Discussion in 'Fencing Discussion' started by Inquartata, Apr 7, 2019.
For what it's worth, I find the rule against undressing on the strip in the 1999 USFA rule book, but not in the 1995 rulebook.
It might be more understandable if you consider the typical age and background of a FIE Congress rep (sort of like how the Grammys become a little more understandable when you consider the age and background of a typical Recording Academy voting member).
hey! I resemble that remark!
That's a possibility. How many of us, particularly those who referee and run competitions, understand it this way? That is to say, what is...the consensus?
I think that this is something which ought to be clarified officially. I mean, if I can partially open the lame to change a bad cord I would like to do it, without risking having the ref censure me ( and the BC support the decision on appeal ) for violating t.126 simply because their understandings of whether the lame is "clothing" or not is all over the place.
My coach tells me that back in the 1970s he was at a couple of competitions where the members of the UK squad, with no locker rooms to which to repair, simply stripped down in the main hall to change out of their fencing clothes after the tournament. And he says that by "stripped down" he means all...the...way...down.
That, he says, certainly shocked some spectators sensibilities.
Again, I would point out that NAC referees don't seem to care if a fencer has to take their lame off in order to change a body cord. I will watch more closely at Div 1 this weekend and report back
So what would happen if you develop a body cord fault but are UNABLE to snake a replacement through without opening your lame?
You’d be defaulted? Seriously?
What happens when you tear or discover a bad spot on the lame?
The rules still need to be applied sensibly.
Despite a few authoritarians who like the “rules” more than the fencing.
Parenthetically, no one seems to have a problem with a fencer who removes shoe and sock on the strip after an injury.
Perhaps neither socks nor shoes are considered clothing either. But I worry about the possibility of foot fetishists in the audience seeing this scandalous exposure of titillating flesh and getting excited.
The referee is supposed to allow you to leave the competition area and go to, say, the staging area.
The glove is definitely an article of clothing.
I had an aunt who was born in 1909. When I was young, she showed me a box in the back of one of her dresser drawers that contained about 5 pairs of white, leather, elbow-length gloves. She told me that when she started working around 1930, she was expected to put on a pair before leaving for work and leave them on until she returned home, even on the hottest summer days. She said that if a woman had to shake a male's hand for some reason during the day and she was not wearing gloves, putting her naked hand on the male's naked hand would have been considered sexually suggestive. Likewise if her naked forearm brushed against the male on the bus or subway.
I myself was told in the early 1960s that if I was sitting on a crowded bus or subway and wanted to give my seat to a female, I should offer her the seat and, if she accepted, I should stand up but block her access to the seat and make idle talk for a minute before allowing her to sit down. That would allow time for the seat to cool because if she sat down on a seat that was still warm from a male's body heat, it might sexually arouse her.
So it doesn't take much for some people to see sexual innuendos and come up with rules to prevent filthy behavior.
The Nipper was carded at a NAC last year for unzipping his lame and jacket when the old-to-new bodycord knot came undone. The ref said that the rule specified "on the strip," so if he had just stepped off the metal he'd have been fine. I figured that's what was going on in the bout Inq referred to.
However, refs can also be strict about fencers NOT leaving the strip to do things. Even to straighten their blades they have to ask permission, and occasionally during the minute break you see a fencer wander off to harken to his coach or get his water bottle, and the ref chivvies him back onto the strip. I imagine that if the fencer ignored the warning that would draw a card too.
The copy of the rulebook that I have is the 2018 edition. Is this the latest version? I looked up "Undressing" in the Glossary and it pointed me to t86.3 but I don't see any mention of clothing vs. equipment in this sentence:
"Under no circumstances should the fencers dress or undress in public except in the case of an accident duly recognized by the doctor on duty or by the representative of the Medical Commision (cf. t.87, t.114, t.116, t.120)
Am I missing the part about clothing/equipment? TIA
I was told in one of the many referee seminars I have been too that this rule was put in place after a female athlete stripped down to a sports bra to deal with some body cord issue during a World Cup and it was caught on a televised bout. Everyone was scandalized, of course. The rule was written to refer to "on the strip" because that is where television cameras are usually pointed.
True story? I have NO idea (and I have my doubts), but there seems to be a camp that has heard this story and allows a fencer to disrobe to a reasonable level to deal with a body cord or uniform issue and those who have not and determine whether a card is issued on the strangest of pretexes (such as being "on" or "off" the strip) and their own whims. I was once warned by a referee that unzipping my jacket could be considered "disrobing". Ridiculous.
I think we are accidentally validating the point the other mega-threads are making: Interpretation and Lore are taking precedence over Rule.
If the Rule is wrong, change it.
Don't tell the person / people in the other thread.
Some referees think that they can demonstrate just how good they are by applying their interpretation of even the most obscure rule in even the most inappropriate circumstances. In actuality, a good referee should make rulings only when the rule has bearing on the action(s) that took place. No written rule can be so phrased so as to be applicable to every possible action that can take place. No matter how many words or codicils are added, there will always be some new situation that occurs that's not appropriately dealt with by the rule. If a rule applies to a situation, it should be enforced but if it doesn't, it shouldn't.
Oh boy, those folks better stay well Away from the summer games! Between track & field, distance running and beach volleyball, there are sports bras, midriffs and inner thighs on full display!
The "'clothing' vs 'equipment'" argument is mostly a function of how one parses & interprets m.25 (see here) - that rule states that "the national uniform includes the socks, the breeches and the jacket" and that "jackets, under-plastrons, breeches and trousers must be made entirely in cloth able to resist a pressure of 800 Newtons", so the argument is usually that it is those items (jacket, plastron, knickers, and socks) that make up the "clothing", while masks and gloves (both of which are also covered by their own sections of m.25) may or may not be excluded from that definition, depending on who and when one asks.
The lamés (that is, the "conductive over-jackets") are covered separately in other sections (m.28 for foil, m.34 for sabre), and the rules covering them are concerned with ensuring that they cover the appropriate target areas and that they have the proper conductivity/resistance. For example, the lamés have no puncture resistance requirements like those of the other items (not even the vague "sufficiently robust" requirement found in the USA Fencing rulebook). As such, some people might see the lamés (including the manchette/over-gloves for sabre) as part of the scoring equipment, in somewhat the same vein as the bodycord.
Separate names with a comma.