You make the call -- armory version

[Purple Fencer]

Happened to one of my high school fencers today.

Epee tourney. Fencer reports to the strip and presents the weapon.

The front three inches or so from the base of the barrel have been reglued a few times, so there's a good deal of glue in the groove, and because of the lack of depth, the glue sticks out above the top surface of the blade. Those who have done emergency glue-downs know what I'm talking about.

Ref gives a yellow card for excessive glue on the weapon.

Yes/no? (I know this one already)

[Purple Fencer]

Ok....whoever voted yellow card....explain why.

[oosnoopy]

Excessive glue gives a card, why? Having excessive glue only hurts that fencers by adding weight and making a spot on the blade that could accidentally give his opponent a point because it wasn't grounded.

[cplmontana]

No card. The fencer is responsible for the maintenance of his own weapon.

[fdad]

m.5.4.c.iii "They are advised:" "to avoid accumulations of glue in the groove of the blade" does not seem to be a reason to card.

m.5.5.c "The blades and the guards in epee ... must be totally of metal. ... their exteriors must not be covered by any material (platic or other)." seems like it might apply.

[crquack]

NO card! There is no such thing as excess glue :-)

[DHCJr]

m.5.5.c "The blades and the guards in epee ... must be totally of metal. ... their exteriors must not be covered by any material (platic or other)." seems like it might apply.

This is contradicted by m.18, at least for the blade.

Suggestion, you will also find the answer in the T rules.

[fdad]

This is contradicted by m.18, at least for the blade.

Suggestion, you will also find the answer in the T rules.

I don't think m.18 contradicts. One purpose of the groove is to allow the wire and glue to not cover the blade beyond the groove. I don't think the fact that t.68.g states that a touch on a glue covered spot on a blade can't be thrown out means covering your blade in glue should be allowed.

[Purple Fencer]

I don't think m.18 contradicts. One purpose of the groove is to allow the wire and glue to not cover the blade beyond the groove. I don't think the fact that t.68.g states that a touch on a glue covered spot on a blade can't be thrown out means covering your blade in glue should be allowed.

The question, however, is who is harmed by such a touch? Answer...the person with the over-glued blade. You can't really penalize a fencer for a weapon issue that might cost THEM a touch.

[erooMynohtnA]

Yes you can. That's ridiculous.

[Purple Fencer]

Yes you can. That's ridiculous.

Show me the rule....this SAME ref red carded a fencer a couple of years back (with no prior yellow) for a foil that failed on the strip...one that had passed the weight and lame tests....you can't card for a weapon failure in the course of fencing.

This same ref yellow carded a fencer because his spare gear -- which had been placed under the scoring table -- had accidentally been kicked into the field of play by a fencing on the strip on the OTHER side of the table.

This same ref yellow carded a fencer recently for an intentional hit to the floor (ungrounded strip) when she'd made a big sweeping parry and missed.

This ref has a history of pulling rules out of his hindquarters...show me the rule that justifies carding a fencer with excess glue on the wire....how is that excess glue helping her? That's like carding a foilist for not enough tape on the barrel.

[erooMynohtnA]

You said you can't really penalize a fencer for a weapon issue that might cost them a touch.. That is incorrect. That is all I'm saying.

[Stormbringer]

The question, however, is who is harmed by such a touch? Answer...the person with the over-glued blade. You can't really penalize a fencer for a weapon issue that might cost THEM a touch.

Yes you can. That's ridiculous.

Yes, you can indeed "penalize a fencer for a weapon issue that might cost THEM a touch".
Examples include initially presenting a weapon that does not register touches and initially presenting an epee that is missing one of the two tip screws (such that loss of the remaining screw would leave the fencer without a tip, a la the fencer in the Bukantz article).

As for the glue issue, there is t.68.g:

The fact that the épée of a competitor has large or small areas of insulation formed by oxidation, by glue, paint or any other material on the guard, on the blade or elsewhere, on which his opponent‘s touches can cause a touch to be signalled, or that the electric tip is badly fixed to the end of the blade so that it can be unscrewed or tightened by hand, cannot justify the annulment of touches registered against that competitor.

Additionally, the mention of the phrase "to avoid accumulations of glue in the groove of the blade" in M.5.4 seems to have been made in the context of ensuring that the maximum resistance of any exposed part of the weapon (other than those specifically required to be insulated) is less than two ohms.

At some point, the weapon will fail to conform to those rules (in spirit/"interpretation", if not the letter)... and, at that point, the referee could penalize the fencer for "clothing/equipment not working or not conforming".

And where is that point? How much excess glue is enough? As another example, let's say the retention/strengthening plate of the weapon's guard is rusted to the point of allowing touches to be registered against it - do you think a fencer should be allowed to start/continue a bout with that weapon?

I'm not saying that this ref was necessarily right to issue the card described in the opening post, but - depending on just how much glue there was and how it was distributed - the case could be made that the penalty might not be as out-of-the-blue as the opening post might imply... O_o

Your thoughts?

[Purple Fencer]

Yes, you can indeed "penalize a fencer for a weapon issue that might cost THEM a touch".
Examples include initially presenting a weapon that does not register touches and initially presenting an epee that is missing one of the two tip screws (such that loss of the remaining screw would leave the fencer without a tip, a la the fencer in the Bukantz article).

Sorry...I should've clarified that. I was referring to a weapon issue that might result in a point being scored on that weapon (guard not conducting, BIG glue blob in the groove, etc). NOT a legitimate and on-the-books penalty like missing a screw or security device when presented to the director.

As for the glue issue, there is t.68.g:


Additionally, the mention of the phrase "to avoid accumulations of glue in the groove of the blade" in M.5.4 seems to have been made in the context of ensuring that the maximum resistance of any exposed part of the weapon (other than those specifically required to be insulated) is less than two ohms.

At some point, the weapon will fail to conform to those rules (in spirit/"interpretation", if not the letter)... and, at that point, the referee could penalize the fencer for "clothing/equipment not working or not conforming".

That's a real stretch for me...glue generally doesn't affect resistance (unless you're use something like Elmer's...which has been reported to be conductive in it's own right)

And where is that point? How much excess glue is enough?

The amount of excess glue on the epee in question wasn't really all that much...there certainly weren't any big globs that could've caught the point....it'd just been top-glued a few times too many (and I really should've made sure she gave it to me when she left so I could rewire it before the HS champs)

As another example, let's say the retention/strengthening plate of the weapon's guard is rusted to the point of allowing touches to be registered against it - do you think a fencer should be allowed to start/continue a bout with that weapon?

No....and THAT one should earn a card as the guard would not be able to conduct and ground a shot to it...the guard's a WHOLE lot more likely to take a hit than the front 3 inches of the blade. The purpose of the guard conducting is that hits to it do not register -- why else do the bell guard test prior to starting the bout??

Now I'm aware someone's going to say that since the blade needs to conduct as well, and for the same reason, that there's no difference (and that may be where the ref is coming from), but by the same token, if the ref misses a glue blob on inspection, or the fencers miss a non-conductive spot on the test....but then a blade catches the glue or the dead spot, resulting in a light...that should result in a valid touch against and the weapon should be switched out....but no additional card should be given.

I'm not saying that this ref was necessarily right to issue the card described in the opening post, but - depending on just how much glue there was and how it was distributed - the case could be made that the penalty might not be as out-of-the-blue as the opening post might imply... O_o

Your thoughts?

Just outlined them!

For myself, the card was ridiculous and uncalled for....there was no rule violation. Unfortunately, the fencer didn't realize she could ask for a clarification of the rule he was using to justify the card.

[Mergs]

Come on, Sam - we discussed this during AC and you know the answer is yellow card if the blade is presented at the beginning of fenging and is not conforming, much the same as if there is corrosion on the guard that prevents proper grounding of the opponent's weapon on yours, which the excessive glue issue does. That is why Dan, IRRC, includes the wired epee point as a part of his box.

[Mac A. Bee]

...ref red carded a fencer...(with no prior yellow) for a foil that failed on the strip...one that had passed the weight and lame tests...yellow carded a fencer because his spare gear -- which had been placed under the scoring table -- had accidentally been kicked into the field of play by a fencing on the strip on the OTHER side of the table...like carding a foilist for not enough tape on the barrel.

The immediate red card was Group III Disturbing Strip Order? Kicked-weapon-on-strip Yellow for same but not wanting to penalize with Red?

I ask fencers to keep their spare gear behind their reel. Also prevents them (especially Y-10s) from forgetting same after their last bout.

Did you mean not enough tape on the blade?

[erooMynohtnA]

For myself, the card was ridiculous and uncalled for....there was no rule violation. Unfortunately, the fencer didn't realize she could ask for a clarification of the rule he was using to justify the card.

"F'crissake, if the 'convention' is to ignore the rules ... why even have rules in the first place?"

[Purple Fencer]

"F'crissake, if the 'convention' is to ignore the rules ... why even have rules in the first place?"

There's no rule to ignore here that I could find...I meant that she should asked him to clarify the rule HE was using to justify the card.

Look for "glue" in the rulebook. The ONLY place it's mentioned is the section that basically says if a hit arrived to a bit of glue on the weapon, sucks to be you.

[Purple Fencer]

The immediate red card was Group III Disturbing Strip Order? Kicked-weapon-on-strip Yellow for same but not wanting to penalize with Red?

No...these were different fencers at different times. The red for the broken weapon was at the Linkmeyer a couple of years ago, the yellow for the kicked weapon was at a scholastic meet.

I ask fencers to keep their spare gear behind their reel. Also prevents them (especially Y-10s) from forgetting same after their last bout.

Oh I dunno....Y-10s are just as likely to forget their gear as anyone else...even when it's right in front of them. I'd prefer gear undfer the table...less chance that they'll step on it and trip, unlike if they put it back by the reel (which can move and pull the gear with it)

Did you mean not enough tape on the blade?

On foil? Yes....the rule states that there must be some type of insulation....but carding for a bit of exposed barrel is just dumb....it's hurts the fencer with the poorly taped blade....not the other guy.

[TooLoftheDeviL]

The blades and the guards in epee, foil and sabre must be totally of metal. Apart from in sabre where the part of the guard next to the pommel is insulated (insulating sheeth), their exteriors must not be covered by any material (plastic or other).

In the future, don't post text only You make the calls. I have stated before, these can only go 1 of 2 ways. You will either not provide enough information to accurately make the call, or you will provide enough information so that you have stated the answer to whatever question you have in the text explaining the situation.

tl;dr = Pics or GTFO