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

Re: [E_Rapier] Groin protection rules

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 15 , Aug 25 11:11 AM
    • 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 2 of 15 , Aug 25 11:25 AM
      • 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 3 of 15 , Aug 25 12:07 PM
        • 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 4 of 15 , Aug 25 12:21 PM
          • 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 5 of 15 , Aug 25 12:25 PM
            • 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 6 of 15 , Aug 25 12:29 PM
              • 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 7 of 15 , Aug 25 2:14 PM
                • 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 8 of 15 , Aug 25 3:14 PM
                  • 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 9 of 15 , Aug 25 3:25 PM
                    • 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 10 of 15 , Aug 25 4:32 PM
                      • 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 11 of 15 , Aug 26 6:22 AM
                        • 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 12 of 15 , Aug 26 9:58 AM
                          • 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 13 of 15 , Aug 26 2:10 PM
                            • 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.