HEMA ALLIANCE SAFETY POLICY

[Michael Chidester]

So, to be clear, the previously mentioned distinction between liability insurance and secondary medical insurance does not exist? Anything that negates the medical insurance also negates the liability insurance and vice versa?

Also, once again let me recommend that you move the practice and cutting sections before the tournament section to create a less confusing document.

[Michael-Forest]

So, to be clear, the previously mentioned distinction between liability insurance and secondary medical insurance does not exist? Anything that negates the medical insurance also negates the liability insurance and vice versa?

Also, once again let me recommend that you move the practice and cutting sections before the tournament section to create a less confusing document.

+1.

Also, the examples of unsafe practices make it sound like (despite what's written in the "Practices" section), that freeplay (regardless of weapon) will not be covered without back of the head protection.

Here are some questions for you:
Does this mean that, even if the back of the head is not injured, but the affiliate is sued for some other (safety-related) reason, the affiliate would be considered liable for failing to follow the Alliance's safety guidelines completely, even if they followed the guidelines in all other particulars? Would this be considered "gross misconduct"?

[Richard Marsden]

@Michael C

So, to be clear, the previously mentioned distinction between liability insurance and secondary medical insurance does not exist? Anything that negates the medical insurance also negates the liability insurance and vice versa?

As far as I can tell they are intertwined. I was trying to angle for differentiation, but so far, no go. I'll let you know if that changes. If someone wants to make a claim, they can do so forth both. If the insurer wants to deny a claim, they will do so for both.

Also, once again let me recommend that you move the practice and cutting sections before the tournament section to create a less confusing document.

Agreed. We'll do that after the council has at it.

@Michael F

Also, the examples of unsafe practices make it sound like (despite what's written in the "Practices" section), that freeplay (regardless of weapon) will not be covered without back of the head protection.

Most helmets have some level of back of the head protection included, though for longsword it is best to have something more than the lip you find on fencing-helms. The affordable helmets by AF include back of the head protection, and leather additions also work, as well as inexpensive add-ons by AF and others.

Does this mean that, even if the back of the head is not injured, but the affiliate is sued for some other (safety-related) reason, the affiliate would be considered liable for failing to follow the Alliance's safety guidelines completely, even if they followed the guidelines in all other particulars? Would this be considered "gross misconduct"?

No. There are some examples provided in the policy of this scenario.

[Kevin Murakoshi]

@Michael F

Also, the examples of unsafe practices make it sound like (despite what's written in the "Practices" section), that freeplay (regardless of weapon) will not be covered without back of the head protection.

Most helmets have some level of back of the head protection included, though for longsword it is best to have something more than the lip you find on fencing-helms. The affordable helmets by AF include back of the head protection, and leather additions also work, as well as inexpensive add-ons by AF and others.

While the previous document mandated back of the head protection, I can't seem to find the requirement anywhere in this version. Was that requirement dropped, or is it in a separate section (not in the weapon type -> head, subsection).

In addition, the section on hand protection specifies

Hands = Sturdy gloves or gauntlets must be used to protect the hands and wrists. Gloves must include protection on the sides and tips of the fingers sufficient to resist hard strikes from steel or synthetic weapons.

What is meant by the "sides and tips" of the fingers? Lacrosse gloves with SPES thimbles only cover the sides of the tip of the distal phalanges, but not the sides of all intermediate or proximal phalanges. Is that acceptable?
Further, Comfort fencing gloves which seem to be widely respected don't include grounding fingers. Would these not be allowed?

[Richard Marsden]

While the previous document mandated back of the head protection, I can't seem to find the requirement anywhere in this version. Was that requirement dropped, or is it in a separate section (not in the weapon type -> head, subsection).

Hmm. That's funny. It is different. I didn't make that change, or notice it, till now. I'll get back to you on that. I had the lads review some things and make alterations as able. My view is that there has to be something on the back of the head in competitive sparring. I'll check with the team, or wait for the safety council to offer up suggestions.

I believe the answer is 'yes' to both questions about gloves, Kevin. Your HEMAA event organizer will make the final call on if they think the glove provides reasonable protection based on our guidelines.

The Comfort Fencing Gloves, which I own a pair, do provide protection for the tips of the fingers and the sides. So, if you were at my event, I'd say, 'yes', they're fine and meet the guidelines provided.

[Kevin Murakoshi]

While I understand that there is going to be a committee going over this policy, is it in effect now? (or is this a draft policy?)

I believe the answer is 'yes' to both questions about gloves, Kevin. Your HEMAA event organizer will make the final call on if they think the glove provides reasonable protection based on our guidelines.
The Comfort Fencing Gloves, which I own a pair, do provide protection for the tips of the fingers and the sides. So, if you were at my event, I'd say, 'yes', they're fine and meet the guidelines provided.

Then I go back to the initial question what is meant by "sides and tips"? One might reasonably assume this means that the finger tips must ground on the weapon, as in black lance, or SPES thimbles. Not all gloves do this (eg. classic finger gauntlets, or comfort fencing gloves) don't feature this. Is there a way you could clarify some of this language?

Another example is "puncture resistant material." Technically, all fabric is resistant to puncture at some level of force. That term has a pretty specific meaning in the SCA world, where it refers to 550N rated fabric, or material that will pass an SCA punch test designed to deliver 550N. What does the HEMAA see this as? (1)

(1) also what does "three layers" refer to? Technically, three T-shirts is three layers, but that doesn't provide much protection, if any.

[Jonathan Mayshar]

My understanding has been that "sides" of the fingers refers to the outer sides of the index and little fingers. I would support clarifying this in the policy.

Kevin, do you really want the HEMA Alliance to pick a Newton level for fabric, or perhaps several and apply them to different weapons?

My favorite fallacy, for logic-teaching purposes, is the Fallacy of the Beard:

Reasonable Greek Man 1 comments to Reasonable Greek Man 1, upon observing a week's hair growth upon the face of a third man, "that is a beard." Reasonable Greek Man 2 objects, "that is not a beard". A fourth man arrives, with facial hair extending to his belt. Since both Reasonable men know each other to be Reasonable, they conclude that whether or not this fourth man has a beard is a matter of opinion.

I am not saying that Kevin or anyone else on this thread has committed this fallacy. I bring it up for two reasons. 1: I am pedantic and boring. 2: It's a powerful illustration of the point that the fact that drawing a fine line on a continuum may be difficult does NOT invalidate common sense at the extremes. It seems to me that this flexibility is an advantage of the policy.

[Michael-Forest]

Kevin, do you really want the HEMA Alliance to pick a Newton level for fabric, or perhaps several and apply them to different weapons?

My favorite fallacy, for logic-teaching purposes, is the Fallacy of the Beard:

Reasonable Greek Man 1 comments to Reasonable Greek Man 1, upon observing a week's hair growth upon the face of a third man, "that is a beard." Reasonable Greek Man 2 objects, "that is not a beard". A fourth man arrives, with facial hair extending to his belt. Since both Reasonable men know each other to be Reasonable, they conclude that whether or not this fourth man has a beard is a matter of opinion.

I am not saying that Kevin or anyone else on this thread has committed this fallacy. I bring it up for two reasons. 1: I am pedantic and boring. 2: It's a powerful illustration of the point that the fact that drawing a fine line on a continuum may be difficult does NOT invalidate common sense at the extremes. It seems to me that this flexibility is an advantage of the policy.

I think the issue here is that there is such a wide variety of opinions as to what is "Reasonable" that the proposed policy does not necessarily seem to reflect. The question is: What percentage of Alliance members do we think are Reasonable? Is it the same percentage which is already following these guidelines (before their establishment)?

Taking a guess, I would hazard that less than 50% of Alliance groups absolutely require back of the head protection for all freeplay. Is the position of the (presumed) majority unReasonable?

[Jonathan Mayshar]

Michael-Forest, I think you are conflating two different areas in this debate. Talking about the *type* of occipetal protection would be a continuum issue, but the policy deals differently with the binary of yes/no occipetal. If you want to be covered for a back of the head injury, wear a back of the head protector. If you think that activity X should not require back of the head protection, you shouldn't have a problem agreeing to be outside the policy if a back of the head injury occurs doing activity X.

The reasonableness-on-continuum thing would come into play if you wore a piece of looseleaf paper on the back of your head, or if, as in Kevin's example, you wore 3 T-shirts for 3-layer puncture resistance.

[Michael-Forest]

Michael-Forest, I think you are conflating two different areas in this debate. Talking about the *type* of occipetal protection would be a continuum issue, but the policy deals differently with the binary of yes/no occipetal. If you want to be covered for a back of the head injury, wear a back of the head protector. If you think that activity X should not require back of the head protection, you shouldn't have a problem agreeing to be outside the policy if a back of the head injury occurs doing activity X.

The reasonableness-on-continuum thing would come into play if you wore a piece of looseleaf paper on the back of your head, or if, as in Kevin's example, you wore 3 T-shirts for 3-layer puncture resistance.

A Reasonable man might consider it all a continuum, Jonathan, rather than a binary "beard/no beard" sort of thing.