[MR] SEM's nock requirements

[Rupert Gaddy]

>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:46:08 -0400
>To: comments at sca.org
>From: Rupert Gaddy <Rgaddy1 at mindspring.com>
>Subject: SEM's nock requirements
>Cc: SCA-MissileCombat at yahoogroups.com 
>
>
Copy of my own letter to the BOD


Good M'lords,
>
>Having been notified of the letter sent to you by the very honorable
Eringlen, our Society Earl Marshal, I must send my comments STRONGLY
OPPOSING such a move.
>
>As both a former Kingdom Archer Marshal for Atlantia, a former EMT, and a
person who has suffered a blinding eye injury (not SCA related), I have
long been concerned about eye safety in the SCA.  However, the recent move
by the KEM is not a good solution for a variety of reasons.
>
>First, the decision I believe is premature. It might be classified as a
knee-jerk reaction if I did not know of the previous concerns about this
issue and the work Sir Jon and others have already done in this area.  I do
not want to downplay the seriousness of the Gulf Wars incident, I do have
great concern for both the injured party and the archer who fired the
arrow, but I do point out it is to the best of my knowledge and research
the first documented eye injury from CA in the Known World.  
>
>Secondly, the availablility of experienced manufacturers and teachers, and
lack of a reliable manufactured source of these devices will result in a
variety of untested attempts to comply, which may indeed increase the
safety risk.  The KEM allows no time for changeover, effectively limiting
CA to golftube arrows or those few who have access to materials, plans, or
a source of these nocks, this with Pennsic and other events planned on the
old rules.
>
>Third, I believe recent attempts at making arrows more safe have indeed
made them more dangerous. In an attempt to defeat bounceback we have
created arrows that have a tendency to flip and travel nock first if they
hit the target at greater than a thirty degree angle as documented and
reported by Ld Robert the Forgotten of Atlantia. I fear that the anti
penetration nocks may also have unwanted consequences still to be
discovered. Similarly a marked difference in bounce back and deflection can
be observed between missles fired by crossbows and recurves with the
crossbows deflecting and bouncing back at far greater rates and velocities,
and these issues have still to be addressed. There may be a reason to
require these devices only on crossbow bolts and not the longer arrows.
>
>Forth, and most importantly, the action of the KEM does not address the
more common and well documented eye injuries from causes other than CA,
rather penalizes archers with additional requirements on short notice.  If
the KEM is serious in addressing and preventing eye injuries in the SCA, a
more reasonable solution is to require some type of eye protection for all
fighters in all scenarios. Or at the minimum to STRONLY encourage such
protection.
>
>The KEM is opposed to this because it will require vastly more people to
modify their armor, (a ratio of about 15 to 1 is cited by him in a private
communication with me some weeks ago) and wishes to place the onus on the
archers to have safe equipment.  I understand his point of view, but must
respectfully disagree with it.  Research has shown serious eye injuries
from sticks, weeds, and even insects to combatants in SCA combat.  These
more numerous, and documented incidents have gone unaddressed by the KEM as
he focuses on the arrow issue.  If these issues were also addressed, the
solution to them all, including the arrow issue is EYE PROTECTION, not a
modification in the arrows.
>
>As an after thought, at a current cost of about $4.00 per combat arrow and
assuming a manufactured source of the anti penetration nocks will be
marketed at about the current Baldar rate of 2 to $2.50 each, my war quiver
will cost me over $300 dollars, far more than eye protection, even if I had
to modify my helm to accept it.
>
>In summary, While the KEM is an honorable man, and while his concern
should be applauded, his action is simply not the correct one to take. The
KEM's decision is premature, not based on multiple incidents, does not
consider the issue of crossbow vs Recurve bounceback and deflection, adds
substantial cost to the archers equipment, may have undesired safety
consequences, allows no reasonable time for changeover, and fails to
address the equally as serious and vastly more common eye injuries from non
CA sources.
>
> On a personal note: 
>
>One other unfortunate consequence of his action will be that the Combat
Archers will again be forced to bear the brunt of change, and the gulf
between archers and heavies will grow wider as the archers feel singled
out. While I trust this is not an attempt to limit or eliminate CA from the
SCA, there will be many others who will take it as such a move, regardless
of how it was intended since it singles out the archers and fails to
address the more documented eye injuries from other sources.
>
>For many years now I have attempted to instruct and convince archers that
they are fighters bound by the code of Chivalry and Honor, just fighting
with a different weapon. While they are some different due to range, they
can accept a blow or ignore it, just like a heavy fighter, they can go for
an armored or unarmored area of a fighter, just like I can with my
greatsword, they can in fact act in almost any way as a heavy fighter does.
Like a spearman in a shield wall they can get acknowledgement before taking
a shot, or make the assumption that since the fighter knows they are there
and facing them that they are engaged, I strive for and teach getting
acknowledgement with both spear and arrow, it makes it more "sporting and
honorable". I know of no archer that wants to injure anyone on the field.
Yet archers in every kingdom complain that they are seen as a different
class of fighter, (perhaps the SCA is based on the French rather than the
English model?) This action by the KEM, which fails to address ALL causes
of eye injury will only unnecessarily increase the distance between the two
groups, which I see as a very unfortunate and unintended consequence of his
action.
>
>In conclusion, I strongly urge the BOD to overturn the action of the KEM,
and to encourage him to persue the more far reaching goal of eye protection
from multiple injury causes in all scenarios by mandating eye protection
for all fighters.
>
>In service, and with deep concern
>
>Ld Rupert the Persistent
>Atlantia
>
>
>