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

RE: [Bulk] Re: [E_Rapier] Groin protection rules

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.