The Armour Archive

maybe i should move to an tir. seems so much more reasonable.

i agree 100% with what youre saying. but apparently in atlantia we just arent bright enough to understand. this came about, i believe, based on a disagreement at a local event.

there was a charge on a bridge that i called for. one of my guys ran up to a spearman that was rather effectivly killing people and he belly bumped him off the bridge. the spearman was left handed and was on their left (our right) side of the bridge with his back to the fighters and his front facing off the bridge. so, charging him and placing his shield into the spearmans weapon was impossible. even charging him from the front and hitting his spear was impossible since his right shoulder was facing forward. now in atlantia we have this stupid rule so that spearman, no matter who tries to argue otherwise, is safe against any charge. standing next to him to hit him with a weapon would be stupid since the spearman had lots of support. so i sent my guy.

anyway, he knocked the fighter off the bridge and, with him out of teh way, i led a charge deep into their line. while that was going on a marshal decided to lose his mind and started screaming at my guy demanding he apologize to the fighter he took off the bridge. my guy, by the way, also ended up getting pushed from behind and falling forward off the bridge right after he bumped the spearman. once i found out about this frenzied marshal i went to our earl marshal to ask him to deal with his subordinate (which he did). but he then told me that my guy was, in fact, in direct violation of the rules. i asked him to produce the rule that states body to body contact was illegal. he couldnt but said he was sure of it.

now, several months later, this new atlnatian rule is dropped on us without any discussion. i prompted a discussion on our chiv list and was surprised to see a couple of people that thought there was a rule that stated it was illegal. so i started this thread to see who else is mis-informed. so far it seem like there is a very small percentage of people that think there is a rule against it. grappling, by definition, is something completely different. this is a charging convention not one of wrestling.

until this rule is done away with (and i have no doubt it will be) we, in atlantia, will have to change a lot of things. we will, of course, comply. i just hope this is taken care of before pennsic or our guys will not have the impact (literally) on the field that we normally have. you said it right daniel, pushing and shoving is part of the game. at least, in the rest of the wrold.

regards
logan

Sir Daniel wrote:Ok I'll say it again. You guys are making it way too coplicated.

This won't be resolved by writing yet another rule for people to poke holes into and dance around.

Pushing and shoving is part of the game.

Purposely trying to hurt someone, or negligently acting so that there is a high probability of injury, is against the rules.

It's all about training the Marsahls and the Chiv controlling the fighter training (and sometimes controlling the over-exuberant Marshals as well ).

My perception is that some areas of the country have allowed the Marshals to set the saftey agenda and now are wishing we were ruled by common sense rather than written rules.

Sir Daniel wrote:Ok I'll say it again. You guys are making it way too coplicated.

This won't be resolved by writing yet another rule for people to poke holes into and dance around.

Pushing and shoving is part of the game.

Purposely trying to hurt someone, or negligently acting so that there is a high probability of injury, is against the rules.

It's all about training the Marsahls and the Chiv controlling the fighter training (and sometimes controlling the over-exuberant Marshals as well ).

My perception is that some areas of the country have allowed the Marshals to set the saftey agenda and now are wishing we were ruled by common sense rather than written rules.

well said.

Vebrand

dukelogan wrote:maybe i should move to an tir. seems so much more reasonable.

You're not a Viking. You wouldn't look right there.

dukelogan wrote:

Koredono wrote:I really am sorry that you fail to understand my reasoning and interpretation of the rules as written, so I'll try once again, and with some attempts at the explanations behind the rules, where I can.

First, let me reiterate what I believe the rules to state in this instance:

Body-on-shield (i.e. initiated by the 'body'), body-on-weapon, weapon-on-weapon, weapon-on-body, weapon-on-shield, shield-on-weapon, and shield-on-shield contact is all legal, and body-on-body and shield-on-body contact are not (not getting into the amount of force at contact for the moment). Once legal contact occurs, the 'defender' (for lack of a better term) is allowed to respond with the same amount and kind of force against the 'aggressor' while contact continues uninterrupted, even if initiating such contact would otherwise be illegal (and as it happens, the only instance of that is a shield responding to body-on-shield contact). During legal contact, either combattant may engage in various kinds of pushing, manipulation, &c but not things like tripping, grappling, &c or even grabbing hold of an opponent's shield (though grabbing his weapon on a non-striking-surface is fine).

Do you understand my interpretation of the the rules as I've stated them, even if you don't understand or agree with my reasoning or interpretation?

i do understand and agree with you with one exception. that being my understanding of shield to body contact. it is my interpretation that striking someone with your shield is not allowed. it is also my interpretation that contact, not striking, is allowed between the shield and the body.

By my interpretation of the rules that is not allowed if initiated by the shield, IMO partially for safety reasons and partially for marshallate enforcement reasons (marshals have a hard enough time following everything's that's going on in a crush that I can accept some leeway to make their job a little less difficult); and unless the line is drawn at some clearly obvious point, and held to it, the regulation slowly becomes unenforceable until it its norm becomes something radically different than was intended (not saying I know exactly what was intended in this case, BTW).

Again, that's only my interpretation of the rules, though it does seem to be the prevailing one where I'm from.

dukelogan wrote:i cant reconcile a difference between stating contacting the body with a shield is dangerous while at the same time stating that contacting the shield with the body is perfectly fine.

I stated it as plainly as I could, based on my interpretation of what was the reasoning behind the rule, which boils down to that, in the whole of likely combat circumstances, 'body-on-shield' contact is far less dangerous than 'shield-on-body' contact, acknowledging that we can't regulate the force of such contact in the vast majority of instances.

dukelogan wrote:i also find it hard to reconcile the idea that its ok for a person to "put their body at risk" by making body to sheild contact. we dont have those choices. for example, i cant make the choice to not fight with a helmet on. so why, if body to shield contact is so dangerous why dont we ban it? it cant be safe one way and unsafe the other.

Sure it can. If we're willing to admit that, in general, body-to-shield / shield-to-body contact is more likely to inflict damage on the 'body', which I certainly believe to be the case, and that the 'body' has a much clearer view of where on the 'body' the contact / impact with the shield is going to take place, and that the 'body' has a higher regard for the safety of the 'body', then it should be obvious that such contact between 'body' and 'shield' is going to be far safer if the 'body' initiates it. Once contact occurs, the difference in danger levels between 'body' and 'shield' decreases dramatically, which is why it is allright for the 'shield' to equally counter any maneuever made by the 'body' during such contact.

dukelogan wrote:

Koredono wrote:As for the the reasoning behind this set of rules, I can only guess - I was not in on the conversations or circumstances which created these regulations and conventions, some of which probably pre-date my involvement in the SCA, let alone my experience as a marshal (closing in on 20 years); nonetheless, here are my guesses for why the rules are as they are, but keep in my that they are only guesses, though after much thought:

[snip]

3. Body-on-body contact: This is an extension of the 'no grappling' regulations, which includes (but is not limited to) things like throws, joint locks, &c, which are safe enough in a controlled and skilled martial arts environment but almost certainly not in a chaotic melee environment, but also prevents injury from things like being struck with armor made from rigid materials which has a cross-section significantly smaller than 1.25" and could easily to real damage even if unintended.

here i strongly disagree. grappling is controlling someone by grasping them. bumping someone is not controlling them but repositioning them.

By most dictionary definitions, you are right; by the Society Marshal, however,

Marshal's Handbook addendum, Aug 4 2003 wrote:Grappling is any intentional or overt contact of hands/feet/appendages to the other fighter’s person. Pushing, slapping, tripping, knee leverages and falling on, head butting, etc., all apply. Incidental contact, during a charge for example, is not the same thing and is going to happen. Allowances have to be made during Melee/close combat. I am not saying incidental contact will not be made during tourney fighting but the occurrence is low and the differences clearer.

I suppose by some interpretation of the exact wording above, it might be legal if during a moment of purely incidental contact, which continued for whatever reason, someone could then begin to push against a 'body' woth their body or shield, but we both know that such an ruling wouldn't hold up for even the first melee at which it was attempted; fighters would work to make things look incidental, but were in fact completely premeditated.

dukelogan wrote:it is also no different than charging into someone shield to shield. i would also argue that its safer and easier to control.

And I would argue the exact opposite - with shield to shield contact, there is less active concern for your own and your opponent's likelihood of injury, and it's less likely to occur, because you've got shields in the way, after all, so you can concentrate more fully on the actual charge and subsequent contact, and it is easier to control.

dukelogan wrote:i do understand the concern about someone wearing steel (or whatever) armor and the potential for possible, maybe, injury from contact with an unarmored body. i personally havent seen armor that protrudes that much with dangerous pieces that would cause any injury.

I have too - the biggest offenders are really big wings on elbow and knee cops and oversized pauldrons, but there are other things, like protruding bolts, rivets, and the like that can (and do) occur anywhere on an armor.

dukelogan wrote:either way, its all about control. for example, we are not guarenteed safety when someone charges shield to shield.

No, we're not. But injury is IMO far less likely in that instance than in shield-on-body or body-on-body. And to be honest, if everyone on the field had even 1/10th of the control you do, I would have no problem with it. But since they don't, and we can't make different rules based on an individuals skill, the rules have to be for the lower common denominator on the field, for everyone's safety.

dukelogan wrote:you stated your knight could hit someone with more force from 2" than most people. imagine what he could do if he applied everything he could in a larger space?

Then everyone would run in terror for their lives.

No, seriously, it would be scary, and I'm very glad that he has the control to not do what he fully able, to go along with the ability to do what he can do.

And while only a very small percentage of humans has those kinds of abilities, enough of the combattants are potentially scary enough, without those kinds of hard-learned inherent controls, that we have to have rules in place to at least strongly discourage, if not completely prevent, their use of their full damage-causing potential.

dukelogan wrote:the safety is protected by the individual not wholly by the rules.

At some level, yes; but the rules are in place both to provide a reasonably level playing field and to make it reasonably safe for everyone as well; otherwise, we wouldn't have rules against 'excessive force' or how weapons could be built, let alone armor standards. And, if an individual has shown themselves to be unsafe within the rules structure, that's when they're authorization gets pulled.

dukelogan wrote:

Koredono wrote:Are there any questions on these fronts which you have which I've failed to cover, and you've failed to understand (even if you don't agree with them)?

no, i understand your ideas and agree with most fo them. thank you for taking the time to communicate your thoughts. only through the candid sharing of ideas can we ever hope to understand one another.

I agree completely; for all of the ruffled feathers that occur on this board (with some astonishing regularity), I really think that it has done more for unifying the combat standards and conventions across the SCA since its inception than the interkingdom wars and marshals meetings of the previous ten to fifteen years.

dukelogan wrote:sorry, i wasnt asking you to justify the rules but, rather, your interpretation of them. which you have done to some extent with this response. thank you.

No problem. I really do want us to all be on the same page, and if it takes me a while to organize my thoughts enough for even the beginnings of understanding to occur between us, then IMO it's worth it.

sort of in response to koredono but mostly in response to all those who believe body to body contact is dangerous i really must ask.

can any of you cite any example of how body to body contact has caused an injury in sca sport combat? not a bunch of what ifs and might bes but actual cases where someone has been injured through body to body contact.

it seem to be the mantra of the anti body to body crowd that the technique of body bumping someone is unsafe. it is my contention that unsafe actions are unsafe and i know factually that body to body contact is, indeed, safe. ive done it for 15 years and never once has anyone been injured because of it. im willing to suggest that the societal rules be changed to address body to body contact if someone can demonstrate that it is a safety issue.

so, anyone got anything?

thanks
logan

Gentlemen,
I know that this may not answer the queries or concerns posted but the opinion that I quote below is by Duke Paul of Bellatrix, taken from the "Ask Duke Paul" section of AA. It addresses a few of the opinions raised here on this thread.

Body-body contact

Actually, Duke Logan's thread is the first time I've personally noticed this becoming a point of controversy. My personal opinion is that Duke Logan and Sir Daniel are correct, that it is just common sense to allow it, if it's not done with sufficient force to actually injure - just like sword blows. Unfortunately, it's also my opinion that Koredono's interpretation - that it is illegal, is a reasonable interpretation of the rules. I think that the rule needs to be fixed. If I were marshalling, and I saw someone being "belly bumped" off of the bridge, I would say nothing, as long as it didn't include "excessive force".

I look forward to more discourse such as this as I continue to relearn the rules of our combat.

dukelogan wrote:sort of in response to koredono but mostly in response to all those who believe body to body contact is dangerous i really must ask.

Let me state that I do not think that body-to-body contact is really that dangerous, under many circumstances; I gave possibility of injury as a guess as to why it's against the regulations. Whether I've guessed the reasoning behind it is not really important; that I enforce it on the field fairly is. And if you have a problem with any of the Society regulations (which I believe this to be, regardless of the new regulation instituted at your kingdom level), the person to contact is the Society Earl Marshal, either directly or through your kingdom's Earl Marshal (which, given other statements you've made, I find the former far more likely to occur at this time), and voice your opinions and concerns to him.

dukelogan wrote:can any of you cite any example of how body to body contact has caused an injury in sca sport combat? not a bunch of what ifs and might bes but actual cases where someone has been injured through body to body contact.

As for lack of evidence citing injuries that have occurred from it, well, given that's been illegal (or, at least, in many places believed to be illegal, which possibly has even more weight) for at least as long as I've been fighting - I was taught it was against the rules when I first began, though it may easily have been a kingdom rule or convention - it by and large hasn't been done; it's sort of like asking why in a country where personal ownership of forearms is illegal there are far fewer shooting deaths.

Also, our fighting community is notorious for not reporting injuries incurred on the field; I'm aware of more than a few broken bones and other fairly major injuries that never got into the official record, all because the recipient actively chose not to file the report.

That said, I have seen (or heard reports from reliable sources) of injuries incurred from body-on-body contact, but most of that has occurred as a result of accidents or clumsiness on the field, almost always during charges or presses - heads into bodies, legs and arms being twisted, armor driven into unarmed but still legal target areas, &c, not to mention people tripping and doing headers into opponents while at full charge speed.

I know that these aren't the types of incidents and injuries you're referring to - you're talking about injuries that occur when the contact goes, within some degree, as the initiator intends it. But they're exactly the sort of incidents which I believe certainly could become common if all body-to-body contact became legal across the Society, and would not be surprised if an incident of this nature, perhaps back in the deeps of time, was what caused this rule to be instituted in the first place.

Again, I don't know why it was done, I'm just guessing.

dukelogan wrote:it seem to be the mantra of the anti body to body crowd that the technique of body bumping someone is unsafe. it is my contention that unsafe actions are unsafe and i know factually that body to body contact is, indeed, safe. ive done it for 15 years and never once has anyone been injured because of it. im willing to suggest that the societal rules be changed to address body to body contact if someone can demonstrate that it is a safety issue.

Again, we're back to relative number of incidents and personal control.

As you stated in a previous post, when you brought it up on the Atlantian Chivalry list, some there thought it was illegal, along with some significant percentage of the Atlantian marshallate (including the Earl Marshal, who I know has been fighting quite a long time, since when I met him 15 years ago and he was already an well-established fighter). And if they believe it to be illegal, that's what they're going to teach succeeding generations of marshals and their students, so the likelihood of anyone doing it intentionally who's been taught by them is fairly low.

If, on the other hand, the only group that's been doing this with any regularity in your kingdom are you and yours (meaning both your household, your immediate geographic vicinity, those who trained you and they subsequently trained, and any others you and yours may have trained), then it's not surprising that a) there's relatively little historical record of injuries resulting from this, and b) it took so long for the marshallate to notice the issue and do something to actively close that loophole (even though, to my mind, it was an explicit clarification of Society regulations and not a new kingdom regulation).

That you have not injured anyone doing this during your fighting career is commendable, and shows your control on the field as well as your concern for the well-being of your fellow combattants; that does not mean that everyone else is nearly as in control of themeselves and their environment on the field as you, and because we are so inclusive, we have to legislate for the other end of the spectrum.

dukelogan wrote: so, anyone got anything?

thanks
logan

i have a question...

If the SEM makes a printed interpretation of a rule, does that not make it that it is how it should be taken?

August 4, 2003:

I just got done telling the Rapier community about this, so I guess this is timely.
I believe that a common misconception persists about grappling; to wit, it only consists of "grabbing". Now, I know that the Society level rules are not very explicit but I'm about to fix that.

Grappling is any intentional or overt contact of hands/feet/appendages to the other fighter’s person. Pushing, slapping, tripping, knee leverages and falling on, head butting, etc., all apply. Incidental contact, during a charge for example, is not the same thing and is going to happen. Allowances have to be made during Melee/close combat. I am not saying incidental contact will not be made during tourney fighting but the occurrence is low and the differences clearer.

ok, so no, you can not cite an example of someone being injured from body to body contact.

as far as the practice being something of just my guys (region, hh, etc) i would say that its not isolated. i have seen many bumps off of a bridge by many atlantian fighters. these have occured at every event ive been to in which there has been a limited frontage scenario. in fact, i dont think i have ever seen a bridge battle in my life where someone didnt engage in body to body contact during a scrum or a charge. its pretty much impossible in a scrum on a bridge for everyone to have their weapons or shields in front of them. its never been a problem and ive never seen anyone get harmed by it. but now, here in atlantia, the holds are going to be baffling. i mean if a rule, so clearly written as ours is, is being violated we are duty sworn to enforce it. personally i wont fight in those scenarios any more because of the circus they will surely be. but it will make for an entertaining display nonetheless.

regards
logan

Koredono wrote:

dukelogan wrote:sort of in response to koredono but mostly in response to all those who believe body to body contact is dangerous i really must ask.

Let me state that I do not think that body-to-body contact is really that dangerous, under many circumstances; I gave possibility of injury as a guess as to why it's against the regulations. Whether I've guessed the reasoning behind it is not really important; that I enforce it on the field fairly is. And if you have a problem with any of the Society regulations (which I believe this to be, regardless of the new regulation instituted at your kingdom level), the person to contact is the Society Earl Marshal, either directly or through your kingdom's Earl Marshal (which, given other statements you've made, I find the former far more likely to occur at this time), and voice your opinions and concerns to him.

dukelogan wrote:can any of you cite any example of how body to body contact has caused an injury in sca sport combat? not a bunch of what ifs and might bes but actual cases where someone has been injured through body to body contact.

As for lack of evidence citing injuries that have occurred from it, well, given that's been illegal (or, at least, in many places believed to be illegal, which possibly has even more weight) for at least as long as I've been fighting - I was taught it was against the rules when I first began, though it may easily have been a kingdom rule or convention - it by and large hasn't been done; it's sort of like asking why in a country where personal ownership of forearms is illegal there are far fewer shooting deaths.

Also, our fighting community is notorious for not reporting injuries incurred on the field; I'm aware of more than a few broken bones and other fairly major injuries that never got into the official record, all because the recipient actively chose not to file the report.

That said, I have seen (or heard reports from reliable sources) of injuries incurred from body-on-body contact, but most of that has occurred as a result of accidents or clumsiness on the field, almost always during charges or presses - heads into bodies, legs and arms being twisted, armor driven into unarmed but still legal target areas, &c, not to mention people tripping and doing headers into opponents while at full charge speed.

I know that these aren't the types of incidents and injuries you're referring to - you're talking about injuries that occur when the contact goes, within some degree, as the initiator intends it. But they're exactly the sort of incidents which I believe certainly could become common if all body-to-body contact became legal across the Society, and would not be surprised if an incident of this nature, perhaps back in the deeps of time, was what caused this rule to be instituted in the first place.

Again, I don't know why it was done, I'm just guessing.

dukelogan wrote:it seem to be the mantra of the anti body to body crowd that the technique of body bumping someone is unsafe. it is my contention that unsafe actions are unsafe and i know factually that body to body contact is, indeed, safe. ive done it for 15 years and never once has anyone been injured because of it. im willing to suggest that the societal rules be changed to address body to body contact if someone can demonstrate that it is a safety issue.

Again, we're back to relative number of incidents and personal control.

As you stated in a previous post, when you brought it up on the Atlantian Chivalry list, some there thought it was illegal, along with some significant percentage of the Atlantian marshallate (including the Earl Marshal, who I know has been fighting quite a long time, since when I met him 15 years ago and he was already an well-established fighter). And if they believe it to be illegal, that's what they're going to teach succeeding generations of marshals and their students, so the likelihood of anyone doing it intentionally who's been taught by them is fairly low.

If, on the other hand, the only group that's been doing this with any regularity in your kingdom are you and yours (meaning both your household, your immediate geographic vicinity, those who trained you and they subsequently trained, and any others you and yours may have trained), then it's not surprising that a) there's relatively little historical record of injuries resulting from this, and b) it took so long for the marshallate to notice the issue and do something to actively close that loophole (even though, to my mind, it was an explicit clarification of Society regulations and not a new kingdom regulation).

That you have not injured anyone doing this during your fighting career is commendable, and shows your control on the field as well as your concern for the well-being of your fellow combattants; that does not mean that everyone else is nearly as in control of themeselves and their environment on the field as you, and because we are so inclusive, we have to legislate for the other end of the spectrum.

dukelogan wrote: so, anyone got anything?

thanks
logan

Ok Logan I cite examples. Drachenwald in the mid 90s I was one on the receiving end of an out of control charge in a small melee. A fighter (fairly new and heavy) did an out of control body charge into my line. I ws fighting glaive and ended up catch him on my shoulder and he was killed by someone else. On his way down he pulled my elbow and should so bad I was out of fighting for several weeks. I also had a guy submarine into my knee one time and my knee has never been the same since. That however was someone who was out to hurt me at the time even though he claimed it was an accident. There is also Grimfells Blood of Heroes event (great event by the way) where one of the participates trying to stop a quick put his shoulder into the lower body of a fighter and the overall hit broke the person’s leg.

Do I consider body on body dangerous? Not really if done right. I consider poorly trained fighters and out of controlled fighters to be dangerous. As said above training and communication is the most important. The question is drawing a line for all.

Vebrand

What we have is a rule that is an attempt to control overzealous activity, plain and simple. At issue is the belief on whether that part of the activity is dangerous.

It is not enough to simply point out that the rule itself is flawed, (which I believe it to be) but also there is a requirement to come up with a suggestion on how to properly formulate the edict. A complaint without a solution is nothing but noise and whining, so far as I am concerned.

I believe there are 2 situations that need to be addressed:
1) *is* the rule bad? This is a simple yes or no.

2) of no. then done. If yes.. what is the PROPER formulation of the ruleset?

Remember, we have differing mindsets across the knowne worlde, and the concept of "safe" varies from Kingdom to Kingdom. Having grown up where I did, and learned from those who taught me, I have no issue with body to body contact, nor do I have issue with shield to body contact done without intent. I *also* grew up with the "no more than 3-steps-in-a-charge rule in effect, which seems to now be gone.

The thing here is... we have two options: a) attempt to word an air-tight, lawyer-proof, least-common-denominator ruleset [which is what is being attempted] or b) write up the rule such that the SPIRIT is obvious and allow the marshals to use judgement. I personally prefer option "b" but that means we have to really train marshals.. which I see lacking in many places.

For me, and ideal ruleset would be something like:
1) fight with Honor
2) don't break your toys. (toys include other fighters)

In this particular case.. we have a new Society Marshal since the last ruling on b-t-b contact. Perhaps we should request a new clarification?

Malcolm

Posted by dukelogan:

ok, so no, you can not cite an example of someone being injured from body to body contact.

Me; sprained ankle when I was knocked off my feet by some enormous Atlantian in 1984. And that's when I was a young whippersnapper; nowadays I wouldn't want to chance it. I'm still recovering from a ruptured quadriceps tendon I got by simply slipping on a wet driveway; the same thing could happen if some obese peer "belly-bumped" me when I wasn't ready.

Logan, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you only "belly-bump" fighters of your approximate size, and are careful not to actually knock them down. I'll even assume that by "belly-bump" you mean that you come up to the fighter, come to a stop when your gut makes contact with his body, and then slowly but firmly push him -- not that you just run into him like a linebacker. If that's the case, I'd accept allowing that sort of contact, as long as there was an explicit, written, enforced rule against deliberately charging into somebody and using your abdomen as a battering ram. (Not sure how I'd word that, exactly.)

Knocking somebody down is far more dangerous than hitting his armoured body with a stick. I hope that we get a consistent rule against this, Society-wide.

yeah what happend to the 3 steps charge rule... i cannot find it anymore... and it was there about a year ago..

but yes.. perhaps someone should have the SEM look into this, as it seems a good area for a new ruling...

personally, i have no problem with a little pushing.. but we have to remember that there are alot of guys out there under club 100 (kg = 200 pounds or more), and some of those are fragile, either due to fragile bone structure or many other conditions...

and it would not help to double their chances of getting an injury in a fight...
and the last thing i would ever like to do, is hurt another person..

so i think we should get a more concrete ruling that body to body contact is not allowed when it's done with intent, but it will happen in small sizes when you are in fighting close and standing against one another in a big unit...

again, i don't mind the more hard style, but this game should be fun for all that want to put on armor...

Titus Flavius wrote:yeah what happend to the 3 steps charge rule... i cannot find it anymore... and it was there about a year ago...

The rule states: "...a discernable break in speed..." I believe the 3 step charge was another interpretation of a rule by a former SEM and not specifically written into law. But since nothing else has come out since then most people are still following/teaching this practice.

yeah thats another dumb rule. it states that i can run top speed (and yes, that means i fall face forward. not sure why i do that every single time ) but, i can gain a lot of velocity and plant my back heel just as i blast my 28lb shield into some guys spear shaft. or, better yet, his shield that he stupidly has covering his eyes so he has no idea when the hit is actually going to happen.

the 3 step rule was equally stupid. you can generate enough force in three steps to be effective.

i understand the intent and this, i think, goes back to enforcing the spirit of the rule and not writing more rules (by fiat) in a feable attempt to "safeguard" all of us. good solid hits are great. going full tilt into someone probably isnt. here is an example:

so, out of armor i am 6' 1" 250lbs. if i have a guy that is 400lbs in front of me i will hit his shield (in a charge) with a great deal of intent. if he is in a limited front battle (a doorway for example) and there ae bodies pressed up behind him, i will hit him even harder. more than likely i will do that with my shoulder and not my shield since im probably trying to break through his line and not simply knock him down/off a bridge.

if, however, i am covering ground and the target is some 100lb wee little fella i will hit with less intent. if that wee person is in the front of a limited frontage battle, well, thats a dumb place to be. will i blast him with as much force as the 400lb'er? probably not. no need to. if i level him i would most likely not be balanced as i pass over him into the back field.

point is, its about control. writing these extra rules servees nothing. each marshal has a different opinion on the "gray rules". if a guy whacks another guy during sca sport combat in the shin, thats easy. no good, please dont do it again. if he does, then its a control issue. i see a guy rush a spearman on a bridge and bump him with his gut to knock him out of the way/off the bridge so that he either is no longer killing guys or, he is cleared so the belly bumping guys mates can no safely charge the bridge to get inthe back field, i think that is great. some think that its illegal or somehow unsafe.

in atlantia we have addressed the confusion is the worst possible way. we wrote (by fiat) a rule that completely changes the flow and spirit of battle. we are not alone in bad ideas and other kingdoms make poor choices also. but, on a societal level we all seem to be in different chapters of the same book. some people have citing examples of out of control people (either accidently or intentionaly) contributing to injury. a guy slips and his helmet hits another guys chest is not, in any way, related to body on body contact. a guy slips and his body hits another guys body, is not in any way related to body on body contact. a guy covering ground using his body to bump someone in an attempt to reposition them is, completely, related to body on body contact as it is intentional and planned. the question then becomes "was it done with control or was this guy out of control and being dangerous?".

the gray rules need to all be gone. i do not think that many of us (sca) are confused about the sport and its spirit. play hard, play for real, follow the rules. the rest is easy. anything added simply dilutes the expirence.

anyway, just some thoughts.

regards
logan

ColinG wrote:

Titus Flavius wrote:yeah what happend to the 3 steps charge rule... i cannot find it anymore... and it was there about a year ago...

The rule states: "...a discernable break in speed..." I believe the 3 step charge was another interpretation of a rule by a former SEM and not specifically written into law. But since nothing else has come out since then most people are still following/teaching this practice.

Titus Flavius wrote:yeah what happend to the 3 steps charge rule... i cannot find it anymore... and it was there about a year ago..

but yes.. perhaps someone should have the SEM look into this, as it seems a good area for a new ruling...

personally, i have no problem with a little pushing.. but we have to remember that there are alot of guys out there under club 100 (kg = 200 pounds or more), and some of those are fragile, either due to fragile bone structure or many other conditions...


there are other, non contact, sports in the sca for fragile people. i know plenty of little guys that do just fine in sca sport combat. if they can not handle bigger guys hitting them with whatever then this isnt the sport for them. it is, after all, a hobby. i like basketball but cant handle playing with guys that are 7' 1" because im too short. i should not ask them to play down to me.

and it would not help to double their chances of getting an injury in a fight...
and the last thing i would ever like to do, is hurt another person..

so i think we should get a more concrete ruling that body to body contact is not allowed when it's done with intent, but it will happen in small sizes when you are in fighting close and standing against one another in a big unit...

i would agree if there was anything to suggest that the activity itself was dangerous. it isnt and we dont have any documentation (thus far) that it has caused injury. additionally we know it is going to happen so making a rule against it serves nothing. if, however, it can be shown that b2b contact is dangerous i would certainly agree with you.

again, i don't mind the more hard style, but this game should be fun for all that want to put on armor...

i could not disagree more. the sport is enjoyable to those that accept what it is and choose to participate within its ruleset. if they agree to those terms they will have a fun time. but if they simply want to just put on armor we can not ensure they will have fun.

regards
logan

certainly sounds like this guy needed to get shanked in the parking lot. but it sounds to me like he had a control issue. the shoulder to the thigh is not at all what im talking about. that is clearly dangerous (without shoulder pads on) and clearly not within the spirit of sca sport combat that i think most all of us prescribe to.

hey, pm me some info on this grimfells blood of heroes event. im mic of two upcoming events and am looking for some ideas for the fighting since im not doing any multi-person scenarios now because i dont want to have to call a hold and repremand fighters every time they make b2b contact.

regards
logan

Vebrand wrote:Ok Logan I cite examples. Drachenwald in the mid 90s I was one on the receiving end of an out of control charge in a small melee. A fighter (fairly new and heavy) did an out of control body charge into my line. I ws fighting glaive and ended up catch him on my shoulder and he was killed by someone else. On his way down he pulled my elbow and should so bad I was out of fighting for several weeks. I also had a guy submarine into my knee one time and my knee has never been the same since. That however was someone who was out to hurt me at the time even though he claimed it was an accident. There is also Grimfells Blood of Heroes event (great event by the way) where one of the participates trying to stop a quick put his shoulder into the lower body of a fighter and the overall hit broke the person’s leg.

Do I consider body on body dangerous? Not really if done right. I consider poorly trained fighters and out of controlled fighters to be dangerous. As said above training and communication is the most important. The question is drawing a line for all.

Vebrand

dukelogan wrote:
the gray rules need to all be gone. i do not think that many of us (sca) are confused about the sport and its spirit. play hard, play for real, follow the rules. the rest is easy. anything added simply dilutes the expirence.

anyway, just some thoughts.

regards
logan

Unfortunately most of the crappy rules out there are an attempt to legislate to the least common denominator(as mentioned my Malcolm earlier). Being the organization that the SCA truly is, we almost cater to this low ball fighter by creating rules that they can then justify their own actions.

The problem of fixing this type of problem comes from the diversity of opinions. I know that this is an Atlantian rule so it doesn't really effect me, but if I did I would be compelled by common sense to agree with Logan. Unless this was some type of problem, why try to fix it.

Odo, adding my thoughts for what it is worth

dukelogan wrote:
point is, its about control. writing these extra rules servees nothing. each marshal has a different opinion on the "gray rules".

the question then becomes "was it done with control or was this guy out of control and being dangerous?".

the gray rules need to all be gone.
regards
logan

Bingo. There it is. Control. Of course, it's also training. I don't think we train fighters as much as we used to. Maybe it's just me and my greying-haired, cataract-formin' old-fart eyes and all but I remember feeling like I was jumping through hoops before Duke Richard would authorize me as a fighter.. and even MORE hoops when I auth'd as a marshal. Personal responsibility falls on the fighter to know the rules and abide by what they MEAN. The whole "lawyer" mentality of "it's ok because you don't say I can't" is counter to the concepts that the Society is based on. Fighters need to be trained to be IN control and to recognize when they are not. Marshals need to be trained to be observant to the battles and look for broken armor, weapons, people and tempers. They're not referees, nor are they there for any other reason than to see and intervene in situations that have spiralled out of control. Both Marshals and Fighters need to know what is expected of them, and plan to be held accountable.

But then, that's what "should" be. .. What *is*... well.. is different. For now, we want rules that are cut, dried, and easily observable. The "whack onna shin" is obvious. "Intent" in a charge is a different matter entirely... how do you tell? More importantly .. how do you tell that a guy is "in control" during a charge? This is where trained marshals are different from "guys with black and gold sticks."

So, we seem to mostly agree that there *is* a bit of an issue. The real question is..what do we do about it?

Malcolm

that, i believe, is the perfect mindset for this sport. if only more people were as clear. to answer your questions directly i will offer my opinion:

I believe there are 2 situations that need to be addressed:
1) *is* the rule bad? This is a simple yes or no.

2) of no. then done. If yes.. what is the PROPER formulation of the ruleset?

1) yes. its a horrible, stupid rule.

2) i dont think we need anything to address b2b contact since i dont hink its a concern. however, it can be as simple as:

body to body contact is allowable as long as that contact is not an attempt at grappling or violates the expectation of safe conduct on the field.

that way if some moron throws his shoulder into someones knee in a charge (that wasnt caused by a slip) he can be dealt with via the safe conduct convention. if a guy sits on the edge of a bridge with his back to the rest of the fighters (a right handed spearman on the right edge of the bridge) a charging shieldman has the option of kncoking him off the bridge with his softer than a shield body.

i love a hard fought game. i do not want to see us go to grappling as i think that will limit who can compete to a very very few of us. i also do not want to see us allow shield to body striking as i think the amount of force is borderline to too much. hard fought can be controlled, safe, enjoyable, testing, rewarding. rules are needed but being choked by rules or being burdened with poorly thought out rules does no good at all.

regards
logan

Heairn wrote:What we have is a rule that is an attempt to control overzealous activity, plain and simple. At issue is the belief on whether that part of the activity is dangerous.

It is not enough to simply point out that the rule itself is flawed, (which I believe it to be) but also there is a requirement to come up with a suggestion on how to properly formulate the edict. A complaint without a solution is nothing but noise and whining, so far as I am concerned.

I believe there are 2 situations that need to be addressed:
1) *is* the rule bad? This is a simple yes or no.

2) of no. then done. If yes.. what is the PROPER formulation of the ruleset?

Remember, we have differing mindsets across the knowne worlde, and the concept of "safe" varies from Kingdom to Kingdom. Having grown up where I did, and learned from those who taught me, I have no issue with body to body contact, nor do I have issue with shield to body contact done without intent. I *also* grew up with the "no more than 3-steps-in-a-charge rule in effect, which seems to now be gone.

The thing here is... we have two options: a) attempt to word an air-tight, lawyer-proof, least-common-denominator ruleset [which is what is being attempted] or b) write up the rule such that the SPIRIT is obvious and allow the marshals to use judgement. I personally prefer option "b" but that means we have to really train marshals.. which I see lacking in many places.

For me, and ideal ruleset would be something like:
1) fight with Honor
2) don't break your toys. (toys include other fighters)

In this particular case.. we have a new Society Marshal since the last ruling on b-t-b contact. Perhaps we should request a new clarification?

Malcolm

dukelogan wrote:certainly sounds like this guy needed to get shanked in the parking lot. but it sounds to me like he had a control issue. the shoulder to the thigh is not at all what im talking about. that is clearly dangerous (without shoulder pads on) and clearly not within the spirit of sca sport combat that i think most all of us prescribe to.

I think we are close to agreement here so I don't want to miss this...

The no body-to-body rule is where the above person is clearly protected. The offending fighter might argue that there is no rule against what he did and that in his view it was "safe" not unsafe because he was "controlled" and performing a legal non-grappling maneuver. Safe is subjective and arguable. body-to-body is objective and non-arguable. As in the ask Duke Paul quote, I just don't see incedental non-damaging b-2-b contact being called. For you football fans, if the charge wouldn't rate highlight clip on "JACKED UP!" it probably isn't getting called. As others stated, be safe and don't be stupid and you'lll probably never run afoul. Course, I could be placing to much faith in my fellow man that reasonableness will rule the day.

yeah bingo indeed!!

you are balls on with the whole authorization issue. we have a ton of cats inatlantia right now that i am shocked, simply shocked, are authorized fighters. i try to do as many authorization fights as i possibly can at events. why? because i fail more than i pass. besides making me feel so cool and powerful and all that it allows me to guide fighters safely into our sport. i hate the authorization process in atlantia. its entirely silly and needs to be revamped. but the problem lies more with the instructors than the policy. the policy ensures nothing.

training is the key absolutly. i think guys coming out of camp average about 8 months in armor before i suggest they go authorize. i have had a few that came weekly to practice and they were good to go after 4 or 5 months. a few things that have kept my record perfect in this regard is that i own no loaner armor. sure, ill put them in someone elses kit if it fits them well-ish. but we build their kit as they come to practice and watch, listen, absorb. we talk as much about the philosophy of sca sport combat as we do fighting. when i send a new guy out to authorize it makes the marshals job simplistic. why? because they are trained and prepared. the marshals do not have to make excuses for their failures (well, if he had a better helmet, or, if he practiced a little more his power would come up, or if those legs hung better he could.....). yeah i feel bad for the guy who is all nervous and excited when i tell him he isnt ready. but im angry with his teacher for sending him, ill=prepared, onto the field.

so how do we address the *issue*? i would get rid of the gray rules and remind the marshals of their role as safety officers. i would remind the fighters of our culture and the nature of our sport. i think then our book would have a lot fewer chapters and we would be closer to all being onthe same page, even if we are in different paragraphs on that page.

regards
logan


ps since i have been hogging this thread i just wanted to thank everyone for particpating in the discussion. although i disagree with a couple of you i do better understand your positions. thank you.

Heairn wrote:

dukelogan wrote:
point is, its about control. writing these extra rules servees nothing. each marshal has a different opinion on the "gray rules".

the question then becomes "was it done with control or was this guy out of control and being dangerous?".

the gray rules need to all be gone.
regards
logan

Bingo. There it is. Control. Of course, it's also training. I don't think we train fighters as much as we used to. Maybe it's just me and my greying-haired, cataract-formin' old-fart eyes and all but I remember feeling like I was jumping through hoops before Duke Richard would authorize me as a fighter.. and even MORE hoops when I auth'd as a marshal. Personal responsibility falls on the fighter to know the rules and abide by what they MEAN. The whole "lawyer" mentality of "it's ok because you don't say I can't" is counter to the concepts that the Society is based on. Fighters need to be trained to be IN control and to recognize when they are not. Marshals need to be trained to be observant to the battles and look for broken armor, weapons, people and tempers. They're not referees, nor are they there for any other reason than to see and intervene in situations that have spiralled out of control. Both Marshals and Fighters need to know what is expected of them, and plan to be held accountable.

But then, that's what "should" be. .. What *is*... well.. is different. For now, we want rules that are cut, dried, and easily observable. The "whack onna shin" is obvious. "Intent" in a charge is a different matter entirely... how do you tell? More importantly .. how do you tell that a guy is "in control" during a charge? This is where trained marshals are different from "guys with black and gold sticks."

So, we seem to mostly agree that there *is* a bit of an issue. The real question is..what do we do about it?

Malcolm

colin you and i agree completely. the unfortunate reality is our kem doesnt think that any b2b contact was allowed in our rules. i challenged him to produce the rule that he claimed existed. it didnt, and now it does. the rule, in atlantia, states no b2b contact period.

the guy blasting a dudes thing with his shoulder needs to be addressed as an idiot. he might be an idiot because, as malcom opined, he was poorly trained. he might just be one of those guys that breathes out of his mouth. either way he can be dealt with and the rest of us protected. like you, i have a lot of faith in the guys out there trying to knock the crap out of me. its fun to hurt your friends. its not cool to damage them.

regards
logan

ColinG wrote:

dukelogan wrote:certainly sounds like this guy needed to get shanked in the parking lot. but it sounds to me like he had a control issue. the shoulder to the thigh is not at all what im talking about. that is clearly dangerous (without shoulder pads on) and clearly not within the spirit of sca sport combat that i think most all of us prescribe to.

I think we are close to agreement here so I don't want to miss this...

The no body-to-body rule is where the above person is clearly protected. The offending fighter might argue that there is no rule against what he did and that in his view it was "safe" not unsafe because he was "controlled" and performing a legal non-grappling maneuver. Safe is subjective and arguable. body-to-body is objective and non-arguable. As in the ask Duke Paul quote, I just don't see incedental non-damaging b-2-b contact being called. For you football fans, if the charge wouldn't rate highlight clip on "JACKED UP!" it probably isn't getting called. As others stated, be safe and don't be stupid and you'lll probably never run afoul. Course, I could be placing to much faith in my fellow man that reasonableness will rule the day.

duke logan wrote:training is the key absolutly. i think guys coming out of camp average about 8 months in armor before i suggest they go authorize. i have had a few that came weekly to practice and they were good to go after 4 or 5 months.

yikes.. hehe.. then i should probably go and get reauthorized...

at my first ever meeting with the sca at all, i armored up and authorized... so did my 2 danish friends...
so it is possible for people to be ready faster...

do i feel safe enough to be on the battlefield after no fighter practices, no training or anything? yes i do. And so did the marshals.
But i would say my background had a huge hand in making me be at that level before i joined the sca.

I would not judge on how long they have practiced, just if they are safe as the rules state. And if you are a good judge of character and used to that stuff, you can usually be right.

ummm, i do judge them based on my impressions of their skill level and their knowledge of the sport. like i said, it takes guys on average about 8 months with me.

and no, based on the scenario as you describe i seriously doubt there is any way you could be versed in our form of combat and know enough about the rules to safely be authorized the first day you found the sca. the fact that you say three of you did it leaves the impression that the marshals were negligent in their actions. could i be wrong? sure. but im willing to bet im not.

i came from a combat sport background (boxing), played football all through my scholastic career, worked as a bouncer for years. so, i was physically and mentally ready for this sport. i improved very quickly. the first day i found the sca i was put in armor and did very well against those practicing with me. was i ready to be an authorized fighter and sent out on the field? no way. even with a basic understanding of the rules it is folly to put someone in that position. at least, in my opinion.

regards
logan

Titus Flavius wrote:

duke logan wrote:training is the key absolutly. i think guys coming out of camp average about 8 months in armor before i suggest they go authorize. i have had a few that came weekly to practice and they were good to go after 4 or 5 months.

yikes.. hehe.. then i should probably go and get reauthorized...

at my first ever meeting with the sca at all, i armored up and authorized... so did my 2 danish friends...
so it is possible for people to be ready faster...

do i feel safe enough to be on the battlefield after no fighter practices, no training or anything? yes i do. And so did the marshals.
But i would say my background had a huge hand in making me be at that level before i joined the sca.

I would not judge on how long they have practiced, just if they are safe as the rules state. And if you are a good judge of character and used to that stuff, you can usually be right.

Don't lump all us little guys in the fragile group... I am one of the smallest, in the low 100's, and I love the physical stuff. Charge me, bump me, whatever, I'm down. Just don't complain when I do it back.

We're a contact sport. I know that, and I signed the f***in' waiver.

Olaf Haraldson wrote:Don't lump all us little guys in the fragile group... I am one of the smallest, in the low 100's, and I love the physical stuff. Charge me, bump me, whatever, I'm down. Just don't complain when I do it back.

We're a contact sport. I know that, and I signed the f***in' waiver.

Your Grace,

Jarl Timoch is looking for a successor. Since you are keenly intersted in the rules of the sport, I suggest that you put your name in the hat to be the next Earl Marshall.

Kind regards,
byram

ive already discussed it with trhs. i plan to sit with them and timoch at ymir to see if i can help out some how.

regards
logan

BdeB wrote:Your Grace,

Jarl Timoch is looking for a successor. Since you are keenly intersted in the rules of the sport, I suggest that you put your name in the hat to be the next Earl Marshall.

Kind regards,
byram

As an aside (and slightly off topic), I just realized why I was having such a problem with why someone would want to charge a shield wall shoulder first...

If you are shooting the gap between two shieldmen and are doing it shoulder first, when it is righty versus righty your shields can "skim" across each other as you enter thus still allowing for easier penetration. Well, I'm a lefty. Righty and lefty shields don't skim well. In fact they don't skim at all. You have to power the edge of your shield thru the edge of one of their shields and get them moving. For me, there really isn't another way to collapse the line unless you are able to turn one or both of the fighters comprising the gap. I can see how a righty might use a different technique that gives a charger a smaller front to shoot the gap.

The problem is still that the surface area of a shoulder is far less than the surface area of a shield meaning the point of impact from a shoulder blow would transfer far more energy to a lot smaller surface. If done correctly, shield skimming would be good for penetrating a shield wall and carrying your force thru to a second line. If done poorly though, one could image bad results.

How does that mesh with these rules/issues we are discussing? I don't know but I found the personal epiphany interesting. Hmmm...

After reading through this discourse it makes me think fondly of those innocent days long ago, I remember over twenty years ago a young 17 year old fighter in Caid goes to his first war ( actually first of any event, I wasn't even authorised yet, oh those loose law days ) it was pre-estrella north of quarzite, az, and when I got bumped of a bridge, pushed off a castle wall, or mauled in a charge, I thought this was the coolest thing ever, this from a guy whose most active sport the year before was being a member of the chess club (yep I was a chess club geek). I know growth of a club brings changes, but even the most unskilled fighter better understand what thier in for, when its time for war. I love SCA wars, I have gone to a war, not killed a single person and still have had the time of my life. Its about the ambience, the clanking of armor, the slamming of weapons, the yelling of orders and even being one of the dead on a bridge. War isn't about that beautiful shot to the head, its about strategy, tactics and the drive to see them thru. Its been said before but I say it again, the rules shouldn't be about makeing the fighting "nice" or "fair", they should be about making sure we are out to kill each other, not hurt each other. Well there goes another rambleing rant, laters!!

Wilhelm

Cool.

Seriously.

I think you would make a fine EM.

dukelogan wrote:ive already discussed it with trhs. i plan to sit with them and timoch at ymir to see if i can help out some how.

regards
logan

BdeB wrote:Your Grace,

Jarl Timoch is looking for a successor. Since you are keenly intersted in the rules of the sport, I suggest that you put your name in the hat to be the next Earl Marshall.

Kind regards,
byram

ColinG wrote:As an aside (and slightly off topic), I just realized why I was having such a problem with why someone would want to charge a shield wall shoulder first...

If you are shooting the gap between two shieldmen and are doing it shoulder first, when it is righty versus righty your shields can "skim" across each other as you enter thus still allowing for easier penetration. Well, I'm a lefty. Righty and lefty shields don't skim well. In fact they don't skim at all. You have to power the edge of your shield thru the edge of one of their shields and get them moving. For me, there really isn't another way to collapse the line unless you are able to turn one or both of the fighters comprising the gap. I can see how a righty might use a different technique that gives a charger a smaller front to shoot the gap.

The problem is still that the surface area of a shoulder is far less than the surface area of a shield meaning the point of impact from a shoulder blow would transfer far more energy to a lot smaller surface. If done correctly, shield skimming would be good for penetrating a shield wall and carrying your force thru to a second line. If done poorly though, one could image bad results.

How does that mesh with these rules/issues we are discussing? I don't know but I found the personal epiphany interesting. Hmmm...

Colin:

throw your left shoulder forward, throw your left arm behind you, and lead with the shoulder, aiming for the right corner of the shield of the guy standing next to the one you actually wanted to hit. The shield you hit will fold open and then you'll be standing in the backfield, smiling.

EDIT: if you're worried about getting walloped by the guy to your left, make sure that his shield is the one you hit. you're pretty well covered to your front.

JB

hey man, get up with me at ymir and i will show you how i charge, body first, through shields and we can see if it fits in with your ideas or, perhaps, addresses another way to do it. i dont know that i run into any issues doing it through left or right handed shields. might just be a differnt technique.

regards
logan

or at ice castles if you dont make ymir

ColinG wrote:As an aside (and slightly off topic), I just realized why I was having such a problem with why someone would want to charge a shield wall shoulder first...

If you are shooting the gap between two shieldmen and are doing it shoulder first, when it is righty versus righty your shields can "skim" across each other as you enter thus still allowing for easier penetration. Well, I'm a lefty. Righty and lefty shields don't skim well. In fact they don't skim at all. You have to power the edge of your shield thru the edge of one of their shields and get them moving. For me, there really isn't another way to collapse the line unless you are able to turn one or both of the fighters comprising the gap. I can see how a righty might use a different technique that gives a charger a smaller front to shoot the gap.

The problem is still that the surface area of a shoulder is far less than the surface area of a shield meaning the point of impact from a shoulder blow would transfer far more energy to a lot smaller surface. If done correctly, shield skimming would be good for penetrating a shield wall and carrying your force thru to a second line. If done poorly though, one could image bad results.

How does that mesh with these rules/issues we are discussing? I don't know but I found the personal epiphany interesting. Hmmm...

I'll be at Ymir but I'm not sure you can teach an old dog new tricks. I said I understand the technique but as I've already had the left shoulder surgically repaired once already, I'm not sure I want to use it as a battering ram. Regardless, I look foward to the discussion and demonstration at Ymir.

dukelogan wrote:hey man, get up with me at ymir and i will show you how i charge, body first, through shields and we can see if it fits in with your ideas or, perhaps, addresses another way to do it. i dont know that i run into any issues doing it through left or right handed shields. might just be a differnt technique.

regards
logan

or at ice castles if you dont make ymir