It's official: conductive bib for foil mask

[foibles]

This is a silly thing to say.

QFT

It just bugs me... It's just one more thing that goes dead way sooner. So now you really should have 2 lame masks... one for training that has that lame that's getting a little green, and another for comp that you try to keep pristine... until that one time you left it sweaty in it's bag for a week or whatever...

Having to buy a new mask every year or so won't make or break me or anyone else... it's just anoying that it will be forced on me.. and I didn't see any problem with the way they were to begin with.

[mrbiggs]

QFT

It just bugs me... It's just one more thing that goes dead way sooner. So now you really should have 2 lame masks... one for training that has that lame that's getting a little green, and another for comp that you try to keep pristine... until that one time you left it sweaty in it's bag for a week or whatever...

Having to buy a new mask every year or so won't make or break me or anyone else... it's just anoying that it will be forced on me.. and I didn't see any problem with the way they were to begin with.

I'm pretty confused about what you're saying here. QFT = quoted for truth, right? Because I was being sarcastic in response to your post...


That said, I agree with you on the cost issue. It's the reason I'm not a big fan of these changes even though my posts in this thread seem to say otherwise.

[Barry Paul]

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.

I have never found that supporting a rule in fencing because it might bring in lots of sales is worthwhile,In this particular case I am not sure the intiall sales will out weigh the increase in stock which we will now have to hold. In fact when this idea was first introduced I organized the manufactures to refuse to make them.

However for reasons already given I think this will improve foil fencing at very little cost. The 90% of social fencers do not have to follow the new rule it is up to the country federation.

[Barry Paul]

Notes from the FIE medical commission 2007:



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.

The medical commission could quite logically come up with comment about possible behavior of fencers. However in practice it is impossible to lift your head in time and/or enough to prevent any hit from pushing the bib onto the target and registering a valid hit. If the bib was so stiff as this was not possible it would be unwearable.

[KD5MDK]

Whether or not it would work has little impact on whether fencers would do it.

[Barry Paul]

some fencer might be a bit dim but even they if they found out they could not react in time and it didn't work any way they would not bother.

[keith]

some fencer might be a bit dim but even they if they found out they could not react in time and it didn't work any way they would not bother.

Overly optimistic I suspect. More likely there would be dozens of threads on here about the best type of neck exercises to allow you to react in time.

[foibles]

I'm pretty confused about what you're saying here. QFT = quoted for truth, right? Because I was being sarcastic in response to your post...

Yeah. I was merely admitting that you were right. It was, actually, a pretty silly thing to say.

[Superscribe]

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I want to get this right. I'm not very good with official documents.

FIE said that the bib should not be target area because there was a safety risk involved. Presumably the safety risk is getting hit in the neck. However, it would be of acceptable risk to to make the area right below the neck valid target area?

I'm sure FIE did a good job in assessing the relevant safety issues. I couldn't care how much assessment they did though, because they're assessing doesn't bother me, it's what I perceive to be terrible choices based upon the assessments that's causing me to not let go of an internet dispute I'm having.

In fact I agree with the FIE's assessment more than those on this board who tried to use some argument of "hits to the bib aren't that bad because they're somehow more dangerous in epee and sabre and so it shouldn't be a safety concern in foil and to quasi-support this i'll use a report with population size so mall it means absolutely nothing."

[Superscribe]

pbthh, whatever. I'll have to see if my annoyance is needed in the first place. There's still technically a "wait and see" associated with this new rule.

[Burnliff]

Aside from the $70 bib replacement from Leon Paul, I'm pretty happy about the change.

About half of my off targets are on the lower bib. I mean, now that it's target, no need to practice hitting a bit lower, right?

[rory]

Eeek,, oh no, the world is ending. Etc.

People already get hit on the bib frequently in foil.
This change will just make it so the light comes on.

Honestly, what's the problem?
Fencers really aren't going to start training to hit the new target more often - it's such a small area that there are simply better things to focus on.

And anyone whp's good enough that their coach is looking for that erxtra 1% is good enough to hit where they're aiming.

It's a non-issue.

[Purple Fencer]

People already get hit on the bib frequently in foil.
This change will just make it so the light comes on.

Honestly, what's the problem?
Fencers really aren't going to start training to hit the new target more often - it's such a small area that there are simply better things to focus on.

And anyone whp's good enough that their coach is looking for that erxtra 1% is good enough to hit where they're aiming.

It's a non-issue.

I think one of the main objections is the cost to any fencer operating in a region where the rule is in use...converting the existing bib or having to buy a new mask will be a financial burden on the fencer ina way the timign changes were not.

[Superscribe]

i think the extra cost is something everything can kvetch about. For what it's worth, I choose to go further and say that this change is not good because of cost AND safety issue. I've already said my peace on why i think, from a principle point of view, the conductive bib was not as good of a fix as other paths the FIE could pursue to changing foil.

[Cookeit]

Pictures from the CIP.

Is it just me or are the majority of these pics someone aiming for / hitting the bib?

http://www.fencingchannel.com/cms/2337.html

[Empty Wallet]

Here is an interesting new turn that I have found on the Australian Federation site -- I guess any thoughts of the new regime at FIE reversing the decision is not likely:

Foil Mask - Conductive Bib Requirement

The AFF Executive has quite recently become aware of an emerging proposal of the FIE Semi Commission to possibly require the homologation of the "retro bib" to existing foil masks. Such a proposal is still within the FIE policy consideration process. However, if adopted, this would raise a significant issue for the AFF under its current national competition equipment standard which requires fencers to compete in equipment at the current FIE standard.

Consequently the AFF Executive has decided to suspend the AFF's previous decision to require the conductive bib on foil masks for national open and veteran tournaments, pending further consideration of this matter at the upcoming AFF General Meeting in May.

http://www.ausfencing.org/