<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Eadric Anstapa wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:489FBE76.3070603@scabrewer.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Marlin and Amanda Stout wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:489F6341.20500@sbcglobal.net" type="cite">Eadric
Anstapa wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
No, I'm not confusing anything. I asked for a clarification so I'm
/not/ confused, since the wording wasn't, IMO, clearly written.
</blockquote>
<br>
Charles, I read it over again and I get your point and I think I
understand where the confusion came in.<br>
<br>
Down in the explanation section it says:<br>
<br>
<blockquote>"<i>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 <u>UHMW/RubberStopper style ammo</u>. In
one
case, the rubber stopper itself had penetrated a bit.</i>"<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
What exactly is "UHMW/RubberStopper style
ammo"?<br>
<br>
There is no such thing. That statement could certainly cause some
confusion. It is <u>not </u>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.<br>
<br>
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 <i>All of
these
penetrations happened to be <u><b>Siloflex/RubberStopper</b> style ammo</u>.</i>
Or in other words normal Omarad style blunts.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
-EA<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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? <br>
<br>
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 <i>don't</i>
have the problem? <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Charles<br>
</body>
</html>