SCA minimums are mean to prevent...

Blaine de Navarre · Post by **Blaine de Navarre** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:26 pm

I live in a kingdom that has required vambraces for most of my time in the SCA and all of my fighting career. I personally witnessed more broken arms in the 2 years before vambraces were required than in the entire 30 years since.

I think SCA minimums are quite good for preventing most real injuries most of the time, except that I would add the vambrace requirement.

dukelogan · Post by **dukelogan** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:49 pm

we have a lot of folks that dont wear vambraces and we see such a miniscule amount of forearm injuries i wonder why you feel they should be required. i ask because, for example, i see more knee/ankle injuries from running (50 to 1, 100 to 1, probably more) on our less than pristine fields and woods. would you ban running? clearly it causes a lot of injuries and unlike wearing a vambrace (the four broken arms i am aware of here were all wearing vambraces) would almost guarantee an end to those injuries.

and gauntlets. i have had both thumb broken as well as the middle finger on one had right at the big knuckle wearing legal gauntlets. i know a ton of folks that have suffered bone injuries to their hands wearing gauntlets. certainly way more than actually broken forearms without vambraces.

if we really want to add more and more armour and fighting rules in the name of "safety" should we not address the biggest causes of injury first, and then go in descending order until we reach some level of injury that we somehow feel comfortable assigning to the risk a fighter is willing to accept? if so i think running has to go first, then hay bales and woods battles, then perhaps gauntlets.

given our excellent safety record to date i think we are just fine. but it seems a number of folks do not agree. perhaps im just not seeing all of these injuries and, if so, have to trust others when thinking about what armour must be worn to protect people. i think we are all interested in protecting our sport.

regards
logan

Blaine de Navarre wrote:I live in a kingdom that has required vambraces for most of my time in the SCA and all of my fighting career. I personally witnessed more broken arms in the 2 years before vambraces were required than in the entire 30 years since.

I think SCA minimums are quite good for preventing most real injuries most of the time, except that I would add the vambrace requirement.

Glaukos the Athenian · Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:07 pm

dukelogan wrote:
given our excellent safety record to date i think we are just fine. but it seems a number of folks do not agree. perhaps im just not seeing all of these injuries and, if so, have to trust others when thinking about what armour must be worn to protect people. i think we are all interested in protecting our sport.

regards
logan

As I mentioned above, there is a point at which personal responsibility and choice comes to play. Like Logan, I have not seen these number of injuries. I am sure there are out there, but I am not sure if they are there in the numbers we are discussing to warrant an increase in MANDATORY armour requirements.

We are all responsible adults and part of that is doing our own risk management when we fight. The balance is not always easy, as we need to weigh performance with protection. The dilemma of fighters since armour was created.

There is a minimum, which appears to be quite adequate, and there is the personal choice to wear as much or as little above that as we choose.

I personally like wearing vanbraces and some type of shoulder protection, having experienced nice painful impacts in both places. But that is my choice. If you are wearing the minimum, who am I to tell you what to wear or not above that?

I echo the above, if the minimum were not sufficient, we would see scores of people being carried of the field in stretchers at Pennsic.
In fact most of the people I have seen treated at Pennsic were suffering from sports injuries like twisted ankles or knees, or people that were crushed under a pile of fighters. Not from blows from weapons. Yes they DO occur but not in the numbers that would suggest current armour requirements are inadequate.

I am sure at events like Gulf, Estrella and Pennsic, Chirugeons keep records of people they have treated and for what reasons. It may not be a bad idea to check on that before assuming that sweeping changes may be necessary.

Respectfully,

Glaukos the Athenian

Count Johnathan · Post by **Count Johnathan** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:11 pm

I always wonder why when somebody points at one particular hazard the common response is to point at some other hazard in order to dismiss the first one. Like the fact that two hazards exist somehow makes one or the other less dangerous or more acceptable.

What kind of childish crap is that?

Using that logic it would be safe to play in a pit of vipers as long as there is broken glass in the pit too.

Glaukos the Athenian · Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:17 pm

Pardon me YE, was that in response to what I wrote?

Count Johnathan · Post by **Count Johnathan** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:35 pm

No Glaukos. Just in general. It happens all the time. Logan just did it right before your response.

....a lot of folks that dont wear vambraces and we see such a miniscule amount of forearm injuries i wonder why you feel they should be required. i ask because, for example, i see more knee/ankle injuries from running.....

If you want to examine or discuss hazards and ways to reduce them, that is a good thing and should be done on a case by case basis. No hazard should ever be used as an excuse to dismiss the concerns over another.

dukelogan · Post by **dukelogan** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:52 pm

and that is not what i did at all johnathan. i did not compare the two as some sort of "childish" attempt to dismiss choosing not to wear vambracess. i stated, clearly, that many folks do not wear vambraces yet we hardly see any injuries to forearms.

then, i addressed the desire some folks have to add new armour requirements because they "think" there is a "safety" issue. it was that notion that i brought up the question "if we are discussing preventing injuries perhaps we should look at what causes the highest percentage of injuries". i then opined that i believe knee and ankle injuries are the most common and usually come from running on bad ground. finally i asked if the goal is to address "safety" issues why not start at the top and ban running.

im sorry if somehow you saw this as me saying "forearms are safe because running isnt" or whatever your point was. i would probably have understood it better had you not decided to attempt to insult me and label me as "childish" which was uncalled for.

logan

Count Johnathan wrote:No Glaukos. Just in general. It happens all the time. Logan just did it right before your response.

....a lot of folks that dont wear vambraces and we see such a miniscule amount of forearm injuries i wonder why you feel they should be required. i ask because, for example, i see more knee/ankle injuries from running.....

If you want to examine or discuss hazards and ways to reduce them, that is a good thing and should be done on a case by case basis. No hazard should ever be used as an excuse to dismiss the concerns over another.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:57 pm

I see the main hazard to SCA heavy fighters is REALLY heavy SCA heavy fighters falling on them. Yet we don't require safety restraints for the overweight.

"Excuse me Duke 'Not a Small Moon' but at 400 lbs out of armour you are hazard on the field. Two strong squires must join you at all times to ensure you are proped up and verticle and not landing on any light 100 lb or less fighter. IF you feel you MUST fall, aim for the ground and not another fighter or spectator or small animal or big animal for that matter."

Count Johnathan · Post by **Count Johnathan** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:09 pm

I see the main hazard to SCA heavy fighters is REALLY heavy SCA heavy fighters falling on them. Yet we don't require safety restraints for the overweight.

And again...

See the point now Your grace? Like I said just in general it bothers me and many people do it.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:19 pm

What? I was mentioning there are some overweight fighters who have landed on me and that was worse than any shot that put me on the ground.

I was not implying that either of you were that person or could be in the near future (without some really, really good feasts)

Michail · Post by **Michail** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:56 pm

Broken forearm question, maybe look at the different fighting styles. Is the arm more exposed in the places with more broken forearms?

Count Johnathan · Post by **Count Johnathan** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:06 pm

I would think it is pretty random. Broken arms happen everywhere regardless of styles.

Count Johnathan · Post by **Count Johnathan** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:14 pm

Aaron wrote:What? I was mentioning there are some overweight fighters who have landed on me and that was worse than any shot that put me on the ground.

I was not implying that either of you were that person or could be in the near future (without some really, really good feasts)

But we are talking about minimum armor standards and how they should protect us.

It's conversations like...

"Fighters sometimes get broken arms. We could minimize that with forearm protection."

"Yeah but fat guys fall on people!"

"What does that have to do with forearm protection?"

"Well we don't have a requirement to protect yourself from fat guys so why bother being concerned about forearm protection?"

It happens anytime we discuss any possible safety factors.

dukelogan · Post by **dukelogan** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:27 pm

wow.... thats not at all what has happened here. maybe youre just scanning the conversation and not really following its course.

the discussion has been about minimums, which went to suggests that we should increase those minimums to include vabraces (because someone "thinks" its a good idea) which was "supported" by "safety" concerns.

i pointed out that tons of folks dont wear them, that actual forearm breaks are so incredibly rare, and then the topic MOVED ON to questioning if we really are willing to suggest that we need more rules because of a lack of safety (which no data would support) then perhaps we should consider what the causes of our most common injuries are. you called me childish for doing that. :roll:

sorry, the conversation/discussion evolved and covered more topics. you are the only one combining them.

logan

Count Johnathan wrote:
Aaron wrote:What? I was mentioning there are some overweight fighters who have landed on me and that was worse than any shot that put me on the ground.

I was not implying that either of you were that person or could be in the near future (without some really, really good feasts)

But we are talking about minimum armor standards and how they should protect us.

It's conversations like...

"Fighters sometimes get broken arms. We could minimize that with forearm protection."

"Yeah but fat guys fall on people!"

"What does that have to do with forearm protection?"

"Well we don't have a requirement to protect yourself from fat guys so why bother being concerned about forearm protection?"

It happens anytime we discuss any possible safety factors.

Maeryk · Post by **Maeryk** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:37 pm

Count Johnathan wrote:I always wonder why when somebody points at one particular hazard the common response is to point at some other hazard in order to dismiss the first one. Like the fact that two hazards exist somehow makes one or the other less dangerous or more acceptable.

What kind of childish crap is that?

Using that logic it would be safe to play in a pit of vipers as long as there is broken glass in the pit too.

No. The point you are missing is that we play a rough, dangerous game. it's rife with hazards. Beyond the most basic of safety precautions, requiring "more" actually opens us up to MORE liability, than requiring a bare minimum judged "Enough to keep you from being dead".

Seriously. There's a reason all the kingdoms went to society minimums.. because to stay above those minimums was a lawsuit waiting for a place to happen.

If you pick out one 'hazard' and say "we'll rectify THAT" then the first thing the lawyer says is "Well, if you fixed that one, why didn't you fix the glaringly obvious one my client was injured by?"

Soc. Minimums exist to protect us from lawsuits. Nothing more. You play at your own risk. If you are a person who doesn't like bruises and potential broken bones, might I reccomend fencing or knitting?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:43 pm

Well looking at what is required we are required to keep our brains mostly in our skulls, our necks somewhat connected, our major joints not pulped, our fingers OK, our internal organs vaugely protected and our family jewels reasonably protected.

There that covers it.

Now there are people who are just built tough. Sir Guy for example is someone who I'm pretty sure could throw a good shot at and he'd do fine even without the SCA minimums. Some are built that way.

Most are not. So we armour I guess to keep us out of the serious ends of lawsuits.

Count Johnathan · Post by **Count Johnathan** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:01 pm

Maeryk wrote:
Count Johnathan wrote:I always wonder why when somebody points at one particular hazard the common response is to point at some other hazard in order to dismiss the first one. Like the fact that two hazards exist somehow makes one or the other less dangerous or more acceptable.

What kind of childish crap is that?

Using that logic it would be safe to play in a pit of vipers as long as there is broken glass in the pit too.

No. The point you are missing is that we play a rough, dangerous game. it's rife with hazards. Beyond the most basic of safety precautions, requiring "more" actually opens us up to MORE liability, than requiring a bare minimum judged "Enough to keep you from being dead".

Seriously. There's a reason all the kingdoms went to society minimums.. because to stay above those minimums was a lawsuit waiting for a place to happen.

If you pick out one 'hazard' and say "we'll rectify THAT" then the first thing the lawyer says is "Well, if you fixed that one, why didn't you fix the glaringly obvious one my client was injured by?"

Soc. Minimums exist to protect us from lawsuits. Nothing more. You play at your own risk. If you are a person who doesn't like bruises and potential broken bones, might I reccomend fencing or knitting?

No that particular lawsuit example is nonsense. Some kingdoms do require more than SCA mins. Caid for example, they REQUIRE forearm protection.

I would be intersted to see if that actually makes any significant difference in the number of arm fractures compared to other kingdoms.

Our minimum armor requirements and weapon construction methods are in place because we don't like to see eachother get f-ed up beyond reason in our rough, dangerous game.

If we allowed people to take the field without some sort of required armor THAT would be a lawsuit waiting to happen. Not the other way around.

Logan, please excuse my use of the word childish. It wasn't intended to be directed at you.

Raeven · Post by **Raeven** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:29 pm

Count Johnathan wrote:No that particular lawsuit example is nonsense. Some kingdoms do require more than SCA mins. Caid for example, they REQUIRE forearm protection.

I would be intersted to see if that actually makes any significant difference in the number of arm fractures compared to other kingdoms.

Our armor standards and weapon construction methods are in place because we don't like to see eachother get f-ed up beyond reason in our rough, dangerous game.

If we allowed people to take the field without some sort of required armor THAT would be a lawsuit waiting to happen. Not the other way around.

Logan, please excuse my use of the word childish. It wasn't intended to be directed at you.

The only way to say for sure what the minimum standards should be would require a database of all the reported injuries from combat, collated for the most frequent and weighted based on conditions such as Armored or not, single handed weapon or mass weapon, struck or fall, etc. Without such a database, "all" we can do is speculate on what the best safety precautions are.

Maeryk · Post by **Maeryk** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:39 pm

If we allowed people to take the field without some sort of required armor THAT would be a lawsuit waiting to happen. Not the other way around.

Bzzt, wrong. By saying "This is the society minimum, yet we locally require more" you are opening yourself up to a lawsuit. Because you admit that locally, you hit harder, or are "more dangerous" than the group at large.

There's a reason most kingdoms went soc. min. a number of years ago. It was under the advice of Der Lawyers.

you can call it "crap" all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.

Count Johnathan · Post by **Count Johnathan** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:49 pm

Sorry Maeryk. I don't believe a word you are saying on this one.

Kingdoms don't have lawyers dude.

You are not correct that taking additional precautions could, would, or ever has caused any problem like that.

Any legal issues due to combat would be strictly dealt with by the SCA legal team. Kingdoms have no no representation in that regard other than the officers who are in direct line with the society officers and they are all covered equally by the SCA "please don't sue us" insurance policy regardless of any additional armor requirements.

But thanks for playing! :wink:

Maeryk · Post by **Maeryk** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 11:06 pm

Count Johnathan wrote:Sorry Maeryk. I don't believe a word you are saying on this one.

Kingdoms don't have lawyers dude.

You are not correct that taking additional precautions could, would, or ever has caused any problem like that.

Any legal issues due to combat would be strictly dealt with by the SCA legal team. Kingdoms have no no representation in that regard other than the officers who are in direct line with the society officers and they are all covered equally by the SCA "please don't sue us" insurance policy regardless of any additional armor requirements.

But thanks for playing!

Yeah, whatever dude. Talk to the BOD about why kingoms were STRONGLY urged to go to society mins.. and why so many who were adamantly against doing so, then did.

Your rather simplistic view of how lawyers, the SCA, and lawsuits work is clouding your better judgement.

But continue believing whatever you want. As you say, "thanks for playing".

You are not correct that taking additional precautions could, would, or ever has caused any problem like that.

Would it change your mind to know that a suit was brought, on exactly those terms? That "Well, in kingdom X they don't need so much armor.. but here, they do, and I got hurt.. that means these people are trying to hurt each other" as the basic stance?

Count Johnathan · Post by **Count Johnathan** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 11:25 pm

And the outcome of said suit was.....?

And which Kingdoms lawyer handled the case?

You can make up any nonsense to bring a lawsuit against any party. It doesn't prevent a judge from laughing in your face and tossing your idiotic case into the circular file.

dukelogan · Post by **dukelogan** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 11:31 pm

yeah.... please supply some sort of evidence that supports this notion. anything, kingdom in which you claim this happened, decision by the court (public record so dont let that stop you),etc.

logan

Count Johnathan wrote:And the outcome of said suit was.....?

And which Kingdoms lawyer handled the case?

You can make up any nonsense to bring a lawsuit against any party. It doesn't prevent a judge from laughing in your face and tossing your idiotic case into the circular file.

Maeryk · Post by **Maeryk** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 11:46 pm

Count Johnathan wrote:And the outcome of said suit was.....?

And which Kingdoms lawyer handled the case?

You can make up any nonsense to bring a lawsuit against any party. It doesn't prevent a judge from laughing in your face and tossing your idiotic case into the circular file.

As you said, Kingdoms don't have lawyers. THe BOD (via SCA, Inc) does have lawyers.

Simply put, Society Minimums are what the SCA, Inc has deemed "reasonably safe" for the purposes of combat, vis-a-vis the SCA waiver.

If someone requires a higher coverage than that, it's proof, basically, that they are intentionally being more damaging than "sca minimum" will protect from.

Like I said, believe it or don't, that's your choice. Get your own fucking legal secretary and do some digging.

not my job to make you happy.

Count Johnathan · Post by **Count Johnathan** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:31 am

So Logan what do you where on your arm when fighting? Long sleeve shirt? Padding of any kind? Just an elbow cop with pad?

I've fought in nothing but elbow cop and elbow pad. I did it off and on for a couple years when I started fighting. My Arms are the poop. They are extremely comfortable and do not interfere with my arm movement in any way.

Not only have I broken at least one medically confirmed arm by hitting somebody which made me think about my own arm safety but it hurts like hell when you get whacked in the forearm. I don't like pain so I cover most of my body in plate. Shoulders are mostly for aesthetics on my harness but I admit I have always cursed myself for not wearing them any time I've taken a hard shot to the acromion.

Baron Alcyoneus · Post by **Baron Alcyoneus** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:51 am

dukelogan wrote:and that is not what i did at all johnathan. i did not compare the two as some sort of "childish" attempt to dismiss choosing not to wear vambracess. i stated, clearly, that many folks do not wear vambraces yet we hardly see any injuries to forearms.

I think we find plenty of broken forearms. We are just LOUSY record keepers about that sort of thing. One long term fighter broke his at our Labor Day event last year. I'm guessing that it was recorded, I'll ask the MiC.

One Count I know has broken 7 forearms, by his own count, during his years in the SCA. Several happened because the people missed the block to their head with his left hand blows.

And we know that there have been several ruptured spleens that most people here did not know about, but we can still say "no serious injuries".

brainplay · Post by **brainplay** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:04 am

dukelogan wrote: i stated, clearly, that many folks do not wear vambraces yet we hardly see any injuries to forearms.

Before moving on, does your kingdom have rules which protect forearms such as not being able to be hit unless in motion or something similar or are they fair game 100% of the time?

dukelogan · Post by **dukelogan** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 9:28 am

i only wear a professional hockey elbow under the sleeve of my tabard which is two layers of cotten "sport cloth". of course now i am forced to change that as my new kingdom requires a vambrace. so i have tofigure something out that is tiny and will not ride up into my wrist.

ive considered shoulders as i know all about the cursing when taking a really hard shot right on the point. just too lazy to do aything about it.

regards
logan

Count Johnathan wrote:So Logan what do you where on your arm when fighting? Long sleeve shirt? Padding of any kind? Just an elbow cop with pad?

I've fought in nothing but elbow cop and elbow pad. I did it off and on for a couple years when I started fighting. My Arms are the poop. They are extremely comfortable and do not interfere with my arm movement in any way.

Not only have I broken at least one medically confirmed arm by hitting somebody which made me think about my own arm safety but it hurts like hell when you get whacked in the forearm. I don't like pain so I cover most of my body in plate. Shoulders are mostly for aesthetics on my harness but I admit I have always cursed myself for not wearing them any time I've taken a hard shot to the acromion.

dukelogan · Post by **dukelogan** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 9:29 am

in atlantia they are fair game all the time. now that im here in trimaris i have seen, nor read, anything that indicates otherwise.

regards
logan

brainplay wrote:
dukelogan wrote: i stated, clearly, that many folks do not wear vambraces yet we hardly see any injuries to forearms.

Before moving on, does your kingdom have rules which protect forearms such as not being able to be hit unless in motion or something similar or are they fair game 100% of the time?

erloas · Post by **erloas** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:06 am

dukelogan wrote:of course now i am forced to change that as my new kingdom requires a vambrace. so i have tofigure something out that is tiny and will not ride up into my wrist.

I also didn't wear vambraces for the longest time just for that reason. However I decided to start after too many times of getting hit in the arm, and while never breaking anything, even a light shot to the arm makes it hard to throw shots after that. Most of the hits were a result of poor defense on my part though.

As for the vambraces moving, I made an arming cote and pointed the vambrace to it and that solved all my problems, at now I don't really notice the vambrace at all.

I also didn't wear shoulders until recently and that was mostly for looks. And I went years without a basket on my shield or an elbow cop behind the shield.

Overall it seems that if we want to change armor standards based on the occurrence of injuries we need to completely overhaul the reporting system. And a big part of that would be getting fighters to report injuries that happened to them but didn't involved medical people on the field.

I also think it might make more sense to have a melee standard and a tourney/practice standard. The likelihood of injury to various parts of the body seem to change a lot between the two situations. There are a lot more changes for shots to hit in places that it is almost impossible to hit in one-on-one. I also know it is something a number of people already do.

Balin50 · Post by **Balin50** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:24 am

Maeryk wrote:
Count Johnathan wrote:And the outcome of said suit was.....?

And which Kingdoms lawyer handled the case?

You can make up any nonsense to bring a lawsuit against any party. It doesn't prevent a judge from laughing in your face and tossing your idiotic case into the circular file.

As you said, Kingdoms don't have lawyers. THe BOD (via SCA, Inc) does have lawyers.

Simply put, Society Minimums are what the SCA, Inc has deemed "reasonably safe" for the purposes of combat, vis-a-vis the SCA waiver.

If someone requires a higher coverage than that, it's proof, basically, that they are intentionally being more damaging than "sca minimum" will protect from.

Like I said, believe it or don't, that's your choice. Get your own fucking legal secretary and do some digging.

not my job to make you happy.

Not all Kingdoms are Soc. Mins. Atenveldt has extra rules. heck Pennsic has extra rules over Soc mins.
You are a Liar.

Balin

raito · Post by **raito** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:49 am

Count Johnathan wrote:Kingdoms don't have lawyers dude.

Demostrably false. In Northshield, the former SCa President, Patrick Anderson, filled that function prior to becoming President. Unfortunately, it was necessary at the time.

But thanks for playing!

I think this still applies.

Count Johnathan · Post by **Count Johnathan** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:57 pm

Kingdom lawyer????

WTF? Never heard of such a thing.

ladyilsebet · Post by **ladyilsebet** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:02 pm

I haven't read the rest of this convo... but wherever insurance is involved, lawyers are too, somewhere along chain...

raito · Post by **raito** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:51 pm

Count Johnathan wrote:Kingdom lawyer????

WTF? Never heard of such a thing.

But you're apparently qualified to speak about it.