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

Re: [E_Rapier] Groin protection rules

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.