Which safety rules should be strict?

[unlikelysuspect08]

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.

I'm all for the rule, and if I were to direct a bout, I wold enforce it as well as all the other rules, if for no other reason than they are rules, but I have had an experience where the sock didn't really let the blade slide.

During a bout at practice one night, my opponent hit me off target, about an inch below where my knickers stopped below my knee. After practice, I discovered a crescent shaped scab underneath my sock, from the point of the foil. The skin healed fine, however there is a strangely hard knot underneath the skin...

[telkanuru]

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".

So he reiterates points I've already made, but his is the position you agree with?

Is it really that hard to say "Telk, you're right"?

[Pieter]

So he reiterates points I've already made, but his is the position you agree with?

Is it really that hard to say "Telk, you're right"?

He seems to be praising the presentation, not the point.

[Purple Fencer]

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.

You know what the worst part about getting his in the junk is? It's not the pain so intense you need to remove your mask before it ends up a a strainer whe you puke....it's the delay between the hit and the arrival of the pain train!

*WHACK!!*

Fencer's eyes widen as he realizes where he was hit.

Time enough to say a prayer or 2....

Commence writhing on the ground in abject agony....the only saving grace being if you got the touch anyway.

[telkanuru]

He seems to be praising the presentation, not the point.

Ah, well, it's not like Inq being pedantic should come as a surprise.

[tchwojko]

He seems to be praising the presentation, not the point.

That's why he fences saber and not epee.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

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

........... Asking how you came to a conclusion is not exactly out of line. Some people have had various personal experiences that cause someone to come to a conclusion. Sometimes people have in depth expertise about metals and engineering concepts that go along. I merely wanted to know if you (and others agreeing with you on this point) happened to have the experience of NOT wearing socks and having something unfortunate happen to them, or if there was a basic property of the particular metals involved in fencing blades I was unaware of that was well documented.

Some blades have coatings that look cool/theoretically prevent rust. Do those "stick" to skin more or less than other blades? Is there a difference between deeply inexpensive sabre blades and very expensive FIE epee blades? V cross section vs. I cross section? Do different tips "stick" differently to skin? How does that compare to how they "stick" to target area?

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm looking for more information. Assuming that some blades "stick" to open skin more than others, it might make more sense to mandate certain coatings as well as mandating socks, as the coatings might do a better job than socks, or socks alone.

Of course, I don't have every blade commercially available in my apartment. So having someone hit me repeatedly with every blade available will be hard.

Note: my experience that you're an asshole is NOT justification to say that you are, without any doubt at all, always an asshole under all conditions.

You may have expertise that allows you to say certain things with more certainty than others. I'm sure that those of us who have been around tend to trust Peter G. when he says something about metal, because his professional expertise in the area has been well documented. You may have similar expertise, but how on Earth am I supposed to know that?

Feel free at any time to support your own points rather than undermine them.

[LordShout]

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.

Perhaps it’s analogous to the legal principle of self-enacting legislation. A law, for example, might say that Action A, B and Z are illegal, but it is not until some additional legislation that lays out the framework to prosecute A, B and Z that it is actually enforced.

[Inquartata]

So he reiterates points I've already made, but his is the position you agree with?

Is it really that hard to say "Telk, you're right"?

It wouldn't be, if you were. But you aren't.

He says it's a safety issue, just not a major one. Whereas YOU assert that it's not any sort of safety issue at all.

Having a little joust with reading comprehension, are you? Or is it just the usual epeeist's difficulty with subtlety?

[telkanuru]

Let me help you with your reading.

Quoted from my post above:

3) Preventing minor injuries is not the point of safety equipment (FIE jackets protect against bruises etc. less well than padded cotton)

[Inquartata]

Quoted from my post above:

Yeah. Which is not what LS said.

He said:

"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."

Whereas you said:

"Socks are an aesthetic issue, not a safety one."

"Painful is not a safety issue."

"Safety is about preventing major injury, not scratches."

"Again, the purpose of safety equipment in fencing is not to prevent minor injury but major ones."

Do you see the difference between "is" ( his statement ) and "is not" ( your statements )?

He is saying it is a matter of degree of safety. Do you really think that's the same thing as what you have been saying?

[erik_blank]

Let me help you with your reading.

Quoted from my post above:

Quote:
3) Preventing minor injuries is not the point of safety equipment (FIE jackets protect against bruises etc. less well than padded cotton)

Telk:

Speaking as a person who has studied safety and gotten a degree in industrial safety science, I will take issue with your statement above. Yes, the point of safety equipment is indeed to prevent minor injuries as well as major injuries. In fact there is a larger amount of safety equipment that is geared for reducing or preventing minor injuries than there is for the prevention o major injuries. The wearing o hard hats in construction zones would be a good example. They will protect a person from a relatively small falling object or from striking their head against a hard surface, but will not prevent a person from being crushed by a falling steel I beam.

The same can be said for the use of socks in fencing. While they will not protect you from large welts or deep bruises, they will prevent minor injuries such as scrapes and abrasions.

Why prevent such 'harmless' injuries? After all, apparently you and a few others here are certain that they are robust enough to shrug off such minor annoyances...

I will answer you with a few good reasons:

1. The prevention of any kind of injury is preferable to allowing such to happen.
2. The sight of blood of any amount is bad for our sport. We pride ourselves on the overall safety of this sport, and having a person leaking red fluid all over their ankle socks sends a bad message to spectators.
3. Injuries to the shin are especially difficult to heal, and are very easy to become infected. Add to that problem the less than sanitary condition of most fencing weapons. (How did you straighten you blade last time? By hand, or by dragging it under your foot against the floor?)

So here is your opportunity to start railing about how everything I have written about is not applicable because the socks are not required to be of a certain newton rating, and that standard cotton socks can't possibly afford 'real' protection from a broken blade piercing the skin.

I agree. Cotton socks cannot possibly prevent a broken blade from piercing your leg. They CAN prevent minor cuts and abrasions from the chewed up edges of Foils, Sabers and Épées. And from that they can help to prevent infections and other secondary issues.

Yes, Socks are indeed a Safety item, and should be worn when fencing, no matter which weapon you are fencing.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Telk's point was not that ALL safety equipement is designed for major issues, minor issues be damned, but that in FENCING, when the choice has been between good on major and minor issues & slightly better on major issues and worse on minor issues, the choice is usually the latter.

If we were serious about safety for shins, we would all be wearing some sort of shin guards, like those I remember from soccer when I was in third grade. Those would help the minor issues more, and would be more likely to prevent large problems. We're not. In fact, there aren't even particularly good ideas on what is an allowable sock or not.

In fact, I once took off my sock and discovered I'd been hurt earlier, bled enough that I ought to have noticed it, but didn't notice it/clean it/bandage it. Is it really better for me/the sport that I didn't notice?

It may be better than nothing. But I'm not yet convinced that it's a significant change.

[Inquartata]

No, MP. Read his actual comments instead of trying to intuit "what he meant". If he meant what you claim, he'd have said it himself, rather than claiming repeatedly that it's not a safety issue, period, full stop, and that only major injuries can qualify as safety issues...

It strikes me rather like claiming that petty misdemeanors aren't crimes because only felonies qualify.

[telkanuru]

No, what she said is pretty much what I meant.

You can fee free to intuit whatever you want, though.

Erik- My comments were specifically addressed towards fencing safety equipment, which is designed with the evident and obvious purpose of preventing major puncture wounds and little else.

[Rockstar44]

Telk:

Speaking as a person who has studied safety and gotten a degree in industrial safety science, I will take issue with your statement above.

(text removed for brevity)

Yes, Socks are indeed a Safety item, and should be worn when fencing, no matter which weapon you are fencing.

I think that this settles the sock question.

[Inquartata]

Then you should have said that, Telk, instead of making categorical pronouncements of universal Truth...

[MyrddinsPrecint]

No, MP. Read his actual comments instead of trying to intuit "what he meant". If he meant what you claim, he'd have said it himself

No, what she said is pretty much what I meant.

Then you should have said that, Telk, instead of making categorical pronouncements of universal Truth...

Telk is trying to pick up slack from Mr. Epee not being around as much recently. Sometimes he falls short. I know him well enough to pick up the subtleties of what he didn't actually type, because I know his thought processes well. Should he need a translator? No. He should be able to be a bit more clear in what he actually means when he makes pithy sarcastic posts. But the fact remains that usually when I say "this is what Telk meant" I'm usually right.

[telkanuru]

I think that this settles the sock question.

I don't think it does.

[Rockstar44]

I don't think it does.

Of course you don't.