[Archers] New Archery Rule Change

[Siegfried]

Hey Kynnyth, thanks for your response ... Let's keep it going:

On 3/3/10 9:23 AM, Kynnyth Pyke wrote:
> Second, while I have the deepest respect for Siegfried there are
> some errors in his post. The 100 yards is not from the target. The wording
> clearly indicates that the safety zone requirements are from the
> shooting line. This means for all shoots, the minimum safety zone is 100
> yards. Previously, the 40 yard addition was to from the target which
> would allow, for a target 20 yards away a safety zone of 60 yards.

Ahh, thank you for the clarification, though, I would argue against your
"wording clearly indicates"  Especially given that I was not the only
person to interpret it wrong, and especially given the light that it is
(And will) be read in relation to the previous rules wording, and the
Society Ruling (which the previous one was based upon)

I would suggest a reword to make it clear, and more in line perhaps with
the previous wording.  So changing:

"The safety zone will then extend 100 yards from all points on the
shooting line, or half the distance from the shooting line to a line
parallel to the farthest target, whichever is greater."

to:

"The zone will then extend straight back from those points for half the
distance from the shooting line to the target, or to a point 100yds away
from the shooting line, whichever is farther away"

I believe that rewording, or something similar, would not only put it in
a context that archery marshals are used to seeing their safety ranges
defined in (similar to Society Rules), but also makes it very clear how
to sit and draw that zone out on graph paper (as I've been known to do
when planning a large shoot with multiple targets and wanting to keep
everyone safe)

...

So that being said, I'll 'mostly' remove my statements, in particular,
about how the extra length is going to be a detriment.  Since in
practice, and as Baron Jonathas pointed out, this isn't a huge change
for a 'typical' range.

The width remains the same.  A 40yd RR range now needs 100yds instead of
80yds, and a 100yd clout needs the same.

The only major change, is to shorter ranges.  Where a 5yd range needed
45yd, and now needs 100yd

That will still cause impact.  But far less than my initial read.  (And
I'll point out, the read of all marshals who came and expressed interest
to me about the ruling)

But, moving on to other discussions:

> This was a second point where Siegfried was incorrect, [...] An arrow
> landed significantly outside the area in question, and showed that the
> safety zone as currently written was
> woefully inadequate. This was no "freak accident", the arrow skipped off
> the top of the target which is not an uncommon circumstance. 

My apologies.  My point was simply that as with all activities, we
cannot fully ensure 100% safety.  Afterall, we have people using
equipment that if misfired at a 45 degree angle, could travel 250yds.
Or if someone forbid, turned around and fired backwards.  etc.

I agree that skipping off the top of the target, is not a freak
accident, but something that regularly occurs.

And I do not disagree that the range in question might have been setup
poorly and unsafe (I didn't see it, so I can't truly say).

I'm just pointing out that the previous rule was meant, as it stated, as
a MINIMUM, and that it was upon the marshal, as with any marshal, to
ensure that activity was safe.

As I pointed out, IMO, you CAN have a 5yd range, shooting at pieces of
paper on the ground, that is safe with a 40yd zone.  You can also have a
5yd range, shooting skywards at a pop-n-jay, where you need 100yd beyond it.

However, that is neither here nor there at this point, just trying to
explain my point there.

> For example, I would
> say that Siegfried's assertion that there is an area beyond the safety
> zone that is safe enough that you don't feel the need to rope it off but
> not so safe that you would shoot towards it as another indication that
> the previous rules are insufficient.

Let's not be misunderstood here, and please take into account that
target archery marshals are constantly aware of the danger of the
weapons people on the line are holding.  (In fact we treat them with
much more respect than modern archers do, wherein they often fire at a
target just mere yards from another target where someone is standing and
pulling arrows.  *shudder*)

The point is simply that there is a difference between marking off a
proper safety zone, ensuring that you have enough clear space to hit
that 99% mark.  And between simply being as 'safety minded as possible'
and stopping shooting if there is someone downrange, at all, no matter
the distance, 'just in case'.  Even if they were at a safe distance for
the 99% mark.

Such that there is a difference between the safety zone, and mitigating
other risk.

Example:  Highland River Melees, a location we hold the archery has a
park path at the back of it.  We used to setup such that the path was
100yds+ away.  While shooting at a 40yd target.  It was beyond the
safety zone at the time, and beyond the current safety zone rules.  As a
marshal, I still would stop shooting if someone walked down that path.
Simply because while we had left the path open, as beyond the safety
range.  Why take that 1% chance if you can just pause for a second and
let them pass.

Another example would be the original Pennsic shooting location at the
bottom of Mt. Eislinn.  They would stop archery if someone was on top of
the hill.  Even though, at 99% point, they were safe up there, not only
by distance, but by 'hill in the way' ;)

> By necessity it overrules all other considerations. If a policy
> change I feel is necessary impacts a sport negatively,
> I will regret that the circumstances require the change,
> but I will not hesitate to make the modification.

So to that end ... you've addressed the 'distance' situation, and it's
not as drastic of a change as previously thought.

Can you address the #1 issue then outstanding with this ruling.  That
being the inability for marshals to take into account the situation at
hand, the lay of the land, physical barriers, etc.  And adjust the range
accordingly.

As it stands, even if you had a cliff you were shooting into, if you
couldn't measures off 100yds on top of the cliff, you can't use it
without getting written approval of the DEM-TA

As it stands, it seriously impacts archery at sites, because sites are
regularly rearranged and people need to 'go with the flow'.  So to
speak.  Let alone, as I pointed out, it putting a burden upon the
DEM-TA, and in fact not 'truly' providing any additional safety IMO,
since it leaves the DEM-TA to rely on the marshal's description anyway:
 "So I have this range with a hill 80yds out, seems good to me"

At least leaving the basics of "The safety zone can be shortened in
cases where physical barriers exist that will stop arrows from
progressing any farther.  Partially effective barriers (such as archery
netting) cannot be used for this purpose.  Any other variations of the
layout must be approved in writing by the DEM-TA, etc"

Which would allow someone to reduce the range for obvious situations.  A
hill/mountain/cliff, 20yd tall archery berm at a professional archery
range, etc.

In Service,
Siegfried


-- 
Barun Siegfried Sebastian Faust - Barony of Highland Foorde - Atlantia
http://hf.atlantia.sca.org/ - http://crossbows.biz/ - http://eliw.com/