Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Groin protection rules

Expand Messages
  • David Gotlieb
    Good day, Since we haven t had a rousing debate on here lately, and since the gorget question seems to have been resolved at the moot at Trillium War, I
    Message 1 of 15 , Aug 25, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Good day,

      Since we haven't had a rousing debate on here lately, and since the gorget
      question seems to have been resolved at the moot at Trillium War, I thought I'd
      ask a similar question related to groin protection. This stems from a
      conversation we have had locally recently about the length of the Darkwood
      chainmail shirts.

      My question is, does a rigid cup, as per section iii of the handbook (copied
      below), meet the groin protection rule, or is additional armour required (I'm
      particularly thinking of the areas to the side of the cup where your leg
      connects to your abdomen, but also in some cases above the cup)?

      I have been to many events over the past couple of years where I have fenced.
      When being inspected, whether by an Ealdormerian marshal or a local marshal at
      Pennsic or East Kingdom Winter War, the only question has been whether I am
      wearing a cup. My armour, however, went to mid thigh when standing so that could
      be why I was never asked the question about armoured pants.

      So, assuming that the chainmail shirt goes far enough down to cover to the top
      of the cup when standing, is that sufficient armour for the groin area or is
      additional protection expected to cover the key arteries to the side of the cup
      as well (the diagram in the manual could be interpreted either way)?

      Follow-up question, if the shirt (or other armour, say a doublet) does not go
      down that far, does that mean that additional puncture resistant material would
      need to be added to fill the gap to cover your abdomen (hence why some merchants
      sell armoured pants to go with their doublets).

      I thought clarification on this rule would certainly be helpful for myself, but
      also others who may be contemplating buying/making different armour styles from
      what they have used in the past.

      In the Ealdormere rapier handbook, it says:

      i. The entire torso (the chest, back, abdomen, groin, and sides up to and
      including the
      armpits) must be covered with puncture-resistant material.

      and

      iii. Male fighters shall wear rigid groin protection. Any ventilation holes
      large enough to admit
      a broken blade must be covered from the outside with at least puncture-resistant
      material.
      Female fighters shall wear puncture resistant groin protection.

      There is also a diagram showing the areas that must be covered.

      Lord Dafydd ap Alan
      Harrowgate Heath
      MiT
    • John Enzinas
      As a marshal, I d like to see the puncture resistent armour go over the groin. Its the reason there is a skirt on my jerkin and the reason I purchased a chain
      Message 2 of 15 , Aug 25, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        As a marshal, I'd like to see the puncture resistent armour go over
        the groin. Its the reason there is a skirt on my jerkin and the reason
        I purchased a chain tunic and not a shirt.

        At pennsic this year, i saw someone in the market place with fencing
        gear in hand and wearing one of the shirts. He was a little taller
        than me and the shirt didn't even come to his hip bones. I wouldn't
        have passed him.

        The groin and inner thigh often tend to get a bit of hand waving
        during inspections. I'd love to hear an official ruling.

        --j

        On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:21 PM, David Gotlieb <dafydd@...> wrote:
        > Good day,
        >
        > Since we haven't had a rousing debate on here lately, and since the gorget
        > question seems to have been resolved at the moot at Trillium War, I thought I'd
        > ask a similar question related to groin protection. This stems from a
        > conversation we have had locally recently about the length of the Darkwood
        > chainmail shirts.
        >
        > My question is, does a rigid cup, as per section iii of the handbook (copied
        > below), meet the groin protection rule, or is additional armour required (I'm
        > particularly thinking of the areas to the side of the cup where your leg
        > connects to your abdomen, but also in some cases above the cup)?
        >
        > I have been to many events over the past couple of years where I have fenced.
        > When being inspected, whether by an Ealdormerian marshal or a local marshal at
        > Pennsic or East Kingdom Winter War, the only question has been whether I am
        > wearing a cup. My armour, however, went to mid thigh when standing so that could
        > be why I was never asked the question about armoured pants.
        >
        > So, assuming that the chainmail shirt goes far enough down to cover to the top
        > of the cup when standing, is that sufficient armour for the groin area or is
        > additional protection expected to cover the key arteries to the side of the cup
        > as well (the diagram in the manual could be interpreted either way)?
        >
        > Follow-up question, if the shirt (or other armour, say a doublet) does not go
        > down that far, does that mean that additional puncture resistant material would
        > need to be added to fill the gap to cover your abdomen (hence why some merchants
        > sell armoured pants to go with their doublets).
        >
        > I thought clarification on this rule would certainly be helpful for myself, but
        > also others who may be contemplating buying/making different armour styles from
        > what they have used in the past.
        >
        > In the Ealdormere rapier handbook, it says:
        >
        > i. The entire torso (the chest, back, abdomen, groin, and sides up to and
        > including the
        > armpits) must be covered with puncture-resistant material.
        >
        > and
        >
        > iii. Male fighters shall wear rigid groin protection. Any ventilation holes
        > large enough to admit
        > a broken blade must be covered from the outside with at least puncture-resistant
        > material.
        > Female fighters shall wear puncture resistant groin protection.
        >
        > There is also a diagram showing the areas that must be covered.
        >
        > Lord Dafydd ap Alan
        > Harrowgate Heath
        > MiT
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Nicholas J. Corkigian
        I think part of the problem with the wording is that there are people who disagree with the definition of the word groin . In human anatomy, a cup does not
        Message 3 of 15 , Aug 25, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          I think part of the problem with the wording is that there are people who
          disagree with the definition of the word "groin".

          In human anatomy, a cup does not protect the groin at all. The groin areas
          are the creases at the junction of the torso and the legs. I've had
          conversations with people who seem to feel that the groin is actually the
          area where the sex organs lie. That has never made sense to me as part of
          warming up is usually a stretching of the groin muscles by doing hurdler's
          stretches or similar exercises.

          I've always felt that the groin-covering rule was in place to protect the
          upper femoral artery and not the family jewels. As such, I've always liked
          the additional skirting coverage on the bottom of a tunic.

          -Nikolai Domingo de Vallejo

          On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:09 PM, John Enzinas <jenzinas@...> wrote:

          >
          >
          > As a marshal, I'd like to see the puncture resistent armour go over
          > the groin. Its the reason there is a skirt on my jerkin and the reason
          > I purchased a chain tunic and not a shirt.
          >
          > At pennsic this year, i saw someone in the market place with fencing
          > gear in hand and wearing one of the shirts. He was a little taller
          > than me and the shirt didn't even come to his hip bones. I wouldn't
          > have passed him.
          >
          > The groin and inner thigh often tend to get a bit of hand waving
          > during inspections. I'd love to hear an official ruling.
          >
          > --j
          >
          >
          > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:21 PM, David Gotlieb <dafydd@...<dafydd%40rogers.com>>
          > wrote:
          > > Good day,
          > >
          > > Since we haven't had a rousing debate on here lately, and since the
          > gorget
          > > question seems to have been resolved at the moot at Trillium War, I
          > thought I'd
          > > ask a similar question related to groin protection. This stems from a
          > > conversation we have had locally recently about the length of the
          > Darkwood
          > > chainmail shirts.
          > >
          > > My question is, does a rigid cup, as per section iii of the handbook
          > (copied
          > > below), meet the groin protection rule, or is additional armour required
          > (I'm
          > > particularly thinking of the areas to the side of the cup where your leg
          > > connects to your abdomen, but also in some cases above the cup)?
          > >
          > > I have been to many events over the past couple of years where I have
          > fenced.
          > > When being inspected, whether by an Ealdormerian marshal or a local
          > marshal at
          > > Pennsic or East Kingdom Winter War, the only question has been whether I
          > am
          > > wearing a cup. My armour, however, went to mid thigh when standing so
          > that could
          > > be why I was never asked the question about armoured pants.
          > >
          > > So, assuming that the chainmail shirt goes far enough down to cover to
          > the top
          > > of the cup when standing, is that sufficient armour for the groin area or
          > is
          > > additional protection expected to cover the key arteries to the side of
          > the cup
          > > as well (the diagram in the manual could be interpreted either way)?
          > >
          > > Follow-up question, if the shirt (or other armour, say a doublet) does
          > not go
          > > down that far, does that mean that additional puncture resistant material
          > would
          > > need to be added to fill the gap to cover your abdomen (hence why some
          > merchants
          > > sell armoured pants to go with their doublets).
          > >
          > > I thought clarification on this rule would certainly be helpful for
          > myself, but
          > > also others who may be contemplating buying/making different armour
          > styles from
          > > what they have used in the past.
          > >
          > > In the Ealdormere rapier handbook, it says:
          > >
          > > i. The entire torso (the chest, back, abdomen, groin, and sides up to and
          > > including the
          > > armpits) must be covered with puncture-resistant material.
          > >
          > > and
          > >
          > > iii. Male fighters shall wear rigid groin protection. Any ventilation
          > holes
          > > large enough to admit
          > > a broken blade must be covered from the outside with at least
          > puncture-resistant
          > > material.
          > > Female fighters shall wear puncture resistant groin protection.
          > >
          > > There is also a diagram showing the areas that must be covered.
          > >
          > > Lord Dafydd ap Alan
          > > Harrowgate Heath
          > > MiT
          > >
          > >
          > > ------------------------------------
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Nicholas J. Corkigian
          ... puncture-resistant ... I think this is where a good chunk of the confusion originates. Rule i seems to imply a different definition for groin than Rule
          Message 4 of 15 , Aug 25, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Additionally:

            >In the Ealdormere rapier handbook, it says:
            >
            >i. The entire torso (the chest, back, abdomen, groin, and sides up to and
            >including the
            >armpits) must be covered with puncture-resistant material.
            >
            >and
            >
            >iii. Male fighters shall wear rigid groin protection. Any ventilation holes

            >large enough to admit
            >a broken blade must be covered from the outside with at least
            puncture-resistant
            >material.
            >Female fighters shall wear puncture resistant groin protection.

            I think this is where a good chunk of the confusion originates. Rule i
            seems to imply a different definition for groin than Rule iii does. In
            fact, they are talking about different areas. Rule i is referring to the
            groin proper, and Rule iii is referring specifically to the genitalia.

            -Nikolai


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Kathleen Gormanshaw
            It s always been perfectly clear to me, but Nikolai s definition was quite a surprise and definitely shows why it could be confusing. As an inspecting marshal
            Message 5 of 15 , Aug 25, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              It's always been perfectly clear to me, but Nikolai's definition was
              quite a surprise and definitely shows why it could be confusing.

              As an inspecting marshal I require the external male sex organs to be
              covered by rigid material, that same area on females must be covered
              by puncture resistant material. All the area from there up, not
              including the legs, should be covered by puncture resistant material.

              So if someone has a shirt that stops at the belly button, and a few
              inches gap from there to the cup, they fail.

              The femoral arteries are NOT required to be covered, even though they
              are kill zones.

              Eyrny
            • L. Tremblay
              That s always been my understanding as well. (And is the reason I did not get the longer length chain shirt) Lars ... [Non-text portions of this message have
              Message 6 of 15 , Aug 25, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                That's always been my understanding as well. (And is the reason I did
                not get the longer length chain shirt)

                Lars

                On 25/08/2010 3:07 PM, Kathleen Gormanshaw wrote:
                >
                > It's always been perfectly clear to me, but Nikolai's definition was
                > quite a surprise and definitely shows why it could be confusing.
                >
                > As an inspecting marshal I require the external male sex organs to be
                > covered by rigid material, that same area on females must be covered
                > by puncture resistant material. All the area from there up, not
                > including the legs, should be covered by puncture resistant material.
                >
                > So if someone has a shirt that stops at the belly button, and a few
                > inches gap from there to the cup, they fail.
                >
                > The femoral arteries are NOT required to be covered, even though they
                > are kill zones.
                >
                > Eyrny
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Ross Weaver
                I m agreeing with Giovanni on this one. ... I ve always seen it as everything but legs and arms (minus the bandwidth on the underarm) must be be covered by at
                Message 7 of 15 , Aug 25, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  I'm agreeing with Giovanni on this one.
                  On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:09 PM, John Enzinas <jenzinas@...> wrote:
                  > As a marshal, I'd like to see the puncture resistent armour go over
                  > the groin. Its the reason there is a skirt on my jerkin and the reason
                  > I purchased a chain tunic and not a shirt.

                  I've always seen it as everything but legs and arms (minus the
                  bandwidth on the underarm) must be be covered by at least puncture
                  resistant. And some areas, throat, cervical vertabrea, front and
                  "side" of head, and male genitalia have to be covered by rigid.

                  And if it doesn't come to the hip bones while someone is fencing, it
                  definitely does no pass in my opinion.

                  ~Herr Wilhelm
                • Eve Harris & David Stamper
                  Thank you for the question. In terms of what is covered by puncture resistant material, the diagram is accurate and I don t think there is that much room for
                  Message 8 of 15 , Aug 25, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thank you for the question.



                    In terms of what is covered by puncture resistant material, the diagram is
                    accurate and I don't think there is that much room for interpretation. IIRC
                    it is based on the coverage provided by a modern fencing jacket like the one
                    seen here:



                    http://www.zenwarriorarmory.com/catalog.php?item=60
                    <http://www.zenwarriorarmory.com/catalog.php?item=60&catid=63&ret=catalog.ph
                    p%3Fcategory%3D63> &catid=63&ret=catalog.php%3Fcategory%3D63



                    Baroness Eyrny is correct in that the femoral artery does not need to be
                    covered as it does not fall within the groin, at least not in any of the
                    anatomical diagrams I have been able to find, though please feel free to
                    correct me if I am misinterpreting them. Here is one place I looked:



                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femoral_artery



                    There is the requirement for "rigid groin protection". Baron Nikolai makes a
                    good point about the definition of groin, but unfortunately, I'm pretty
                    certain the groin here is being used in its euphemistic sense to refer to
                    the area covered by a modern athletic cup. It would difficult to find rigid
                    groin protection that covered the textbook definition of the groin, and it
                    would be rather uncomfortable to wear. I agree that there is a problem with
                    the definition of groin here and better wording could be used. This
                    definition goes way back apparently as it is our original rules and the
                    Midrealm rules on which they are based.



                    What I will do is make an inquiry on the KRM list to see what they have to
                    say about it and see if clarification needs to be made. I know that it is an
                    area that is difficult to inspect, especially if someone is wearing 16th c.
                    garb like a double and slops/Venetians/trunkhose. Also, please remember that
                    these are minimum standards for armour. If you wish to provide extra
                    protection to areas not covered by the rules, you are more than welcome to,
                    as long as the addition does not impede your ability to call a blow. Thank
                    you again, Lord Dafydd, for bringing the issue up.



                    Albrecht

                    KRM, Ealdormere







                    _____

                    From: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com [mailto:E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                    Of John Enzinas
                    Sent: August 25, 2010 1:09 PM
                    To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [E_Rapier] Groin protection rules





                    As a marshal, I'd like to see the puncture resistent armour go over
                    the groin. Its the reason there is a skirt on my jerkin and the reason
                    I purchased a chain tunic and not a shirt.

                    At pennsic this year, i saw someone in the market place with fencing
                    gear in hand and wearing one of the shirts. He was a little taller
                    than me and the shirt didn't even come to his hip bones. I wouldn't
                    have passed him.

                    The groin and inner thigh often tend to get a bit of hand waving
                    during inspections. I'd love to hear an official ruling.

                    --j

                    On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:21 PM, David Gotlieb <dafydd@...
                    <mailto:dafydd%40rogers.com> > wrote:
                    > Good day,
                    >
                    > Since we haven't had a rousing debate on here lately, and since the gorget
                    > question seems to have been resolved at the moot at Trillium War, I
                    thought I'd
                    > ask a similar question related to groin protection. This stems from a
                    > conversation we have had locally recently about the length of the Darkwood
                    > chainmail shirts.
                    >
                    > My question is, does a rigid cup, as per section iii of the handbook
                    (copied
                    > below), meet the groin protection rule, or is additional armour required
                    (I'm
                    > particularly thinking of the areas to the side of the cup where your leg
                    > connects to your abdomen, but also in some cases above the cup)?
                    >
                    > I have been to many events over the past couple of years where I have
                    fenced.
                    > When being inspected, whether by an Ealdormerian marshal or a local
                    marshal at
                    > Pennsic or East Kingdom Winter War, the only question has been whether I
                    am
                    > wearing a cup. My armour, however, went to mid thigh when standing so that
                    could
                    > be why I was never asked the question about armoured pants.
                    >
                    > So, assuming that the chainmail shirt goes far enough down to cover to the
                    top
                    > of the cup when standing, is that sufficient armour for the groin area or
                    is
                    > additional protection expected to cover the key arteries to the side of
                    the cup
                    > as well (the diagram in the manual could be interpreted either way)?
                    >
                    > Follow-up question, if the shirt (or other armour, say a doublet) does not
                    go
                    > down that far, does that mean that additional puncture resistant material
                    would
                    > need to be added to fill the gap to cover your abdomen (hence why some
                    merchants
                    > sell armoured pants to go with their doublets).
                    >
                    > I thought clarification on this rule would certainly be helpful for
                    myself, but
                    > also others who may be contemplating buying/making different armour styles
                    from
                    > what they have used in the past.
                    >
                    > In the Ealdormere rapier handbook, it says:
                    >
                    > i. The entire torso (the chest, back, abdomen, groin, and sides up to and
                    > including the
                    > armpits) must be covered with puncture-resistant material.
                    >
                    > and
                    >
                    > iii. Male fighters shall wear rigid groin protection. Any ventilation
                    holes
                    > large enough to admit
                    > a broken blade must be covered from the outside with at least
                    puncture-resistant
                    > material.
                    > Female fighters shall wear puncture resistant groin protection.
                    >
                    > There is also a diagram showing the areas that must be covered.
                    >
                    > Lord Dafydd ap Alan
                    > Harrowgate Heath
                    > MiT
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Nicholas J. Corkigian
                    ... doesn t show any rigid groin protection at all. Only puncture resistant. This can be misleading as the diagram appears more male than female, so perhaps
                    Message 9 of 15 , Aug 25, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >
                      > In terms of what is covered by puncture resistant material, the diagram is
                      > accurate and I don't think there is that much room for interpretation. IIRC
                      > it is based on the coverage provided by a modern fencing jacket like the
                      > one
                      > seen here:
                      >
                      > Perhaps the diagram in the rules needs to be updated somewhat, as it
                      doesn't show any rigid groin protection at all. Only puncture resistant.
                      This can be misleading as the diagram appears more male than female, so
                      perhaps there needs to be diagrams for both sexes?

                      >
                      > Baroness Eyrny is correct in that the femoral artery does not need to be
                      > covered as it does not fall within the groin, at least not in any of the
                      > anatomical diagrams I have been able to find, though please feel free to
                      > correct me if I am misinterpreting them. Here is one place I looked:
                      >
                      > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femoral_artery
                      >
                      > I was also looking at the Wiki article regarding the femoral artery, and in
                      my (non-expert) opinion it appears that it does fall within the area defined
                      by the groin. I am, of course, using the definition of groin that I was
                      referring to earlier (which I also got from Wiki:
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groin )

                      Although I'm not disputing that protection of the femoral artery is not
                      currently required, perhaps we should wonder why it isn't? I always found
                      it somewhat analogous to the armpit rule - the crease between the arm and
                      the torso, but I would tend to think that protecting the femoral artery
                      would be more important than the axillary artery. I would even go so far as
                      to suggest that might have been the original intent of including the groin
                      area in Rule i of the section on protection of the Torso and Kill Zones.

                      > There is the requirement for "rigid groin protection". Baron Nikolai makes
                      > a
                      > good point about the definition of groin, but unfortunately, I'm pretty
                      > certain the groin here is being used in its euphemistic sense to refer to
                      > the area covered by a modern athletic cup. It would difficult to find rigid
                      > groin protection that covered the textbook definition of the groin, and it
                      > would be rather uncomfortable to wear. I agree that there is a problem with
                      > the definition of groin here and better wording could be used. This
                      > definition goes way back apparently as it is our original rules and the
                      > Midrealm rules on which they are based.
                      >
                      > Clearly rigid protection of the entire groin area is going to be
                      uncomfortable and problematic at best. I will assent that Rule iii is most
                      likely using the term "groin" in the euphemistic sense, but I would counter
                      that euphemisms have no place in a document that is meant to provide
                      accurate information as they can cause the confusion we are seeing here.


                      > What I will do is make an inquiry on the KRM list to see what they have to
                      > say about it and see if clarification needs to be made. I know that it is
                      > an
                      > area that is difficult to inspect, especially if someone is wearing 16th c.
                      > garb like a double and slops/Venetians/trunkhose. Also, please remember
                      > that
                      > these are minimum standards for armour. If you wish to provide extra
                      > protection to areas not covered by the rules, you are more than welcome to,
                      > as long as the addition does not impede your ability to call a blow. Thank
                      > you again, Lord Dafydd, for bringing the issue up.
                      >
                      > Please note that I am not wishing for an increase in the armour standard -
                      I am perfectly happy with the minimums with the option to provide extra at
                      my discretion. My intent is merely that we as marshals all agree on our
                      terminology and rules interpretations so that any combatant doesn't get
                      differing results based on which marshal inspects them.

                      -Nikolai


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • David Gotlieb
                      From: Nicholas J. Corkigian ... That s exactly why I wanted to ask the question. It really is unfortunate if your normal armour that
                      Message 10 of 15 , Aug 25, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        From: Nicholas J. Corkigian <doctormobius@...>

                        >My intent is merely that we as marshals all agree on our
                        > terminology and rules interpretations so that any combatant doesn't get
                        > differing results based on which marshal inspects them.
                        That's exactly why I wanted to ask the question. It really is unfortunate if
                        your normal armour that passes all the time suddenly gets bounced at an event
                        because a different marshal has a different interpretation of the rules. It's
                        going to happen sometimes (particularly when out of Kingdom) but I think
                        consistency is a good thing as much as possible.

                        Dafydd


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • David Gotlieb
                        Thanks Albrecht, So, just to be perfectly clear, assuming a male fencer wearing a cup, if the armour *at a minimum* overlaps the top of the cup sufficiently so
                        Message 11 of 15 , Aug 25, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Thanks Albrecht,

                          So, just to be perfectly clear, assuming a male fencer wearing a cup, if the
                          armour *at a minimum* overlaps the top of the cup sufficiently so that even when
                          lifting arms/moving there is no gap, do we consider that as passing the
                          *minimum* armour requirement? Or does the puncture resistant material have to
                          cover the groin area entirely (with the definition of groin area for this
                          purpose meaning the area covered by the cup), in addition to the rigid material
                          of the cup (as per the Zen Warrior modern fencing jacket)?

                          Obviously, for a female fencer it's puncture resistant throughout so that's
                          easier to define.

                          Dafydd




                          ________________________________
                          From: Eve Harris & David Stamper <evedave1@...>
                          To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Wed, August 25, 2010 3:29:42 PM
                          Subject: RE: [E_Rapier] Groin protection rules


                          Thank you for the question.

                          In terms of what is covered by puncture resistant material, the diagram is
                          accurate and I don't think there is that much room for interpretation. IIRC
                          it is based on the coverage provided by a modern fencing jacket like the one
                          seen here:

                          http://www.zenwarriorarmory.com/catalog.php?item=60
                          <http://www.zenwarriorarmory.com/catalog.php?item=60&catid=63&ret=catalog.ph
                          p%3Fcategory%3D63> &catid=63&ret=catalog.php%3Fcategory%3D63

                          Baroness Eyrny is correct in that the femoral artery does not need to be
                          covered as it does not fall within the groin, at least not in any of the
                          anatomical diagrams I have been able to find, though please feel free to
                          correct me if I am misinterpreting them. Here is one place I looked:

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femoral_artery




                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Eve Harris & David Stamper
                          As long as there was sufficient overlap preventing gapage, based on the rules as written, I would say that would be sufficient as long as any holes in the cup
                          Message 12 of 15 , Aug 25, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            As long as there was sufficient overlap preventing gapage, based on the
                            rules as written, I would say that would be sufficient as long as any holes
                            in the cup were covered as required by the rules. Rigid protection is better
                            than puncture resistant. That's my ruling for now but is subject to change
                            by future KRM's. Also, if there is sufficient demand for it, we can look at
                            changing the rule. Again, I'm going to inquire on the KRM list and see what
                            they have to say there on how this is handled in other Kingdoms.



                            Albrecht





                            _____

                            From: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com [mailto:E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                            Of David Gotlieb
                            Sent: August 25, 2010 6:26 PM
                            To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: [Bulk] Re: [E_Rapier] Groin protection rules





                            Thanks Albrecht,

                            So, just to be perfectly clear, assuming a male fencer wearing a cup, if the

                            armour *at a minimum* overlaps the top of the cup sufficiently so that even
                            when
                            lifting arms/moving there is no gap, do we consider that as passing the
                            *minimum* armour requirement? Or does the puncture resistant material have
                            to
                            cover the groin area entirely (with the definition of groin area for this
                            purpose meaning the area covered by the cup), in addition to the rigid
                            material
                            of the cup (as per the Zen Warrior modern fencing jacket)?

                            Obviously, for a female fencer it's puncture resistant throughout so that's
                            easier to define.

                            Dafydd

                            ________________________________
                            From: Eve Harris & David Stamper <evedave1@...
                            <mailto:evedave1%40rogers.com> >
                            To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com <mailto:E_Rapier%40yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Wed, August 25, 2010 3:29:42 PM
                            Subject: RE: [E_Rapier] Groin protection rules

                            Thank you for the question.

                            In terms of what is covered by puncture resistant material, the diagram is
                            accurate and I don't think there is that much room for interpretation. IIRC
                            it is based on the coverage provided by a modern fencing jacket like the one
                            seen here:

                            http://www.zenwarriorarmory.com/catalog.php?item=60
                            <http://www.zenwarriorarmory.com/catalog.php?item=60
                            <http://www.zenwarriorarmory.com/catalog.php?item=60&catid=63&ret=catalog.ph
                            > &catid=63&ret=catalog.ph
                            p%3Fcategory%3D63> &catid=63&ret=catalog.php%3Fcategory%3D63

                            Baroness Eyrny is correct in that the femoral artery does not need to be
                            covered as it does not fall within the groin, at least not in any of the
                            anatomical diagrams I have been able to find, though please feel free to
                            correct me if I am misinterpreting them. Here is one place I looked:

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femoral_artery


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Kathleen Gormanshaw
                            On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Nicholas J. Corkigian ... I was there, it was NOT the intent to cover parts of the legs with puncture resistant material.
                            Message 13 of 15 , Aug 26, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Nicholas J. Corkigian
                              <doctormobius@...> wrote:
                              > Although I'm not disputing that protection of the femoral artery is not
                              > currently required, perhaps we should wonder why it isn't?  I always found
                              > it somewhat analogous to the armpit rule - the crease between the arm and
                              > the torso, but I would tend to think that protecting the femoral artery
                              > would be more important than the axillary artery.  I would even go so far as
                              > to suggest that might have been the original intent of including the groin
                              > area in Rule i of the section on protection of the Torso and Kill Zones.

                              I was there, it was NOT the intent to cover parts of the legs with
                              puncture resistant material. That was a combination of less
                              likelihood of hitting that area with a thrust from a broken blade, and
                              compromising on what kingdoms would accept. The arms are a far more
                              likely to be hit spot, and increasing armour requirements in that area
                              was a big deal in many areas.

                              Eyrny
                            • Nicholas J. Corkigian
                              Huh. I m a little surprised by this. It sounds like it was a conscious effort to not include that area in the original SCA rules rather than a simple
                              Message 14 of 15 , Aug 26, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Huh. I'm a little surprised by this. It sounds like it was a conscious
                                effort to not include that area in the original SCA rules rather than a
                                simple oversight. I would've thought that area of the legs is a much more
                                likely target than say the back of the head.

                                -Nikolai

                                I was there, it was NOT the intent to cover parts of the legs with
                                > puncture resistant material. That was a combination of less
                                > likelihood of hitting that area with a thrust from a broken blade, and
                                > compromising on what kingdoms would accept. The arms are a far more
                                > likely to be hit spot, and increasing armour requirements in that area
                                > was a big deal in many areas.
                                >
                                >


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Steve Bulger
                                ... Agreed, but OTOH the back of the head is somewhat more vulnerable to anything that does get to it, with potentially worse consequences in the most extreme
                                Message 15 of 15 , Aug 26, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Nicholas J. Corkigian wrote:
                                  > Huh. I'm a little surprised by this. It sounds like it was a conscious
                                  > effort to not include that area in the original SCA rules rather than a
                                  > simple oversight. I would've thought that area of the legs is a much more
                                  > likely target than say the back of the head.
                                  >
                                  > -Nikolai
                                  >
                                  >

                                  Agreed, but OTOH the back of the head is somewhat more vulnerable to
                                  anything that does get to it, with potentially worse consequences in the
                                  most extreme cases.

                                  Gerhard


                                  __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5400 (20100826) __________

                                  The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

                                  http://www.eset.com
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.