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

Re: [SCA-Archery] Authorizations

Expand Messages
  • Karl W. Evoy
    Actually, the Middle merged the sword and mass weapon with shield into one years ago. Ancel ... From: Siegfried
    Message 1 of 48 , Mar 2, 2005
      Actually, the Middle merged the sword and mass weapon with shield into
      one years ago.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Siegfried <SiegfriedFaust@...>

      > For example my authorization in 'Weapon and Shield' for Atlantia means
      > that I can fight with ANY weapon in one hand, and a shield in the
      > other. Be that a sword, be that a Mace, be that a spear, be that a
      > GreatSword that I want to try to wield in 1 hand. I am also allowed
      > to thrust with said weapon.
      > In the middle, it only allows sword & shield, unless you are
      > authorized in mass weapon also, then you can do Mace & Shield, etc.
      > Also you can't do Thrusting unless authorized in thrusting.
    • obsidian@raex.com
      Greetings 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
      Message 48 of 48 , Mar 12, 2010

        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?
        > Dalton
        > ----- 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.
        >> Terrance
        >> ----- 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.
        >> kog

        "Ausculta, feminae novae in lacunis recumbens gladii dispensans non fundamentum pro formula administrationis est."
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.