average fencer and club.

Based upon your usage, "I don't think that word means what you think it means". My whole point is the picture I'm going to be wearing on a t-shirt won't be an extreme.

[mrbiggs]

Making the bib target area in foil implicitly encourages you to go for that area now, and that it is somehow advantageous. I'm assuming there is a large percentage of hits that will be taken on the bib, because the alternative explanation would be that the FIE made this rather broad change to foil for no significant reason. That also sucks.

Or, there's the middle ground that there are a fair number (not huge) of hits that do land on the bib, and the FIE feels that a) those should count as points and b) it discourages tiny, squirmy fencers with huge bibs which exist in decent numbers nowadays.

I'm not a member of the FIE, but from what I've read this is in fact their reasoning. I don't predict a significant increase in bib hits for most bouts, but then again, I haven't seen it in practice--others on this forum, I'm sure, are more knowledgeable and will be able to comment.

That said, I don't like the change just because I think that the target area to cost ratio is pretty low here. I'm willing to give it a chance, but I'm very apprehensive.

[keith]

As for the comparison of the relative dangers associated with sabre and epee, consider the use of the weapons and the target area. How often do you go for the neck with the point in either weapon? Is it advantageous to go for the neck?

In epee? A fair amount. After all if you are a bit taller than your opponent then a riposte from quarte (or sixte for the off-hander) will go straight into the the throat/side of the mask. Especially if your opponent has a lowish hand position and gets to close.

[foibles]

it discourages tiny, squirmy fencers with huge bibs which exist in decent numbers nowadays.

Make a max bib size a mfg requirement for cen1/ fie mask certification.

I'm unhappy with the lame-bib idea. Reduces the working life of a foil mask substantially.

It doesn't help fencers. It helps vendors.

[mrbiggs]

Make a max bib size a mfg requirement for cen1/ fie mask certification.

But you see, that DOES directly affect safety, and in a very immediate and dangerous way. Anyone who's been hit under the bib can vouch for the fact that it's pretty scary. And I've heard of several incidents in which a broken blade wound up under there and either cut or had the potential to cut the neck. In other words, the safety features of the bib trump the unfairness of the target area.


(Don't get me wrong, I don't like this change, I just think that people are going after it for the wrong reasons. I entirely agree with the remainder of your post.)

[Superscribe]

Or, there's the middle ground that there are a fair number (not huge) of hits that do land on the bib, and the FIE feels that a) those should count as points and b) it discourages tiny, squirmy fencers with huge bibs which exist in decent numbers nowadays.

I'm not a member of the FIE, but from what I've read this is in fact their reasoning. I don't predict a significant increase in bib hits for most bouts, but then again, I haven't seen it in practice--others on this forum, I'm sure, are more knowledgeable and will be able to comment.

Someone commented that Kruse being able to hit on the bib was a def. advantage in the recent tournament. You think you might step outside your comfort zone and say that bib hits might increase a bit than the ones that already land on the bib? A fair amount? Good size? Handful? Large? Decent number?

[mrbiggs]

Someone commented that Kruse being able to hit on the bib was a def. advantage in the recent tournament. You think you might step outside your comfort zone and say that bib hits might increase a bit than the ones that already land on the bib? A fair amount? Good size? Handful? Large? Decent number?

Well, now we're talking about small numbers here, and I don't think we can say anything conclusive until we actually try it. As a foilist, I think it's crappy target area since it's small, high and weird to hit, and right next to the no-light mesh, but we'll see.

[foibles]

Making the neck (and retaining the groin as) valid target areas is just sorta counterintuitive to me.

I didn't think the lame-bib was a safety issue based decision. Has there been a recent increase in neck injuries lately? I don't think so.

"Safety" will be the marketing spin on selling the idea.

[downunder]

Notes from the FIE medical commission 2007:


Proposal 1: “Reincorporate bib as valid surface in foil” (submitted by Fencing Federation of Brazil).

Harmer (AUS) presented data from 5 year study of national competitions in USA (almost 80,000 participants). Only 4 neck related, time-loss injuries (MF=1; WE=2; WS=1) were recorded, which indicated that there was minimal risk associated with this proposal. However, Wolfgarten (GER) pointed out that certain actions in foil presented different risks to the neck than the other weapons. Questions were raised about data on how often off-target hits on bib occurred and why this was significant enough to act on. All members agreed that anything that reduced safety was to be avoided and that one of the major responsibilities of the Commission was to ensure consistency of care, to minimize the risk of injury and, thereby, enhance the popularity of fencing. As there are no data or arguments that there would be additional risk to the torso if the bib were target, the Commission reached a compromise – it did not support the proposal that the whole bib become valid target because of the risk to the neck, but portions of the bib not protecting the neck could be safely incorporated as target. Therefore, a “safety zone” on the bib that is not target needs to be determined, based on anatomical definition of the safety zone. It was recommended that only the area of the bib below a horizontal line drawn between the sternoclavicular joints (the base of the neck) with the fencer in an upright position be incorporated as target.

Recommendation: The proposal to incorporate the whole bib as valid surface in foil is not supported for safety reasons. However, incorporation of the lower portion of the bib (below a horizontal line at the level of the sternoclavicular joints would be acceptable.

Proposal 2: “Foil Mask Bib Electrification” (submitted by Italian Fencing Federation).
After extensive discussion, the Commission decided not to support this proposal because: a) the area of electrification was not acceptable (see “Proposal 1”) and b) if the inner surface of the bib was made conductive to provide electrical connection with the jacket it was considered there was an unacceptably high risk that fencers would lift the head, thereby exposing the neck, to reduce or avoid electrical contact from occurring.


I think the FIE did a good job in assessing the relevant safety issues.

[nahouw]

Uhm, Occam might suggest that the FIE thinks there are already a significant number of hits arriving on the lower portion of the bib, rather than that they're trying to encourage people to start targetting that area.

Agreed. I think that the FIE thinks that there are already a significant amount of hits on the bib that currently result in an off target hit, therefore extending the bout and causing confusion to spectators as to why there was no touch scored. Having the bib as target will now render this flux of previous off-targets to register as a touch, and will enhance the viewability of the bout.

[foibles]

Foilists get hit in the thighs a lot too. What's next? Cheekless Lame Daisy Dukes? That might help fencing. People like looking at clowns.

Thanks for your post Downunder. Less than 1 neck injury/ year. Good to know, that.

[mrbiggs]

Foilists get hit in the thighs a lot too. What's next? Cheekless Lame Daisy Dukes? That might help fencing. People like looking at clowns.

This is a silly thing to say. There are several reasons why the off-target hits on the bib are going to be considered valid including, but not limited to:

1. The bib covers target area so it's advantageous to have an oversize one. (However, reducing bib size is a safety issue.)
2. The bib was historically target. The FIE isn't just making up rules arbitrarily, they're reinstating old rules arbitrarily. Which is somewhat better.
3. It's pretty tricky to move your thigh around to prevent valid hits. Your head is pretty easy to block target with. Therefore, this encourages obviously incorrect actions ("I'll block his attack by moving my neck in front of my sternum") as opposed to off-target thighs, which you can only block target with if you're willing to simultaneously look like an idiot and lose the touch.

Thanks for your post Downunder. Less than 1 neck injury/ year. Good to know, that.

1 neck injury each YEAR worldwide in a sport where people are trying as hard as they can to hit each other with thin, hard, potentially sharp pieces of metal? That's really not that bad.

Also, what downunder linked to didn't seem to indicate any increase in neck injuries due to the change. Which is what people are scared of, right?

[nahouw]

3. It's pretty tricky to move your thigh around to prevent valid hits. Your head is pretty easy to block target with. Therefore, this encourages obviously incorrect actions ("I'll block his attack by moving my neck in front of my sternum") as opposed to off-target thighs, which you can only block target with if you're willing to simultaneously look like an idiot and lose the touch.

quite right. also, counter-attacking rather than parry-riposting and/or ducking is something that would also generate causing injuriies, so having bib as target would stop these incorrect activities.