Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [E_Rapier] Rules Clarification for Gorgets

Expand Messages
  • John Wyatt
    The picture was made in reference to another Kingdom s rules, which I will check at home to see if they too have the same apparent contradiction we have.  I
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 11, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      The picture was made in reference to another Kingdom's rules, which I will check at home to see if they too have the same apparent contradiction we have.  I believe so, but I will check for anyone that wishes to know.
       
      Mateo

      --- On Wed, 11/11/09, Eve Harris & David Stamper <evedave1@...> wrote:


      From: Eve Harris & David Stamper <evedave1@...>
      Subject: RE: [E_Rapier] Rules Clarification for Gorgets
      To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 6:12 PM


       



      I believe it was Mateo who added the diagram in the last major set of
      revisions. I think the diagram came from another Kingdom's set of rapier
      rules.

      Albrecht

      _____

      From: E_Rapier@yahoogroup s.com [mailto:E_Rapier@yahoogroup s.com] On Behalf
      Of argh@cogeco. ca
      Sent: November 11, 2009 12:24 PM
      To: E_Rapier@yahoogroup s.com
      Subject: re: [E_Rapier] Rules Clarification for Gorgets

      The big question here is the provenance and authority of the illustration.
      The rules on gorgets is largely verbatim
      from society rules. This picture falls within the mandate of Kingdoms
      increasing armour and safety standards, but not
      reducing them. Perhaps its best to ask the KRM who instituted illustration
      as to their intention, it may have been one
      of those proof reading issues, or it may well have been an actual policy
      change, in which case it should be understood
      and articulated within the kingdom rules by an appropriate revision.
      Although this could all be academic as the
      revisions did pass the Earl Marshall, and any clarification will need to do
      the same.

      So, who was it.... Was it Eyrny?

      =)

      >
      > Greetings!
      >
      > THL Wilhelm has pointed out to me a contradiction in our current rapier
      > rules concerning gorgets. Here is the current rule:
      >
      > vi. Additional throat protection is also required; it shall consist of
      > rigid material, as noted above, covering the entire throat, and shall be
      > backed by either puncture resistant material (as a hood), one-quarter inch
      > (1/4") (6 mm) of open-cell foam, or their equivalents. The cervical
      > vertebrae shall also be protected by rigid material, provided by some
      > combination of gorget, helm, and/or hood insert. (Note 9)
      >
      > The diagram in version 5 of the rapier rules currently shows the entire
      neck
      > requiring coverage. As written, the rigid part of the gorget is required
      to
      > cover the throat, which I understand, anatomically, includes the trachea,
      > the oesophagus, the larynx, the pharynx and both the jugular vein and
      > carotid artery, basically the front part of the neck. At the back, the
      > cervical vertebrae must be covered. The rest of the neck must be covered
      by
      > puncture resistant material as defined by the rules.
      >
      > Now, it may be the original intention of the rule to cover the entire neck
      > but that is not how it currently reads. I would ask that anyone with a
      view
      > on this please contact me. If people wish the wording of the rule be
      > changed, please let me know.
      >
      > Yours in Service
      >
      > Albrecht
      > KRM, Ealdormere
      >
      >

      Aaron Miedema
      Lentus autem non celer sum.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Eve Harris & David Stamper
      Thank you very much for the clarification, your memory is much better than mine. I don t believe there is any need to change the rules as currently written
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 11, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Thank you very much for the clarification, your memory is much better than
        mine. I don't believe there is any need to change the rules as currently
        written though we may want to clarify the diagram and perhaps add a more
        detailed image of the neck area. I will continue to wear my gorget that goes
        right the way around, that's made of steel :-)



        Albrecht





        _____

        From: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com [mailto:E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
        Of John Wyatt
        Sent: November 11, 2009 1:17 PM
        To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: re: [E_Rapier] Rules Clarification for Gorgets





        Sorry, nope this was me - Mateo. I regret the confusion that this has
        caused.

        I believe Albrecht, our KRM has made a just ruling on this in support of the
        wording over the picture. He's the one to make policy.


        To shed some light on the history of events associated with releasing
        version 5 as Albrecht and Archibald has rightly asked:

        The picture was created as a reference tool for Marshals and Combatants
        alike. It was NOT intended as policy change with its inclusion.

        During the Rapier Moot held on Feb 16 2008 at Silk Slippers and Crossed
        Swords, the populace asked that we include a picture to help marshals and
        combatants interpret the words. It was also determined that we wished to
        use Society Minimum protective gear requirements. (Albrecht will have the
        notes - in hardcopy)

        This is what I presented to the Earl Marshal in our discussions. The
        revision notes in version 5 are the only "minutes" I took from those
        discussions. You will see the revisions I made as a result of our Moots
        during my term under "Draft for KEM Review" and the comments back from Earl
        Marshal under "Privy Council Review". In my submission to the Earl Marshal
        I merely added Figure 1, pictorial reference of rules requirements - no
        changes made to the gorget rules. The Earl Marshal did request some changes
        to the protective gear section for submission to the Privy Council, but here
        again no changes were made to gorgets. As you can see the picture was just
        treated as a piece of reference for the reader rather than a policy making
        device.

        I hope this history helps clarify things. Please let me know if I can
        assist further in this matter.

        Mateo de Merida





        I regret that this error could cause issue, but

        --- On Wed, 11/11/09, argh@cogeco. <mailto:argh%40cogeco.ca> ca
        <argh@cogeco. <mailto:argh%40cogeco.ca> ca> wrote:

        From: argh@cogeco. <mailto:argh%40cogeco.ca> ca <argh@cogeco.
        <mailto:argh%40cogeco.ca> ca>
        Subject: re: [E_Rapier] Rules Clarification for Gorgets
        To: E_Rapier@yahoogroup <mailto:E_Rapier%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
        Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 5:24 PM



        The big question here is the provenance and authority of the illustration.
        The rules on gorgets is largely verbatim
        from society rules. This picture falls within the mandate of Kingdoms
        increasing armour and safety standards, but not
        reducing them. Perhaps its best to ask the KRM who instituted illustration
        as to their intention, it may have been one
        of those proof reading issues, or it may well have been an actual policy
        change, in which case it should be understood
        and articulated within the kingdom rules by an appropriate revision.
        Although this could all be academic as the
        revisions did pass the Earl Marshall, and any clarification will need to do
        the same.

        So, who was it.... Was it Eyrny?

        =)

        >
        > Greetings!
        >
        > THL Wilhelm has pointed out to me a contradiction in our current rapier
        > rules concerning gorgets. Here is the current rule:
        >
        > vi. Additional throat protection is also required; it shall consist of
        > rigid material, as noted above, covering the entire throat, and shall be
        > backed by either puncture resistant material (as a hood), one-quarter inch
        > (1/4") (6 mm) of open-cell foam, or their equivalents. The cervical
        > vertebrae shall also be protected by rigid material, provided by some
        > combination of gorget, helm, and/or hood insert. (Note 9)
        >
        > The diagram in version 5 of the rapier rules currently shows the entire
        neck
        > requiring coverage. As written, the rigid part of the gorget is required
        to
        > cover the throat, which I understand, anatomically, includes the trachea,
        > the oesophagus, the larynx, the pharynx and both the jugular vein and
        > carotid artery, basically the front part of the neck. At the back, the
        > cervical vertebrae must be covered. The rest of the neck must be covered
        by
        > puncture resistant material as defined by the rules.
        >
        > Now, it may be the original intention of the rule to cover the entire neck
        > but that is not how it currently reads. I would ask that anyone with a
        view
        > on this please contact me. If people wish the wording of the rule be
        > changed, please let me know.
        >
        > Yours in Service
        >
        > Albrecht
        > KRM, Ealdormere
        >
        >

        Aaron Miedema
        Lentus autem non celer sum.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.