🚀 go-pugleaf

 
  > Few seem to forget the don't aim for the groin rule, even in the heat of big
  > melees.

Good my lord, I'm slightly embarrassed to ask -- what is the nature of this 
"don't aim for the groin" rule?  Is it something other kingdoms include in 
their rules?  Is it one of those things a new fighter is told by the older 
fighters upon induction into fighterhood?  I ask because I've read all the 
stuff-about-fighting I could find (mostly rules, unfortunately, which aren't 
very helpful as "how-to" guidelines) without encountering such a concept.  
Fighting here has developed in isolation form other SCA fighting -- is this 
part of the continuity of tradition that we've missed out on?

 
  > 2)  I thought that everybody playing at non-S&S styles was required to have
  > something better than hockey gloves, specifically, a continuous metal or
  > hard leather plate accross the fingers.  Any marshals with a comment on
  > the use of hockey gloves alone for finger protection?

The Caid and Society rules explicitly allow them, although Caid strongly 
recommends that they be reinforced with additional plates or padding for use 
with polearms.  But let me ask a deeper question.  I've seen more than one 
reference in my net conversations to marshals bouncing armour which is 
technically, though minimally, legal.  This seems particularly to apply to 
hockey gloves.  May I pose some questions for discussion, because enquiring 
minds a long way from anywhere want to know:

    What are the SCA armour and weapons requirements designed to do?  
    Stop people getting killed?  Stop the SCA Inc from getting sued?  
    Prevent permanent injury?  Something else?

    What is the purpose of armour and weapons inspection?  To check that 
    the rules are being followed so the SCA Inc is safer in lawsuits?  
    To check that the rules are being followed for other reasons?  To 
    try to ensure that the fighters are (relatively) "safe"? 

    General comments on "Safe" and "Legal", which sometimes seem to be 
    very different things. 
 
    Is it appropriate for a marshal to disallow a fighter on the 
    grounds that their armour, although legal, is not in the marshal's 
    opinion safe?  What about the case where the fighter weighs up the 
    possiblity of broken fingers vs the freedom of movement of lighter 
    hand protection and decides it's worth the risk?  

The other big question is about respect for the rules, something that isn't 
going to happen so long as we see videos of Crown Tourney which show illegal 
armour in use.  "We know *they* don't use the rules, so why should *we*?"  
Any pertinent comments? 

Pagan le Chaunster
________________________________________________________________________ 
Jennifer Geard                         bloodthorn@sloth.equinox.gen.nz 
Christchurch, New Zealand