Which safety rules should be strict?

[telkanuru]

Your ridiculous little opinion is likewise unsurprising.

[Pieter]

To be fair, some elaboration would be nice, Telk, as to why that doesn't answer the question. Doubt there's anything better than a industrial safety expert on this forum to answer the original question.

A single line hardly explains your response.

[Purple Fencer]

To be fair, some elaboration would be nice, Telk, as to why that doesn't answer the question. Doubt there's anything better than a industrial safety expert on this forum to answer the original question.

A single line hardly explains your response.

No...but whjy put forth the effort to support your position when it's easier to simply slang the opposition?

[Inquartata]

And more fun, too!

[MyrddinsPrecint]

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.

{snip}
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.

To cover what we all seem to be able to agree on:

Socks cover any number of things-- you suggest they hide the dripping blood, I've previously suggested that they hide my sometimes not recently shaved legs. They can help prevent blisters (assuming you have a sock strategy/quality that allows this). They can provide team unity.

Socks do not provide any help from a broken blade piercing your leg, or large welts, or deep bruises.

Now onto my confusion: previously it was stated that steel "sticks" to skin, and that's why socks are good (ignoring the large number of possible sock materials, and different skin types, and different blade types I asked about). I was supposed to trust someone's still unexplained expertise on the matter. Now the reason socks are good is because of "chipped up edges", and it seems that anything chipped up wouldn't "stick" as well as something whole.


Am I more at risk from a worn blade or a brand new blade (ignoring infection risk)? Does steel "stick" to skin, or is the primary concern the "chipped up edges"? (This is important-- my nylon material socks would probably not stick very well to steel, but would be useless against chipped up edges. My stretchy cotton socks seem more likely to catch a blade briefly, but would have more meat protecting me from chipped up edges.)

And furthermore, if it's a risk we ought to concern ourselves with, why isn't some sort of plastic shin guard required for the front leg?

Let me make this very clear- I am a naturally skeptical human being. I would probably wear socks even if it was shown they had a very slight negative affect on safety (again, see laziness with regards to ultra-regular leg shaving during winter). But I'm seeing a lot of absolute truths floating around with regards to sock safety, and not much practicable and supported information. Personally, no matter what the concerns were in creating the rule, I would love to make choices that help my safety as much as possible.

Seemingly conflicting information here doesn't help me very much.


And THAT is why I don't consider the sock question settled. No commentary on why Telk doesn't.

[telkanuru]

I don't because somehow several people with learning disabilities decided I am arguing on a general definition of what safety is and not a specific subset of what defines safety equipment in fencing.

I accept the premise that socks prevent minor cuts and abrasions, even though my own experience doesn't really support it. However, preventing these minor types of injury is very much not the point of any other piece of safety equipment used in fencing. This is demonstrated most easily by the fact that a top end FIE jacket will not prevent bruises nearly as well as your $40 cotton ones. The purpose of safety equipment in fencing is to prevent massive catastrophic injuries from broken blades. Therefore, in the context of fencing, socks cannot be considered safety equipment.

Apparently this means I'm redefining the word "safety", so I'm still having a problem here.

[Inquartata]

I don't because somehow several people with learning disabilities decided I am arguing on a general definition of what safety is and not a specific subset of what defines safety equipment in fencing.

"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."

That's not your readers having "learning difficulties", that's you making universal statements that are not only BS but superciliously phrased BS. The fact that you have now decided that the better part of valor is to engage in a bit of definitional retreat and claim that what you said was not what you meant and that really what you meant was what you said does not salvage your performance. Nor does it magically make you retroactively right...

I accept the premise that socks prevent minor cuts and abrasions, even though my own experience doesn't really support it.

Excellent. And prevention of minor cuts and abrasions is what, now? A safety feature? ( Don't make me quote the definition of "safety" again. )

You are on the verge of rehabilitation; don't balk now!

However, preventing these minor types of injury is very much not the point of any other piece of safety equipment used in fencing.

Perhaps. Are you arguing that therefore that standard MUST be extended universally? And if so, on what grounds? Why are different standards not to be imagined?

The purpose of safety equipment in fencing is to prevent massive catastrophic injuries from broken blades. Therefore, in the context of fencing, socks cannot be considered safety equipment.

Merely because 12 things are X does not mean that a Y is impossible. Nor does it mean that because it is not an X it is not a letter.

What "catatrophic injury" does the cup---the REQUIRED cup, which you feel is needless---prevent? None, you have argued heretofore.

What catastrophic injury does the mask strap prevent? The glove?

Apparently this means I'm redefining the word "safety", so I'm still having a problem here.

Use the standard English definition, instead of your own notion that it's somehow precedent-based in fencing. Problem solved!

[telkanuru]

What "catatrophic injury" does the cup---the REQUIRED cup, which you feel is needless---prevent? None, you have argued heretofore.

You'll have to cite an incident of someone actually being forced to wear a cup at any level of competition in order for me to agree that it's actually required. As was mentioned above, it seems to be a remnant rule.

What catastrophic injury does the mask strap prevent? The glove?

Um, the mask falling off your face and getting a blade in your eye? A blade from going up (and into) your arm?

If you think the purpose of a glove is to prevent bruises and cuts on the hand, I'll show you some of my scars next NAC (and ask whats-his-name from the '04 olympics how it worked for him).

Were those real questions?

Use the standard English definition, instead of your own notion that it's somehow precedent-based in fencing. Problem solved!

The standard definition is also the general definition, and we are dealing with a specific case. What is safety equipment in one situation is not in another. Your cotton fencing jacket, for example, would not be considered safety equipment on a live-fire range, even if it prevents some bruising from the bullet impact.

Furthermore, with no specifications as to the standards the socks should meet, one can very well assume fishnets would be acceptable (if tacky). I don't see fishnets as safety gear, do you?

[Rockstar44]

Telk,

Let me make sure that I understand you correctly.

The safety expert who has worked in the field for years is wrong.

The folks with hundreds of years of combined experience are wrong.

I submit that if God himself said you should wear socks you would say He was wrong.

So, the real issue here is not about whether socks are a safety item. The real issue is about Telk telling everybody that they are wrong.

Now I get it.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

You'll have to cite an incident of someone actually being forced to wear a cup at any level of competition in order for me to agree that it's actually required. As was mentioned above, it seems to be a remnant rule.

When Jon Moss was in high school, he was required to hold an epee tip at approximately eye level. Then Sharon Everson, among others, would go down the line, lift the bell, and drop it. This was apparently more pleasant if one was wearing a cup.

This story, told to me by Jon Moss, explains more things than it does not.

Furthermore, with no specifications as to the standards the socks should meet, one can very well assume fishnets would be acceptable (if tacky). I don't see fishnets as safety gear, do you?

Who are you calling tacky?

Telk,

Let me make sure that I understand you correctly.

The safety expert who has worked in the field for years is wrong.

The folks with hundreds of years of combined experience are wrong.

I submit that if God himself said you should wear socks you would say He was wrong.

So, the real issue here is not about whether socks are a safety item. The real issue is about Telk telling everybody that they are wrong.

Now I get it.

..... Erik Blank said he had a degree in safety, not that he had worked in the field for years. His profile indicates he's currently an IT Professional. Obviously people change careers somewhat often these days, so he very well might have worked in the field for years...... But I have to wonder at least a little-- were you instead referring to yourself? Again-- those who refuse to relay their qualification don't usually get credit for them on a message board in which they are not terribly well known yet. If you have a relevant area of expertise, please share.

Each person has their own experience. I, personally, have developed plenty of cuts on my legs in fencing, and at least many of the times, it happened when I had socks on. It's certainly possible it would have been worse without the socks. I can't know that.

Flinging about personal experience is great. It can lead us toward some pretty good hypotheses. It's not ideal, however. Ideally we'd have studies done about types of fencing injuries, and whether they happened with or without socks. And what kind of socks. Obviously much of that simply doesn't exist, but being at least partially skeptical until such evidence can be found is healthy, and the sign of someone well trained in science.

Now, telling Telk he's an asshole won't really faze him, that's largely what he's going for. His motivations and decision aren't the topic of the thread. But ignoring any of the more logical points he has made is very easy when you insult him for his delivery.

I have to notice, however, that you're ignoring me entirely, even when I'm asking some pretty simple and important questions. Why?

[Pieter]

However, preventing these minor types of injury is very much not the point of any other piece of safety equipment used in fencing. This is demonstrated most easily by the fact that a top end FIE jacket will not prevent bruises nearly as well as your $40 cotton ones.

It may not be the main point, but I suspect a FIE jacket does one bang up job of preventing cuts and scratches! [Read: Not bruises]

[Inquartata]

You'll have to cite an incident of someone actually being forced to wear a cup at any level of competition in order for me to agree that it's actually required. As was mentioned above, it seems to be a remnant rule.

What's that?

And no, I needn't cite an example of enforcement in order to make it a requirement, when there's a written requirement...

Um, the mask falling off your face and getting a blade in your eye?

Has that EVER happened because of the lack or failure of a strap? Ever? Even in the days before they were required?

Maybe we should call the tinfoil you wear in your hat a safety feature. Doubtless it protects you from mind-reading rays from spaceships. Seems about as useful as a mask strap as far remedying a real-world event...

A blade from going up (and into) your arm?

Great! So I can wear gloves without fingertips, then?

The rule only specifies the length of the cuff as a safety feature, not the rest of it.

And again, most gloves are about as flimsy as socks, and have proven themselves as incapable of preventing piercings as socks. Some safety item! Yet you say that they ARE a safety item...right?

The standard definition is also the general definition, and we are dealing with a specific case.

Irrelevant. The rules do not define "safety", so we are left with the general definition. Lobby the FIE to add a "specific case" definition if you don't like it. I'll go along with you the minute they do.

What is safety equipment in one situation is not in another.

Yet socks still prevent some injury or hurt. Which is the definition of a safety item.

Our masks would not be adequate to prevent injury or death worn as motorcycle helmets, but they are still safety items and would remain so if worn on a Harley.


[/quote]

Furthermore, with no specifications as to the standards the socks should meet, one can very well assume fishnets would be acceptable (if tacky). I don't see fishnets as safety gear, do you?[/QUOTE]

If they prevent an injury or hurt, sure.

The ( probably apocryphal ) story in my family goes that I had a great-uncle who fought in WWII, and had a bullet stopped by the little Bible he carried in his pocket.

ANYthing can be a safety item if it stops an injury or hurt.

[epeemike81]

Has that EVER happened because of the lack or failure of a strap? Ever? Even in the days before they were required?

I have seen masks fall off during fencing action at least twice in the last year.

-m

[Inquartata]

So have I.

Were any eyes pieced by any blades when it happened?

[epeemike81]

So have I.

Were any eyes pieced by any blades when it happened?

luckily, no, but it's not hard to envision a serious injury occuring in such a situation. If it were, then there'd be no need to where masks at all.

-m

[Rockstar44]

But, what if it was my mom, who has eyes in the back of her head?

[Rockstar44]

Maybe we should call the tinfoil you wear in your hat a safety feature. Doubtless it protects you from mind-reading rays from spaceships.

What's to read?

[Inquartata]

luckily, no, but it's not hard to envision a serious injury occuring in such a situation. If it were, then there'd be no need to where masks at all.

-m

All the other safety equipment exists to protect from events which have actually happened.

I can't see how an item that supposedly protects from one that has never happened is MORE of a safety feature than one which protects at least from minor hazards which have actually occurred.

YMMV.

[TheNamelessOne]

AHEM!

The rules on safety and other equipment exist because somewhere, back in that fog we call the past, some committe has already gone through this argument and found that the socks, or mask straps, or gloves, or whatever, are, in fact, necessary. And I'll wager that they had a lot more experience and testing equipment than any of you. So let's just agree that the people who know more than us made a good decision and enforce the rules the way the rules say they are to be enforced.

Whining about it because you refused to wash your long socks the night before a tournament, or bought a pack of bubble gum instead of long socks and don't want to be forced to procure the required equipment is STUPID!!!

[prototoast]

The rules on safety and other equipment exist because somewhere, back in that fog we call the past, some committe has already gone through this argument and found that the socks, or mask straps, or gloves, or whatever, are, in fact, necessary. And I'll wager that they had a lot more experience and testing equipment than any of you. So let's just agree that the people who know more than us made a good decision and enforce the rules the way the rules say they are to be enforced.

Lexan masks at World Cups.