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

Re: [E_Rapier] Groin protection rules

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 15 , Aug 25, 2010
      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 2 of 15 , Aug 25, 2010
        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 3 of 15 , Aug 25, 2010
          >
          > 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 4 of 15 , Aug 25, 2010
            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 5 of 15 , Aug 25, 2010
              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 6 of 15 , Aug 25, 2010
                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 7 of 15 , Aug 26, 2010
                  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 8 of 15 , Aug 26, 2010
                    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 9 of 15 , Aug 26, 2010
                      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.