[Archers] FW: My take on the rules.

[Rupert Gaddy]

-----Original Message-----
From: Rupert Gaddy [mailto:rgaddy at bellsouth.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 9:50 AM
To: archers-admin at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
Subject: My take on the rules.


 I have been sitting back and just reading others comments until now.  I
have seen some good points made on a variety of issues so now I am going to
add my two pence worth.

I have been doing target archery in the SCA for about 15 years, and before
that did archery in a variety of formats including the Boy Scouts, I have
been warranted just about forever in SCA terms, so here is the take from the
"old fart".

Regarding the bow and or string markings...Why not allow them? One could
assume but not document that someone had come up with this idea in period,
because it just seems a natural thing to do.  Its not like we are allowing
pin sights.  I don't use them personally because of two factors. #1 the
terrain is seldom "level" at our shoots, and even a two or three foot rise
makes the target not fall on any of the lines, and #2 no one seems to place
the targets a universal height from the ground.  The few times I have tried
to use a piece of tape on the bow for ranging, I have found it far more
trouble than it is worth, and use my finger position and a background object
as a sight that is far more accurate.  Maybe if I actually practiced with
the tape marks or string marks I would find them better than my normal
sighting, I don't know.

Hand Straps?  Allow them maybe, but certainly not REQUIRE them...what is
next require arm protection, safety glasses and a back up alarm?.....

 I think that anything that covers a bow to make it appear more period
should be easily removable for inspection of the bow.  I have seen leather
wraps, and even a simple cloth wrap that meets both the aesthetic and safety
needs. I am opposed to TAPING over the bow.

Regarding the RR, gee does that mean someone else will have to run the line
so the marshal can shoot the "required" round??  I am tempted to support
this just so the marshal HAS to get an opportunity to actually shoot instead
of marshal!!  However, I know some good marshals that for a variety of
reasons seldom shoot. In one case it is a physical disability.  Requiring
Marshals to shoot seems unnecessary, those that want to shoot will shoot,
those who do not want to, or who are unable to, will not. For a MIT, it
might be useful, but I hesitate to require it.

Ok, now the "can of worms" regarding the training class every two years.

I told you I am the "old fart" at the beginning of this post. I truly wonder
what I can get out of a required class every two years that I could not get
from a simple posting on the web. A far more reliable measure of what I know
and what problems or short coming I might have will come from another
marshal working the line with me, or just observing the line I run. It might
be better and easier to just have a two year observation by another marshal
than having to do an entire class.

I, as the "old fart" marvel at how difficult we in the SCA are making
assuming any position from MOL to water bearer!  Is there a position that
does not now require a MIT type internship and a continuing education
component?  As an old observer, I find no difference in the quality of the
job people are doing with the "improvements".  If it is a liability issue,
then I can see it as a CYA by the corporate and individual entities, but I
think we have gone a little overboard!

As an "old fart", and I think the first one to actually put into writing any
training materials for marshals in this kingdom, as well as being a
professional educator....May I offer a compromise suggestion, at least
concerning target archery marshals?  In this wonderful world of electronic
communications, why can someone not set up a marshals web site that INCLUDES
the class. I would be happy to host the site if necessary. The information
could be there, and even a "evaluation instrument" of a test or a "work
book" type exercise that could be done and emailed to the deputy kingdom
marshal, or to a senior marshal in the person's area.

This would eliminate the need to offer the "renewal class" and even remove
the need for classroom type instruction for the MIT at events, and meets
even more the CYA as it is documented and in writing somewhere.  Changes and
updates could be emailed to all archery marshals by keeping an egroup or
mailing list of all warranted marshals.

(Maybe some of the other marshalates will like the idea and adopt it as
well) I know some people do not have home web access, but it would be easier
for them to go to their public library if necessary than to get to an event
were the class is offered.

If people who currently teach the class will send me the uniform outline and
what they are doing, I will even take part of the summer to write the course
and get it on the web if necessary.

I suggest we also look at the MIT program as being too bulky and requiring
too long a time to complete. Personally if I can not tell if a person can
marshal a line, do inspections, etc by watching them at a single event, then
I have not paid attention to what they are doing.  If I, or another marshal,
note a problem with the MIT, then perhaps they should solve that problem at
that event if possible, and if not require one other event to show it
solved. The purpose of the MIT is to show they can do the job. If a person
can demonstrate that to a senior marshal in one event, then why continue the
process.  You don't have to take your driving license exam with different
examiners on different days to show you can drive!

OK, that is the take from the old man who has been at this a L O N G time. I
hope maybe I have opened up another area for intelligent discussion and not
ruffled too many feathers.

Rupert the Persistent