[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Re: Suspension of Certain Combat Arrows
Ok, I am afraid I actually have to throw out my two cents. Please understand
that this is indeed a biased opinion and take it as such. <I distrust the use
of ANY.. repeat ANY arrows who have a shaft that is less than our visor
Now..on to the point: My main question to the archer marshal is thus: What
testing did you do? What documentation do you have? Did you simulate bridge
battles? Did you simulate woods battles? These are the situations where
"bounceback" is the most dangerous.. close quarters and lots of things to
bounce off of. If you did, then I believe you should see that bounceback
happens. Period. It's part of the laws of physics.. when the arrow hits
something hard, unless that surface gives, it's gonna bounce. You can't help
it. How far and where.... well, that's open to contention. Think of a
Bridge.. arrow flies, hits a polearm, spins.. where's the nock now? hmm...
When I was Knight Marshal of Black Diamond, we had an incident at Sea Wars
where a Trimarian markland Arrow spun when it ricocheted off a polearm and the
nock hit the fighter next to me right between the eyes. .. While combat is
inherently dangerous, there's a real difference in the level of injury between
a broken arm and loss of sight.
On the other hand.. you want the arrows to simulate arrow flight and for
fighters to notice them when they hit... hence the whine about golf-tubes. And
I highly doubt you're going to find a way to make a nock on a 3/8th inch shaft
to be safe... except the one way that few fighters will accept. Put on
goggles, or put fencing screen in your visor.
So, the real question here is this: do these arrows pose risk that is small
enough to be safe? M'Lord Archer Marshall, if your testing was done as
diligently as it should have been, as I'm certain an individual in your
position most certainly would have done... you already know the answer. You
had made a case when they were passed, you looked at the risks.. and judged
them safe. As has.. I should add... the Society Marshall. <else they'd not be
allowed anywhere.> So, is it truly fair to take them out of the hands of those
folks who spent all the time, effort and money into them, while the issue is
re-evaluated? Archers get to play so little as it is......personally, I think
that the only "test" that will tell the safety will be seeing them in actual
<I might add.. that one instance with the Trimarian arrow.. is the ONLY one
I've seen or heard of, though there certainly may be others, and the Earl
Marshall at the time did not consider it a suitable hazard to justify not
allowing them on the field.>
Ok, I'll go back to shutting up..
Logan & Arielle wrote:
> Poster: Logan & Arielle <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Actually they are more dangerous than woods battles. When I run through
> trees (believe me when I tell you that if you are part of the Cav (or not!)
> and you run through he trees at Pennsic (since that is the 'tree line' in
> question) you have an idea when a low lying branch is gonna' hit you in the
> face. So as far as that part of it goes I disagree with Janos simply
> because I _know_ where the trees and their branches are.
> Arrows, however, come from any angle, hit anyone in the helm (the biggest
> reasons for bounce backs) whether good (Atlantian) or bad (anyone else, and
> I mean ANYONE) and could bounce back. I do agree that there is the chance
> that we will lose an eye to arrows one of these days. I agree that we
> should try to prevent that. However, banning "baldar (what a dic.......
> ooops never mind) blunts" is probably not the answer.
> Logan (ya' know..... that Atlantian Duke guy..)
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
Admin. requests: email@example.com