FIE Suspends use of Visor mask for foil and epee

[SJCFU#2]

If the scratch layer is scratched, you can't tell if the underlying visor is scratched or dented. If it is, big problem. Changing it for every tournament makes it possible to assess. The best thing I can think of would be to disassemble and check. That seems oppressive.

Wasn't there also some mention of using a UV light to inspect the visor - or was that elsewhere in the discussions surrounding that posting?

If I understand correctly (which is a big if) part of the idea in requiring a new scratch layer when presenting the mask for inspection is to allow the use of UV light to identify scratches in the structural layer. Seems like a good idea but I can see where having that could get rather expensive if such a requirement were adopted on all levels. In addition, I also have to wondering about procedures for such a test and what would qualify as pass/fail criteria.

[pillow]

Wasn't there also some mention of using a UV light to inspect the visor - or was that elsewhere in the discussions surrounding that posting?

If I understand correctly (which is a big if) part of the idea in requiring a new scratch layer when presenting the mask for inspection is to allow the use of UV light to identify scratches in the structural layer. Seems like a good idea but I can see where having that could get rather expensive if such a requirement were adopted on all levels. In addition, I also have to wondering about procedures for such a test and what would qualify as pass/fail criteria.

The answer to this question can be found at post #279

[Barry Paul at Home]

But instead, they will continue to be compulsory for sabre at the World Cup level, only everyonme will now have to buy a new, improved one. Including those who just bought new LP Xchanges last month...

This would only be true if our mask don't pass any revised rules which they will.

[Inquartata]

Hopefully. But it was this sentence ( from post #271 ) which concerned me:

"IIRC the last time the FIE went through such this sort of thing all existing visor masks were decertified, including those for masks which already met the new standards" ( emphasis added )

Being an inveterate pessimist, what I am expecting is that the FIE will decide that leaving your masks still certified would give you too much of a competitive advantage over other makers, and instead will decide to "level the playing field" by decertifying everything.

( Not that I'd ever imply that any decision-maker in the FIE might have any personal interest in a fencing-equipment vendor, or relationships with those who do, which might color his judgement or anything. )

[Peyton]

We already had a working system, while I understand the desire "If it ain't broke it doesn't have enough features yet" we're not talking about tinkering with a TV set or a car, we're talking about protective equipment for the face.

I know a young beginner fencer who, due to a vision problem, cannot use a metal mesh mask. In fact, I believe she will have to quit fencing because of this.

Maybe a transparent visor does make a big enough difference for some?

[pillow]

We already had a working system, while I understand the desire "If it ain't broke it doesn't have enough features yet" we're not talking about tinkering with a TV set or a car, we're talking about protective equipment for the face.

I know a young beginner fencer who, due to a vision problem, cannot use a metal mesh mask. In fact, I believe she will have to quit fencing because of this.

Maybe a transparent visor does make a big enough difference for some?

Better to retain your sight, even with a vision problem, than to fence with a visor mask and risk losing an eye.

[Peyton]

Better to retain your sight, even with a vision problem, than to fence with a visor mask and risk losing an eye.

Is a broken visor really likely in junior girls' fencing practice?

[pillow]

Is a broken visor really likely in junior girls' fencing practice?

It doesn't matter, as the issue is moot, since visor masks are banned for epee and foil by the FIE, as well as by most (?) national federations. If the individual in question is a beginning sabre fencer using a visor mask, many people may feel that is an unsafe situation.

[Purple Fencer]

Is a broken visor really likely in junior girls' fencing practice?

A well trained junior old can put out a fair amount of power, even at a young age...and a broken blade doesn't care if it's practice or not.

Besides....the punctured mask happened at a JR event.

[misha]

A well trained junior old can put out a fair amount of power, even at a young age...

An untrained junior who has no clue what he/she is doing even more dangerous because:
- they can put pressure at weird angles
- they would attack at the wrong time at very close distance
- they would not know when to stop
- they would not realize that they need to stop
....

and a broken blade doesn't care if it's practice or not.

That!

[Peyton]

[Double post that didn't originally show up]

[Peyton]

I have another question: Isn't it true that the broken visor didn't meet FIE standards to begin with? If so, it seems kind of odd that FIE would then ban all transparent masks for foil and epée, including the ones that did meet the original requirements. (Especially when they were formerly mandatory!)

[Gav]

I have another question: Isn't it tue that the broken visor didn't meet FIE standards to begin with? If so, it seems kind of odd that FIE would then ban all transparent masks for foil and epée, including the ones that did meet the original requirements. (Especially when they were formerly mandatory!)

You might want to try reading the thread.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

I have another question: Isn't it tue that the broken visor didn't meet FIE standards to begin with? If so, it seems kind of odd that FIE would then ban all transparent masks for foil and epée, including the ones that did meet the original requirements. (Especially when they were formerly mandatory!)

They are in the process of trying to figure out what's safe and what isn't. They may determine that all visor masks have flaws that can be fixed, but can't be tested for, and so they're all to risky. Or that they can be safe, as long as they do x, y, and z. Or a world of other outcomes. They're looking into it. In the meantime, they know that some masks are very dangerous, and they don't know what percentage of masks that is. And yes, it is really bad that they didn't realize there were serious safety concerns before making them mandatory.

But when you know that SOME of the food your restaurant sells is giving food poisoning, and you don't know what or why, you SHUT DOWN, so that you stop giving people food poisoning. It doesn't matter that much of the food is yummy and doesn't have pathogens, something may hurt people.

[DHCJr]

I have another question: Isn't it true that the broken visors didn't meet the FIE requirements? If so, it seems odd that FIE than banned even the ones that did. (Especially after they made them mandatory!)

Did they? The problem is the 'requirements' are vague. There is no ban on 'injection molding' which was probably the biggest problem. The rules only say formed while hot. Injection molding meets those requirements. The rules are vague on a number of points, that are just now causing problems.

Some examples, all they require is a thickness. The type or grade of polycarbonate (lexan) is never specified. Look at blades or the mesh of the masks. They go into what elements and amount goes into the steel. Scratch layer is only recomended. Look at the date requirements. It says it must have the year and month, but it does not say the format. Some manufactures will have 10 04 and some will have 04 10. Which is right? Before you answer, let us look at FIE requirement for other pieces of equipment. In the pictures of the FIE shield, it show 12 97, obviously month year.

The FIE must now go back and literally throw out the requirements and create enforcable and quantitative rules.

The requirements were so vague, the mask that failed met the requirements.

[brtech]

I have not seen any update on the progress of this issue. The report from the technical expert who is working on the new rules was very enlightening, and mostly encouraging. I would like to know:

a) when is the "first phase" = new visors, existing mesh/frame going to be required?
b) when is the target date for "second phase" = new mesh?

Then of course, we need to have the USFA decide what we are going to require on the scratch shield. The FIE rule will be new scratch shield for every FIE tournament. Overkill no doubt for us, but what reasonable rule (reasonable from safety first, enforcement second, cost third) could we have?

Barry?