The Armour Archive

Ultimately, we are responsible for our own, and to a degree, each others safety.

Personally, while I don't think that "anything touching the grill" is a good standard, I don't think full force face thrust is needed either. Just don't see the need for it. A shot that doesn't do more than rock my head might wrench the neck of the 5'0" 100 pound fighter pretty good - enough to make them stop for the day.

I mean just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we SHOULD.

Also, the whole "sewing machine" tactic arguement doesn't hold for me. I think I've seen maybe two fighters actually try something that could be construed as that type of fight, and it is really easy to beat. Most guys will abandond it after losing a few times.

If fighter in your area are using that as a standard fighting style, perhaps the fault lies with their training.



.

I don't think anyone is advocating that we need full-force, ass-destroying face thrusts--just that they should be stout thrusts thrown with intent that are lighter than those thrown at the rest of the body.

And sadly I've seen quite a few matches where one or both fighters belly up and just starts trying to thread their swordtip around the other guy's shield so it touches his grill.

Usually people don't call that crap as good, but sometimes they do, for fear of damaging their reputation by calling a face 'thrust' light. I've seen it.

i dont think anyone is advocating full force face thrusts and i agree there is no need for that much force. we cannot, however, create rules in an attempt to try and "protect" every small fighter. nobody has a "right to fight" and if you cant handle the rigors of our sport thats just too bad. our field is not, nor should it ever be, open to anyone. there are demands that have to be met. these demands begin with the authorization process and even there ive seen the mentality of "everyone should be allowed on the field" come into play.

ive seen far too many people that dont posses the ability to throw a telling blow authorized under the excuse of "well he is safe". first, its impossible to tell if someone is "safe" after a five minute authorization. it is, however, possible to tell if a person isnt safe or lacks control. second, if a person cannot throw a telling blow they should not be authorized until they can.

fighting is a rough business and, as you opined, we are responsible for each other. that is the basis for our wonderful community and it is what seperates us from most other sports.

regards
logan

Diglach mac Cein wrote:Ultimately, we are responsible for our own, and to a degree, each others safety.

Personally, while I don't think that "anything touching the grill" is a good standard, I don't think full force face thrust is needed either. Just don't see the need for it. A shot that doesn't do more than rock my head might wrench the neck of the 5'0" 100 pound fighter pretty good - enough to make them stop for the day.

I mean just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we SHOULD.

Also, the whole "sewing machine" tactic arguement doesn't hold for me. I think I've seen maybe two fighters actually try something that could be construed as that type of fight, and it is really easy to beat. Most guys will abandond it after losing a few times.

If fighter in your area are using that as a standard fighting style, perhaps the fault lies with their training.



.

ive seen far too many people that dont posses the ability to throw a telling blow authorized under the excuse of "well he is safe". first, its impossible to tell if someone is "safe" after a five minute authorization. it is, however, possible to tell if a person isnt safe or lacks control. second, if a person cannot throw a telling blow they should not be authorized until they can.

I've seen people bounced at authorization for not being able to throw a stout enough shot.

I failed my first pole-arm authorization for that very reason. Turns out the head of the pole I was using had a lot more squishy foam than what I had practiced with, sucked all the oomph out of my shots.

OK....

I don't define what I get hit with in the Midrealm as a "touch" (ie - if it hits the grill it is good). There is obvious intent and direction, and my head does get moved.

I can't recall the last time I had anyone ask me to take a anything less than that. Blackstone, Border Raids, Pennsic or in Kingdom.

Maybe I'm lucky.... Or this is a circumstance that is blown way out of proportion?

.

im not sure. i was acting field command for atlantia and was asked to have a discussion with commanders from both sides between battles. it was expressed to us (atlantia and aethelmarc) that fighters from the midrealm were getting upset because we (again, the two a's) were not taking face thrusts. i mentioned that only the fighter being struck can call the blow to which the response was "in the midrealm we fight by a touch convention". i expressed my displeasure in this and suggested that we find a middle ground but changed my mind and said i would forward that info on to my men.

i told them the situation and let them know i expected them to simply accept this situation and take anything that brushed their grilles. i also told them that i had better not see any of them trying to get away with little taps and that they were to continue to throw stout face thrusts. had i seen anyone trying to get away with just touching someone i would have pulled them off the field for a pretty stern talking to.

that was the last, and only, time the subject came up. i didnt hear anyone complain from either side and everyone seemed to have a good time. i hated not being able to be out there but the good news is i have my elbow surgery next tuesday, so im one step closer to being able to fight again.

regards
logan

Diglach mac Cein wrote:OK....

I don't define what I get hit with in the Midrealm as a "touch" (ie - if it hits the grill it is good). There is obvious intent and direction, and my head does get moved.

I can't recall the last time I had anyone ask me to take a anything less than that. Blackstone, Border Raids, Pennsic or in Kingdom.

Maybe I'm lucky.... Or this is a circumstance that is blown way out of proportion?

.

Well, I missed that whole exchange, as did the guys I was fighting with.

Didn't hear about it until I got home.



.

Dietrich von Stroheim wrote:I don't think anyone is advocating that we need full-force, ass-destroying face thrusts--just that they should be stout thrusts thrown with intent that are lighter than those thrown at the rest of the body,

I hereby advocate full-force face thrusts that are just EXACTLY as hard as those thrown at the body, leg, neck, armpit or side of the head.

They should only be ass-destroying if the target is an ass-face.

Sigifrith Hauknefr wrote:

Dietrich von Stroheim wrote:I don't think anyone is advocating that we need full-force, ass-destroying face thrusts--just that they should be stout thrusts thrown with intent that are lighter than those thrown at the rest of the body,

I hereby advocate full-force face thrusts that are just EXACTLY as hard as those thrown at the body, leg, neck, armpit or side of the head.

*shrug* That's pretty much how I've always fought.

My SCA career has been in Atenveldt and An Tir, with visits to Caid and the West (and most of the kingdoms that used to be part of Atenveldt...hey, I'm old!). I've never lived in or even traveled to a kingdom which prohibits powered face thrusts. I am something of a polearm specialist in war, and my force level is probably about average (for either home kingdom). I have once, in about 30 years of doing this, injured another fighter with a face thrust, and that was a very unfortunate combination of unlucky factors: the fighter stumbled forward down a small slope precisely as I threw...the combined momentum was way, way harder than I would ever throw on my own...probably harder than I could throw, and I'm not weak. Broken tooth and sore jaw...but she was otherwise unhurt.

As has been pointed out, there are literally decades worth of data to show that powered face thrusts are no less safe than all the other stuff we do in this game. I'm sure that adds up to hundreds of thousands of powered face thrusts. Unless the thrust is so hard that it would be considered unacceptable regardless of target (a matter for the marshallate, the offending fighter's knight, if any, etc...), experience has convincingly demonstrated that face thrusts at normal combat power are simply not a safety issue.

I approach SCA heavy fighting as a western martial art, as much as the ruleset allows, one of several I practice. I don't take the "sportfighting" approach, and didn't even do so back when I cared about winning tournaments. For the Western martial artist, the fewer artificial limitations to what we do, the better, so as to create the closest possible relationship between our game and the real thing. We back away from the real thing only when safety dictates that we have to...and I don't think safety requires "touch" or significantly lighter face thrusts.

There does need to some force in a face thrust to count as a good shot. I have only come across 1 guy (at Estrella) that consistently was over powering spear shots. There just doesn't seem to be a society wide issue with people getting jacked up.

And on the other side of the coin I fought a knight from out of kingdom not too long ago that threw a shot that by the slightest of margins touched my grill and he was unhappy that I didn't take the shot as a kill. What, a kill?! C'mon there needs to a little bit of positive force in there somewhere. And he was from what I would consider one of the harder hitting kingdoms.

The problem is that the rules say "directed touch".

I'm not arguing for that, I'm just saying that it should be rewritten if no one agrees with it.

and?

the wording, which could be much much better, states that the thrust must be "directed" meaning that its coming at your face. in other words a thrusting tip that contacts your grille during a hammer type shot doesnt fall under the face thrust conventions of force.

then it says "touch" meaning that the shot is something coming at your face that actually makes contact. contact would have been a better word but it wasnt thought that far ahead.

it then goes on to talk about force and says that it can be anything from mere contact (which sucks) to "significantly less than a full force shot to the body". not a direct quote but it implies that we should not be throwing full force face thrusts for some reason.

so now we understand the wording is that a face thrust is a blow aimed at the face that makes contact with the area defined as the face (collarbone to sideburns to brow) and lands with no more than significantly less than a full force thrust.

the problem now becomes to define what exactly is "significant". the first thing people chimed in with is "clearly that means 51% or more". for some reason their brains wrapped around the "simple majority" thingy. so, i asked "if your employer cut your pay by 25% would you consider that a "significant" pay cut or not? well, of course everyone said yes. so i said that a face thrust should be no more than 75% of a full force thrust to any part of the body. "oh dear lord and little baby jesus!" said the chicken little syndrome crowd, "logan wants us to kill and maim each other! how on earth will we ever survive such brutal carnage!?!?"

so, once we got water, cold towels, and fresh air to all of those folks that freaked out i suggested that we try something "substantially" lighter, like 50% of full force. ahhhh calm swept over the room. well, except for the couple of folks that think the human body is a weak vulnerable balloon of blood and goo. they still talked of people being killed, paralyzed, drinking their supper through straws, etc. oh well.....

now, if the rule was indeed meant to be a touch kill two things would clearly have happened. one, there would have been no reason at all to mention force levels. those were put in so that kingdoms could decide if they wanted stout shots only to count and those that think folks will die if anything above mere contact were to touch their tender little heads.

and second, the clarification that came after the attempted defining of face thrust force that stated (for those kingdoms that raped the spirit of our contests with their active marshals) "only the person receiving the blow can call it good".

clearly, and correct me if im wrong, if mere contact to the face was to be considered, by the rules, to magically have bested someone the wording would have been something like "only the person being struck can call the blow..... well except if they get touched by a thrust to the face as that would surely destroy them".

regards
logan

FrauHirsch wrote:The problem is that the rules say "directed touch".

I'm not arguing for that, I'm just saying that it should be rewritten if no one agrees with it.

dukelogan wrote:and?

then it says "touch" meaning that the shot is something coming at your face that actually makes contact. contact would have been a better word but it wasnt thought that far ahead.

it then goes on to talk about force and says that it can be anything from mere contact (which sucks) to "significantly less than a full force shot to the body". not a direct quote but it implies that we should not be throwing full force face thrusts for some reason.

And? exactly my point. It describes it in a way that indicates that the "range" of a legal thrust is from mere contact (touch) up to something less than full power. I do document/written word evaluation as a living, and this wording is crystal clear that just touching your face is supposed to be taken as a good shot -- which no one seems to agree with. The wording should provide some guidance as to a reasonable minimal force, and dump the maximum, which should fall under the overall "thou shall not hit too hard."

it says: " b. The minimum effective thrusting blow to the face shall be a directed touch and the maximum shall be substantially lighter than to other parts of the body."

the next line, which totally contradicts the above line states:
C. An effective blow will be defined as a blow which was delivered with effective technique for the particular type of weapon used, properly oriented, and struck with sufficient force.

clearly mere contact with a face thrust does not meet the latter since, well, thats just silly to suggest that poking someone in the face would end a fight.
i lend support to the latter more than the former since there is no reason, at all, for us to make this a sport of tag. also the wording leaves it up to each kiingdom to define, by its culture, the amount of force needed.

face thrusting is clearly not a safety issue so that argument dalls flat on its face. so why make it some kinda of game of "tag, youre it!"

i think you have to allow credit for both sides of the statement.

regards
logan

FrauHirsch wrote:

dukelogan wrote:and?

then it says "touch" meaning that the shot is something coming at your face that actually makes contact. contact would have been a better word but it wasnt thought that far ahead.

it then goes on to talk about force and says that it can be anything from mere contact (which sucks) to "significantly less than a full force shot to the body". not a direct quote but it implies that we should not be throwing full force face thrusts for some reason.

And? exactly my point. It describes it in a way that indicates that the "range" of a legal thrust is from mere contact (touch) up to something less than full power. I do document/written word evaluation as a living, and this wording is crystal clear that just touching your face is supposed to be taken as a good shot -- which no one seems to agree with. The wording should provide some guidance as to a reasonable minimal force, and dump the maximum, which should fall under the overall "thou shall not hit too hard."

I believe that is his point also. The rules allow for both sides.

The rules seem to state that a light touch is deadly, and that a stout blow is deadly. He is suggesting that the rule be clarified to disallow the light touch...since no one likes that.


FrauHirsch: Two things to consider.
1) Some folks *do* like that a light touch is a killing face thrust
2) The society rules are often written with such flexibility, so that each Kingdom can adapt the rules to their culture.

Oscad wrote:SNIP
2) The society rules are often written with such flexibility, so that each Kingdom can adapt the rules to their culture.

Hence, I believe, the oft heard argument for "One set of rules for one game."

I've never been entirely clear on why we even need to HAVE kingdom conventions at all. I mean whether it refers to calibration, equipment standards, legal target areas or whatever, the commentary here on the archive would seem to indicate (to my eye at least) that kingdom specific regulations accomplish little except cause bad blood, especially at interkingdom events.

All of our regs are supposed to be about safety, right? Well a given action or weapon or piece of armor either is safe or it isn't. There is no reason that I can see why it would be safe for Easterners but not for Midrealmers or vice versa. Once the powers that be (ie - a cross section, dare I say, a committee, of marshals from across all kingdoms) decide that a thing is or is not safe, and make it a rule one way or the other, then that rule is what it is no matter what kingdom you play in.

This seems so uncomplicated a solution that I am baffled as to why we have ever done anything else. Just my $0.02 and YMMV.

Mac Thamhais wrote:All of our regs are supposed to be about safety, right? Well a given action or weapon or piece of armor either is safe or it isn't.

No, some of our regulations are about shaping the game.

But yes, an action is either safe or it isn't. That is why, every time anyone tries to subjectivize this, they must be corrected. The burden of proof is on anyone who claims face-thrusts-with-force are significantly more dangerous than touch thrusts. They must account for the hundreds of thousand of man hours of experimentation those in 'positive force' kingdoms have done, as well as thousands - literally, thousands - of people who are at this very moment (boxing, MMA, muay thai) applying far more force to another person's neck via their head, without an epidemic of parapalegism sweeping the world.

Many apologies.
I actually agree with all that part. Didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Zafir al-Th'ib wrote:No, some of our regulations are about shaping the game.

But yes, an action is either safe or it isn't. That is why, every time anyone tries to subjectivize this, they must be corrected. The burden of proof is on anyone who claims face-thrusts-with-force are significantly more dangerous than touch thrusts. They must account for the hundreds of thousand of man hours of experimentation those in 'positive force' kingdoms have done, as well as thousands - literally, thousands - of people who are at this very moment (boxing, MMA, muay thai) applying far more force to another person's neck via their head, without an epidemic of parapalegism sweeping the world.

Well,I haven't done a survey, but I do have a friend who's crippled from a spearthrust - whiplash.

I don't buy the martial art analogy; two extremely fit and welltrained men in a ring with an active umpire, a team each, both coaches ready with a towel and a doctor on standby cannot be compared to a few thousand fighters of complete disparity in training, fitness and skill with a few dozen marshal's and volounteers on standby that may or may not have some sort of medical skill apart from first aid.

my 2SeK

Arngrim wrote:Well,I haven't done a survey, but I do have a friend who's crippled from a spearthrust - whiplash.

That sucks. My step-father messed his knee up for life doing the laundry and tripping over a laundry basket (seriously). That sucked, too. Would it be reasonable to begin a world-wide campaign for the abolition of the laundry basket?

What we do is not without risk. There are boxing deaths infrequently, and fencer deaths. What we would need is evidence this risk drastically increased by positive-force facethrusts, and we don't have any evidence at all that's the case, and a lot that it isn't.

I don't buy the martial art analogy; two extremely fit and welltrained men in a ring with an active umpire, a team each, both coaches ready with a towel and a doctor on standby cannot be compared to a few thousand fighters of complete disparity in training, fitness and skill with a few dozen marshal's and volounteers on standby that may or may not have some sort of medical skill apart from first aid.

Your neck and head don't care about any of that, really, when that overhead right - with an entire body coming in behind it - that you thought was a just a shoulder shrug crashes into your head just as you were putting weight on your front foot. That experience right there is orders of magnitude more impactful than anything I've ever felt in the SCA, and it's made WORSE, not better, by the fact that the other guy was trained exactly how to throw that punch to do the maximum possible damage, with no thought of 'pulling'. Not to mention that the weight of the helm really helps the SCA fighter out... certainly much more that all of that neck conditioning I did in boxing.

Well, I'm not on a woldwide campaign so I don't really understan why you made that comment.

And the comparison with tripping over an object and fighting regulations.. .
I'll just choose not to comment on that one, I hope your father's knee is better though.

i agree that the comparison of injuries to the neck of trained fighters is relevant to those of the fat, out of shape, weekend warrior. there are factors involved that, i feel, level the playing field. being properly trained on how to throw a punch, for example, is worlds beyond the force an untrained man can impart. when i was a younger man and more willing to engage in fist fights with other stupid young people i ended man fights with single punches, sometimes to the chest. really? a punch to the chest took you out of this scuffle tough guy?

but its true, the untrained fighter (sca) cannot throw 1/5th the power that the trained fighter (boxing) can. on the same token he trained fighter (boxing) can take more abuse than the untrained (sca) fighter can. your body does get used to it. ive often explained that if mike strahan tackled me i wouldnt get up for a week, however if i hit him with a butt wrap he too would be on the ground for a week. our bodies get used to what we demand of it.

i think they are equal and support the side of the argument that it is, indeed, safe to land hard face thrusts. boxers hit harder and can take more which is equal to the weaker sca shot and the weaker sca fighter. the real proof is, of course, that most kingdoms have been throwing stout face thrusts for years without injuries.

many people have suggested that i put my name in for sem for years. given how i feel about the one we currently have i am certainly more moved to do it. now that esa and i are all moved in to our new place and my upcoming elbow surgery will take me off the field for the next few months i think it might be time to write that letter.

my goals, should i be given the opportunity, are pretty simple:

1. cut the verbiage. i would like to see the current rule book cut in half with clear descriptions and the removal of so many specifics (i prefer more guidelines over more details).
2. train our marshals. this is the tough one as coming up with a clear set of lessons is daunting. but i feel that our marshals need to have more ability to decide if a person is taking enough steps to protect themselves and i want desperately to get rid of the crazy marshals that really think the human body is fragile. i was once told, at gulf wars, that i needed a half gauntlet on my shield hand! i mean the one inside my shield basket and between my body and my 31lb shield? the guy said "yes, its dangerous and you at least need a heavy leather glove". someone signed this guys warrant and someone else put him in charge of something. i think a clear method of training is needed but im not sure how to do that just yet.
3. one game one rule. gone would be kingdom conventions, they make no sense. calibration would still be a cultural thing of course and if a kingdom wants to play a wrist flicking game of tag and another kingdom wants to throw very powerful blows they certainly should be able to. however, all interkingdom events would fall under a more general "society" convention in which the tag kingdom would need to bring up their game and the stout kingdom would need to accept a little less. not sure how that will be done.
4. rules would need some level of evidence that they are needed. for example if it can be documented that arms are getting broken often then a vambrace rule would be implemented. conversely if there is no evidence that this is an issue then vambraces would be on the recommended list but not on the required one.
5. engagement would go the way of the dodo. it is already legal to strike a man from behind without him knowing he is being targeted. so why on earth do we have engagement rules? the majority of the issues ive seen on the field have to do with engagement. one guy thinks he was engaged and the other guy didnt think so. he got popped and then he lost his mind. the way this would be carried out would fall under the "dont be a dick" rule. if you have the guy dead to rights and you take that free shot just hit him in the helm. you start blasting people in the back instead and, well, youre being a dick.
6. total ban on combat archery
7. enforcement of the appearance requirements to attend an sca event. fighters would no longer be able to violate the rules that everyone else has to follow. so, no more tennis shoes, blue jeans, and blue plastic.
8. i was just joking about rule #6

anyway, i have some other thoughts but now ive totally derailed the topic. i would put a panel together with representatives from all the kingdoms to discuss a one game one rule change of course as i fully understand that my way of doing things isnt automatically the right way of doing things. we have suffered that enough times from the sems office over the years.

regards
logan

Arngrim wrote:

Zafir al-Th'ib wrote:No, some of our regulations are about shaping the game.

But yes, an action is either safe or it isn't. That is why, every time anyone tries to subjectivize this, they must be corrected. The burden of proof is on anyone who claims face-thrusts-with-force are significantly more dangerous than touch thrusts. They must account for the hundreds of thousand of man hours of experimentation those in 'positive force' kingdoms have done, as well as thousands - literally, thousands - of people who are at this very moment (boxing, MMA, muay thai) applying far more force to another person's neck via their head, without an epidemic of parapalegism sweeping the world.

Well,I haven't done a survey, but I do have a friend who's crippled from a spearthrust - whiplash.

I don't buy the martial art analogy; two extremely fit and welltrained men in a ring with an active umpire, a team each, both coaches ready with a towel and a doctor on standby cannot be compared to a few thousand fighters of complete disparity in training, fitness and skill with a few dozen marshal's and volounteers on standby that may or may not have some sort of medical skill apart from first aid.

my 2SeK

Arngrim, to put that into perspective though, the fighter in question was using a helmet that he had been told countless times was no longer properly safe, and even regular fighting sometimes caused him to get jacked on his nose, creating a bleeding cut. The only reason he was allowed to fight in it was people saying that "Oh well, its XXX, it will be ok."

During my 17 years in Drachenwald I have experienced one person getting a whiplash injury, and that is him. So here the question is, was the spear shot to hard, or was it faulty equipment on that fighters part?
I would tend to go for option two.

fortunately whiplash (or the correct, medical term, cervical hyperextension injury) is typically a non-serious strain of the soft tissue in the neck and is easily treated with ice and nsaids. it can be caused by fairly low impact stress if something zigs when it is supposed to zag. so its hard to say if the shot was too hard, the helm was too light, a combination of the two, etc. its just as likely to happen from a flat snap or even from someone spinning their head during the scrum to look the other way at something.

and, we have heard all kinds of stories about people being "browned out" or even ko'd from hard face thrusts. just as many stories as the fabled "i was lifted off my feet and launched 12' back" which is way exaggerated. i mean, taking one of our spears, even the dead sexy ebonwoulfe wood grain spears currently with an awesome discount on shipping, and lifting even a small 150lb cat in the air is pretty superhuman.

more realistically people are stunned by a hard face thrust. the brain doesnt like being jolted and often times will go through a mild "reboot" of sorts. its not pleasant at all. its also not dangerous. in most cases if you remove the melodramatic behavior of the guy yelling and screaming about being hit "too hard" and look at the actions to judge if there is, or isnt, a safety issue i think 99.8% of the time the conclusion will be that there isnt a problem.

still, it is unpleasant which is why i advocate a less than full force face thrust. i teach, and employ, the concept of "shocking your opponent" with the thrust. it should be sort of "rude" kind of like slapping someone in the face. no damage (although i hear tale of one big old mean atlantian duke knocking his squire unconscious with an open handed buffet! http://www.ebonwoulfe.com/images/video/ ... ting01.wmv), just a shock. thats the way to do it in my opinion as its sudden and usually causes the recipient to freeze for a second.

regards
logan

twoswords wrote:

Arngrim wrote:

Zafir al-Th'ib wrote:No, some of our regulations are about shaping the game.

But yes, an action is either safe or it isn't. That is why, every time anyone tries to subjectivize this, they must be corrected. The burden of proof is on anyone who claims face-thrusts-with-force are significantly more dangerous than touch thrusts. They must account for the hundreds of thousand of man hours of experimentation those in 'positive force' kingdoms have done, as well as thousands - literally, thousands - of people who are at this very moment (boxing, MMA, muay thai) applying far more force to another person's neck via their head, without an epidemic of parapalegism sweeping the world.

Well,I haven't done a survey, but I do have a friend who's crippled from a spearthrust - whiplash.

I don't buy the martial art analogy; two extremely fit and welltrained men in a ring with an active umpire, a team each, both coaches ready with a towel and a doctor on standby cannot be compared to a few thousand fighters of complete disparity in training, fitness and skill with a few dozen marshal's and volounteers on standby that may or may not have some sort of medical skill apart from first aid.

my 2SeK

Arngrim, to put that into perspective though, the fighter in question was using a helmet that he had been told countless times was no longer properly safe, and even regular fighting sometimes caused him to get jacked on his nose, creating a bleeding cut. The only reason he was allowed to fight in it was people saying that "Oh well, its XXX, it will be ok."

During my 17 years in Drachenwald I have experienced one person getting a whiplash injury, and that is him. So here the question is, was the spear shot to hard, or was it faulty equipment on that fighters part?
I would tend to go for option two.

All of our regs are supposed to be about safety, right?

Rule VI. (Not "SEM Logan" rule 6... the one in the book about chivalry)

I support Logan for SEM, but he has to leave us with our full head thrust targeting.

Oscad wrote:I believe that is his point also. The rules allow for both sides.

The rules seem to state that a light touch is deadly, and that a stout blow is deadly. He is suggesting that the rule be clarified to disallow the light touch...since no one likes that.


FrauHirsch: Two things to consider.
1) Some folks *do* like that a light touch is a killing face thrust
2) The society rules are often written with such flexibility, so that each Kingdom can adapt the rules to their culture.

I do think they need clarification. If Duke Logan wants to head that up, I'm all for it. I know some people like a touch kill, but many others do not and there is no safety reason for it. The western kingdoms have been using solid thrusts to the face for years. Likewise the thrust to the side of the head should be standardized too. That has also been legal for as long as I can recall with no problems. I feel that some kingdoms disallowing side of the head thrusts is confusing and dangerous for large multi-kingdom gatherings - - cause if a person doesn't take the first thrust to the side of the head, most of us will just keep ramping up.

IMHO, if someone wants to still take a touch or lighter blows in general, then nothing prevents them from doing so. But the calling "light light excessive" as an excuse not to take shot is rediculous. BTW, I've never heard of that complaint out here in the western US kingdoms.

I have heard of one brown out and a thrust that did a lot of damage. It was a new fighter first time out, using a good helm with no defects or defective strapping. She had a concussion, whiplash, pulled muscles in all her neck, TMJ and it caused epilipsy!!! Yup, it was bad. It happend at a Great Western War about 5 yrs ago.

But there was a metal on metal scratch over the place where she was struck indicating that there either was a) something metal under the padding that poked through, or b) someone had a metal cap on the end and reversed their spear (which I have seen happen).

Most brownouts/KOs I've seen have been due to sword or mass weapon blows.

FrauHirsch wrote: Likewise the thrust to the side of the head should be standardized too.

Really? You guys take thrusts to the side or top of the head? I haven't been to Estrella or out West before so this concept is new to me.

It's one thing to assume a 'stout blow' to the head would stun an armored fighter enough to end a fight, but a thrust to a helmed head? What would that actually do, other than just ring off or maybe push the guy a little if it landed precisely dead-on?

Granted, not that our sport should be confused with realism, but it just seems hard suspend the disbelief enough to accept a sword thrust to a steel helm as a fight-ender.

you will now get:

westie dude:
we think the helm is a skull cap because of some osprey picture that was used so the side of the head wouldnt be covered by the helm

other dude:
but its a helm, not a helmet or skull cap, its called a helm.

westie dude:
but not in the picture

other dude:
ok the armour standard is just as a basis for force levels and has nothing to do with what the armour would do, otherwise we wouldnt have combat archery anywhere except the face

westie dude:
oh, so now you hate combat archery!?

other dude:
no, i hate shield elbows but thats got nothing to do with this discussion

westie dude:
yeah, shield elbows are retarded. anyway.. well, we think that you could kill someone with a spear to the side of the skull cap

other dude:
so you also take much lighter sword blows to the side of the head then, right?

westie dude:
of course not, we just like thrusting the side of the head and will keep doing it.


or something like that. anyway, the practice makes no sense to me but i have been told i will enjoy it when i make it to estrella. they dig it and even though they throw them hard, strangly no injuries! what! how is that possible, i mean the head is sooooooo fragile that if we hit each other with hard shots folks will be killed to death and put in a wheelchair and drink their supper through a straw, dogs and cats sleeping together..... mass hysteria.

now let me tell you about the twinkie!

regards
logan

Dietrich von Stroheim wrote:

FrauHirsch wrote: Likewise the thrust to the side of the head should be standardized too.

Really? You guys take thrusts to the side or top of the head? I haven't been to Estrella or out West before so this concept is new to me.

It's one thing to assume a 'stout blow' to the head would stun an armored fighter enough to end a fight, but a thrust to a helmed head? What would that actually do, other than just ring off or maybe push the guy a little if it landed precisely dead-on?

Granted, not that our sport should be confused with realism, but it just seems hard suspend the disbelief enough to accept a sword thrust to a steel helm as a fight-ender.

dukelogan wrote:fortunately whiplash (or the correct, medical term, cervical hyperextension injury) is typically a non-serious strain of the soft tissue in the neck and is easily treated with ice and nsaids. it can be caused by fairly low impact stress if something zigs when it is supposed to zag.

the brain doesnt like being jolted and often times will go through a mild "reboot" of sorts. its not pleasant at all. its also not dangerous. in most cases if you remove the melodramatic behavior of the guy yelling and screaming about being hit "too hard" and look at the actions to judge if there is, or isnt, a safety issue i think 99.8% of the time the conclusion will be that there isnt a problem.

Actually, these kinds of CNS insults are cumulative. one or two such incidents aren't a big deal if treated appropriatly, with ice, nsaids, and a doctor visit if needed as you stated, but continued injuries will be progressively more serious. think Mohamed Ali for one. Now I'm not saying his parkinson's was caused by his career in the ring, but he had many other symptoms that most likely were. I'm also not saying that sca fighters are in imminant danger of being permanently "punch drunk" or the like, far from it, sca heavy fighting isn't really all that dangerous. Aside from the occasional smashed finger or two and blown out knee (which is usually the weekend warrior who puts his kit on at pennsic and runs around thinking he's Achilles ) I have seen very few injuries that were more than the "ehh, walk it off, take a break and get some water" variety.

All that said, i really like the analogy of a "rude slap to the face" etc. That works for me

Logan, you kill me sometimes

Personally, I see the "face only" vs. "side of the head" issue as much more of a safety issue than hard "head" thrusts.

Only for this reason: Turning your head to receive a stout spear thrust on the side of the head could be much worse than receiving the same thrust on a properly orientated head/neck

This is the primary reason I support side of the head thrusts, so we don't teach people to put themselves in a potentially dangerous position.

Other than that I agree with hard face thrusts.

Dietrich von Stroheim wrote:

FrauHirsch wrote: Likewise the thrust to the side of the head should be standardized too.

Really? You guys take thrusts to the side or top of the head? I haven't been to Estrella or out West before so this concept is new to me.

Yep. To the best of my knowledge, every kingdom out west does, and for as long as I've been playing (30 years). And a public forum probably isn't the best place to mention it, but I really haven't noticed anyone out here paying a lot of attention to that "significantly reduced" power to the face stuff, either. Most everyone seems to be fighting like they always have (there being no factually-based reason to do otherwise...).

As an aside, I remember being astonished way back when to discover that the eastern kingdoms prohibited face thrusts. Probably THE main reason I've never traveled back east for SCA stuff in all these years (I'm a pikeman in war, and it's completely ingrained in me to "headhunt"). I'm sure that the young, arrogant dumbass I was back then had disparaging remarks to make over that, too. Fortunately, while I'm still a dumbass, I'm no longer young, and a lifetime of humbling experiences has curbed the arrogance a tad.

It's one thing to assume a 'stout blow' to the head would stun an armored fighter enough to end a fight, but a thrust to a helmed head? What would that actually do, other than just ring off or maybe push the guy a little if it landed precisely dead-on?

Granted, not that our sport should be confused with realism, but it just seems hard suspend the disbelief enough to accept a sword thrust to a steel helm as a fight-ender.

Can't argue with that...but frankly, I can't see a cut to the helm from a single-handed sword being a fight-ender, either. While a sword edge would concentrate energy better than a rattan stick does, I sincerely doubt it woudl be enough of an increase to matter. I've been flat-out pasted upside the noggin a time or two with rattan, and never even came close to a fight-ending level of stun. Our convention of allowing sword blows to helms to "kill" the target makes for a fun game, but it's not at all realistic.

It's one thing to assume a 'stout blow' to the head would stun an armored fighter enough to end a fight, but a thrust to a helmed head? What would that actually do, other than just ring off or maybe push the guy a little if it landed precisely dead-on?

Irrelevant, but also why I hate the "armor" standard. Why even open it up to this kind of discussion?

The reason to allow thrusts to side/top is the same reason to allow "regular" force face thrusts / face shots. That way, people don't have to worry about what they were hit with and why.
Just
"Was it a legal target area?"
"Was it with a legal striking surface?" (not haft or flat)
"Was it hard enough for me?"

Granted, not that our sport should be confused with realism,

See, you figured it out yourself.

I've seen video of eastern wars where people are turning their heads so it hits on the side to avoid dying. It may be illegal, but people still do it.

I've heard of problems where people attended Estrella from eastern areas and ignored thrusts to the side of the head, and then were hit harder and harder....

It is true that in the western kingdoms it has been considered that we are wearing a cap helm with a nasal and maille with only a chain drape since I joined in 1978, based on:

"All “fully armoredâ€