<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Marlin and Amanda Stout wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:47C6EABA.7060300@sbcglobal.net" type="cite"><br>
<pre wrap="">On that note, perhaps the Marshalate ought to give some thought to
putting some kind of authorization standards and procedures down in
writing. I've seen authorizing marshals run authorizations any number of
ways; not necessarily wrong but not always looking at the same things.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Each Marshals process is going to be a little different. And for any
one marshal the process is going to vary from participant to
participant and from event to event as you have to adapt to the people
and constraints of the events you are at. If I have one person, plenty
of time, and they have my undivided attention the process is different
than when I am working with 4 people with limited opportunities to
observe and perhaps over several events.<br>
<br>
The minimum for what the marshal should be looking for shouldn't change
much and is pretty well spelled out.<br>
<br>
The SCA Marshals handbook says:<br>
<i><br>
</i>
<blockquote><font color="#3333ff"><i>These procedures shall verify that
the candidate is familiar with the following:</i><br>
<i>a. Rules of the Lists of the SCA.</i><br>
<i>b. The Armor and Weapons standards of the SCA.</i><br>
<i>c. The Conventions of Combat for the SCA.</i><br>
<i>d. Kingdom-of-residence–specific Conventions of Combat.</i><br>
<i>e. Kingdom-of-residence–specific Armor and Weapons Standards.</i><br>
<i>3. In addition to the above requirements, candidates must
demonstrate the ability to function on the field in a manner that is
safe both to themselves and their opponents.</i></font><br>
</blockquote>
As I said in an earlier post I think the current CPH is pretty much a
mishmash and I find it hard to find things, but if you look on page 92
you will find.<br>
<br>
<blockquote><font color="#3333ff"><i>2. Combat Archers shall be
authorized to participate by the marshallate, following</i><br>
<i>established marshallate procedures. During this authorization all
Combat Archers</i><br>
<i>must show:</i><br>
<i>a. That they are familiar with the Rules of the Lists, the SCA
Missile Combat</i><br>
<i>Rules, and all the rules and conventions of combat pertaining to
missile</i><br>
<i>combat in their Kingdom.</i><br>
<i>b. That they can recognize and accept a killing blow.</i><br>
<i>c. That they are safe to themselves and their opponents.</i><br>
<i>d. That they can keep their bow out of the way during combat.</i><br>
<i>e. That they have an awareness of spectator safety.</i></font><br>
</blockquote>
But of of course I initially didn't look on page 92 because page 43
leads me to believe that all I would find there are the SCA Corporate
rules and for that I will go straight to the source at SCA.ORG <br>
<br>
So we have two overlapping lists in our documents of what the marshal
is supposed to examine the participant for. HOW it is done is left up
to the discretion of the authorizing marshal and the participant and
circumstances at hand. That is precisely why there is a limited number
of authorizing marshals. Those are marshals whose discretion the
Kingdom Marshal trusts in this specific matter.<br>
<br>
Here is basically what I do, it covers all of the above.<br>
<br>
When I do an authorization I quite literally have a hard copy checklist
and list of questions that I go through. That list is constantly
changing as the rules change. I cover everything from everything from
rules of the list, engagement, blow acknowledgment, armor and weapons
standards, behavior on the field, inspecting your equipment, etc. I
specifically cover things like thrown weapons and Misc Missile weapons
and Pavises which it seems people are always confused on. For this
like rules of the list and engagement I am focusing on how those relate
most or specifically to combat archery. These questions aren't
delivered in the form of a test but rather as a conversation. I try to
go over all the rules and general knowledge first<br>
<br>
After I have gone over the above with them (and people who
have been training them), assured myself that they know the rules
at least in some minimal fashion (corporate rules say the should be
"familiar"), and I am reasonably convinced without
actually seeing them in action that they are safe to be on the field, I
get em on the field for a practical evaluation in a melee.
If I cant convince myself of that then there
needs to be more practice in a more controlled environment rather than
in a melee.
<br>
<br>
Before they go on the field they should understand that this is a full
contact sport, people can hit them with sticks, and if they are active
enough they will eventually be hit with sticks. Before a combatant is
allowed on the field they are supposed to know what a valid blow is
like from weapons they will encounter. To that end you should take
them to a fighters or marshals that you trust and they should get hit
in
the head with a sword, a mace, a glaive, be poked in the face with a
sword and spear, be poked in the chest and the gut with a sword and
spear, etc. If they are already an authorized armored combatant then
this step can be largely be skipped because they are supposed to
already be sufficiently familiar with all of this. It is best that
such stuff be covered before
the event and local fighter practices and such because it can take time
to get a handle on all of this. Again, an existing armored combat
authorization really helps ya to breeze through this part<br>
<br>
Before they shoot a siege weapon or a combat bow at someone they should
understand what they are dishing out. The should go out there to a
reasonable but close range and you should shoot them a few times with
the weapons they will be using. If they cant handle it then they need
to rethink the whole thing. Why should they be allowed to dish out
what they cant take themselves.
<br>
<br>
If all of the above is in order and they pass armor inspection then get
em on the field and get em working on the practical part of
authorization process. When they go to armor
inspection they should demonstrate that they know what it means to be
properly armored and not just go to the marshal who looks at them an
says, "ya yer good". Again, an existing armored combat authorization
speeds this up and means less time and scrutiny here.
<br>
<br>
While these people are on the field in their authorization process they
need to be closely supervised. They need to work closely with already
authorized folks who are EXPERIENCED in what they are trying to
authorize with. They should never be more than a a spears length away
from those experienced people they are working with. They need to be
monitored by the authorizing marshal and those experienced folks while
they are on the field so that the end of the day he can truthfully say
he has evaluated them and either will or wont authorize them.
<br>
<br>
I usually also have a <u>plan</u> to throw some twists their way.
Real world situations that they are going to face on the battlefield.
They key here is a PLAN. <br>
<br>
I usually have a big ugly fighter come charging at them threatening to
hit them and see how they react. Do they yield in time? How do they
yield? Is it an obvious yield? Do they run away and scream? Do they
throw their hands up in a defensive posture? Or do the quickly kneel
and bow in a submissive posture? (the appropriate way to yield in my
opinion) I will have some enemy units work up along the perimeter of
the battlefield and see if they will take shots at those opponents when
they should know their own missiles might leave the battlefield.
Sometimes ya put combat archers in those units who can shoot at them
but where they can not safely shoot back. How do they react? I'll
ask some fighter (or several) to ignore all of the missiles that strike
them and instruct the newbee to kill that person. How does the newbee
react when folks are ignoring his shots? <br>
<br>
The above twists requires some coordination with some other
fighters/archers and marshals, it also means that when that happens the
experienced people they are working with needs to let the newbie be in
control and making decisions for a while to see how they will react. It
requires some planning. You don't know if someone is going to react
poorly or inappropriately until they are put in those positions and
allowed to make the good or bad decisions for themselves.<br>
<br>
When it's all over ya talk to em, ask em about their experience, ya
talk to the experienced folks they were working with and the marshals
who were watching em and get their opinion and ya decide if you will
authorize them or if you will need to see more from them before you are
ready to authorize them.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
-EA<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>