Page 1 of 1

SCA legality question on some besegews.

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:44 pm
by JvR
I dont know much about SCA armour requirements but will one day play in the SCA. I have a set of besegews for my black and white harness like in the picture. (yeah I know, I have a harness but don't play)

Since the SCA does not allow grappling, I wonder if these would be ok? They have a little point in the middle and wondered if it was a no go as I know the SCA is pretty strict.

Could someone also point out the ruling that would disallow or allow them?

I will ask my local marshal as well if I ever make it to a practice or an event. I just wanted to get a broad opinion on this for now.

pics
Image

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:16 pm
by Baron Alcyoneus
The most important rule would be this:

Will it fit into a legal (1" wide) eyeslot more than 1/2"?

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:32 pm
by Leo Medii
A lot of the guys in my unit wear them. Never had a problem.

Then again, you never know. Something that no one had ever said anything about in 10 years of fighting might one day be totally illegal to someone. Seen it happen.

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:48 pm
by Vladimir
Personally I have no problem with them. Heck, most elbow cops can slide right into a bargrill with no problem.

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:51 pm
by zippy
its up to your marshals in your area
we can talk about it all day
but really that is the only way you will know

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:14 pm
by Thorstenn
I am the Trimarian Earl Marshal. I would have no problem with them at all as long as they don't stick out 3 inches and don't come to a sharp point. If the tip is rounded just a bit it might be better for inter Kingdom events. As I cannot guarantee other Kingdoms approval, I would go to bat for these to be legal.
If a local Marshall gives you grief, send it up to me :wink:

Thor.

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:28 pm
by dukelogan
doesnt apply since thats not the business end of a weapon (thin shafted combat arrows exempt of couse). armour doesnt have such a requirement. that is if we are talking about the round thingys near the armpit.

regards
logan

Baron Alcyoneus wrote:The most important rule would be this:

Will it fit into a legal (1" wide) eyeslot more than 1/2"?

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:14 pm
by Vladimir
Yes, the round things.

He's right. I don't think armour has that requirement.

If it did we would have to roll the edges on all pieces of...OMG!!!! :twisted:

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:17 pm
by Keegan Ingrassia
Vladimir wrote:Yes, the round things.

He's right. I don't think armour has that requirement.

If it did we would have to roll the edges on all pieces of...OMG!!!! >:)


:lol: Roll -and- pad! Could you imagine how it'd look, if every exposed edge was made so that it couldn't fit in a 1" gap?

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:37 pm
by Vladimir
I don't have to imagine.

I'm an evil denizen. :twisted:

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:38 pm
by Keegan Ingrassia
What's your number? :P

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:49 pm
by igelkott
The 1/2" rule into an eyeslot doesn't apply to armor. My rule of thumb on stuff like this is I would ask you the following......

If I was to wear your armor, and you wore minimums, would it be ok for me to trip and fall onto you? Oh, and by the way, have another person then fall on top of me on top of you? Because this will happen in a press in bridge battles, etc.

It's a little hard to tell from your photo, but they do look a little pointy. Although if you wanted to wear them in a tourney only, especially one with more period emphasis, then it would probably be OK.

Chris

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:13 pm
by Baron Alcyoneus
Aren't tree limbs and twigs padded at Pennsic? ;)

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:48 pm
by dukelogan
and this is the main problem with the marshallate. too much of this "what if" and "well i think that". the rules are simple, our sport is very safe, and marshals need to learn to follow the letter and not engage in "could might possibly maybe" stuff coupled with the misconception that the human machine is fragile. i mean i still see folks on the field in spurs (with heads all over the ground), hay bales, and dark victory junk.

regards
logan

igelkott wrote:The 1/2" rule into an eyeslot doesn't apply to armor. My rule of thumb on stuff like this is I would ask you the following......

If I was to wear your armor, and you wore minimums, would it be ok for me to trip and fall onto you? Oh, and by the way, have another person then fall on top of me on top of you? Because this will happen in a press in bridge battles, etc.

It's a little hard to tell from your photo, but they do look a little pointy. Although if you wanted to wear them in a tourney only, especially one with more period emphasis, then it would probably be OK.

Chris

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 9:08 pm
by Tomburr
dukelogan wrote:and this is the main problem with the marshallate. too much of this "what if" and "well i think that". the rules are simple, our sport is very safe, and marshals need to learn to follow the letter and not engage in "could might possibly maybe" stuff coupled with the misconception that the human machine is fragile. i mean i still see folks on the field in spurs (with heads all over the ground), hay bales, and dark victory junk.

regards
logan

igelkott wrote:The 1/2" rule into an eyeslot doesn't apply to armor. My rule of thumb on stuff like this is I would ask you the following......

If I was to wear your armor, and you wore minimums, would it be ok for me to trip and fall onto you? Oh, and by the way, have another person then fall on top of me on top of you? Because this will happen in a press in bridge battles, etc.

It's a little hard to tell from your photo, but they do look a little pointy. Although if you wanted to wear them in a tourney only, especially one with more period emphasis, then it would probably be OK.

Chris


Logan has the right of it. Its not the place of marshals to play nanny, they are there to enforce the existing rules and not "legislate form the bench", so to speak.

If you don't want other peoples' armour bits pressed deeply into your flesh, try wearing more than minimum armour. Its your choice not to cover yourself for that eventuality, not your right to tell others how to dress themselves beyond the rules.

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:39 pm
by losthelm
I am a bit hesitant to allow it....
Mostly because its behind glass at a museum.


I am in favor of besegews like those pictured if they fit with the rest of your kit.

The besegews look about as sharp as rugby spikes and the location makes it a lot harder to drive the spike into any tender spots.
My only concern is care in the florida weather.

Re: SCA legality question on some besegews.

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:54 pm
by dukelogan
to answer you question directly, no.... nobody can point out a rule that would disallow them. the rules, of course, are available for your review at: www.sca.org under the earl marshala tab. then, you ca go the http://trimaris.org/marshal although our website is really not laid out well. somewhere there is a link to the trimarian marshals handbook. ignoring all of the grammatical and formatting errors its a pretty easy read. should answer most of your questions. those that are not answered, or are unclear, can easily be answered with a quick email to our earl marshal. hes a pretty cool guy. :wink:

regards
logan

JvR wrote:I dont know much about SCA armour requirements but will one day play in the SCA. I have a set of besegews for my black and white harness like in the picture. (yeah I know, I have a harness but don't play)

Since the SCA does not allow grappling, I wonder if these would be ok? They have a little point in the middle and wondered if it was a no go as I know the SCA is pretty strict.

Could someone also point out the ruling that would disallow or allow them?

I will ask my local marshal as well if I ever make it to a practice or an event. I just wanted to get a broad opinion on this for now.

pics
Image

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:14 am
by Thorstenn
Well the tuna can cod piece creeps me out but it's legal too!!

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:08 am
by Peikko
Baron Alcyoneus wrote:Aren't tree limbs and twigs padded at Pennsic? ;)


No...definitely not :lol:

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:52 am
by dukelogan
ooooohhhhh weve all seen worse at pennsic :shock:

thor, did you get my email?

regards
logan

Thorstenn wrote:Well the tuna can cod piece creeps me out but it's legal too!!

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:33 am
by JvR
Thanks for the info guys. Downloaded the handbook.

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:50 am
by JvR
Thorstenn wrote:I am the Trimarian Earl Marshal. I would have no problem with them at all as long as they don't stick out 3 inches and don't come to a sharp point. If the tip is rounded just a bit it might be better for inter Kingdom events. As I cannot guarantee other Kingdoms approval, I would go to bat for these to be legal.
If a local Marshall gives you grief, send it up to me :wink:

Thor.


They are about 3" and the point may be considered sharp by some. I can push them into my hand and they wont break the skin. No more sharp than my elbow fans. Cant be much worse than spurs. I just might use these for steel fighting if I ever get into that, and have a pair made for SCA with solid rubber spikes.

For now I am just playing around with my armour. I will one day fight in it in the SCA. Thats for sure. Hopefully sometime next summer.

The local Marshall is a great guy and I trust his judgment so that wont be an issue. If he wasn't comfortable with them I would be 100% ok with his ruling. I just thought I would toss out the question on here.