Re: [SCA-Archery] Re: Authorizations
As you say, the social climate must be different in California - here, a general familiarity and comfort with weapons of all sorts is much more widespread. Authorizations may work for you, but I cannot regard them here with anything but the deepest misgivings. Archery and thrown weapons are the only sports activities left that are freely available to everyone. I never want to see the day when I have to say "No, I'm sorry, you can't be here, you have no card." I never want to see a time when we have to spend half the day at an event having a panel of authorizing marshals take aspirants through their paces, saying: "Ok, I guess you'll do, we will instruct the Minister of the Lists to issue you a card; that should be in the mail in a coupla weeks, see you then." And I definitely don't want to see us obligated to shut down the Youth Archery programs because, unlike rattan fighting, there is no boffer-equivalent possible for archery or TW.
All of the foregoing issues would be irrelevant, of course, if there were evidence of a problem. But there isn't. We've been shooting for more than 35 years now, and there has never been a serious injury, ever. The worst accident I can recall offhand happened quite a few years ago when a guy overdrew his bow and managed to shoot himself in the forearm... with his cloak-pin. And he was a warranted marshal, with training, who presumably should have known better. So I don't see forcing people into an authorization procedure as helping safety at all. And if a thing isn't broken, there is no need to fix it.
Now, having said all that, I don't want to leave the impression that I oppose education. I would be delighted to see a series of classes and clinics to teach basic range safety and shooting techniques, as voluntary things. I wouldn't even object to handing out some kind of documentation to show one had taken such a class, as a voluntary thing. My inspection class eagerly solicits attendence by folks who aren't MiTs, and have no particular interest in the marshallate. I will make this offer: if enough folks on this list who are going to Pennsic express an interest, I will expand my classes and clinics there to provide just that sort of basic introduction to archery, both in terms of shooting technique and in terms of range etiquette and safety. But don't make me turn folks away.
> Actually, Caid has mandatory authorizations to compete (not for practice)
> or to post a score for ranking. I have yet to find anyone who objects. In
> fact, I often have people from other kingdoms who are welcome to shoot as
> guests under the standards of their home kingdom who insist on getting
> Caidan authorizations. Many consider it a mark of honor to get a Caidan
> fighter card (though with only a target archery endorsement). .So, is this
> a burden? It doesn't seem so.
> At 09:28 AM 3/1/2005, you wrote:
> >Would a mandatory introduction to archery - Authorizations - including a
> >familiarization with own equipment - including shoot a few arrows for me
> >- be out of line? Sure, nobody really wants them, it would make even more
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.2 - Release Date: 2/28/2005
> Brought to you YahooGroups Ad Free in 2003 by Medieval Mart
> Get Medieval at Mad Macsen's <a href="http://www.medievalmart.com/" target="_blank">http://www.medievalmart.com/</a>
> [Email to SCA-Archeryfirstname.lastname@example.org to leave this list]
> Yahoo! Groups Links
Three things never heard from the mouth of a Celt:
"Do these colors match?"
"Is this too much jewelry?"
"Is that my drink?"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Some are, some aren't. I am - I wrote most of the inspection standards for the Midrealm (much of which still appears in Northshield, Meridies, and Gleann Abhainn manuals), a long while ago, and I regularly taught classes to MiTs at Pennsic in how to inspect. I'm unusual in that regard, but I will point out that becoming a marshal in the Middle kingdom involves learning inspection, and folks are very strongly encouraged to learn as much about as many types of tackle as possible - and that icludes the details, such as comparison of arrow length to draw length, assessing apine weight as best as may be without actually bending the arrow, and so on. Any competent marshal program, in any kingdom, will include details on these matters, and it is the responsibility, not only of the marshal-in-charge, the inspection marshal, and the line marshals, to see to it that all the details are minded, but also of the archers themselves to see to it that everyone on the range is on the same page regarding safety.
On Fri, March 12, 2010 12:20 pm, ICE TIGER wrote:
> As stated previously I don't see the reasoning for authorizing for style
> of bow. If a person is in control of the weapon then that should be the
> end of it. Once you are authorized to shoot a bow have a nice day.
> The other question that comes to mind of course is: Are all your marshals
> knowledgeable in how to shoot not just english longobows, but mongolian
> horsebows with a thumb ring, japanese yumi bows, turkish bows... see
> where I'm going with this because I'm certain they are not?
> ----- Original Message -----
From: Terrance Timmons <TerryT@...>
> Date: Friday, March 12, 2010 10:07 am
> Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Authorizations
> To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
>> If you reread the last reply, it is more by poundage, and STYLE
>> of bow, not an individual bow. I personally dont, other
>> than watching to make sure they adjust appropriately, worry
>> about someone who is using a bow of lower poundage than they are
>> authorized for, but if it is heavier they will get the full
>> inspection of draw capability, arrows (making sure they are
>> splined for the heavier weight, etc). as to poundage and
>> strings, if they have a borrowed bow, the wont know the string
>> info probably, but we can ask, and about the arrows. if
>> they are too short, that is kind of obvious, so not a real issue
>> I think, unless the marshal is not paying attention.
>> ----- Original Message -----
From: The Greys
>> To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 7:36 AM
>> Subject: [SCA-Archery] Authorizations
>> I'm finding this to be a very interesting discussion. My
>> initial reaction is that requiring archer authorizations is a
>> severe case of micro management. Writting a 25 page rule book on
>> archery seems a classic waste of time. You can write as many
>> rules as you feel obligated to but you can not write any rule
>> that eliminates stupidity. There is only ONE thing that can
>> counter stupidity on an archery range, a marshal who is
>> observant and in control of the range. As for archers needing
>> authorization for each bow they use, I think of myself. I have
>> 14 bows I shoot on a rotating basis. They range in draw weights
>> from 30 to 50 pounds. If I can shoot one safely, I can shoot all
>> of them safely. That doesn't take into account my crossbows! And
>> if we are "deeply concerned" enough to write rules for bow
>> poundage how about rules for arrow length? An archer using an
>> arrow three inches too short is much more of a danger than an
>> archer using a bow 10 pounds over their weight limit! How about
>> spine of shafts related to bow poundage? Arrows typically are
>> not marked with spine and we all know an under spined shaft on a
>> bow can break causing the shaft to go through the archer's hand
>> or cause damage elsewhere. And what about number of strands in
>> the string? Enough for bow poundage? What if it's an older bow?
>> Are they using a fastflight string which could likely damage the
>> bow? Where does it all end?
>> Range safety is the responsibility of the marshal(s)
>> running the range. If the marshal is lax, the safety is lax
>> regardless of how many rules have been written or how they are
>> written. If the SCA archery community is that concerned about
>> range safety then let's consider the warranting process for our
>> marshals and, if need be, make that more stringent to assure a
>> higher quality marshal.
"Ausculta, feminae novae in lacunis recumbens gladii dispensans non fundamentum pro formula administrationis est."