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

Re: Recurve rests

Expand Messages
  • Godwin FitzGilbert de Strigoil
    IMO, ANY rest that is designed to move or otherwise give way to the arrow, should not be allowed. IMO, If you want to tweak your accuracy from shot to shot: go
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 21, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      IMO,
      ANY rest that is designed to move or otherwise give way to the arrow,
      should not be allowed.

      IMO,
      If you want to tweak your accuracy from shot to shot: go shoot a
      compound, go shoot 3 arrows in 5 minutes, put your training wheels back
      on. Go back to shooting mundane.

      IMO,
      "We" should stop dancing around the intent of the rules, like lawyers
      dancing around the intent of laws.

      Sorry, this thread just hit a nerve....

      Godwin
      (who shoots with no string nock point and also off my hand......which
      renders both extremely adjustable.....is it legal? ) ;)
    • Hobbe
      Thanks for following the discussion before you jumped in. ... arrow, ... I mentioned that I was aware of that rule early on. ... back ... I also mentioned that
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 21, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for following the discussion before you jumped in.


        --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, Godwin FitzGilbert de Strigoil
        <archergodwin@...> wrote:
        > ANY rest that is designed to move or otherwise give way to the
        arrow,
        > should not be allowed.

        I mentioned that I was aware of that rule early on.

        > If you want to tweak your accuracy from shot to shot: go shoot a
        > compound, go shoot 3 arrows in 5 minutes, put your training wheels
        back
        > on. Go back to shooting mundane.

        I also mentioned that this was my daughters bow. She's 14 and just
        began shooting. I use a longbow.

        > IMO,
        > "We" should stop dancing around the intent of the rules, like
        lawyers
        > dancing around the intent of laws.

        I'm not dancing anywhere. I'm asking for clarification.

        --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, lewindepartone@... wrote:
        >
        > EK Rules:
        > > 4. No modern spring/flipper rests or plunger buttons are allowed.
        > > a. Wire rests are not allowed.
        > > b. Simple one-piece plastic attachable rests are allowed.
        > > c. Plastic or nylon bristle rests are allowed.
        >
        > I see this rest being ILLEGAL by EK standards.
        > A- its not one piece plastic
        > B- its obviously not a plastic or nylon bristle
        > Lewin de Partone
        > EK Archery Marshal
        > Shire of Cear Adamant

        According to the rules, a built up leather shelf rest would be
        illegal. Yes, now I'm just being belligerent. Sorry.
        -Hobbe
      • Nest verch Tangwistel
        ... . I don t think you can be this literal with the rules. They are not at exhaustive list of what is legal. For instance a piece of leather on the shelf is
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 22, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, lewindepartone@... wrote:
          >
          > EK Rules:
          > > 4. No modern spring/flipper rests or plunger buttons are allowed.
          > > a. Wire rests are not allowed.
          > > b. Simple one-piece plastic attachable rests are allowed.
          > > c. Plastic or nylon bristle rests are allowed.
          >
          > I see this rest being ILLEGAL by EK standards.
          > A- its not one piece plastic
          > B- its obviously not a plastic or nylon bristle
          > Lewin de Partone
          > EK Archery Marshal
          > Shire of Cear Adamant



          .


          I don't think you can be this literal with the rules. They are not at exhaustive list of what is legal. For instance a piece of leather on the shelf is not specifically mentioned, but that is certainly legal. I think these are just meant as examples, trying to give us examples of a few things that are and are not legal. We should be able to extrapolate from there what they were aiming for.

          Nest



          ---------------------------------
          Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Godwin FitzGilbert de Strigoil
          Hobbe, Please, please.... I was not shooting at you. ..... I was just shooting. I am sorry you took that personally. I also apologize that I did not read
          Message 4 of 9 , Oct 22, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Hobbe,

            Please, please.... I was not "shooting" at you.
            ..... I was just shooting. I am sorry you took that personally.

            I also apologize that I did not read thorougly, your first few
            posts..... I just interpreted the remaining responses.
            Please allow me to post something "helpful". ;)

            For recurves, one of the best methods I've seen for reducing affect on
            the arrow while being comletely SCA legal, is just a small buildup of
            leather, about the width of a pencil. You can build it up about 1/4 high
            and maybe about the same outwards. Gives a small contact area and
            doesn't move. Contact cement or Duco works well for attaching it.

            For the recurve I used to shoot, I just shot off of a small patch of mohair.

            Godwin
          • John Rossignol
            ... My two cents: I agree that, since the rules neither explicitly allow nor explicitly forbid a wheeled rest, we must indeed extrapolate, but we actually have
            Message 5 of 9 , Oct 22, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Nest verch Tangwistel wrote:

              >--- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, lewindepartone@... wrote:
              >
              >
              >>EK Rules:
              >>
              >>
              >>>4. No modern spring/flipper rests or plunger buttons are allowed.
              >>>a. Wire rests are not allowed.
              >>>b. Simple one-piece plastic attachable rests are allowed.
              >>>c. Plastic or nylon bristle rests are allowed.
              >>>
              >>>
              >>I see this rest being ILLEGAL by EK standards.
              >>A- its not one piece plastic
              >>B- its obviously not a plastic or nylon bristle
              >>Lewin de Partone
              >>EK Archery Marshal
              >>Shire of Cear Adamant
              >>
              >>
              >
              >I don't think you can be this literal with the rules. They are not at exhaustive list of what is legal. For instance a piece of leather on the shelf is not specifically mentioned, but that is certainly legal. I think these are just meant as examples, trying to give us examples of a few things that are and are not legal. We should be able to extrapolate from there what they were aiming for.
              >
              > Nest
              >
              >
              >

              My two cents:

              I agree that, since the rules neither explicitly allow nor explicitly
              forbid a wheeled rest, we must indeed extrapolate, but we actually have
              to consider not one, but two things:

              1) What was the intent of the rule-makers? Did they fail to mention a
              wheeled rest because they wished to tacitly allow it, or because they
              felt it was too absurdly non-period to need forbidding, or simply
              because they had never even heard of such a thing? My guess is that it
              was the last case.

              2) What direction do we, as archers, want SCA archery to take?

              For most of us, rule-writers or not, there is the general dilemma of
              wanting SCA archery to be more period-correct, vs wanting it being more
              inclusive in the hope of allowing more people to participate. Our
              overall goal, though, is to promote *period* archery. We encourage
              period designs and materials, but only tolerate modern ones. In this
              spirit, I think we should interpret the law with the view that period
              things are allowed unless they are explicitly forbidden, but non-period
              ones are tacitly forbidden unless they are explicitly allowed. That is:

              a) Any archery design, material, gadget, or practice which can be
              reasonably documented to have been used in period must be allowed,
              unless it is explicitly forbidden, or can be shown to be unsafe.

              b) Any archery design, material, gadget, or practice which was
              definitely or quite probably *not* used in period should not be allowed,
              unless it is explicitly mentioned and allowed in the law. If its use in
              period is in dispute, let the burden of reasonable proof lie on the
              individual who wants to use it.

              c) When in doubt, be conservative. That is, err in the direction of
              forbidding stuff which is probably modern, especially if it detracts
              from a period ambiance or may give a performance advantage.

              Since wheeled rests are almost certainly non-period, but are not listed
              among the type of modern rests which are explicitly allowed, my feeling
              is that they should not be allowed. Whether or not this type of rest
              gives an advantage in shooting, to allow it -- even unofficially -- sets
              a precedent toward tolerating modern gadgets and aids on the SCA range.
              Besides the fact that I personally prefer a more period appearance on
              the range, I don't think that allowing blatantly modern devices to slip
              though loopholes in the law contributes to our goal of promoting the
              spirit of period archery.

              <grin> Sheesh, it's bad enough standing up there alongside you guys
              with your cut-out shelves...

              John
            • James W. Pratt, Jr.
              This is one of the best explanations of how to handle not in the rules kinds of things. It allows for both inclusive use of what you have and encouragment
              Message 6 of 9 , Oct 22, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                This is one of the best explanations of how to handle "not in the rules"
                kinds of things. It allows for both inclusive use of what you have and
                encouragment of more period equipment.

                James Cunningham

                > My two cents:
                >
                > I agree that, since the rules neither explicitly allow nor explicitly
                > forbid a wheeled rest, we must indeed extrapolate, but we actually have
                > to consider not one, but two things:
                >
                > 1) What was the intent of the rule-makers? Did they fail to mention a
                > wheeled rest because they wished to tacitly allow it, or because they
                > felt it was too absurdly non-period to need forbidding, or simply
                > because they had never even heard of such a thing? My guess is that it
                > was the last case.
                >
                > 2) What direction do we, as archers, want SCA archery to take?
                >
                > For most of us, rule-writers or not, there is the general dilemma of
                > wanting SCA archery to be more period-correct, vs wanting it being more
                > inclusive in the hope of allowing more people to participate. Our
                > overall goal, though, is to promote *period* archery. We encourage
                > period designs and materials, but only tolerate modern ones. In this
                > spirit, I think we should interpret the law with the view that period
                > things are allowed unless they are explicitly forbidden, but non-period
                > ones are tacitly forbidden unless they are explicitly allowed. That is:
                >
                > a) Any archery design, material, gadget, or practice which can be
                > reasonably documented to have been used in period must be allowed,
                > unless it is explicitly forbidden, or can be shown to be unsafe.
                >
                > b) Any archery design, material, gadget, or practice which was
                > definitely or quite probably *not* used in period should not be allowed,
                > unless it is explicitly mentioned and allowed in the law. If its use in
                > period is in dispute, let the burden of reasonable proof lie on the
                > individual who wants to use it.
                >
                > c) When in doubt, be conservative. That is, err in the direction of
                > forbidding stuff which is probably modern, especially if it detracts
                > from a period ambiance or may give a performance advantage.
                >
                > Since wheeled rests are almost certainly non-period, but are not listed
                > among the type of modern rests which are explicitly allowed, my feeling
                > is that they should not be allowed. Whether or not this type of rest
                > gives an advantage in shooting, to allow it -- even unofficially -- sets
                > a precedent toward tolerating modern gadgets and aids on the SCA range.
                > Besides the fact that I personally prefer a more period appearance on
                > the range, I don't think that allowing blatantly modern devices to slip
                > though loopholes in the law contributes to our goal of promoting the
                > spirit of period archery.
                >
                > <grin> Sheesh, it's bad enough standing up there alongside you guys
                > with your cut-out shelves...
                >
                > John
              • Godwin FitzGilbert de Strigoil
                All the comments being made, are why I posted the empassioned message a day or so ago. We must not go by the way of lawyers, and quibble the letter of the law.
                Message 7 of 9 , Oct 23, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  All the comments being made, are why I posted the empassioned message a
                  day or so ago.

                  We must not go by the way of lawyers, and quibble the letter of the law.

                  We must go by what is the intent of the rules, which is to promote
                  archery in it's past historical, if not ancient, form.
                  To disallow the use of modern drawing and release aids, in whatever form
                  they rear their head.

                  The whole point of what we do, is to tune the equipment between our ears
                  and build up the limbs that extend from our shoulders, to try to achieve
                  some shadow of the art of that has past.

                  Some of us try harder at that than others, and that is our own path.
                  However, we must well know the bottom rung of the ladder that we ask
                  people to climb.

                  So maybe we should try to delineate what the INTENT of the rules are.
                  Once that is well known, then more description may follow.

                  Godwin
                • Nest verch Tangwistel
                  John, Excellently put. An earlier post than this one made it clear that I was agreeing with you about the spirit of the law. I am for the promotion of period
                  Message 8 of 9 , Oct 23, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    John,

                    Excellently put. An earlier post than this one made it clear that I was agreeing with you about the spirit of the law. I am for the promotion of period styles of archery with our best attempts at period construction. In this instance I was just pointing out that the exclusion of specific mention of something in the rules does not make it illegal. The rules were just not meant to be taken that literally. I did say earlier that I would strongly discourage use of this rest.

                    I absolutely cringe when I see people show up at a champion shoot with a modern olympic recurve. Even with the holes in the riser covered, it is still so patently modern that is jars the sensitivities.

                    Nest

                    John Rossignol <giguette@...> wrote:

                    >
                    >I don't think you can be this literal with the rules. They are not at exhaustive list of what is legal. For instance a piece of leather on the shelf is not specifically mentioned, but that is certainly legal. I think these are just meant as examples, trying to give us examples of a few things that are and are not legal. We should be able to extrapolate from there what they were aiming for.
                    >
                    > Nest
                    >
                    >
                    >

                    My two cents:

                    I agree that, since the rules neither explicitly allow nor explicitly
                    forbid a wheeled rest, we must indeed extrapolate, but we actually have
                    to consider not one, but two things:

                    1) What was the intent of the rule-makers? Did they fail to mention a
                    wheeled rest because they wished to tacitly allow it, or because they
                    felt it was too absurdly non-period to need forbidding, or simply
                    because they had never even heard of such a thing? My guess is that it
                    was the last case.

                    2) What direction do we, as archers, want SCA archery to take?


                    Since wheeled rests are almost certainly non-period, but are not listed
                    among the type of modern rests which are explicitly allowed, my feeling
                    is that they should not be allowed. Whether or not this type of rest
                    gives an advantage in shooting, to allow it -- even unofficially -- sets
                    a precedent toward tolerating modern gadgets and aids on the SCA range.
                    Besides the fact that I personally prefer a more period appearance on
                    the range, I don't think that allowing blatantly modern devices to slip
                    though loopholes in the law contributes to our goal of promoting the
                    spirit of period archery.

                    <grin> Sheesh, it's bad enough standing up there alongside you guys
                    with your cut-out shelves...

                    John




                    Recent Activity

                    4
                    New Members

                    1
                    New Files

                    Visit Your Group
                    New Message Search
                    Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.




                    Share feedback on the new changes to Groups



                    .





                    ---------------------------------
                    Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • John Rossignol
                    ... Yep. I was basically just adding my voice to yours. ... Me too. But for newcomers, at least, it may take some time to catch traditional archery fever ,
                    Message 9 of 9 , Oct 23, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Nest verch Tangwistel wrote:

                      >John,
                      >
                      > Excellently put. An earlier post than this one made it clear that I was agreeing with you about the spirit of the law. I am for the promotion of period styles of archery with our best attempts at period construction. In this instance I was just pointing out that the exclusion of specific mention of something in the rules does not make it illegal. The rules were just not meant to be taken that literally. I did say earlier that I would strongly discourage use of this rest.
                      >
                      >

                      Yep. I was basically just adding my voice to yours.

                      > I absolutely cringe when I see people show up at a champion shoot with a modern olympic recurve. Even with the holes in the riser covered, it is still so patently modern that is jars the sensitivities.
                      >
                      >

                      Me too. But for newcomers, at least, it may take some time to catch
                      "traditional archery fever", or even to gain the historical perspective
                      that allows them to see how out-of-place such modern gear looks. In a
                      practical sense, I am willing to endure <g> the sight of their modern
                      equipment a few times, in the hope that they will soon become "one of us".

                      > Nest
                      >
                      >John Rossignol <giguette@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >>I don't think you can be this literal with the rules. They are not at exhaustive list of what is legal. For instance a piece of leather on the shelf is not specifically mentioned, but that is certainly legal. I think these are just meant as examples, trying to give us examples of a few things that are and are not legal. We should be able to extrapolate from there what they were aiming for.
                      >>
                      >>Nest
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >My two cents:
                      >
                      >I agree that, since the rules neither explicitly allow nor explicitly
                      >forbid a wheeled rest, we must indeed extrapolate, but we actually have
                      >to consider not one, but two things:
                      >
                      >1) What was the intent of the rule-makers? Did they fail to mention a
                      >wheeled rest because they wished to tacitly allow it, or because they
                      >felt it was too absurdly non-period to need forbidding, or simply
                      >because they had never even heard of such a thing? My guess is that it
                      >was the last case.
                      >
                      >2) What direction do we, as archers, want SCA archery to take?
                      >
                      >
                      >Since wheeled rests are almost certainly non-period, but are not listed
                      >among the type of modern rests which are explicitly allowed, my feeling
                      >is that they should not be allowed. Whether or not this type of rest
                      >gives an advantage in shooting, to allow it -- even unofficially -- sets
                      >a precedent toward tolerating modern gadgets and aids on the SCA range.
                      >Besides the fact that I personally prefer a more period appearance on
                      >the range, I don't think that allowing blatantly modern devices to slip
                      >though loopholes in the law contributes to our goal of promoting the
                      >spirit of period archery.
                      >
                      ><grin> Sheesh, it's bad enough standing up there alongside you guys
                      >with your cut-out shelves...
                      >
                      >John
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.