The Armour Archive

A few steps before impact the attacker "stutter steps", or breaks his stride. In my experience this robs a charge of much of it's force. Whatever the target is feeling while he is on the ground (and video cannot tell us), he shakes it off and re-enters the fray.

SCA combat should be a rough martial art of gentlefolk, but blindsiding should never be as an sca knight should do.

Regards,

Avery


Added - In my un-belt days I both shield punched and blindsided a knight (but not at the same time). These things can be lived down.

Further added - This comment was meant for a different thread, but it works pretty well here too.

Dilan wrote:Like the COTT at Pennsic or the Tuchux Tourney, it is what it is - and each person needs to decide if it is their cup of tea.

.

Wrong comparison in my opinion. the CotT and the Tuchux tourney you know going in the ruleset is different. The Unbelted and Belted champion melees go by the conventions as described by the Society. If it's against the official rules of the list, it's against the official rules of the list regardless of emotional investment.

I saw several cameras there. If there is such an atrocity, get a still, point a finger, and name a name - and for that matter, get an actual combatant to complain and attach THEIR name to it.

Having been in this fight I can say for a fact neither side was perfect. High Adrenaline and High Expectations lead to sloppy engagements and stiffer calibrations. That being said my part of the the fight was a clusterf@#$ but I didn't see any blatant nastiness. I was hit from behind but I concede it was probably from my part of the line being crushed in the center. The Mid had a plan, stuck to it and reformed well. My Eastern brothers and I had a plan, failed to execute it to the full extent, and failed to reform quickly or effectively and it showed. Am I happy with the outcome? No but this fight is done. All we can do is try to learn from it.

=] FYI Ian nice sig =]]firefly was and still is my favorite series

When I was younger, and competing in national EMA circuits, there was one division that was always high energy, high impact, and a lot more intense than others. That was the adult red belt division (16 or 18 to 34, or thereabouts). These folks felt they had a ton to prove, felt they were in the spotlight, and ramped up *everything* as a result. People from this group were in line to be future Olympians. They were prepping for black belt tests. They felt like a ton was at stake, and played like it.

Drop a rank lower, and the fighting was pretty normal. Go up to black belt, and it was intense, but controlled. Red belts...were always a little out of control, and a little too rough as a result. Being ref for that division was never a novice role, let's put it that way.

I see the Unbelted as something similar. These guys are mostly squires. They are by and large, the best unbelted fighters at Pennsic. They know that the chiv are watching them carefully for prowess, and they know that *that* event is one of the few moments in time when they can show off in a way that might break them into the Chivalry themselves.

Load all that pressure on someone, and it's not surprising that you get a more rough and tumble atmosphere than most melees.

I'm not saying it's right, or ideal. I guess what I am saying is, most of those EMA red belts settled down to be controlled, strong, capable black belt competitors. The way they fought in the red belt "hotshot" mode is the result of the environment and pressures they fought in. I suspect we see much of the same in the Unbelted tournament at Pennsic.

Jess:

well, two points, I guess.

1. IMO, the spectators are at least half the reason for the SCA. If it weren't for the spectators we'd just be a bunch of guys in plastic (or whatever) clobbering each other in a field.

Is it your job, as a spectator, to comment to a marshal when you see something untoward? No. You're a spectator. By definition, you're there to watch.

OTOH, is it your right, privilege, duty, whatever, to point out said chicanery to a marshal and say "here, we've got a tape of it if you want to use it to mention it to the fighter involved so he doesn't do it again, or at least is made aware that he looked like five kinds of ass doing it?"

Yes. If you have fairly unassailable proof of that kind (video), go to it. If it's worth (the editorial you) bitching about it, it's worth showing.

Corollary to that, if it's not worth showing, it's not worth bitching about. Think about the number of times you've watched professional sports events (baseball, football, basketball) and you see a fairly blatant violation of the rules that doesn't get called because the ref doesn't see it. Think about how many times you see a completely BS ruling get made (the home plate umpire ejecting the center fielder while he's in center field?? sheesh) by a referee.

But here's the kicker. Yeah, the ref blows a call (either by omission or commission) and somebody gets ejected for the game. Or a 15 yard penalty. Or whatever whatever whatever. The next play (or next game, depending), the guy's right back in it, no long term harm done.

In the SCA, on the other hand, too much of the time (as Johno pointed out already) people seem to think that any perceived violation of the rules means somebody's gonna lose their fighter card over something. In the past, it's stopped being the last resort, and started being the automatic, knee-jerk reaction. Off with their Heads! Certainly nothing less would do for such a heinous act.

Or would it? 99% of the time, if you take the video to the guy that pulled the stunt and said "dude WTF?" he'd be all "OMG my bad" and you'd be like "*facepalm* dude" and he'd be all "*facepalm*". And that'd be that. The other 1%? Take a marshal with you, show the guy the video, and see if he understands he did a dummy. If yes, that's that. As Johno said, no blood, no foul. My definition of "unsafe" for years has been "did anybody have to go to the hospital?" Doesn't mean whatever it was wasn't a dummy thing to do. The ONLY exception I can think of is going up to a guy and saying "dude WTF this is like the fifth time on video". At that point the "*facepalm*" response isn't going to cut it. But still, really, banning a guy from the league because he chop-blocked somebody is kind of overkill.

Short answer? If you've got video, and you're really cheesed off, go to it. Otherwise, file it in #13, and move on.

Blackbow

Jess wrote:Do spectators have a duty to inquire into "issues" directly after an engagement?

I can tell you I have overheard many spectators (some non-fighters, some not) laugh bitterly at acts and omissions that occur during the belted and unbelted champion contests and refer to them as "war crimes." Do these spectators likewise have a duty to intervene or make their opinion known to the combatants directly after the engagement?

Generally I make no comment on these events to anyone. As a combatant, I know that I do not appreciate spectators intervening with my blow calling. It irritates me to no end when my opponent clobbers me in such a way that I will bear the mark of it for a week or more, I call it "good", and then someone standing around watching tells me it appeared glancey or otherwise insufficient to them. I feel anger and think that if I am satisfied with my opponent's blow, what the hell is it to them?

That said, should the spectator say something when he or she sees what appears to be a blatant disregard of the rules or conventions to which we say we are adhering? Is it the obligation of every spectator to have to go up to some asshole who continues to flaunt the rules or local calibration or convention and question them regarding their conduct?

Who has either the desire or free time to do that? I sure don't.

I just think, "Well, some guys are just assholes." I've never considered it my job as a spectator to try and reform them. Am I shirking my duty?

To me if the western fighting conventions of killing from behind were adopted it think it would make more issues of engagment clearer.
We all have different cultures, but I just feel it would be safer than what happens at Pennsic. BTW this is just an observation, rather than saying one is more right than another.

Craven
Rex Atenveldt

The ultimate "You're an idiot armchair warrior" moment for me hapeed a couple years ago after a RedCo/Legion of the Bear battle at Border Raids - I come off the field with someone saying "That bastard! Malcolm, he was shrugging your shots! Someone should pull his card!" I took off my gloves and helm, and picked up my funny-feeling sword and bent it at the basket hilt where it had broken.

Yeah. No wonder. The lesson here is that people watching the fight tend to not know nearly as much as they think they do vis-a-vis the people actually IN the fight.

That said, if there is some proof of bad play, by all means, it is your friggin DUTY to the society to call it out with a formal complaint, plus proof. And be right.

And have the stones to attach your name to it. If you don't have that much courage of your convictions to do so, then ... well, what can be said? You value your political standing in the Society over your professed principles. We get it.

If you are not sure enough of your position to go that far, then take the participants at their word.

I've done this team and battle for four years now. It's a tough bloody fight, with some hard people in it, and it is a champion's battle, with higher expectations all around, in giving, taking, and situational awareness. And idiocy tends to be self-correcting.

On top of that, there is a lot of things that happen behind the scenes including discipline by crowns, marshals, knights that people do not see so as not to detract from the spectacle on the field and shame the entire teams for an individual action. There are people who have been scratched from teams by the above for just such things, and some have no place on the team any more; I know at least two subject to this private discipline.

The knights watch. Thuggish behavior is the reason many hot sticks are not on the watch list. "Win at any cost," especially when the cost is your honor on the field, is not a virtue valued by them.

And if that can't be trusted, it is time to stop playing.

Malcolm_Mor wrote:The ultimate "You're an idiot armchair warrior" moment for me hapeed a couple years ago after a RedCo/Legion of the Bear battle at Border Raids - I come off the field with someone saying "That bastard! Malcolm, he was shrugging your shots! Someone should pull his card!" I took off my gloves and helm, and picked up my funny-feeling sword and bent it at the basket hilt where it had broken.

Yeah. No wonder. The lesson here is that people watching the fight tend to not know nearly as much as they think they do vis-a-vis the people actually IN the fight.

That said, if there is some proof of bad play, by all means, it is your friggin DUTY to the society to call it out with a formal complaint, plus proof. And be right.

And have the stones to attach your name to it. If you don't have that much courage of your convictions to do so, then ... well, what can be said? You value your political standing in the Society over your professed principles. We get it.

If you are not sure enough of your position to go that far, then take the participants at their word.

I've done this team and battle for four years now. It's a tough bloody fight, with some hard people in it, and it is a champion's battle, with higher expectations all around, in giving, taking, and situational awareness. And idiocy tends to be self-correcting.

On top of that, there is a lot of things that happen behind the scenes including discipline by crowns, marshals, knights that people do not see so as not to detract from the spectacle on the field and shame the entire teams for an individual action. There are people who have been scratched from teams by the above for just such things, and some have no place on the team any more; I know at least two subject to this private discipline.

The knights watch. Thuggish behavior is the reason many hot sticks are not on the watch list. "Win at any cost," especially when the cost is your honor on the field, is not a virtue valued by them.

And if that can't be trusted, it is time to stop playing.

That's beautiful - you get it. You don't need formal complaints however to move the waters (people's behavior) as long as "atrocities" get functional correction ideally by talking it out amongst themselves.

For example, almost all of us amp up around kings on the field - at an Estrella not long ago I came across the King of An Tir with only one shieldman between us. I got excited and hafted the shieldman, hard. I was thinking it was a scutum which wouldn't have been a problem but it was a center-grip and I ended up hafting the guy's grill. We talked it out, I apologized, and I am more careful in the future.

Rock on sargent.

Regards,

Avery

Gee, I got hit in the back four times, and then in the back of the head...As I remember it, I was down on all fours after getting knocked down (fine) was getting up (prone) and got hit in the back (not fine) and then whacked in the back of the head from behind (also, not fine.)
An independent observer told me the next day that the first four were with the shield and the one across the noggin was with the sword.
He also gave me the number of that particuliar truck, and expressed surprise I did not wreak horrible vegence on the spot.
I admitted that I was unaware of the identity of the guy, and left it at that.

I filed the guy under "cheesedick", got up and fought some noble opponents who had the stones to face me.
They beat me fair and square.
I salute them.

CosmoCraven wrote:To me if the western fighting conventions of killing from behind were adopted it think it would make more issues of engagment clearer.
We all have different cultures, but I just feel it would be safer than what happens at Pennsic. BTW this is just an observation, rather than saying one is more right than another.

Craven
Rex Atenveldt

Totally agree. In the old days, we had a lot of blindsiding, the tap tap caBlam! syndrome, the guys who were invinsible because they just wouldn't look at you. And even stupid tactics where people just let themselves be surrounded (ifin I can't sees them they can't hits me..)

Then we instituted death from behind in the Western kingdoms. Tactics/field strategies became a bit more realistic. A lot of this BS stopped.

We also tend to have a lot of quite hard thrusts to the face and head (even the side,which is a good shot here), and pretty rare are there complaints of being hit too hard. Usually during armor inspection, there is careful attention paid to ensuring a helm CANNOT be pushed into anyone's face or spin on their head.

Not that we don't have our own stupidities or hate crimes... or even a nazgul or two.

I wtahced it

I was about 20 feet away


looked like everyone was having a blast to me


Mid Team semmed to keep moving better, i think thts why they won.