[MR] Vel's Post

[Rupert Gaddy]

>>>When it comes to eye-protection, everyone should already have adequate
armor to protect from SCA-legal weapons. All weapons are required to be at
least 1 1/4 inches in width. To adopt additional protection becuase one
weapon does not conform to the SCA Standard is, quite honestly, ludicrous. 

Vels, true to a point, however the standards do not require the helm to
withstand pentration by other normal "hazards" including armor parts....I
personally have had the wing of an elbow cup enter my helm and cut my nose
in a pile up in a bridge battle at a Sea Wars. An inch to the side and I
would have had a serious eye injury.  My point is that eye protection would
solve a HOST of problems, not Just the one the SEM has singled out. RG

>>>>To willingly walk onto the field and knowingly use an unsafe weapon, a
weapon that does not comply with the minimum standards for weapons in the
SCA, is irresponsible, if not malicious. 

The archers have complied with the legal standards for years, the thinking
has been that the TIP is the weapon since it is the "striking edge" of the
arrow.  This statement is inflamatory and does disservice to the archers of
the known world, IMHO.  RG


>>>Yes, a heavy fighter is responsible for his own safety, but that a
heavy's weapons are safe to be used on someone else is also _their_own_
responsibility. To simply expect that the armored fighters should be solely
responsible for safety on the field is equally arrogant and foolish. We are
all culpable if an unsafe act is perpetrated on the field, and no one does
anything to prevent it.

Then based on the record, you should support eye protection, or prohibiting
woods battles, or fighting on a field that has still grass or weeds that
will penetrate a helm when the helm is forced down onto the turf under
pressure. You are yourself cupable for the next eye injury from these
sources if you do not oppose these unsafe acts. RG

>>>>Now, if I understand correctly. The expectation here is that a heavy
fighter must permenantly alter their helmet so a munition that has to be
replaced regularly doesn't have to be replaced with a safer model?

How do you mean replaced regularly.....My fiberglass shafts and Baldars
have only been modified due to changes in taping requirements.....  I have
some wooden shafted thistle missles that I have been using for years......RG

Also the archers would be required to modify their helms as well RG


 >>>Considering the ofteness that arrows shafts have to be replaced after
being used in battle, one would expect this wouldn't be a major problem.
(see above, RG)  A helm may have to be replaced, if not repairable, after
decade, if not more. When one also considers that after the initial
investment, the heads and APD nocks are, more often than not, able to be
mounted on replacement shafts with little more effort and almost no
additional cost. 

You fail to consider labor and time invested, Vels. RG

>>>Not to insult any archers in Atlantia, but there is little reason for
them to complain.  The rules for Combat Archery here sustain that they are
not viable targets, and hence, have little to no chance of injury.  

EXCUSE ME??  Seems to me archers are certainly targets for other archers,
and thus subject to the eye injuries that have started this change.  If you
mean that you can not knock hell out of them with your stick, that is
correct.  However alot of us, just as you do fight both heavy and archer,
and certainly expose ourselves on both sides of the bow, and to heavy
weapons blows RG



 >>Meanwhile, Archers in Atlantia may freely attack anyone else on the
field, save for other archers. 

 EXCUSE ME??? Have you been arching on the field in Atlantia, if so I must
have missed you as a target, I will try to remedy that next time I see you
on the field, Other archers and spears are my primary targets of choice..
how could I have missed you? RG 

>>Heavy fighters, on the other hand, may not engage with an archer, after
running completely across the field, dodging arrows the entire way.

Depends again on your definition of "engage" you can certainly "kill the
archer" by a touch, and since you remove the archer from the field by your
actions, I call that engagement.  If you mean you can not "punish" the
archer by wacking him or her, take out your frustration with a blow to the
archer, or get a satisfying crunch,  you are correct, but this makes me
question how you fight heavy and whether you are abiding by the rules of
the list in heavy combat. I hope I have misinterpreted your statement, else
I will be forced to observe you more closely as a Marshal to be sure you
are safe to yourself and to others on the field. RG


 >>>So, while archers (of Atlantia) are reaping the full benefits of fun
with the least likelyhood of injury, it hardly seems they 'are always the
ones expected to make concessions'.  

Vels, take any two year period in the last ten years and compare the rule
changes for archers and their equipment with that of heavy......let me know
the results, I already know what they are even If you just take the changes
in attaching blunts to the arrows........RG


 >>If any of this seems inflamatory, that is not my intention, merely my
observation on the matter.

Yes Vels it seem inflamatory, and your observations seem to be limited and
perhaps mistaken or misstated.

>>>>For the record, I am an Authorized Combat Archer, and have been in
several Kingdoms, so I've fielded on both sides of a bow. 

As am I, and have fought in various kingdoms even under full contact rules RG

>>>Something to bear in mind though: Many times when you are taking aim at
heavies on the other side of the field, they're your friends. It's one
thing when you think about it as an 'Us and Them' issue, quite another when
you think about it as your friends. If you don't think enough of your
friends that their safety is less important than your convenience, then I
wouldn't say they are friends. 

I certainly agree with this!  Nice to find some point of agreement M'Lord! RG

>>>>Sure, goggles might work for protecting the eyes, but there is still
the chance for other facial injury.

As there is a chance for injury to any part of the body not covered by the
SCA legal minimum armor like the upper legs, upper arms, and unarmored
upper torso, we take this risk or armor the area.....required or not. RG


>>>> I make sure my sword, axe and spear aren't unsafe, out of mutual
respect, I'd hope the same from any archer I face.  

M'lord, if tomorrow the SEM changed the padding requirement for your spear,
then you are as quilty of using an "unsafe weapon" as the archer who fired
a legal and inspected arrow, built to the published standards at Gulf Wars. RG

Even "safe" weapons have caused permant injury....spears in particular have
resulted in permanant nerve damage to the injured party due to neck injury.
Certainly the injury rate caused by CA is FAR below that caused by heavy
weapons.RG

We need to make SCA combat as safe as possible, on that I am sure we can
agree. My stance is that rather than changing the arrows, especially this
quickly with the limited choices and testing, and experience time based on
one injury is as you put it "ludicrus", especially since requireing or
suggesting eye protection accomplishes the same thing with the added
benefit of protecting from other more numerous and documented injury
causing hazards. RG


Rupert, the Persistent