[SCA] Cross-checking/hafting ok?

[jester]

If anything, Ulrich may have come up with it, however, in the line about using a weapon in accordance with it's design. We have a prohibition against quarter staffing, and this type of cross check is a quarterstaff technique.

Except that we can find examples of cross-checking in Medieval documents. A lot of the assumptions about weapon usage that were held at the time the rules were written have been challenged by new evidence.

[D. Sebastian]

Except that we can find examples of cross-checking in Medieval documents. A lot of the assumptions about weapon usage that were held at the time the rules were written have been challenged by new evidence.

Bad bad bad bad bad example.

We see shield bashing, strikes to the feet, hands, sphincter, etc.
We don't do those.

Our sport is uniquely base upon itself and on safety.

[jester]

Except that we can find examples of cross-checking in Medieval documents. A lot of the assumptions about weapon usage that were held at the time the rules were written have been challenged by new evidence.

Bad bad bad bad bad example.

We see shield bashing, strikes to the feet, hands, sphincter, etc.
We don't do those.

Our sport is uniquely base upon itself and on safety.

My point being that arguing that a poleaxe is not designed for crosschecking is hard to do when you can find evidence that shows it being used for that purpose and in the absence of any published standards by the Society that clearly state otherwise. I'm not saying that cross-checking is a good idea (I have, in fact, stated many times that I think it's a bad idea) just that there isn't, in fact, any rule against it.

[Ulrich]

Sorry, but that is rules lawyering to the nth degree. Thrusting? not by any measure.

Thrusting is pretty well defined AND understood to mean "to move the line of force along the long axis of the weapon".

Cross checking is not that.

Your right Thrusting isn't cross checking, and I'm not trying to say that it is, I define cross checking as:

Which I would define as; Hitting an opponent with the haft of the weapon while both hands are on the weapon and no part of the striking surface is in use, with the express intent of stopping an opponent or knocking them back or to the ground.

Which is based on the hockey definition of "cross checking".

What I _am_ saying is that "cross checking" or "hafting" someone, in my opinion, falls under the "weapons shall be used in accordance with their design" section of the rules. Thrusting was only one of the one of the examples listed...it also says you can only use an axe to strike with the edge of the blade. So if I can only strike with the striking edge of an axe, then it stands to reason that I can only strike with the striking edge of a pole arm, thus no hafting (cross checking).

it seems to me that its simple logic, and stay within the spiritof the rules. I most certainly am not trying to rules lawyer anything.


Regards,
Ulrich

[Owynn Greenwood]

Well, for any of you who happened to attend the marshal's court after the Pennsic woods battle this year would know at least the decision as stated by the earl marshals of the East and Middle. An experienced fighter from a foreign kingdom (not east or mid) was caught cross checking his opposition with the shaft of his spear. I didn't witness this happening, but I did hear about it in court.

According to his king, the weapon may be used defensively against a body, shield, or weapon of his opponent. However, as described, this individual was running downhill at a group, and leveled his spear to deliver a cross check to the opposing group. He happened to catch his opponent in the face, throwing him onto his back.

Again, I didn’t not see it, however when it was described, I was a little taken aback by the description. He made his excuses, and his sovereign backed him up. However, when confronted by "Would you like me to do that to you?" He relented. Plain and simple, it was a disregard for his opponent’s safety.

I think it comes down to; we try to kill our opponent, not hurt them. If you cannot follow that simple mantra, you do not belong on the field.

[Stahlgrim]

I can find all sorts of things that are period but aren't specificaly called out as illeagal.
Like say smearing animal feces on my sword.Its period and not specificly against any rules. but who in their right mind would do it?
Come on.
I understand your playing devils advocate.
But realy if it is such a concern for you bring it up to the Earl Marshal.
He might get the king to write a law for you.
and if this post is just some weird way to rationalize to yourself going out and Cross checking guys then save everybodies time and go do it and let the chips fall where they may.
Either you will get in trouble or you won't.
so make up your mind talk to the big man or just start checking people or leave well enough alone.

[Baron Alejandro]

While I am a polearmsman of no great skill or renown, I have made placing the haft of my polearm on an opposing shield and intentionally shoving them off balance part of my repetoire. I would never place my haft on anyone's body, and if I actually shoved someone hard enough to knock them down I would immediately stop. But I *am* trying to get you off balance enough for me to start throwing blows.

This technique has worked for me so far, no one has gotten hurt, no one has complained, and I wouldn't complain if someone did it to me.

I developed this as a response to a charge. Shieldmen here are taught to charge a polearm to get inside the range of the head. So, my first blow is usually a fake to the head to draw the charge. Once the shieldman charges, I render my polearm vertical, rotate with the impact of the charge, blocking incoming blows with the haft & then putting the haft on your shield. Once you make contact with your shield on my haft, I shove you off balance and start throwing blows to the back of your head (because theoretically if I've gotten this right I should be standing beside you when I shove you). I've done this to everyone from sorta-new fighters (it worked) to a Duke or two (I got PASTED ) - nobody's complained, no marshals have had fits, and we all said "good show" afterwards. If I'm violating some rule I hope someone will tell me next time I do it.

Alejandro

[D. Sebastian]

we try to kill our opponent, not hurt them. If you cannot follow that simple mantra, you do not belong on the field.

This is realy the mother-of-all-rules.

[BdeB]

In atlantia at least, the common rule of thumb is:

Shield on Weapon/Haft Contact = Good
Weapon on Weapon/Haft Contact = Good
(Obivously) Weapon on Body = VERY Good
Haft on Body = BAD! FIRE BADAAAAADDDDD!!!!!



I have heard tell that in some places to the southwest of here they take haft shots as kills! Those Wacky Kids!!!

[Stahlgrim]

I can agree that a place and push against a sheild is acceptable and have used it myself. but clotheslining a guy or punching out if either of us are at a dead run is asking for a problem.
Now I know how to peel most helms off with a pole arm if I get the right placement on the guy,But I never do it even though it isn't Illeagal by the rules .
Why?
Because its dangerous.and very uncool.

[Sinclair Hawkins]

Well, you can hit a hafted weapon on the haft with any part of your body, and you can, I believe do the same to a shield.

mmmm....
I don't think so.
You can't have shield to body or body to shield contact.

Striking surface to opponent and shield to shield (or weapon to shield) contact only.

where's the dern rule...

So, are you saying that someone cannot have Body on Shield contact? If that were true then a person can do a charge with his shield in front of him and it is legal but if he turns and takes the impact on his shoulder without a shield in front of him then it is illegal.

Also, taking your elbow and moving a shield out of the way for a particular shot is not allowed but taking your shield basket and sweeping your opponents shield is allowed??

I have always thought that body on shield, body on weapon contact that you yourself initiate was not against the rules provided it was not grappling which is of course not allowed.

[Jean Paul de Sens]

Sorry, but that is rules lawyering to the nth degree. Thrusting? not by any measure.

Thrusting is pretty well defined AND understood to mean "to move the line of force along the long axis of the weapon".

Cross checking is not that.

Your right Thrusting isn't cross checking, and I'm not trying to say that it is, I define cross checking as:

Which I would define as; Hitting an opponent with the haft of the weapon while both hands are on the weapon and no part of the striking surface is in use, with the express intent of stopping an opponent or knocking them back or to the ground.

Which is based on the hockey definition of "cross checking".

What I _am_ saying is that "cross checking" or "hafting" someone, in my opinion, falls under the "weapons shall be used in accordance with their design" section of the rules. Thrusting was only one of the one of the examples listed...it also says you can only use an axe to strike with the edge of the blade. So if I can only strike with the striking edge of an axe, then it stands to reason that I can only strike with the striking edge of a pole arm, thus no hafting (cross checking).

it seems to me that its simple logic, and stay within the spiritof the rules. I most certainly am not trying to rules lawyer anything.


Regards,
Ulrich

I'm good with that then. Morgan and I had a private conversation on ICQ about the effectiveness of it. I'm uncertain of the effectiveness of the technique, but I'll do some anecdotal testing tonight and come back with me observations.

On a separate but related note, why does the general guideline about "not doing things to injure people" seem to be ignored for the guy charging with the shield? That seems to me to be in the same area of unsafe actions.

Personally, I'm ok with both cross checking and charging, as long as my opponent can give me reasonable assurance he's not going to injure me. What's wrong with that?

[Nissan Maxima]

Its like my wife says when I'm off to fight:
Don't get hurt. Don't hurt any one. Have a good time.

Incidentally I do cross check people occasionallywhen tactically useful, such as is in bridge fights where I can kill people by chucking them off the bridge with a tender little cross check.

[BdeB]

I cross check shieldmen (spear against thier shields) all the time with my spear if I have to.

I'd rather not have to tho, as that is a "Oh Shit" moment.

Worked well at Crusades, because they Black Ninja'ed me when I made it to the end of the bridge. The third guy was good enough to wrap me in the back when I did it to him.

[Nissan Maxima]

http://www.clovenshield.org/gallery/vie ... m04&id=aal

Is the contact in this picture legal. This all ended in laughs and smiles BTW.
The guy in Blue and white charges the guy in red (me) and to avoid slamming me with his shield moves it aside an slams me with his body. I raise his shield up with my right arm and press my spear shaft against his right arm to prevent him from using it. Are we insane or is this appropriate or illegal?

[Jehan de Pelham]

This is what we talk about when we speak of the different languages being spoken by men at arms from different localities.

God keep all men of good will from folly.

Jehan, squire of Sir Vitus

[Morgan]

What you cannot find, my friend, is evidence that they used weapons ineffectively. IE, if they had a weapon with a long leather string on the end, I bet they didn't hit with the string. In our game, hitting with the haft is as ineffective as hitting with a lanyard.

Except that we can find examples of cross-checking in Medieval documents. A lot of the assumptions about weapon usage that were held at the time the rules were written have been challenged by new evidence.

Bad bad bad bad bad example.

We see shield bashing, strikes to the feet, hands, sphincter, etc.
We don't do those.

Our sport is uniquely base upon itself and on safety.

My point being that arguing that a poleaxe is not designed for crosschecking is hard to do when you can find evidence that shows it being used for that purpose and in the absence of any published standards by the Society that clearly state otherwise. I'm not saying that cross-checking is a good idea (I have, in fact, stated many times that I think it's a bad idea) just that there isn't, in fact, any rule against it.

[Aaron]

I THOUGHT I hafted a good man in a tournament recently, and I insisted we refight the bout because he accepted the blow.

As it turns out later, I viewed the video tape, and my honorable opponent was 100% right, I DID hit him with the blade, and THEN the haft...

-Aaron

[blackbow]

Well, you can hit a hafted weapon on the haft with any part of your body, and you can, I believe do the same to a shield.

mmmm....
I don't think so.
You can't have shield to body or body to shield contact.

Striking surface to opponent and shield to shield (or weapon to shield) contact only.

where's the dern rule...

So, are you saying that someone cannot have Body on Shield contact? If that were true then a person can do a charge with his shield in front of him and it is legal but if he turns and takes the impact on his shoulder without a shield in front of him then it is illegal.

Also, taking your elbow and moving a shield out of the way for a particular shot is not allowed but taking your shield basket and sweeping your opponents shield is allowed??

I have always thought that body on shield, body on weapon contact that you yourself initiate was not against the rules provided it was not grappling which is of course not allowed.

Sinclair is correct. Basically, it boils down to who initiated the contact.

If you go read the rules you will see lots of text about "shield on body contact" and etc. If you read it the way *I* think it was meant to be read, that rule prohibits a shieldman walloping or manipulating an opponent with his shield. It does not, however, address any action on the part of someone else moving the shield or charging the shield with his body.

After the previous thread on charging, grappling, etc., I forwarded parts of it to the SEM, who said (essentially) that body on shield / body on weapon contact, initiated by the body, was perfectly OK with him as long as it wasn't an obvious attempt to grapple, i.e., wrestle.

Therefore, if you choose to flip your polearm/spear sideways like a quarterstaff and wallop yourself into the shield of somebody who's charging you, you are entitled to do so. Likewise, if you are fighting two weapon, and somebody charges you, you are entitled to shoulder-block him (turn sideways and ram your shoulder into his shield) without fear of marshallate interference. If they don't know the rules and they interfere anyway, ...well, in my case I keep a copy of Robert Glendon of Auk's reply to my question handy. If you'd like a copy, go to this thread where I copied it:

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... hp?t=34671

To expect anything else is to further imbalance the power of the person carrying the shield even more than previously, with oh-so-realistic impenetrable, unbreakable, ten pound shields. Which is just faintly ridiculous.

If nothing else, think about it this way: people charge into each other with shield on shield contact all the time. If I choose to charge into your shield without benefit of my own shield to soak up some of the energy, that's my problem.

But to answer the original question, nothing in the rules makes it OK for you to intentionally hit me in the body with your polearm /spear haft.

Regards,

Jonathan Blackbow

[InsaneIrish]

On a separate but related note, why does the general guideline about "not doing things to injure people" seem to be ignored for the guy charging with the shield? That seems to me to be in the same area of unsafe actions.

Personally, I'm ok with both cross checking and charging, as long as my opponent can give me reasonable assurance he's not going to injure me. What's wrong with that?

In a perfect world I would agree with you. However, history has shown us time and again that for every person who would use the "spirit" of a cross checking rule correctly there are 2 that are going to use it as a license to turn our game into a street brawl.

I do agree though that no one ever chastises the sheildman for blindly running into/over the polearm guy. Only the polearm guy if he so chooses to "deny the charge". I think alot of this has to do with the misconception that a polearm or spear or greatsword man MUST accept the charge and run away. While that is not true many lower level fighters think that if they run at us we must back up.

[Kilkenny]

Well, you can hit a hafted weapon on the haft with any part of your body, and you can, I believe do the same to a shield.

mmmm....
I don't think so.
You can't have shield to body or body to shield contact.

Striking surface to opponent and shield to shield (or weapon to shield) contact only.

where's the dern rule...

I know that in the East kingdom one would have a very difficult time convincing many great weapons fighters that they are forbidden to make body to shield contact. Note that I make a distinction between contact initiated by moving the shield into a person's body and contact initiated by a person moving their body into a shield.

I also recall that when Viscount Sir Edward Zyfran was knew to the East, he declared himself dead in a bout for making contact with his shield against his opponent's body. His opponent was quite confused by this, having quite intentionally initiated the contact.

Gavin

[critter]

well I fight polearms or hafted weapons almost exclusively I have hafted people when I found my self in a bad position to the arm body and even the face.now I'm not saying you should belt the opponent to the moon but it is a reasonable thought to save your butt in a fight.It would have been done in period and it can be done safely and trust me it is probally nicer to be struck in that position then at the blade end.

critter

[InsaneIrish]

well I fight polearms or hafted weapons almost exclusively I have hafted people when I found my self in a bad position to the arm body and even the face.now I'm not saying you should belt the opponent to the moon but it is a reasonable thought to save your butt in a fight.It would have been done in period and it can be done safely and trust me it is probally nicer to be struck in that position then at the blade end.

critter

and what do your opponents do when you haft them in the face?

[Asbjorn Johansen]

Just keeps on going in my experience. They may stop to ask if it was blade or not if they couldn’t tell. (Probably not the response that most accurately models the assumed armour). The East seems to have a long tradition of being much more accepting of physical contact then most kingdoms. Typically as long as whatever you do doesn’t result in injury, no one will complain, especially if you pull it off with style. There are always exceptions though.

I don’t think much of this comes up as often in typical SCA sport fighting as I find it in occasions which model 14th or 15th century foot combat. There giving someone a good shove with a haft is a real way to gain significant advantage.