Which safety rules should be strict?

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by catwood1

On a different note, why are knickers allowed to have that 1 pocket? It seems very likely to never catch a point and break a weapon...

Fixed it.

[warlordkenobi]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

"Fencing pants" are, in fact, perfectly legal and even sold by some vendors (Triplette, maybe?).

Yes: http://www.triplette.com/catalog.php...Fcategory%3D25

Originally Posted by epeemike81

They look really stupid

And yes.

[Rockstar44]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

...... Where is the "steel sticking to skin" thing coming from? It wouldn't totally surprise me if it were true, but it's definitely a case of "citation needed".

If you don't believe me, try these two simple experiments yourself.

Put a sock on one hand and leave the other hand bare. Alternate dragging a foil or epee, using only the weight of the weapon itself, across your hands. Does it maybe slide across the socked hand a little easier? Do any of the nicks catch your skin on the socked hand?

Put a fencing sock on one leg and leave the other leg bare. Have someone repeatedly stab both your legs with a foil or epee. Tell me which you like better.

[LordShout]

My expertise in the matter is all the citation that you need

Yes, of course. Silly us, next time I'll be sure to listen more carefully. So how exactly do I cite you, my handbook for citations strangely is missing a internet authority format? MLA if you must, APA by preference.

You might have the experience, but other than your word on the matter there is no way of ascertaining the truth. The day I trust at face value something posted on an internet forum because the poster told me to trust them, is the day I also buy a bridge. Perhaps a little elaboration would be helpful?

As for the 2 experiments: I've performed the 2nd one many times, although normally I termed it 'fencing epee'. I really don't care, I fence (when I bother to wear them) in thick soccer socks. Does it hurt to take one (or several, I'm not very good at epee) in the shin? Of course it does! Does it hurt less if I wear the socks? Of course it does! Do I wear the socks? Not unless it’s a tournament. What do I conclude? My own personal comfort outweighs the occasional skin abrasion and cut.

Now for the qualifying statements. My calves are abnormally large, even for fencers. Socks, even XL soccer socks, do not fit around them without feeling at best tight, at worst like a poorly made tourniquet. If they fit better I might be more inclined to wear them at practice. I also did various martial arts for many years and long ago stopped caring about my shins.

In conclusion, it’s not a safety issue on the same level as the plastron, a good mask, or a jacket. It still is a safety issue, they do prevent some minor injuries. Is our goal to prevent or limit all injuries or just major injuries? Major injuries seems to be the goal, thus being a sock nazi seems, to me at least, a waste of time and energy.

How do I arrive at my conclusion that we want to prevent major injuries and don’t care about minor injuries? Groin protectors and the fact that FIE jackets suck at preventing pretty much anything short of puncture wounds. If we wanted to limit minor injuries groin protectors would be mandatory and FIE jackets would have padding, or perhaps we would require all fencers to wear a chest protector, to prevent bruised ribs.

[EldRick]

I dug up some info on long fencing pants, which are apparently quite legal for competition. Scroll down for the Official word: Are long fencing pants legal?

Old threads here on long pants for fencing:
Epee Pants and 800N Socks
Knickers question

Triplette Classic Epee pants Too bad they are just cotton, and not rated for 350 or 800N.

For me, I stopped wearing short pants when I was six. I'm not a competitor and probably never will be, but I wear and like the Leon Paul 350N Warmup pants. They are stretch fabric, very comfortable, and could avoid a lot of pain from slow-healing shin injuries. Too bad they are not whites.

IMHO, the sport would be a lot more popular in America if it weren't for the way-too-cute bloomers.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by LordShout

In conclusion, it’s not a safety issue on the same level as the plastron, a good mask, or a jacket. It still is a safety issue, they do prevent some minor injuries. Is our goal to prevent or limit all injuries or just major injuries? Major injuries seems to be the goal, thus being a sock nazi seems, to me at least, a waste of time and energy.

How do I arrive at my conclusion that we want to prevent major injuries and don’t care about minor injuries? Groin protectors and the fact that FIE jackets suck at preventing pretty much anything short of puncture wounds. If we wanted to limit minor injuries groin protectors would be mandatory and FIE jackets would have padding, or perhaps we would require all fencers to wear a chest protector, to prevent bruised ribs.

Now, see, THERE is a reasonable, nuanced position! It is much more difficult to criticize this than an unequivocal "It's NOT a safety issue of any sort whatsoever, period, 'cause I say so, case closed".

[Rockstar44]

Originally Posted by LordShout

As for the 2 experiments: I've performed the 2nd one many times, although normally I termed it 'fencing epee'. I really don't care, I fence (when I bother to wear them) in thick soccer socks. Does it hurt to take one (or several, I'm not very good at epee) in the shin? Of course it does! Does it hurt less if I wear the socks? Of course it does! Do I wear the socks? Not unless it’s a tournament. What do I conclude? My own personal comfort outweighs the occasional skin abrasion and cut.

A personal decision. Fine. But, note that you are agreeing with me here.

Originally Posted by LordShout

In conclusion, it’s not a safety issue on the same level as the plastron, a good mask, or a jacket. It still is a safety issue, they do prevent some minor injuries.

I don't think that anyone placed wearing socks on the same level as wearing a plastron, except maybe you. Again, note that you are agreeing with me here.

Originally Posted by LordShout

If we wanted to limit minor injuries groin protectors would be mandatory...

Uh, actually they are.

Originally Posted by LordShout

...and FIE jackets would have padding...

Some do. I guess it's personal preference again, and that's OK.


There are some areas of life in which I am an expert. I have the training, knowledge, and experience that makes me a legitimate source for a citation. This particular area happens to be one of them. You don't have to believe me (although, curiously enough, you dismiss my statements while at the same time agreeing with me), but I am still right.

Go back and reread my first post on this thread. The last two sentences.

In any case, the bottom line is that the rules demand that you wear proper socks. I'm unable to find the part that says "unless you don't want to".

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by LordShout

If we wanted to limit minor injuries groin protectors would be mandatory

Originally Posted by Rockstar44

Uh, actually they are.

This is quite simply not true. Not true in FIE competition. Not true in USFA competition.

-m

[tikimon852]

with this talk of the full pants for fencing isnt there someone that makes a jumpsuit like fenicng outfit.....forget who but it definetly exists....if only that had sock attachments like footy pajamas this wouldnt even be an issue.

[SJCFU#2]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

This is quite simply not true. Not true in FIE competition. Not true in USFA competition.

-m

Appendix A of the Material Section of the FIE rules states:

En bas : protection incluse dans le pantalon : l'abdomen, les deux régions inguinales et les organes génitaux (par une coquille).

and the USFA rules state:

Protection included in the trousers must cover the abdomen, the two inguinal regions, and the genital organs (by means of a protective cup).

There may be differences of opinion as to what this actually entails (plastic cup vs 800N cloth), however the requirement for some form of protection is definitely there.

[SJCFU#2]

Originally Posted by tikimon852

with this talk of the full pants for fencing isnt there someone that makes a jumpsuit like fenicng outfit.....forget who but it definetly exists....if only that had sock attachments like footy pajamas this wouldnt even be an issue.

The dread Triplette unitard!

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by SJCFU#2

Appendix A of the Material Section of the FIE rules states:

En bas : protection incluse dans le pantalon : l'abdomen, les deux régions inguinales et les organes génitaux (par une coquille).

and the USFA rules state:

Protection included in the trousers must cover the abdomen, the two inguinal regions, and the genital organs (by means of a protective cup).

There may be differences of opinion as to what this actually entails (plastic cup vs 800N cloth), however the requirement for some form of protection is definitely there.

well, in terms of application, there is no enforced requirement for a cup.

-m

[Coldfire]

I can see it now...checking for plastrons, followed by cup checks at NACs

[Morale Officer]

So...the men are going to check the women's breast plates and the women are going to check the men's cups?

We could always take 800N socks and stuff them in our bras and pants too...lol. Sorry...I get goofy when I get tired...maybe I should take a nap since I worked all night...

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by SJCFU#2

Appendix A of the Material Section of the FIE rules states:

En bas : protection incluse dans le pantalon : l'abdomen, les deux régions inguinales et les organes génitaux (par une coquille).

and the USFA rules state:

Protection included in the trousers must cover the abdomen, the two inguinal regions, and the genital organs (by means of a protective cup).

There may be differences of opinion as to what this actually entails (plastic cup vs 800N cloth), however the requirement for some form of protection is definitely there.

The French word coquille is literally "shell." This is the same word that they use for the bellguard. I don't think there's any doubt that the intent is a rigid protective cup, and not merely cloth.

The interesting discussion comes in whether this section of the appendix, which isn't cited anywhere in the main body of the rules, actually constitutes a requirement.

On the one hand, why include such material in the appendices if they aren't to be considered applicable regulations? On the other, there is no such requirement listed in the rules. The rules regarding the manufacture of the clothing doesn't cite this appendix, unlike the way some other rules cite other appendices. m.25.1, which doesn't cite the appendix, is probably the closest the rules come in this instance.

Note that IF this rule were to be in effect, it applies equally to both genders. There certainly isn't any specification in either the rules or the appendices that limits this just to men.

-B

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

The French word coquille is literally "shell." This is the same word that they use for the bellguard. I don't think there's any doubt that the intent is a rigid protective cup, and not merely cloth.

The interesting discussion comes in whether this section of the appendix, which isn't cited anywhere in the main body of the rules, actually constitutes a requirement.

On the one hand, why include such material in the appendices if they aren't to be considered applicable regulations? On the other, there is no such requirement listed in the rules. The rules regarding the manufacture of the clothing doesn't cite this appendix, unlike the way some other rules cite other appendices. m.25.1, which doesn't cite the appendix, is probably the closest the rules come in this instance.

Note that IF this rule were to be in effect, it applies equally to both genders. There certainly isn't any specification in either the rules or the appendices that limits this just to men.

-B

Perhaps there was at one time a reference in the rules and they took the rule out, but not the material in the appendix?

-m

[Superscribe]

I Will Not Be Proven Wrong On The Internets. Raaaawwww

[Guymelef]

An epee in the groin is its own punishment. I've said this earlier that if the USFA is seriously concerned about safety they might consider mandating chest protectors for both men and women. It would be like adding the ceramic insert to kevlar jackets.

Yet, I'm not necessarily in favor of this. After I improved as a fencer I stopped wearing the protector because I can now rely on my own defense. Nevertheless, no matter how good you are things happen so I do wear a cup. What's a little constraint for four-or-so hours compared to mind-bending pain and perhaps an entire evening of frozen peas instead of (ahem) fun.

[SJCFU#2]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Perhaps there was at one time a reference in the rules and they took the rule out, but not the material in the appendix?

-m

More likely the reference between the rule and the appendix was never provided (who ever said that the rulebook is well written) Appendix A wasn't added to the rule book until around '99 or '00, while rule 27 of the '95 edition of the USFA rules contained much the same wording as the current rule m25.1.

[phillipmj]

The rules regarding the manufacture of the clothing doesn't cite this appendix

The cup doesn't protect your appendix! Jeez.