[MR] New Combat Archery Rules

[logan]

the blunts in question violated the rules as they address weaponry on the
field from the beginning.  the fact that they were incorrectly "approved"
has little to do with the fact that, as they were designed, they could enter
a legal helmet beyond the acceptable allowances.  the action taken by the
sem and his office was done to protect all combatants on the field.  several
fighters at gulf wars were hit in the face by arrows during the ravine
battle.  a very large movement began to discuss banning combat archery
altogether because of this.

and the apd ruling was another case in which the archery community brought
weapons on to the field that were in violation of the rules in place.
instead of forcing all combat archers to go back to the use of golf tubes a
compromise was made.  this was done as quickly as possible in order to get
the ball rolling toward finding a safe adaptation that would satisfy the
heavy community as well as the archery community.

thankfully gorm the injuries sustained by fighters both from nocks hitting
them in the face and/or the egg blunts hitting them in the face has not
caused any grave danger.  only some facial scarring in two cases that i know
of.  i suppose that is acceptable to some people but not to most.  there are
enough inherent dangers on the heavy field as it is.  but even the worst
injuries like broken bones will heal, losing an eye is life altering.

it is my hope that the equipment changes made in the archery field in the
future will undergo a little more stringent examination before being
approved for use.  the injuries could have been prevented had a closer look
been given.  and to be quite honest i would rather see some archers out a
few dollars than to see one fighter lose an eye.  hopefully both will be
avoided.  while it is obvious that no one intended to create an unnecessary
risk on the field it became a reality in very short order.  it is my hope
that you are more interested in protecting those that shoot arrows at from a
safe distance than you are in the potential inconvenience of having to alter
some of your gear.

in closing i will add that i am very proud of the reputation of our archery
community.  our archers are well respected and feared by those that rally
against atlantia on the field.  it is my hope to see the skills of our
archers increase and set a new bar for combat archery throughout the sca.  i
would like to see some changes happen within our rules that make combat
archery more realistic and there is much discussion going on regarding that.
in the meantime, i am sure that the sem and his officers will find an
acceptable fix so that these blunts can be made compliant with the long
standing rules that they violated unintentionally.  i would hate to see the
owners of these (or the manufacturer for that matter) lose any of their
investment.  but i assure you something will done maximize the safety of
them and minimize the trouble those that own them will have to face.

the bottom line is that we should all be interested in protecting our
friends on the field.

regards
logan

-----Original Message-----
From: Gorm of Berra [mailto:gormofberra at direcway.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 10:28 AM
To: logan; atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
Subject: Re: [MR] New Combat Archery Rules


Except for one not very minor detail, your Majesty...

The Baldar Egg Blunts, which are specifically banned (without
modification) by this ruling, *were* approved for SCA use, and were sold
by merchants in good faith, until this ruling which was put out this
past week, which bans them in 2 days.

And the vast majority of combat archers were kept in the dark about this
until after the ruling was made.  Enquiries on the Missile-Combat list
about "I've heard there's a rule change coming...what's going on?" were
met with a "Things are still being worked out, you *WILL* be involved
once the plans are formed".

This, obviously, did not happen.  Just as it did not happen when the
completely ludicrous APD debacle of two years ago was imposed upon the
community. (For those not in the know, basically *all* shafted arrows
were rendered illegal by fiat unless they had an approved
Anti-Penetration Device on the back end...except that at the time the
ruling was made there *WERE* no approved APD's, and only a 3 month
window was provided to develop them.  The Archers managed to squeeze in
the development of several in that timeframe, but only as a result of
MASSIVE, UNREIMBURSED, and UNTHANKED effort by a number of people.

It would be as if because someone almost got a splinter in their arm,
all rattan swords were declared illegal immediately.  Oh, no, wait, that
would never happen, because a change to *those* rules would be
communicated to the community affected before it happened.

Thankfully, as I understand the ruling, I am not affected, as I had not
encountered a need to migrate to the latest blunt technology, so I will
be able to stand by Atlantia at Pennsic...but...as it stands, I wonder
if Atlantia really wants it's archers to stand by it.

Gorm
(If you think for a moment this has anything to do with my official
duties as a Herald, you need to clear your head a bit)


logan wrote:
> these rules were not dropped on anyone.  they already exist in both
> the armor standards and the weapons standards on a society level.
> they are: