[MR] SEM nock requirements

Tue Apr 24 06:06:02 PDT 2001

Hi Vels!  Good to hear from you again, even if we do disagree!

At 11:11 PM 4/23/2001 EDT, you wrote:
>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.  

I still stand by this with only a few ABD, or APD if you perfer, on the SEM
approved list, none of them Kingdom approved yet, with the amount of
scrambling being done to test and or find additional methods in a short
time before Pennsic, I think it is indeed too fast, and too much of a
change based on the evidence at this time. RG

>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.  

True, the APD or ABD have been being developed for about a year now, and at
a fairly slow pace. And the entire time Jon has also suggested that eye
protection be worn, if you will see his posts while he was still SAM on the
archives at the egroup.RG

Indeed, I have known Sir Jon for some time, and am aware of his testing,
and he will tell you, infact has posted, that the devices are not perfected
yet and that there is alot of testing and improvements to do.... As there
are only the foam nock and the plastic, (I forget the alphabet soup name of
it) models that are Society approved, the existing models are rather
primitive and better ones need to be found.....the haste that is now
necessary, nay mandated, will spur this research, but at what cost, and how
many changes will be necessary as the testing and on the field experince
continues........Many archers (including me) will wait for a better
solution to be found rather than continue to modify and re-modify the
existing models.RG 

I think it is roughly equivalant to telling all heavy fighters that their
basket hilts must all be replaced with a new plastic type by Pennsic, and
that we have two models approved, but others may be before Pennsic, and
here is a list of a few places that might have the plastic available, but
that no armoror is making the complete hilts at them moment......Oh, and
marshals, you guys figure out if they made them right on the spot. RG  

I also fear that some rather strange constructions may find their way onto
the field in a well meant intent to meet the requirement, and some may pass
by the marshals because like me, they have ZERO experience in inspecting
them and they have not been used as experimental in my kingdom giving the
archer and the MARSHALs experience with them.RG

 Would you feel comfortable in passing them onto the field? I'll try to get
some experience on it, but I fear that most of our marshals are as "caught
by surprize" as I. RG
>
>>Trying do decrease bounce back they made the baldars 
>>so that they are almost sure to glance if shot at a 
>>target...
>

True, True........try it yourself with the newer Baldars.....at over thirty
degrees the shaft whips arround and smacked the guy next to your
target.....especially out of a cross bow!  Improventment is more dangerous
than original problem   I understand this is "being corrected"
RG

It is referenced by the SEM as ABD  in his post, so I used BOTH terms RG

>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. 

IF your argument is true concerning environmental causes or natural
threats; and the easy avoidance of them, why are there so many documented
eye injuries from these causes? Evidence seems to contradict your postion.
My postion is that eye protection would solve both these and the arrow
penetration threat for those who desire to use it. RG

>
>>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).
>
Agreed that some "heavy" crossbows have found their way onto the field, and
some that measure "legal" have been hitting VERY hard.  RG

Also, there is a great deal of discussion as to if the nut pounds
measurement is the best and most reliable method to use in determining the
poundage and performance of crossbows, in fact the SEM is investigating
this along with several other people, and everything from radar guns to
something measuring impact of a blot is being investigated and tested. RG

>>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. 
>

AMEN, please write!!! RG

DO You have the exact wording the BOD used.......I have seen several
paraphrased versions, and the one purporting to be a quote certainly
sounds like the review will deal with the kingdoms that require screening
rather than the APD issue as a whole. 

 I HOPE this is incorrect and that the entire issue will be examined.  My
point remains though, If you want to do Pennsic as a CA .....you must comply.

I do find it interesting that we can get a major rule change thru the BOD
in less time that it takes to get a name or device approved  LOL RG

Reasonable Folks can agree to disagree!  Thanks for your Post Vels!

Rupert

>>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
>========================================================================
>                   The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
>    List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
>  Submissions: Atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
>Subscriptions: http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/atlantia