[Ansteorra-archery] Archery Discussion
eadric at scabrewer.com
Fri Oct 3 10:26:48 PDT 2008
Sir Kenneth, there have been official reports of archers shooting out of
the battlefield. But mostly they don't get reported unless they hit
bystanders. The have been official reports of folks shooting off the
battlefield and hitting bystanders and I have personally had to revoke
authorizations for archers who repeatedly did this and have had sit
through more than one marshals court where we addressed the issue.
Every time it happens it adds much fuel to the folks who are fanning the
fire to do away with CA completely.
There has never been any work that I am aware of to try and equate the
offenders and the structure of the authorization process they went
through. I can tell you that in my experience the repeat offenders tend
to be less experienced combatants.
While we need not "require" a buddy system while authorizing folks I
have found it to be one of the most effective ways of training and
authorizing new archers. If I buddy them up with an experienced archer
on the field there is somebody right there watching them that can
hopefully keep them from doing anything dangerous and I believe that the
best way of learning most skills is experientially. While they are
paired up with an experienced archer that I know I can trust to watch
over then and give me good feedback that give me as the authorizing
marshal the freedom to stand back at watch them at a distance and see
how they act and react to the overall battle which is not something I
might not necessarily see if I was personally right here in armor
shooting with them.
Ken Theriot wrote:
> I honestly don't think there is any data on correlations between situations
> where a bystander was hit, and the "strictness" of the shooter's
> authorization process. In fact, I'd like to see "official" data (as in
> officially filed SCA reports) where a bystander in a legal area was hit.
> I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'd just like to see it if it does. Then
> we can act from a position of real knowledge. If there is no correlation,
> then there is no logic to the presupposition that "more training and
> observation prior to authorization will reduce safety incidents."
> Will bystanders sometimes get hit by a stray combat arrow? Probably. The
> question we NEED answered before we assume it only (or even usually) happens
> because the archer was not properly trained, is whether there is any data to
> support that assertion.
> I'd be willing to bet large sums of cash that we would see no change in the
> number of spectators hit if we err a little LESS on the side of caution.
> I'm absolutely not suggesting that we turn someone loose on the field whom
> we have not seen demonstrate the minimum requirements (as described below).
> Both Eadric and I are saying that it needn't require participation in
> multiple melee/archery "wars," it needn't require a "buddy" separate from
> the authorizing marshal to observe all day, etc. Those are restrictions
> some have assumed are mandatory.
> If I have spent enough time talking to the candidate to ensure they can
> repeat the rules back to me and understand them, and observing their actions
> in a few melee scenarios (enough to allow me to see if they can control
> their shots, not poke someone in the eye with their bow, and not shoot
> arrows toward the onlookers, etc.), then I'm gonna authorize.
> Reasonable assurance using logical procedures based on actual evidence is
> what we need. Any more than that and we DO make it too hard, especially if
> it is merely a response to perceived political pressure.
More information about the Ansteorra-archery