[Ansteorra-archery] Arrow approval

Dewart, Charles R. --G3 Contractor (Anteon Corp) Charles.Dewart at hood.army.mil
Wed Jul 11 08:37:13 PDT 2001

It's all about education.  And as was said last night on the Missle list,
for an educational orgaization, we suck.

Again a ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

And you're correct we have no standards for authorizing combat archers.  I'd
be willing to bet that at least half of the authorizing marshals do it
differantly than the other half.  Why is that?  Because there isn't a
standard check list, if you will, to authorize a combat archer.

And that's not pointing a finger at anyone.  It's been that way for about
ten years or so now.

The problem is and always has been, it's easier to let things coast along
and not upset any one than it is to prevent potential problems from
happening which will upset a few folks in the process.

But hey, I'm just one guy.


-----Original Message-----
From: Eadric Anstapa [mailto:eadric at scabrewer.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 9:07 AM
To: ansteorra-archery at ansteorra.org
Subject: Re: [Ansteorra-archery] Arrow approval

I think that it is possible that we already have too many authorizations.

What's next?  Do we authorize people who want to make Rapier Armor?  Do we
separately authorize people who want to make helms?

First, I think it is the job of the marshallate in inspection.  We already
have a separate marshallate authorization for combat archery and those
marshals should know how all the requirements and know how inspect the
equipment to make sure it meets the requirements.We don't trust that bows
and crossbows are combat legal just because they came from a certain
manufacturer, we still inspect them.

I don't think we need more levels of authorizations but I do think we need
to do a better job at authorizing combat archers.  We see people all the
time who don't know they need a Gauntlet of their bow hand, don't know there
is a minimum range, don't know they cant glean arrows, don't know shafts
have to be taped, etc.  This is an overall authorization problem.

Sometimes we are too fast and loose with our authorizations and we need to
do a better job.  If you look at our rapier community the authorization
process can be quite lengthy as the fighter typically has to display
knowledge of the rules as well as proficiency with all the basic weapon
forms and combinations and then have authorization fights.  After Gulf War I
was shocked to discover that a relative newbee in our group had participated
in Combat Archery at Gulf War.

A few weeks before the war he went out and bought a bow and we went down to
the Stargate fighter practice and someone signed off on his authorization
card.  He had never even been to a melee event before but was CA authorized
before he got there.  he had never even been to our local Archery practices
or talked to any of the Gates Edge CA marshals about CA,  Don't get me
wrong, this fighter is a great guy and he didn't do anything wrong.  In fact
he should be applauded for being enthusiastic and wanting to join us.
However, in his hasty authorization either nobody told him that he couldn't
glean arrows or he just missed it and at GW he was caught by a marshal
trying to glean arrows.

We need to do a better job of authorizing combat archers.  I personally
would like to see at least a two part authorization process.  First, a
written multiple choice test that shows knowledge of the rules, armor and
equipment requirements, etc.  Second, a sort of practical test were they
have to show knowledge of the equipment and show that they can do a basic
safety inspection of their own equipment and perform safely.  I perhaps
third an observation period.  What I mean is that if an unknown person shows
up to me tomorrow and can spout all the rules and can show me he knows his
equipment, I don't think that necessarily means he is ready to be authorized
or that I should authorize him.  Ideally I would like to see the guy around
several times and understand that he "knows" the stuff rather than having
just perhaps memorized it the night before so he can satisfy a marshal.

OK, So I guess I sorta agree with you in that I think we need an improved CA
authorization process but disagree that we need a specific auth just to
construct arrows.

Lord Eadric Anstapa
Coastal Regional Archery Marshal, Ansteorra
eadric at scabrewer.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dewart, Charles R. --G3 Contractor (Anteon Corp)"
<Charles.Dewart at hood.army.mil>
To: <ansteorra-archery at ansteorra.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 8:33 AM
Subject: RE: [Ansteorra-archery] Arrow approval

> Yeap, all that and more.
> But what do you all think.  The only thing we do that if done wrong could
> KILL someone is archery.  Building combat arrows is real near the top of a
> short but potentially deadly list of SCA activities.  After seeing some of
> the arrows I've seen, I think we must do this now with the addition of
> APDs.  If properly constructed, the APDs will work just fine.  If not, it
> could be bad news.
> I believe there are a few emtpy lines on our autorization card.  So that
> shouldn't be a problem.  And I'll bet if we ask Mistress Stella really
> she'll add that to her marshalls list.  There's another point.  Because of
> the possible severity of incorrect action, I think those folks that are
> authorized to make combat arrows be treated just like marshal, to include
> membership requirement.  For most that's not a problem because they're
> marshals already.
> well, flame me now, go ahead fire me up.
> Gilli

Ansteorra-archery mailing list
Ansteorra-archery at ansteorra.org

More information about the Ansteorra-archery mailing list