[MR] Re: [Directors] Anti-Bounceback

[Jonathan Blackbow]

[note the sentence inviting wide dissemination in Mr. Larsen's letter]

I think you (the BOD), by ratifying this decision,  have either killed or
significantly reduced the chances of a lot of archers attending Pennsic.
Not that there was a lot there for archery to begin with, but more (rather
than less) would have been nice.  I know that at least a few archers are
seriously contemplating bailing out altogether, because they can't ever seem
to get the right equipment together.  This APD or ABD, either one, whether
it works or not, will force yet another change on archers that will give
them nothing but headaches.  Crossbows in particular will be affected (you
can't put an ABD under the crossbow as it currently stands) and I know there
are about forty of those in NC and SC alone.  They bought them about a year
ago in a mass purchase my lady organized.  Now, every single one of those
crossbows is going to have to be redesigned, completely.  For use with
combat archery, anyway.

I am of the opinion that not enough thought was given to the implementation
end of this rule, and I sincerely hope that the BOD reevaluates its position
on this before archers begin quitting the SCA in droves.

My suggestion?  Let those people who are concerned with protecting their
eyes do so, and let the rest of us get on with life.  I'm surprised that
nobody has suggested swimming goggles under the helmet.  They're small, and
you can drill holes in them to let out the condensation.

Regards,

Jonathan Blackbow
----- Original Message -----
From: Matt Larsen <matt at ibizware.com>
To: <blackbow at carolina.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Directors] Anti-Bounceback


> As you may know by now, the Board of Directors voted this past
> weekend to approve the Society Marshal's decision to require
> protection on combat archery nocks.  The entries in the minutes
> on this matter can be found at the end of this email.
>
> This was not an easy decision and we regret the effort and cost
> that our archers will have to go to in complying with this ruling.
> There has been growing concern over this matter for several years,
> and incidents at the recent Gulf Wars indicated that an unacceptably
> high level of risk was present, and the possibility of serious injury
> was too great.
>
> Please know that the Board of Directors was completely aware that the
> Society Marshal's ruling was made only a short time before the quarterly
> meeting, and the Board was also aware of the amount of controversy this
> ruling had already generated; however, the issue was the safety of our
> fighters and everyone else on the field of combat, and in the interest
> of safety, the Board determined action was required at this meeting.
>
> Thanks to the efforts of many people who have been testing ABDs for
> several years, there are already several approved devices, and the
> Directors hope that more experimentation will happen shortly.  We do
> recognize the speed at which this change has been made, though, and
> as you can see from the minutes quoted below, the Board has directed
> the Society Marshal to continue to evaluate this matter, as it will be
> revisited at the October 2001 quarterly meeting.
>
> Please feel free to pass this letter on to others who may be interested
> in this ruling.
>
> Matt Larsen
> Director, SCA Inc.
> Ombudsman for the Society Marshal
>
>
> From the unapproved minutes for the April 21, 2001 meeting of the
> Board of Directors of the SCA, Inc.:
>
> (2) All wooden and fiberglass shafted arrows used in SCA combat
archeryshall be
> required to have an approved ABD on the nock-end to prevent any
injuriouscontact
> to SCA combatants.  This requirement shall be implemented on August 1,
2001,
> to allow a sufficient period for implementation.
>
> Motion by Beth Morris that the Board approve the Society Marshal's policy
> on combat archery equipment as presented, to be implemented by August
1,2001.
> Seconded by Carol O'Leary.
> In favor: Paul Foster, Matt Larsen, Keith MacInnes, Beth Morris, Carol
> O'Leary, John Rose.  Opposed: none.  Motion carried.
>
> Motion by Keith MacInnes that the Board review the above combat archery
> equipment policy at the October 2001 quarterly Board meeting.
> Seconded by Beth Morris.
> In favor: Paul Foster, Matt Larsen, Keith MacInnes, Beth Morris, Carol
> O'Leary, John Rose.  Opposed: none.  Motion carried.
>
> With the consensus of the Board, Chairman Baron ordered the Society
Marshal
> to gather commentary on this issue and to present it to the Board for it's
> review no later than September 15, 2001.  Further, the Society Marshal is
to
> present for the Board's consideration, alternatives and possible
procedures
> for variances on a kingdom by kingdom basis.
>