ANST-Announce - Fw: [Directors] Anti-bounceback Device requirement

rstarkey rstarkey at
Sun Apr 29 11:41:42 PDT 2001

If you agree or disagree with ABD's for combat archery, it is time that you
wrote the BoD on your views.  Write to them at directors at .  They
recieved over 300 emails about this in the few days before the April's
meeting.  I would suggest that even more should be sent.
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Larsen Date: Thursday, April 26, 2001 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Directors] Anti-bounceback Device requirement

>As you may know by now, the Board of Directors voted this past
>weekend to approve the Society Marshal's decision to require
>protection on combat archery nocks.  The entries in the minutes
>on this matter can be found at the end of this email.
>This was not an easy decision and we regret the effort and cost
>that our archers will have to go to in complying with this ruling.
>There has been growing concern over this matter for several years,
>and incidents at the recent Gulf Wars indicated that an unacceptably
>high level of risk was present, and the possibility of serious injury
>was too great.
>Please know that the Board of Directors was completely aware that the
>Society Marshal's ruling was made only a short time before the quarterly
>meeting, and the Board was also aware of the amount of controversy this
>ruling had already generated; however, the issue was the safety of our
>fighters and everyone else on the field of combat, and in the interest
>of safety, the Board determined action was required at this meeting.
>Thanks to the efforts of many people who have been testing ABDs for
>several years, there are already several approved devices, and the
>Directors hope that more experimentation will happen shortly.  We do
>recognize the speed at which this change has been made, though, and
>as you can see from the minutes quoted below, the Board has directed
>the Society Marshal to continue to evaluate this matter, as it will be
>revisited at the October 2001 quarterly meeting.
>Regarding the issue of archery and rapier combat, the Society Marshal,
>his deputies and the Kingdom Marshals are discussing that and other
>archery related issues at this moment.  I think with that particular
>issue the reasons to consider a variance are pretty obvious, but you
>may want to contact your Kingdom Marshal to add your own input.
>Please feel free to pass this letter on to others who may be interested
>in this ruling.
>Matt Larsen
>Director, SCA Inc.
>Ombudsman for the Society Marshal
>>From the unapproved minutes for the April 21, 2001 meeting of the
>Board of Directors of the SCA, Inc.:
>(2) All wooden and fiberglass shafted arrows used in SCA combat archery
shall be
>required to have an approved ABD on the nock-end to prevent any injurious
>to SCA combatants.  This requirement shall be implemented on August 1,
>to allow a sufficient period for implementation.
>Motion by Beth Morris that the Board approve the Society Marshal's policy
>on combat archery equipment as presented, to be implemented by August 1,
>Seconded by Carol O'Leary.
>In favor: Paul Foster, Matt Larsen, Keith MacInnes, Beth Morris, Carol
>O'Leary, John Rose.  Opposed: none.  Motion carried.
>Motion by Keith MacInnes that the Board review the above combat archery
>equipment policy at the October 2001 quarterly Board meeting.
>Seconded by Beth Morris.
>In favor: Paul Foster, Matt Larsen, Keith MacInnes, Beth Morris, Carol
>O'Leary, John Rose.  Opposed: none.  Motion carried.
>With the consensus of the Board, Chairman Baron ordered the Society Marshal
>to gather commentary on this issue and to present it to the Board for it's
>review no later than September 15, 2001.  Further, the Society Marshal is
>present for the Board's consideration, alternatives and possible procedures
>for variances on a kingdom by kingdom basis.
>> Good greetings.
>> I request that the Board of Directors set aside the decision of the
>> Earl Marshal to require ABD's on all combat arrows beginning August 2001.
>> The requirement for all arrows is not appropriate for rapier archery
>> as light combat archers wear fencing helms, there is no chance of a
>> nock entering and causing eye injury.
>> Society Rules already require that marshals on the field using archery
>> combat wear eye protection, and the degree of protection needed has
>> been determined.  By simply removing the waiver that heavy combatants do
>> wear eye protection during scenarios with combat archery, the whole of
>> combat would be safer, protecting their eyes from bounceback and other
>> hazards such as tree branches or broken shafts or whatever could get into
>> one's eyes.
>> I think that the requirement for ABD's or for eye protection in armored
>> combat (not rapier, since they already have eye protection) should be a
>> kingdom level decision, not a society decision.  And such conventions
>> be agreed upon before a war, and announced.
>>  No matter what is decided here, there are good points for both sides.
>> there are going to be the people who will decide not to play no matter
>> the decision you make.
>> Lady AmaRyah hap Illys de Visclo
>> Knight Marshal, Shire of Mendersham
>> Kingdom of Ansteorra

Go to to perform mailing list tasks.

More information about the Northkeep mailing list