Fie suspends requirement for visor masks for foil

[pillow]

Please see the USFA homepage. The FIE urgent letter as of today suspends the use of visor masks for all international competition until the investigation of the accident has been completed.

Does this mean that the USFA will ban visor masks in foil as of NAC B?

This does seem to mean that all of our Junior and Senior World Cup fencers will now have to spend more money and buy a NEW mesh mask with an electric bib, as most of those fencers are using visor masks with electric bibs.

Comments?

[Jason]

A suspension of the requirement in foil, but not in sabre? If the lexan is a safety risk in one, it's a risk in the other.

[downunder]

you're reading it wrong.

They're removing the mandatory use for foil requirement, not banning the mask.

[OROD]

Please see the USFA homepage. The FIE urgent letter as of today suspends the use of visor masks for all international competition until the investigation of the accident has been completed.

Does this mean that the USFA will ban visor masks in foil as of NAC B?

This does seem to mean that all of our Junior and Senior World Cup fencers will now have to spend more money and buy a NEW mesh mask with an electric bib, as most of those fencers are using visor masks with electric bibs.

Comments?

Uhmm, comments... yeah, my comment is that the FIE should stop making stupid and arbitrary rules changes that have to later be urgently suspended before someone gets killed.

On the other hand, why kill foil slowly when you can kill foilists quickly with Lexan masks. Or, even better, make the neck target area... then foilists wont be able to complain about the stupid rules changes because they cant speak after getting poked in the neck all day.

.

[seven6ty]

...But how are we going to see their facial expressions now?!?!

[pillow]

Now, I imagine you could interpret the FIE ruling of "suspends the MANDATORY use of visor masks" as meaning that you can still use one if you want to. So what's the story?

And if the FIE is not really banning the visors, but leaving the choice to the fencer, how is that going to help from a safety point of view before the investigation is completed?

[pillow]

you're reading it wrong.

They're removing the mandatory use for foil requirement, not banning the mask.

How is this useful information? Either the visor mask is safe or not. If the fencer is not confident about avoiding severe injury, why not ban the mask until further notice? I find the FIE letter confusing and unhelpful.

Do you not agree?

[Craig]

This is not the first time there has been a temp. suspension:

FIE suspends transparent visor mask requirement for foil

Craig

[pillow]

This is not the first time there has been a temp. suspension:

FIE suspends transparent visor mask requirement for foil

Craig

Thanks for fixing the thread title. Don't you think it's a bit odd that the choice is now up to the fencers as to whether to use a possibly unsafe mask?

[Purple Fencer]

A ban in foil, but not in sabre? If the lexan is a safety risk in one, it's a risk in the other.

Not entirely, since sabre is MOSTLY done with cuts and not point attacks...especially to the face. A sabre point attack is usually going to go either deep to the chest or a pick at the forearm.

Does this mean that the USFA will ban visor masks in foil as of NAC B?

No, since it's not a ban...merely a removal of mandatory status....and they were never mandatory in the US anyway.

[Jason]

Not entirely, since sabre is MOSTLY done with cuts and not point attacks...especially to the face. A sabre point attack is usually going to go either deep to the chest or a pick at the forearm.

Considering that the current FIE position is that they don't know why the failure occurred, it seems imprudent to assume safety in one case over another.

Additionally, having a safety standard that relies on "mostly" and "usually" seems extremely problematic. I have seen (and experienced) extremely forceful hits with the tip to the face often enough to make me wonder about the the sensibility of keeping the mask requirement in place without further information about the recent failure.

[pillow]

Considering that the current FIE position is that they don't know why the failure occurred, it seems imprudent to assume safety in one case over another.

Additionally, having a safety standard that relies on "mostly" and "usually" seems extremely problematic. I have seen (and experienced) extremely forceful hits with the tip to the face often enough to make me wonder about the the sensibility of keeping the mask requirement in place without further information about the recent failure.

Very true. The only sensible action by the FIE would be to ban all visor masks until we know what happened. All we have now is confusion due to the removal of the "mandatory" use of visor masks for foil.

I predict now, that with the next visor mask accident, in either foil or sabre, the visors will be banned, possible forever.

[Fiat Slug]

FIE is essentially saying that they're sufficiently concerned about the safety of the visor mask to not make its usage mandatory. However, they're also saying that if you really want to use it, you're free to do so. Personally, I find this troubling. A safety device needs to be either sufficiently safe or not. There should not be a gray area. I realize that not all of the facts are in. In light of this, would it not be prudent to take the more cautious path and temporarily ban the mask?

[pillow]

FIE is essentially saying that they're sufficiently concerned about the safety of the visor mask to not make its usage mandatory. However, they're also saying that if you really want to use it, you're free to do so. Personally, I find this troubling. A safety device needs to be either sufficiently safe or not. There should not be a gray area. I realize that not all of the facts are in. In light of this, would it not be prudent to take the more cautious path and temporarily ban the mask?

Of course it would. Now in Europe, there is not the same culture of personal injury ambulance chasing lawyers, hence the masks have not been banned.

However, regardless of the waiver USFA fencers sign at NACs, I bet if a visor mask failed now, after the FIE warning, a personal injury lawyer could have some fun.

[dberke]

FIE is essentially saying that they're sufficiently concerned about the safety of the visor mask to not make its usage mandatory. However, they're also saying that if you really want to use it, you're free to do so. Personally, I find this troubling. A safety device needs to be either sufficiently safe or not. There should not be a gray area. I realize that not all of the facts are in. In light of this, would it not be prudent to take the more cautious path and temporarily ban the mask?

And yet this is exactly what we do here in the USA. In the rest of the world, a FIE (800N) uniform is reqired to compete. But here, we allow non-FIE uniforms (350N I believe)... we let the fencers decide. Are simple cotton 350N jackets "safe enough"? I guess so... but only we seem to think that. (I have no statistics to prove or disprove that... are injuries in 350N jackets more common than in 800N ones?)

While I'd love to see visor masks banned for other reasons, I can see why the FIE took this compromise approach. But you'll never see me wearing one...

Dan

[NGV]

Now in Europe, there is not the same culture of personal injury ambulance chasing lawyers, hence the masks have not been banned.

Doesn't make much sense - the "permitted but not mandatory" standard they FIE now has is exactly what we've had in the USA since the masks were introduced. And, (as dberke points out) the USFA has been less disposed in general to mandate strict protection standards for equipment than Europe has.

I'd rather get rid of the visor masks entirely, but I think that an intermediate policy of use at your own risk is defensible pending further research.

[pillow]

Doesn't make much sense - the "permitted but not mandatory" standard they FIE now has is exactly what we've had in the USA since the masks were introduced. And, (as dberke points out) the USFA has been less disposed in general to mandate strict protection standards for equipment than Europe has.

I'd rather get rid of the visor masks entirely, but I think that an intermediate policy of use at your own risk is defensible pending further research.

Certainly true--for now. As soon as the first kid loses an eye when a visor fails, the masks will be banned by the USFA.

[hello?]

Now, I imagine you could interpret the FIE ruling of "suspends the MANDATORY use of visor masks" as meaning that you can still use one if you want to. So what's the story?

And if the FIE is not really banning the visors, but leaving the choice to the fencer, how is that going to help from a safety point of view before the investigation is completed?

It seems crazy. And yet, in some states, motorcycle drivers can choose to wear a helmet -- or not.

To be honest, if my daughter was still fencing, this ONE incident of a punctured visor mask (even if not in her weapon) would be enough for me to say: "I guess we won't be using THAT again, especially since the FIE says you don't have to." I would think a glass eye probably costs more than new mesh mask...

[I_luv_saber]

FIE is essentially saying that they're sufficiently concerned about the safety of the visor mask to not make its usage mandatory. However, they're also saying that if you really want to use it, you're free to do so. Personally, I find this troubling. A safety device needs to be either sufficiently safe or not. There should not be a gray area. I realize that not all of the facts are in. In light of this, would it not be prudent to take the more cautious path and temporarily ban the mask?

And yet, we would probably all be moaning that the FIE is forcing fencers to make another expensive purchase if they did ban them until further notice, no?

Why is this a big deal? We all know the problems of lexan (lack of good testing, etc). It's almost like the Carbon Fiber vs. Steel debate in cycling. Carbon Fiber is good for a lot of things, but when it fails, it's usually catastrophic and doesn't give much warning, whereas steel will usually bend or give some warning before total failure. That said, are they terribly unsafe? Not if they are being taken care of and are being properly inspected from time to time for signs of stress. Are they banned from cycling because of this? No.

This is a very similar situation. Now that they are not mandatory, fencers who are confident that they have taken care of their equipment can continue to use a good, sturdy piece of equipment. Those who don't or are not confident can use steelies.

We need to put this in perspective here. This is one incident. One. Steelies fail, too. Now, my gut tells me lexan is probably very similar to CF in that it's only unsafe when not properly cared for. But if you are caring for it, would you really stop using it because of a single incident? Really? This seems grossly over-reacting to me - akin to people not swimming in the ocean for fear of shark attacks (despite the extremely small numbers).

[pillow]

And yet, we would probably all be moaning that the FIE is forcing fencers to make another expensive purchase if they did ban them until further notice, no?

Why is this a big deal? We all know the problems of lexan (lack of good testing, etc). It's almost like the Carbon Fiber vs. Steel debate in cycling. Carbon Fiber is good for a lot of things, but when it fails, it's usually catastrophic and doesn't give much warning, whereas steel will usually bend or give some warning before total failure. That said, are they terribly unsafe? Not if they are being taken care of and are being properly inspected from time to time for signs of stress. Are they banned from cycling because of this? No.

This is a very similar situation. Now that they are not mandatory, fencers who are confident that they have taken care of their equipment can continue to use a good, sturdy piece of equipment. Those who don't or are not confident can use steelies.

We need to put this in perspective here. This is one incident. One. Steelies fail, too. Now, my gut tells me lexan is probably very similar to CF in that it's only unsafe when not properly cared for. But if you are caring for it, would you really stop using it because of a single incident? Really? This seems grossly over-reacting to me - akin to people not swimming in the ocean for fear of shark attacks (despite the extremely small numbers).

I have a different take on this matter. In my opinion, the lack of reliable testing and the sudden failure characteristics of Lexan are exactly what makes it dangerous for use in fencing masks. I would like to think that if you "take good care" of you visor mask it will not fail. However, I think our experience with these masks is still too new to really know how they behave in the long term. What does "properly maintain" really mean to the competitive fencer who practices 4-5 times per week and competes 2-3 times per month? How do you really know when a "scratch" becomes deep enough to risk the visor shattering? You really cannot, unfortunately.

Let me ask you, if Baldini or Ota loses an eye or has a foil enter the brain at the first GP event of the season, do you really think the FIE is going to continue to allow fencers to use visor masks ever again?