[MR] NOCK requirements

[Rupert Gaddy]

Greeting to Gentles in the Tavern who are engaged in combat archery, or who
commmand units composed in part of archers, marshals and autocrats who are
concerned with CA at events, etc:


For those of you who have not been following the actions of the SEM, it
appears that all combat arrows must be retrofitted with an anti bounce back
device (also called an anti penetration device) to be legal after August 1.

There are a few such devices "approved" but testing goes on and the plans
for them are not widely available.  None that I know of have been testing
in this Kingdom and approved by the KEM or the KAM.  I will attempt to post
as much information on "approved" (by the SEM) devices as I am able to find
them.

For those of you interesting in trying to follow the discussions and
suggestions on how to comply, as well as new constructions being tested,
please subscribe to SCA-MissileCombat at yahoogroups.com


While I am as concerned as anyone with the possiblity of eye injuries from
an arrow....or any other source....I personally see this reaction to the
events at Gulf Wars as being way too strong and way too fast. IMHO These
devices are still being developed, have no safety record, and may even
eventually prove to increase danger is some way. (Trying do decrease bounce
back they made the baldars so that they are almost sure to glance if shot
at a target at more than a 30 degree angle according to Robert the
Forgotten)  They also fail to address the major, well documented causes of
eye injury in combat, focusing instead on the one documented eye injury and
a few helm penetrations mostly at Gulf Wars, and has failed to address the
increased risk of these incidents with crossbow as opposed to recurves.  To
my opinion, the suggestion of eye protection, if not the requirement of
some type of goggle would make far more sense in solving eye dangers for
those who do not want to take the risk.

Most of the Atlantian posts on the various lists have been opposed to this
requirement, but the BOD has seen fit to uphold the actions of its officer,
and it is its right to do so.  However since the BOD is to take it up again
in October, I urge you each to write your comments to the BOD at once.


Apparently the BOD received over 300 emails in the two or three days the
SEM's actions were generally known on the combat archery list, I have no
way of knowing how many favored and how many opposed, but the BOD has at
least for now upheld the SEM and will "review" the decision in Oct.  This
basicly makes it a done deal, especially for Pennsic

While I strongly disagree with the SEM's rule, I know he is doing what he
is thinking is the best route to safety, please do not take my post as an
attack on him or the BOD, I just think they have made the wrong call on
this one.


Please plan accordingly.

I personally will probably NOT try to meet the requirements in the time
period allowed.  I have too many questions, not enough information, and if
(a BIG IF now) I attend Pennsic I will probably just take my old golftube
arrows...Which I suggest to any gentles still having them as being an short
term solution.

I do not know what this will do the the Atlantian archers at Pennsic or
other events after August 1, but captains and other leaders should survey
their expected archers, spread this word, and plan accordingly.  Autocrats
and MICs may wish to revisit plans for CA at events or plan on golftubes
and few archers for a while.

Once again, if you disagree/agree with the KEM's rule, you might consisider
posting to directors at SCA.org with your concerns and ideas.

It appears POSSIBLE that exceptions will be made for kingdoms who are
currently screening helms..... this may be the revisting the BOD will do in
OCT. If this is true, how this will affect interkingdom wars has not yet be
addressed.

Ld Rupert the Persistent