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

Re: [E_Rapier] Groin protection rules

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.