meridies hand armor rules

LR of E · Post by **LR of E** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:27 pm

The SEM made a comment on this topic. I've emailed him to see if its OK for me to cut and paste to here. As soon as I hear from him I'll post it here.

LR of E · Post by **LR of E** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:11 pm

Here is the SEM's responce, use it as you see fit.

All,
> >Finger gauntlets are cool as long as they ;
> >1. Cover the hand/wrist adequately
> >2. Use rigid material backed with padding
> >3. Will provide coverage while grasping a weapon at all angles
> >4. Are not constructed in such a way that plates would shear a digit when
> >force
> >is applied
> >
> >Believe it.
> >Robert
> >SEM

Patton Lives · Post by **Patton Lives** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:53 pm

I'll try to take some pictures of the gauntlets tonight. Anyone mind hosting them? I'll pull the finger inserts out so you can see the padding, how the fingers look ,ect. I think they are a little different than the gauntlets Lewis Sells now.

They look somthing like these

http://www.oaksarmoury.com/murdock/pages/murdock1.htm

LR of E · Post by **LR of E** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:07 pm

Will you be at Red Tower this weekend??

Patton Lives · Post by **Patton Lives** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:41 pm

I dont know what we're going to next. I think its somthing 2 weeks from now, if not, then fighter collegium will be it. I doubt we're going anywhere this weekend.

My camera is broken, damn batteries leaked and new ones wont make it even turn on.

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:01 pm

By Roberts definition they are _definately_ legal, i knew they were because mine of almsot the exact same finger design have passed for a couple years now.

What were we supposed to do, i mean i'm the Baronial marshal but what are who could we appeal it to at an event with only one local marshal.

<a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=1&k=bottom%20line" onmouseover="window.status='Bottom line'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">Bottom line</a> the inspecting marshal was wrong, but there was nothing we could do about it at the event. So D goes another week without authorizinng.

Looks like i'm gonna have to start carrying copies of the rules again :roll:

sedric · Post by **sedric** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:50 pm

jester wrote:Did you have a copy of the rules with you? I suggest to all fighters that they carry a copy of the Society and Kingdom rules with them in their armor bag. I think it should be required for Marshals (actually for officers at all levels). The number of participants we have who don't know or understand the rules is, in my opinion, shocking until you consider how bad the marshallate, in my opinion and in general, is about communicating.

I have been looking for months to find the appendix to the Society rules, where it defines "hard" and "soft" materials.
It's not on any web page that I've found, the society download page is an empty document.

Aidan Cambel · Post by **Aidan Cambel** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:03 pm

Murdock wrote:
Looks like i'm gonna have to start carrying copies of the rules again

There is nothing wrong with that. Being a marshal, you get the latest breaking news through the KM yahoogroup. A binder with the rules as published, then any emails regarding the rules and definitions as posted by the KEM or SEM is worth alot. Thats why I always carried it with me.

Theres nothing wrong with doing that. Everyone can make mistakes. Having a printed copy of the rules and subsiquent emails from the KEM can go along way in clearing up the water.

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:08 am

Yeah but i hate whiping out the rules on people, espically guys like the Marshal in question. He's not a bad guy, i've know him for years. I don't think there was any malice involved just a "this is what i always done" interpretation of th erules.

I don't wanna be a rules lawyer, i finally thought we were to the point that it was unnecessary here. Guess some folks are just not up to date in reading their marshals letters in the PC, or he could have just forgot.

I believe that he honestly thought they were illegal, since they are encountered so rarely here ( I think there are 4 sets in central Alabama) i was afraid that this would happen.

BUT

D had a basket hilt and a center grip Domed aluminum shield to use (ya know tha kind that looks like a big Wok)

To me thats what was weird about him not letting him fight, If he was using them with a greatsword that would have been one thing but he was using them with other hand protection. It was weird.

St. George · Post by **St. George** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:16 am

You guys know that the SEM Robert is from Meridies. he is a nice guy, and should be fairly easy to catch up with- check in with him about the ruling- I'd imagine that his voice would go a long way with Meridian Marshalls.

Alaric

Patton Lives · Post by **Patton Lives** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:23 am

Murdock wrote:D had a basket hilt and a center grip Domed aluminum shield to use (ya know tha kind that looks like a big Wok)

I was hoping more people would pick up on this. Why did the half gauntlets even fail to begin with?

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:26 am

LR of E already did that i think.

As for the halfs i can even see failing the one half with the shield but the full guantlet with the shield and the basket??

Patton Lives · Post by **Patton Lives** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:38 am

Murdock wrote:LR of E already did that i think.

As for the halfs i can even see failing the one half with the shield but the full guantlet with the shield and the basket??

But you used halfs with your centergrip heater. How is mine any different?

Ulrich · Post by **Ulrich** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:58 am

Drachus,

Did you have a basket on the round? or did it have a boss? or was it just a bar?

If it has a basket, I couldn't tell you why it failed without seeing it. and your hand in it. but the most common is an uncovered wrist, thus the need for the half gauntlet.

If it had has a boss. then so long as your handle was set up so that your hand is mostly inside the boss while in use it is legal (with all of the imortant bits covered that is). However, if the handle is set back (not often but it does happen) so that the boss itself is not surrounding your hand then it is not legal, without a full gauntlet.

If it has a bar (most common for the wok rounds) then you must have a full gauntlet, the shield itself is not considered hand protection. The hand must physically go into something (basket or boss) and have all the important parts covered, OR full hand protection.

Hope this helps
-Ulrich

Jehan de Pelham · Post by **Jehan de Pelham** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:48 am

Finger gauntlets are inherently perilous, not because of what they are, but because of how people feel about them. So much emotional and psychological capital is wrapped up in how people feel about them that they are ready to pounce on them.

Your Excellency (excuse me if I have under-respected you) Broinfinn, you say you were dealt a grievous injury in 1982 by a bastard sword. I am glad to hear you have largely recovered, but may I ask what hand protection you were wearing at the time? What style and what material was it?

Jehan de Pelham, squire of Sir Vitus

broinnfinn · Post by **broinnfinn** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:41 am

Jehan de Pelham wrote:Finger gauntlets are inherently perilous, not because of what they are, but because of how people feel about them. So much emotional and psychological capital is wrapped up in how people feel about them that they are ready to pounce on them.

Your Excellency (excuse me if I have under-respected you) Broinfinn, you say you were dealt a grievous injury in 1982 by a bastard sword. I am glad to hear you have largely recovered, but may I ask what hand protection you were wearing at the time? What style and what material was it?

Jehan de Pelham, squire of Sir Vitus

Modified hockey gloves - Hockey gloves with hardened leather plates added over the fingers. The first thing I did after recovery was go out and spend money on good mitten gauntlets. I hate that we still allow hockey gloves - they aren't that safe, and are just dang ugly and glaringly modern.

But to address your first statement as an aside:

I don't think finger gauntlets are inherently perilous and don't have any innate bias against them. However I will admit to inspecting them very carefully because they do function differently from mitten or clamshell gauntlets. Gauntlets with plates across the entire hand will distribute a blow across a larger area. Fundamentally, that is how a lot of rigid-piece armor works - force distribution.

Finger gauntlets have to be a lot more carefully made, because they do not distribute the blows in such a manner - each finger is designed to protect the individual digit and will not distribute force beyond that digit. Padding must be more careful and better maintained and the safest designs should "bottom out" against the grasped surface before sufficient compression is applied to cause serious damage to the digit.

Contrary to what some more biased folks think, this does not mean that the finger plates must be in contact with the grasped surface during normal use. However, if the leeway between rigid finger and sword hilt or haft is TOO large, and without sufficient compensatory padding, the protective value may be lost. Hence my bad example. There was insufficient compression in the padding to take out the force of the shot, and since the rigid plates were not designed to bottom out, the bulk of the force was transferred to my ring finger causing an impressive amount of soft tissue damage. I pretty much pass it off to the ignorance of a 17-year-old beginner, but it was a lasting lesson.

That's why I won't pass any judgement on any piece of armor until I see it in situ, no matter how much I respect the skill of the armorer. There can be a big gap between "armour as made" or "armour as designed" and "amour as worn". A helmet that passes perfectly well on one person can leave 4" of exposed throat on another. I have no idea what the MiC saw or didn't see.

Broinnfinn
(PS - Excellency is correct, much as I use it. :wink:

I am usually not that formal)

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:15 pm

"I hate that we still allow hockey gloves - they aren't that safe, and are just dang ugly and glaringly modern

Agreed, they are not designed for what we do. And imo much less safe than most finger guants but are still allowed cause "we always doned it that way" :roll:

I still cannot figure out why a guantlet made of padding does not have to have ridigid reinforcement but a ridigid guantlet has to be padded?

Seems hypocryitical to me.

Hockey gloves need to go!

Asbjorn Johansen · Post by **Asbjorn Johansen** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:36 pm

sedric wrote: I have been looking for months to find the appendix to the Society rules, where it defines "hard" and "soft" materials.
It's not on any web page that I've found, the society download page is an empty document.

Page 17 and 18 of the Society handbook come closest to what you want.

http://www.sca.org/officers/marshal/com ... ndbook.pdf