Which safety rules should be strict?

[erooMynohtnA]

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.

Yeah, I agree. We should enforce all the safety rules that those brilliant committees have decided to write.

I am going to refuse to allow fencers to fence in visor masks, or non-FIE masks, or socks that may eventually show the smallest amount of skin at all. I will also destroy those masks. BECAUSE IT SAYS SO IN THE RULES AND IS SAFETY!

Then when I am reprimanded for being a complete retard, I will let them fence, and give some leeway on socks, too.

You might also like to read appendix A section 3.2. Legs are not noted as vital to protect. We know it's right, because a committee said it.

[erik_blank]

Let me start off with this disclaimer:
I do have a Bachelors Degree in Industrial Safety. I have worked professionally in the field, but for a VERY short time. I do currently work in the IT field and have done so for most of my post college work experience. I also sent 4 years in the US Navy, 3.5 of which were as an Aircrew Survival Equipmentman, also called a Parachute Rigger. As such, I was rather close to the whole safety field there.

I DO know the quite a bit about how safety equipment is designed and how these items are supposed to prevent injuries of ALL types.

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.

While it is possible that steel may 'stick' to skin better than to cotton or polyester, I have no evidence one way or another. Personally, I do not feel this statement rings true. There are a LOT of factors that will affect the friction coefficient of metal to skin, from the amount of hair that is/is not present to the amount of perspiration, ambient levels of humidity and temperature all can play a role in this. I would leave this exercises to others. I CAN say that having a layer of ANY fabric will provide an additional level of protection against scrapes and abrasions. Nylon Stockings probably won't give a whole lot of protection, but cotton or cotton blend socks will give more protection.
How Much?
This requires a lot more thought than is possible in this limited forum, including the thickness of the material, th force applied to the material, the duration of the force, the length of the cutting stroke, the sharpness of the cutting edge (including the presence or absence of splintering - rare- or the presence of serrations from lots of hacking at someone else's blade - much more frequent).

As for stretchy cotton socks: Yes, they may well catch the blade if it is chipped up and 'serrated' from long use, but the fact that the SOCK is catching the blade pretty much shows you that the LEG is not, or if the kicks in the blade are that big, then the sock is providing a spacer between the cutting edge and the blade, thus reducing the depth and thus severity of the injury. If you think about just how big most of these nicks on a blade are, the presence of even a 1/32nd inch thick sock will greatly reduce the potential for injury.

Unfortunately for this situation, it is difficult to provide an "absolute truth" because there is no constant to hang a hat on. There are general conditions that can speak to the effectiveness of having a protective coating (read: a sock) over the leg to protect from abrasions and lacerations. THIS OBVIOUSLY WILL NOT PROTECT YOU FROM ALL INJURIES. It will help to REDUCE injuries. Which is what all safety equipment is designed to do. Provide an acceptable level of safety for the cost vs. benefit of the situation. Would a triple knit Ballistic Nylon mesh with fiberglass inserts be better? Yes it would stop more piercing injuries, but the frequencies of these injuries doesn't merit the cost, and the extra weight would reduce mobility.

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.

So, here is my 'absolute' statement: Wearing socks will help to reduce many minor injuries that can potentially turn nasty from secondary issues and complications, with a minimum of additional cost. Standard sport socks cannot protect a person from piercing injuries, but these are very few and far between, and the presence of major blood vessels and organs in this area are limited, thus the exposure to severe life threatening injuries are limited (but not impossible).

[Purple Fencer]

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

*In his best Russian coach voice*

"She need take parry...*

[Jason]

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.

Amazingly, you've made the dumbest thread in the history of the world even dumber.

[telkanuru]

How is babby formed?

[uhl-mann]

Maybe having a requirment of 350 newtons or even better FIE, rather than having the statement made of rubust material.

[HDG]

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.

I fear you give far too much credit to some of these decisionmaking processes.

I have NO difficulty imagining that the sock rule was made SOLELY on an aesthetic basis back in the days when the rules were oscillating b/w pants and knickers for men and groping forward from skirts for women to knickers.

[Purple Fencer]

I fear you give far too much credit to some of these decisionmaking processes.

I have NO difficulty imagining that the sock rule was made SOLELY on an aesthetic basis back in the days when the rules were oscillating b/w pants and knickers for men and groping forward from skirts for women to knickers.

Possibly....but it's also possible that whatever safety protection the socks give was discovered after the aesthetic decision was made, and the followed by a codification based on safety after then. A bit cart-before-the-horse, but it's there now.

[whtouche]

And I'll wager that they had a lot more experience and testing equipment than any of you.

I'm curious what kindof testing equipment you think has ever been used to measure the safety properties of socks.
If you really believe that then you deserve the not really that bad injury your "safety socks" are going to fail to prevent.

Please note that nobody is arguing that people should be allowed to fence without socks. Only that the militant approach of "your socks fell down, here's a card" or incessantly admonishing fencers to pull up their socks every touch, is excessive and unnecessary.

[prototoast]

Please note that nobody is arguing that people should be allowed to fence without socks.

I think people should be allowed to fence without socks.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

I think people should be allowed to fence without socks.

Yes, but that's just because of your unshaven leg fetish.

[parrythis]

If you really believe that then you deserve the not really that bad injury your "safety socks" are going to fail to prevent.

Here is a patent application for Safety Socks.

Here you have Safety Socks already for sale!

[Rockstar44]

I am going to refuse to allow fencers to fence in visor masks, or non-FIE masks,... I will also destroy those masks. BECAUSE IT SAYS SO IN THE RULES AND IS SAFETY!

Really? Where?

[prototoast]

Yes, but that's just because of your unshaven leg fetish.

My unshaven leg fetish is unrelated.

[erooMynohtnA]

Really? Where?

http://www.fencingofficials.org/Rule...20-%20Sept.pdf

M.25, article 7

If this thread has taught me anything, it is that I must apply all rules in the most unreasonable and contrary methods possible.

[Purple Fencer]

http://www.fencingofficials.org/Rule...20-%20Sept.pdf

M.25, article 7

If this thread has taught me anything, it is that I must apply all rules in the most unreasonable and contrary methods possible.

You must've missed the USA-specfic note at the end re use and allowance of non-FIE masks at US domestic comps.

Further, lexan masks are covered in Appendix A (why they aren't up with the rest of the masks stuff I don't know), Section 2 (Equipment), subsection 2.1.2

[oiuyt]

M.25, article 7

FIE Lexan masks follow the rule you cited.

The mesh and wire comply with the requirements. Strap, bib, etc. are in compliance. They follow the safety standards in Appendix A.

What portion of that rule do you think is not followed by an FIE lexan mask?

-B

[Rockstar44]

http://www.fencingofficials.org/Rule...20-%20Sept.pdf

M.25, article 7

If this thread has taught me anything, it is that I must apply all rules in the most unreasonable and contrary methods possible.

Purple Fencer and OIUYT beat me to it.

[erooMynohtnA]

You must've missed the USA-specfic note at the end re use and allowance of non-FIE masks at US domestic comps.

Further, lexan masks are covered in Appendix A (why they aren't up with the rest of the masks stuff I don't know), Section 2 (Equipment), subsection 2.1.2

I was just being unreasonable. I noticed it. However, it says 700 N. What mask that is non-FIE has a 700 N bib?

We've moved from a caricature of poorly applying rules to a real problem with the rulebook. It says the bib must be 700 N in no uncertain terms, and it is clearly a safety rule. So just let people fence in masks deemed unsafe by the rules?

FIE Lexan masks follow the rule you cited.

The mesh and wire comply with the requirements. Strap, bib, etc. are in compliance. They follow the safety standards in Appendix A.

What portion of that rule do you think is not followed by an FIE lexan mask?

-B

It says it must be made with mesh. Understanding otherwise or looking in the appendix would be applying reason. That clearly has no place in this thread.

[tchwojko]

Your signature isn't big enough to cover the whitespace. Please fix that before posting any further.