Fencing Draft:Change Log and Notes: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→5.3) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 291: | Line 291: | ||
:April 2023 - Previous language around non-standard defensive equipment was open to interpretations. A change was needed to assist in clarity while also protecting fencers from potentially advanced tools. A blanket approval for these items would have allowed barely-authorised fencers to use a tool which could be safe in the hands of an expert, but not a newer fencer. The wording used is a mid-point compromise between banning for safety, and blanket approval. | :April 2023 - Previous language around non-standard defensive equipment was open to interpretations. A change was needed to assist in clarity while also protecting fencers from potentially advanced tools. A blanket approval for these items would have allowed barely-authorised fencers to use a tool which could be safe in the hands of an expert, but not a newer fencer. The wording used is a mid-point compromise between banning for safety, and blanket approval. | ||
[[Category:Fencing Draft Handbook | L]] | |||
[[Category:Fencing Handbook | L]] | |||
Revision as of 05:07, 28 March 2023
Version 5.4 (will become version 6 when approved)
1.6.1
- Was
- "During practices, for weapons drills with an opponent, you must wear eye protection. For drills with the spear, you must wear full face protection."
- Now
- "For drills against opponents with a spear, you must wear full face protection."
- Functional change
- Removes requirement for eye protection in drills, but keeps requirement for full face protection when drilling against spear. Updated to specify against spear, as the person using the spear is not at risk from the spear.
- Reasoning
- The current rules do not improve safety, as spectacles and sunglasses are not personal protective equipment and cause an unacceptable level of risk-acceptance, as fencers can believe they are protected.
- The current rules are also not enforceable because there is no useful and consistent way to define "drill". Some marshals consider that demonstrating an action with a sword is a "drill" and thus requires eye protection (even if the person the sword is pointed at does not move and is in full gear) and others consider a "drill" anything up to full speed sparring. Defining "drill" as anything other than full sparring, the broadest possible capture definition, is not useful because "sparring" is also not simple to define and you end up in a situation where anyone picking up a sword needs eye wear which doesn't actually protect them.
- From a risk perspective, the existing requirement does not meaningfully improve safety and is impractical. Fencers are able to take a risk-based approach to training depending on their own training and opponent, given there is no international case base to suggest lack of eye protection causes heightened risk, nor are these rules mirrored at Society level.
- For spears, given the chance that an accident could cause a catastrophic injury, additional protection is warranted.
2.1.2
- Was
- To be authorised, you have to pass a verbal and practical test to show that you...
- Now
- To be authorised, you have to pass a verbal and practical combat test to show that you...
- Functional change
- Addition of the word "combat" to highlight that the practical component must include combat
- Reason
- The handbook currently has two phrases meaning the same component of the authorising process. This combines them.
- For notes section
- April 2023 - The practical component of authorisations must include combat.
2.4.1.2
- Was
- Not in rules previously
- Now
- Different types of fencing combat cannot face each other in the same bout. For example, Cut and Thrust may not face Standard fencing.
- Subsequent rules renumbered
- Functional change
- Prevents opponents from using different rules in the same bout.
- Reason
- Bouts must operate under a single ruleset; this change prevents a clash. Was not clear previously.
- For notes section
- April 2023 - Clarified that the different fencing types may not be used in the same bout - eg one opponent may not use Cut and Thrust rules while the other uses Standard Fencing rules.
2.6.2
- What was 2.6.2.1 Killing from behind has been renumbered to 2.6.3 to avoid a numbering clash with 2.6.2 Striking your opponent's sub rules.
- What was 2.6.2.2 Killing a gunner has been renumbered to 2.6.4 to avoid a numbering clash with 2.6.2 Striking your opponent's sub rules.
- Subsequent rules have been renumbered.
2.6.2.4
- Was
- You and your opponent need to agree to allow the use of tip cuts before the bout
- Now
- Removed
- Subsequent rules renumbered
- Functional change
- Opponents no longer need to agree to the use of tip cuts beforre they can be used.
- Reason
- Tip cuts are an accepted part of fencing combat in Lochac.
- For notes section
- April 2023 - Tip cuts are an accepted part of fencing combat in Lochac, so the previous requirement to agree to use them has been removed.
Was 2.6.2.1, now 2.6.3
- Was
- Not in rules
- Now
- 2.6.3.3 - You must use "killing from behind" when you are behind the line of your opponent's shoulders. Marshals may further restrict this angle at their discretion.
- 2.6.3.4 - If “killing from behind” is not allowed in the scenario, you may not strike your opponent while behind the line of your opponent’s shoulders.
- Functional change
- Clarification added for when killing from behind may be used, and allows marshals to add additional restrictions
- Reason
- Adds clarity around when killing from behind can be used. Marshals will be able to add additional restrictions (such as "outside of 120 degrees of the front arc"), but this is very difficult to clearly legislate.
- For notes section
- April 2023 - Clarification added for when killing from behind may be used, and allows marshals to add additional restrictions
Was 2.6.5.8, now 2.6.7.8
- Was
- You can briefly hold your opponent's blade to control it, but both of you must agree to use grasping during the bout. Grasping should be for no more than a couple of seconds, so that you do not start wrestling for the blade.
- Now
- If both you and your opponent agree to use blade grasping during a bout, you can briefly hold your opponent’s blade to control it. Grasping should be for no more than a couple of seconds, so that you do not start wrestling for the blade. Blade grasping includes, but is not limited to, taking hold of an opponent's blade with your hand, or circling a blade with fingers, such as index and thumb in an "OK" sign as shown in figure 1.
Figure 1. Circling a blade with finger and thumb is an example of blade grasping. - Functional change
- Examples of blade grasping included.
- Reason
- Some fencers have been known to circle a blade with an index and thumb, claiming this is not grasping the blade. This is unacceptable and unchivalric "rules lawyering" to take advantage of an unclear rule.
- For notes section
- April 2023 - Examples of blade grasping have been included, as this was previously unclear.
2.6.7.9
- Was
- Not in rules
- Now
- When grasping, parrying, or otherwise controlling your opponent's weapon or body (such as by parrying the wrist), fighters must ensure they do so in a safe manner. It is the obligation of the fighter grasping, parrying, or taking control of an opponent's weapon to ensure they avoid wrenching, twisting or pressing a joint beyond natural limits.
- Functional change
- Reminds fighters that these actions hold risk of hurting their opponent, so must be carried out carefully.
- Reason
- Accidental overextension of opponent's joints has been observed repeatedly, especially when taking control of a spear where the fighter is unable to drop the object. This emphasises the importance of control and that, should there be an incident, the burden is on the fighter who performed the action to justify their action.
- For notes section
- April 2023 - Following a number of incidents of accidental overextension of an opponent's joints, rule 2.6.7.9 has been added as a reminder to take care.
2.7.3
- Was
- The only time this changes is if organisers hold a tournament where they define areas of the body that are protected as if you were wearing real armour.
- Now
- The only time these rules change is if organisers hold a tournament or other event with different victory conditions (for example, saying "only blows to the head count").
- Functional change
- Allows for alternate scenario rules for combat.
- Reason
- Aligns closer to Society standard while also providing more flexibility for alternate rulesets for Marshals.
- For notes section
- April 2023 - Marshals may use scenarios that allow for different victory conditions, eg. restricting target areas or counted blows.
2.7.7.e-g
- Was
- Not in rules
- Now
- (e) It is courteous to turn a kneeling or seated combatant so that they are not facing into the sun.
- (f) When one combatant is kneeling or seated and the other is standing, it is forbidden for the standing combatant to circle, turn or "corkscrew" the kneeling combatant more than 90 degrees in either direction from the starting position.
- (g) It is forbidden for a standing combatant to over bear or press (with body, weapon or other object) a kneeling or seated combatant to the point that the kneeling or seated combatant cannot straighten their upper body perpendicular to the ground. This rule is meant to allow the kneeling or seated combatant to straighten if they desire and is not intended to keep the standing combatant from leaning forward to stay in range if the kneeling or seated combatant leans back.
- Functional change
- Addition of rules to maintain the comfort of a legged fighter.
- Reason
- This language is taken verbatim from the Lochac Armoured Combat Handbook, and then adding "or seated". It works to ensure a more controlled bout without unnecessarily discomforting the legged fighter.
- For notes section
- April 2023 - Addition of rules to maintain the comfort of a legged fighter. These rules are similar to those found in armoured combat.
2.8.1.1
- Was
- Fencing practice sessions can also include drills and other classes that do not involve fighting. During sword or dagger drills with an opponent, you must wear eye protection, such as spectacles, sunglasses, safety glasses or a fencing mask or helm.
- Now
- Fencing practice sessions can also include drills and other classes that do not involve fighting. It is strongly recommended that fencers wear eye protection during sword or dagger drills with an opponent. Safety glasses, a fencing mask or a helm are appropriate. Spectacles and sunglasses are not considered eye protection.
- Functional change
- Eye protection for drills moves to being strongly recommended, rather than compulsory.
- Reason
- The current rules do not improve safety, as spectacles and sunglasses are not personal protective equipment and cause an unacceptable level of risk-acceptance, as fencers can believe they are protected.
- The current rules are also not enforceable because there is no useful and consistent way to define 'drill'. Some marshals consider that demonstrating an action with a sword is a 'drill' and thus requires eye protection (even if the person the sword is pointed at does not move and is in full gear) and others consider a 'drill' anything up to full speed sparring. Defining 'drill' as anything other than full sparring, the broadest possible capture definition, is not useful because "sparring" is also not simple to define and you end up in a situation where anyone picking up a sword needs eye wear which doesn't actually protect them.
- From a risk perspective, the existing requirement does not meaningfully improve safety and is impractical. Fencers are able to take a risk-based approach to training depending on their own training and opponent, given there is no international case base to suggest lack of eye protection causes heightened risk, nor are these rules mirrored at Society level.
- For spears, given the chance that an accident could cause a catastrophic injury, additional protection is warranted.
- For notes section
2.8.1.2
- Was
- You must wear full face protection for weapons drills using a spear.
- Now
- You must wear full face protection for weapons drills against an opponent using a spear.
- Functional change
- You must wear full face protection if you are drilling against an opponent who has a spear, rather than if you are using one yourself
- Reason
- Facing the spear is the risky part, not using it.
- For notes section
- April 2023 - You must wear full face protection when your opponent has a spear during drills.
2.8.3.1-2
- Was
- 2.8.1 - You must wear a gorget (collar) made from rigid material to protect your entire neck and throat. This should be backed by resilient padding or penetration-resistant material.
- Now
- You must wear a gorget (collar) made from rigid material to protect your entire neck and throat. This should be backed by resilient padding or penetration-resistant material. Figure 2 shows the area which must be protected.
- 2.8.2 has been removed and replaced by:
- Neck protection with a gap of less than 9mm (for example, where the ends of two plates meet) meets this standard, so long as the gap is not within the front or rear 90 degree arc.
- Functional change
- Clarifies areas that must be covered by rigid material, and what sized gaps may be allowed.
- Reason
- Updates rules to remain practical and more in line with Society requirements, without reducing safety from existing practice.
- The deleted section of this rule has not been enforced since a variation was introduced at least prior to 2008, as the understanding of "cervical verterbrae" differs from what is strictly written. As currently written, gorgets must protect the entire cervical column to the base of the skull, which no known gorgets do so (though gorget combined with rigid back of head protection often does so). This revised rule is equivalent to what fencers in Lochac are currently doing already, and what is accepted international practice. This issue has been raised with SRM on two occasions with no response; I expect because it would require a rapid change, such as what we are proposing here. There is no loss in safety by having a small gap, and Lochac rules are already stricter than Society level rules. Fencing blunts will not be able to penetrate this gap; this clarifies expectations around incidental gaps.
- For notes section
- April 2023 - Image added to clarify what parts of the neck must be protected by rigid material, and what sized gaps may be allowed.
3.8.3.4
- Was
- You can also use your discretion to authorise a fencing marshal in any category that you believe is required to benefit the Kingdom and the Society. This might include appointing experienced fencers or marshals in a category in order to promote that type of fencing within a group.
- Now
- You can also use your discretion to authorise a Fencing Marshal or Authorising Fencing Marshal without undertaking the normal processes, should you believe it is required to benefit the Kingdom and the Society. This might include appointing experienced fighters as marshals in order to promote that type of fencing within a group. This should only be done when the normal process cannot be appiled, and does not overrule any other requirements. For example, Authorising Fencing Marshals must still be authorised in a form of combat to authorise fencers in that form.
- Functional change
- Clarifies the role of the Kingdom Fencing Marshal and removes the ability to authorise a fencer without any practical or verbal test.
- Reason
- Normal procedures should be followed as closely as possible. We don't wish to see any fighter being authorised for combat by fiat without a proper physical test of their competence on the field.
- For notes section
- April 2023 - Combat authorisations must include a practical combat test. There may be extreme circustances where the normal procedures for authorising an authorising fencing marshal may not be able to be followed, just as an inability to access other authorising fencing marshals to conduct the test. The Kingdom Fencing Marshal will endeavour to replicate the normal process as closely as possible given the circumstances.
4.7.2.5
- Was
- The test might be:
- a verbal test to confirm that the person understands the rule in question
- a combat test, where the fencer fights under the supervision of the impartial marshal to confirm that the issue has been resolved.
- Now
- The test might be:
- a verbal test to confirm that the person understands the rule in question
- a practical combat test, where the fencer fights under the supervision of the impartial marshal to confirm that the issue has been resolved.
- Functional change
- None - applying consistent terminology
- Reason
- The handbook currently has two phrases meaning the same component of the authorising process. This combines them.
- For notes section
- No notes required.
5.1.2
- Was
- ...Example of rigid material that may comply with the standard are:
- 0.8mm stainless steel or 1mm mild steel
- 1.6mm aluminium, copper or brass
- One layer of hardened heavy leather (225g/8oz; 4mm).
- Now
- ...Examples of rigid material that may comply with the standard are:
- 0.8mm stainless steel or 1mm mild steel
- 1.6mm aluminium, copper or brass
- One layer of hardened heavy leather (225g/8oz; 3.2mm).
- Functional change
- Heavy leather may be lighter than previously listed
- Reason
- The handbook currently has two conflicting definitions of heavy leather. This standardises and aligns with Society rules at 3.2mm
- For notes section
- April 2023 - The handbook previously had two contradicting definitions of 8oz heavy leather. We have settled on 3.2mm for 8oz leather to be consistent with Society rules.
5.2.4
- Was
- Not in rules
- Now
- Bladed weapons must not have more than one blade
- Functional change
- Adds requirement that bladed weapons may only have one blade.
- Reason
- To align with 6.2.4 of Society level rules.
- For notes section
- April 2023 - Added requirement for blade weapons to only have one blade as per Society rules.
5.3
- Was
- Sword and dagger blades used in Lochac can be made of steel or fibreglass.
- Now
- Sword and dagger blades used in Lochac can be made of steel or fibreglass. The use of fiberglass blades is listed in Society's Exceptions to Allowed Blades rules
- Functional change
- None
- Reason
- The use of fibreglass blades is not currently listed in Society Fencing rules, so linking to the document that currently provides for us to continue to use them.
- For notes section
- April 2023 - Approval has been sought from the Society Rapier Marshal and US Board of Directors for a variance to use fibreglass blades in Lochac on an ongoing basis. At present, approval only exists in an appendix to the previous Society Fencing rules, and is not referenced elsewhere, but still published on the Society website. This variance will allow Lochac to continue to use fibreglass blades should that document be removed.
5.4.2.b
- Was
- The blunt must have a minimum size of 9mm on any surface that strikes the opponent.
- Now
- The blunt must have a minimum size of 10mm on any surface that strikes the opponent.
- Functional change
- Increase in required blunt size by 1mm
- Reason
- In line with other blunt definitions in the handbook
- For notes section
- April 2023 - Blunt size has been increased to 10mm from 9mm to make it consistent throughout the handbook.
5.6
- Was
- 5.6.1 General
- You can use two kinds of spears for fencing combat in Lochac. These are:
- rubber-headed spears
- steel-headed spears.
- Now
- 5.6 Spears
- 5.6.1 - You can use rubber-headed spears for fencing combat in Lochac. You cannot use steel-headed spears.
- Subsequent rules from what was 5.6.2 become subrules of 5.6 (5.6.2-7, and what was 5.6.3 Steel-headed spears is removed entirely.
- Functional change
- Steel-headed spears are no longer permitted in Lochac or the rest of Society.
- Reason
- Steel spears are not permitted for fencing combat after 31 December 2021, at the direction of the Society Marshal.
- For notes section
- April 2023 - Steel spears were no longer not permitted for fencing combat after 31 December 2021, at the direction of the Society Marshal.
5.7.2.10
- Was
- Not in rules
- Now
- Rubber tubing used to make ammunition must have a minimum diameter of 6 mm while at rest.
- Functional change
- Rubber tubing used to make rubber band gun ammunition now has a minimum tube diameter
- Reason
- To align with 6.4.3 of Society level rules (though Society rules state "in flight", which is not measurable).
- For notes section
- April 2023 - Added rule about diameter of rubber tubing used for rubber band ammunition to align with Society Fencing rules.
5.8.2.4
- Was
- Not in rules
- Now
- Non-standard defensive equipment includes, but is not limited to:
- bucklers with a spike or projection more than two inches perpendicular to the main plane of the buckler or the central boss, whichever is applicable. The central boss does not count as a spike or projection.
- bucklers with additions which could reasonably be expected to trap or catch a blade (such as rings or hooks);
- axes;
- Talhoffer "judicial duelling shields" and Talhoffer bucklers;and
- bucklers made out of uncommon materials, such as vegetables, children’s toys, etc.
- Fencers should use common sense when applying this definition and be conservative when considering if a defensive item is non-standard, especially when a less-experienced fighter is concerned if an object would be safe to fence against.
- Functional change
- More items may now clearly be defined as non-standard.
- Reason
- Current language around non-standard defensive equipment is unclear, is limited in scope, and is open to interpretations. A change is needed to assist in clarity while also protecting fencers from potentially advanced tools. A blanket approval for these items would allow barely-authorised fencers to use a tool which could be safe in the hands of an expert, but not a newer fencer. This is a mid point compromise between banning for safety, and blanket approval.
- "Non-standard" defensive items require the marshal and opponent to agree to their use.
- For notes section
- April 2023 - Previous language around non-standard defensive equipment was open to interpretations. A change was needed to assist in clarity while also protecting fencers from potentially advanced tools. A blanket approval for these items would have allowed barely-authorised fencers to use a tool which could be safe in the hands of an expert, but not a newer fencer. The wording used is a mid-point compromise between banning for safety, and blanket approval.