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

[Ken Theriot]

Oh wow!  300 arrows to fix.  Fun.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

Kenneth

 

  _____  

From: Eadric Anstapa [mailto:eadric at scabrewer.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:19 PM
To: Archery within the Kingdom of Ansteorra
Subject: Re: [Ansteorra-archery] Combat Archery - New Society Marshallate
Ruling

 

No, not ALL ammo.  

    Not needed for Silotube with Tennis Balls.
    Not needed for Baldar Blunts.

Yes needed for
    All UHMW cored blunt.
    Silotuve with Rubber Stopper blunts (called Omarad Blunts)

Regards,

-EA

Ken Theriot wrote: 

OK, just so I know for certain..does this ruling tell us we need to add the
wrap of padding to ALL combat arrows, including the ones with UHWM 

Blunts?

 

Kenneth

  _____  

From: Marlin and Amanda Stout [mailto:ldcharles at sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 9:12 AM
To: Archery within the Kingdom of Ansteorra
Subject: Re: [Ansteorra-archery] Combat Archery - New Society Marshallate
Ruling

 

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/20080813/3cec958b/attachment-0003.htm>