From: klosky@debussy.Colorado.EDU (KLOSKY JAMES LEDLIE )
Subject: Re: Illegal targets 
Reply-To: klosky@debussy.Colorado.EDU (KLOSKY JAMES LEDLIE )
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:16:31 GMT

Jennifer Geard writes:

]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?

It is certainly the latter.  Nobody likes to get hit there, so the easiest thing
to do is instruct new fighters to never aim there.  I've rarely seen anyone hit
there on purpose.  I would venture to guess that that is the convention in all
kingdoms, sort of an unwritten law.  I will of course be corrected if I am 
wrong in this assumption.


] 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?

Mainly to prevent serious injury (broken bones, death, stuff like that).

]    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"? 

I would say that armour inspection is to make sure that people meet`
the minimum standards and that the equipment that they are using is not
a danger to themselves or others.

]    General comments on "Safe" and "Legal", which sometimes seem to be 
]    very different things. 

Safety is a very slippery concept.  Many would say that there is no way to
fight like we do and be safe.  There is no way to legislate safety, since
safe is different for each person.  So, I would say that Safe and Legal
can never be the same.
 
]    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?

To me, a marshal would be wrong to keep someone who meets the rules off
the field.  

I guess that much of this can be decided by a particular kingdoms political
leanings.  If, like me, you believe that rules should be kept to a minimum,
and that the best thing that the Imperial Powers (corprate) can do is butt 
out, then all the marshal can REQUIRE is that you meet the kingdoms minimum
standard.  I choose to wear a good deal more than the minimum, but have a
hard time swallowing anything that is MANDATED or forced upon me.

As near as I can tell, minimum standards are necessary to keep dimwits and new fighters from getting badly hurt. On the other hand, I have many times
loaned my gauntlets, which are very protective, to people who I thought could stand better protection.  I have found that most fighters in the SCA are not
happy with their hand armour and are very ready for any improvement.

==================================================================
Otto the Obscure                       klosky@bechtel.Colorado.EDU
Caer Galen, Outlands
     -and-
Ledlie Klosky, Student
Boulder, Colorado
==================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca