[MR] NOCK requirements

[Velsthe1 at aol.com]

Greetings All,

With regards to the modifications made to safety requirements of used in Society Combat Archery:

>While I am as concerned as anyone with the possiblity
>of eye injuries...reaction to the events at Gulf Wars 
>as being way too strong and way too fast.
This was not simply a reaction to the events at Gulf Wars X. The modifications have been a long time in coming, and the injury at Gulf Wars was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. Testing of modifications to Combat Arrows has been going on for some time. Sir Jon, while spurring the designs and testing of such devices, is not the sole source of testing nor sole supplier of these devices. 

>Trying do decrease bounce back they made the baldars 
>so that they are almost sure to glance if shot at a 
>target...

The devices being suggested are not (repeat: ARE NOT) anti-bounceback devices (ABD). They are anti-penetration devices (APD, these terms sometimes get confused as they both are modifications to the nock of an arrow). It is not the design nor intention of these modified nocks to reduce the spin of a fiberglass or wood shafted arrow. It is the intended design of these APD's to ensure, in the event of an arrow spins or deflects, that the nock end of this arrow will not pass through the slots of a standard SCA legal helm (gap no larger than 1 1/4 inches).

>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...
It would be the supposition that running into branches, tripping and insect stings would be what you are suggesting. All of these events can be alleviated through situational awareness, and standard common sense. A tree has no intent to hit a person who is moving under it, being aware an avoiding 'natural threats' will curb the injury rates. An Archer does intend to strike his target, and situational awareness of the target will do little to relieve the possibility of being injured unintentionally, as the arrow will travel faster than (particularly in a rebound or spin) the human reaction time. 

>and has failed to address the increased risk of these 
>incidents with crossbow as opposed to recurves...
The requirements for maximum poundage for a crossbow for SCA Combat is 600 pounds per inch--roughly the same as a 30# recurve (30 pounds per foot draw-weight). Unfortunatly, many incidents lately with crossbows is regulation. Crossbows with a draw weight of 1000+ ppi have been finding their way onto the battle field and cuasing injury (through armor).

>but the BOD has seen fit to uphold the actions of its 
>officer, and it is its right to do so.  
BOD was so inundated with letters in the three days prior to meeting in Pittsburgh this past weekend, they have upheld the policy, until it can be reviewed and commented on. Until a final ruling is reached, at least October, the policy will stand. I agree that everyone who has an informed and constructive opinion should write a letter to BOD defining your stance on this issue. 

>It appears POSSIBLE that exceptions will be made for 
>kingdoms who are currently screening helms..... 

>Ld Rupert the Persistent

Perhaps possible, but unlikely. In the Kingdoms that use screening in their helms, it is only currently required in melees where 3/4 inch bird blunts are being used. Many fighters have taken to removing the screening from their grills (in those TWO kingdoms) of late, and simply sitting out those battles. The results of this particular set of actions is still unclear.


Vels, called Landstrykkr