Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

edew · 12-11-2002, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Inquartata
So, what is the rationale behind the prohibition on armorers working on stuff at NACs? Or IS there one?

Like everything else in the world: money.

Inquartata · 12-11-2002, 02:14 AM

I would presume that'd enter into the equation somehow. But I can't figure out how the USFA loses money if the armourers work on gear when they aren't busy otherwise...

Capt. Slo-mo · 12-11-2002, 02:23 AM

Donald:

When you say "We were told" that USFA armorers couldn't fix items for fencers at the NACs, was it people from the USFA, or was it people from Ye Olde Armourer doing the telling?

I've seen Tim laying into USFA armorers for allegedly doing work that he could be getting paid for, so it makes me wonder.

It seems to me that having the USFA certified armorers available to help me repair a body cord plug is much more valuable to me than just having someone fix it. Not that I want to throw it on the armorers table and just walk away while it's being worked on, but I would rather have the inner workings of broken things explained so I can work on them in the future. If the armorers are not otherwise occupied checking in gear, and are willing, this seems a reasonable use of our time.

In addition, at past NAC events, the Ye Olde Armorer has blacklisted all fencers from certain clubs, following what Tim perceived as ill treatment of his family members by certain coaches. I can have some sympathy, having seen some of the coaches in action, but here's the question:

If Ye Olde Armorer has a USFA-granted monopoly, but refuses my club access to his services because someone in our club yelled at a family member, but no one else is "authorized" to do repair work, how do I get a body cord/mask/weapon fixed?

If you could give us some more specific information on who is making the official rules about armoring practices, we could address our concerns to the appropriate people.

Thanks!

DHCJr · 12-11-2002, 12:58 PM

As I said in an earlier post, the first time we were told was before 'Ye Olde Armorers'. The rumor is (a rumor only, I have never been able to get anyone from the USFA to confirm or deny) that the vendors were complaining that we were repairing so much and so quickly that they were not selling as much as they would like. Since they pay a booth fee, they have more clout. Remember, that was only a rumor.

Also, there have always been rumors that the Armorers are in league with the vendors by failing equipment, thereby forcing fencers to buy equipment. The opposite is true; the vendors would like us to be less strict, because we fail a lot of new equipment. For example at one National, I failed 7 brand new Lame and a lot of brand new body cords that did not meet the specifications. They were not happy, but we showed them the rules. They were caught in the middle, the manufacturer had poor quality control on the Lame (sizing was still on this batch) and they ignored the rules on the body cords.

Let the Armorers at the NAC’s know the situation. None are happy with the ban and will be very willing to ‘teach’ you how to fix the equipment and do some diagnosis. But as with all tournaments, the tournament comes first even at the Duel. The saving grace at the Duel is there will be 5 Armorers, more than at a typical NAC.

As who to contact, the USFA Officers, probably Chris Cuddy of the National Office (he is in charge of Tournament Services), Ron Herman who is on the Tournament Committee as the Armorer's Liason and to a lesser extent, Carla Richards and Michael Massik.

Peach · 12-11-2002, 01:05 PM

It hasn't been my (albeit limited) experience that the vendors are much in conflict with the armorers. My Infinity lame didn't pass (I didn't wash it before Columbus) and Amanda at Blue Gauntlet refused to sell me a new one, telling me to go rinse it out in the ladies room, let it dry, and try again. It passed, and she was glad. I've had a body cord I just bought fail, and they replaced it with no problem.

DHCJr · 12-11-2002, 01:18 PM

You are right. I said it poorly, but what I was trying to say was at the time that this was first proposed, there was a conflict. The vendors are now listening and seeing that the Armorers are not against them, but for the fencers. The problem with the body cord are now being manufactured to specification and also the Armorers are listening to the vendors. For example, the tab on the Sabre jackets, the vendors understand the problem and are contacting the manufacturers telling them they need to change the tab in the future, which seems to be happening before. The Armorers are just warning about that rule.

In the case of the body cords, the vendors stated since they came from a major manufacturer, they had to be right and the 'local' Armorers had to be wrong and didn't know anything.

Both sides are now working together. There are many times that a vendor will sell the parts for a weapon and will not have time to build it for the fencer. They will send the fencer to the Armorers to build it and we are happy to do it.

I appologize for not saying it clearly before.

Capt. Slo-mo · 12-11-2002, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DHCJr

Both sides are now working together. There are many times that a vendor will sell the parts for a weapon and will not have time to build it for the fencer. They will send the fencer to the Armorers to build it and we are happy to do it.

That is nice to know.
Now if only the referees and the fencers could work together instead of one being against the other,
Donald you said it in your first paragraph, "not against vendors but for the fencers." Same with Referees....

edew · 12-11-2002, 07:23 PM

Referees work neither for nor against fencers. The referees are supposed to be impartial. They're there to call the action (in the right-of-way events) and signal halt and apply the appropriate penalty when a foul has occurred. That's all. It's called being impartial.

Inquartata · 12-11-2002, 11:02 PM

"Supposed to be"...ay, there's the rub...

edew · 12-12-2002, 12:44 PM

Well, if the referee is not impartial, at least he's working for one of the fencers. Kinda hard to work for both fencers. And kinda hard to be stiffing both (although that should be easier than being partial to both fencers).

As Jeff Bukantz wrote in the article about referees in the last American Fencing magazine, referees are impartial. No rub, no supposed-to-be. No evidence you can produce will change that edict.

BugabooX · 12-12-2002, 01:21 PM

Sheesh.

Indeed, evidence cannot change an edict. An edict will stand no matter how much evidence, observation, opinion and experience you can stack up against it. Because an edict is an authority's statement of will, nothing more. Whether it's TRUE or FAIR is another matter entirely.

So ... (snappy salute) Yes, sir. If our fearless leader has said it is so, it must be.

For the record: My dog is the smartest in the world, and "no evidence you can produce will change that edict."

ChubbyHubby · 12-12-2002, 01:33 PM

Thanks for the enlightenment... explains a lot

my wife must be the fountain of "edicts" (if there is such a word)

Boo Boo · 12-12-2002, 08:07 PM

Please excuse the screams of terror and agony that will shortly being coming from ChubbyHubby's direction....

Boo
(over 5 years of marriage and he still hasn't learnt that a wife is always right....).

Inquartata · 12-12-2002, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by edew

As Jeff Bukantz wrote in the article about referees in the last American Fencing magazine, referees are impartial. No rub, no supposed-to-be. No evidence you can produce will change that edict.

Sorry, SORRY, didn't mean to contradict Pope Jeff, please, we don't need the Spanish Inquisition coming in here...

...3, 2, 1...