Post by MTD on Feb 10, 2010 12:49:46 GMT -6
Please note that another thread (see campechesteel.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=FIE&thread=2837&page=1#16809) describes the FIE, and related USFA, banning of the use of visor masks for foil and épée competition until futher notice. If you want to discuss FIE or USFA administrative actions, please add your thoughts to that thread.
This thread, in the armory thread, specifically has to do with that this means, or could mean, for armorers. And, here are my immediate thoughts:
This thread, in the armory thread, specifically has to do with that this means, or could mean, for armorers. And, here are my immediate thoughts:
- An armorer must not put an inspection mark onto a visor mask unless the mask meets the conductivity requirements for a saber mask. (The use of visor masks is not banned for saber competitions, so use of such a mask is still allowed for saber, but only if the mask conforms to the saber rules!)
- An armorer does not have direct control over what masks get used for what purpose once an inspection stamp is on the mask. The armorer won't be there, the referee will. It will be up to the referee to prohibit the use of visor masks in épée competition. (Foil referees will never see visor masks with inspection marks because saber masks are nonconforming for foil, but saber masks are conforming for épée.)
- In that some referees may not have gotten the word about visor masks being banned for foil and épée competition, it can't hurt to keep an eye on épée pistes at any competition where saber masks with visors have inspection stamps.
- There will undoubtedly be fencers who own visor masks intended for foil use and/or épée use who have not heard the word yet. This creates a customer relations problem. We have to break the word that the multihundred dollar mask is nonconforming. However, as to the requirement in the rules to render a nonconforming mask visibly unusable, I suggest that the presence of a frame for installing a transparent visor is already a pretty efficient way of rendering a mask visibly unusable! And, it's way too early to rule out the possibility that some of the visor masks we see, and possibly even some of the visors we see, may later be declared legal again.
- An armorer might easily have detected the stresses which seem to have contributed to, or been responsible for, the failed visor which inspired the FIE prohibition. Examining (with crossed polarizers) for the birefringence induced by the frozen-in injection-molding stress and/or the stress from mounting a badly fitting visor would have rendered the stress clearly visible. However, this could not have served as clear grounds for declaring the mask nonconforming based on the catch-all requirement to be as safe as possible. This is because there would be no reasonable way to have a threshold for how much stress, over what region, would be the limit for being allowed for use. However, it might nonetheless be interesting to start looking at visors (mostly saber fencers') with crossed polarizers to get an idea of what sorts of stresses are actually being encountered in the real world.