[Ansteorra-archery] Combat Archery - New Society Marshallate Ruling

[Paul Thorne]

Charles,

   If you read through the message from the Society Marshal you will note
that he mentions several incidents between Gulf War, An Tir Western War and
finally Pennsic.  There has been a Society Wide discussion going on
concerning Combat Archery and the safety of the blunts, although this seems
like a spur of the moment decision there has been a lot of background talks
going on leading up to this.  We are doing all we can as the Marshallate to
help keep the changes down and make this a safe game for all to play.  I
hope this helps you understand better.


HL Jean-Paul de Calmont, CAO
Kingdom Missile Marshal, Ansteorra



On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Marlin and Amanda Stout <
ldcharles at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>  Eadric Anstapa wrote:
>
> Marlin and Amanda Stout wrote:
>
> Eadric Anstapa wrote:
>
>
>  No, I'm not confusing anything. I asked for a clarification so I'm /not/
> confused, since the wording wasn't, IMO, clearly written.
>
>
> Charles,  I read it over again  and I get your point and I think I
> understand where the confusion came in.
>
> Down in the explanation section it says:
>
> "*At Pennsic in the Town Battle on Wednesday, there were 4 incidents of
> foam/tape penetrating helms that were reported.  Yes, 4 in one battle.  Two
> of them resulted in minor injury.  One was a busted blood vessel in an eye,
> the other resulted in a bruise (black eye).  All of these penetrations
> happened to be UHMW/RubberStopper style ammo.  In one case, the rubber
> stopper itself had penetrated a bit.*"
>
>
> What exactly is  "UHMW/RubberStopper style ammo"?
>
> There is no such thing.  That statement could certainly cause some
> confusion.  It is *not *legal for rubber stoppers to be used as the
> padding on the front of UHMW cored blunts.  That paragraph does indeed read
> as if some sort of experimental or illegal ammo was being used  and that the
> whole combat archery  populace is paying for that mistake.
>
> I have spoken with the Society CA Marshal and he has confirmed for me that
> was a typo on his part.  That should have read        *All of these
> penetrations happened to be Siloflex/RubberStopper style ammo.*  Or in
> other words normal Omarad style blunts.
>
> Regards,
>
> -EA
>
>
> Exactly what I was concerned about. Very unclear as originally written. So,
> my next question is, why are we changing all ammo when only one type has the
> problem? Is this a proactive change, just in case UHMW ammo develops the
> same problem?
>
> I can easily understand making an 'all ammo' change at the War, to make
> sure the problem is addressed on the spot, when there's no time for detailed
> examination. But, if what we're seeing is a problem with siloflex/rubber
> ammo, why are we changing the types that *don't* have the problem?
>
> Again, rules is rules and I'll deal with whatever they are. I'm just
> curious what the Marshalate's thinking is on the issue.
>
> Charles
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra-archery mailing list
> Ansteorra-archery at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-archery-ansteorra.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ansteorra.org/pipermail/ansteorra-archery-ansteorra.org/attachments/20080811/123fb380/attachment-0002.htm>