I am aware that under t.68(g) of the Fencing Rules, the fact that there is excessive glue in the groove of an epee that, when touched by an opponent's point during a bout, causes a touch to be signaled cannot be used as the basis for the annulment of a touch. So as a practical matter, it is not in a fencer's best interests to fence with a weapon where this is an issue. When recently presenting my epee, a Leon Paul blade with its characteristic wide groove, for inspection by the referee before a DE bout, the referee took exception with the glue on my blade. After several failed attempts at having my opponent's point set off the scoring light, he finally succeeded in having the light go off by taking the tip of my opponent's blade and causing it to come in connect with the base of my blade from an angle (almost directly above and behind) most unlikely (in my opinion) to be repeated in an actual bout. In fact, I used the same blade in all my pool bouts without incident, as well as in a subsequent DE bout with a different referee. Nevertheless, in the DE bout in question, I did switch epees following the referee's "test," though upon reflection, I cannot be sure he awarded me a yellow card, and he never came out and said that I could not use the weapon. So I have no quarrel with the referee, but for future reference, if a similar circumstance occurs, am I within my rights to say "Thank you for pointing this out Messieur/Madame Referee, but with the greatest respect, I think the likelihood of my opponent scoring by hitting the glue on my blade is extremely remote, so I will take my chances and proceed to use this epee, realizing full well that I have no right to have a touch annulled if in fact a touch is caused by hitting the glue in the groove? Apart from t.68(g), I could not find any other directly applicable provision in the Fencing Rules.