dukelogan wrote:wow. glad to see the completely baffling non-logic in that. so, you say its a bad thing to make contact with my shield against your body. gentle, harsh, you dont care. you then say its ok for me to make body to shield contact with your shield. again, gentle harsh whatever. yet you claim that shield to body contact is a bad thing (with no real justification) then you say i can shove you all over once you make body on shield contact.....
ummmm. ok. this is borderline retarded. its either bad for ones body to touch a big old dangerous shield or its not. you can not logically claim one is bad and the other is not. that kind of thinking might get you a position as the new atlantian earl marshal.
surely you can understand my confusion how it is fine for me to touch your shield but not ok for your shield to touch me. not strike, i said touch. once contact is made how on earth can anyone bitch about being moved if i can ram my fat ass on your shield or weapon in a charge. honestly this is a little bizzare.
logan
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?
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:
1. Relative force: It is difficult to legislate this in our game - the different calibration levels between regions, and often between different individuals within a region, should make this plainly evident. And when it comes to things like pushes, especially in a melee situation, it becomes even harder; all kinds of circumstances can certainly make someone appear that they've been moved with much greater force than was actually applied, most often by either being somewhat unaware (though still legally engaged with) the source of the force, or tripping over bodies or haybales, or all kinds of other things. And watching the aggressor is not a definitive answer either - my former knight can impart more effective force with a 2" push of his arm than most fighters can with a full-body charge, and many fighters are good at charging up to and into an opponent without imparting all that much force should they so choose. So since force could not really be legislated (beyond things that are obviously completely excessive, or clearly unsafe, which is otherwise covered in several other regulations), only the particulars of the type of contact could, and that's what was written into the rules.
2. Illegal shield-on-body vs. legal shield-on-body contact: Given the various protrusions of metal and other rigid materials from shields (bolts, grips, &c), especially ones that a rather significantly less than 1.25" in cross-section, as well as the edges of the shields themselves (which are also often less 1.25" thick), these were probably deemed fairly unsafe to be used in an aggressive manner against other combattants directly. On the other hand, if a combattant
chose to use his body against something as potentially dangerous as a shield, that was his call as an adult and an authorized fighter, and allowing the shield to return force in kind was only fair, and unlikely to be as dangerous once contact already occurred (the aggressor in this case would probably not be bodily attacking the shield in a way physically injurious to himself, and it's unlikely that and protrusion or edge not already in contact would become in contact during such an engagement).
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.
4. All of the other 'x-on-y' contact: They were allowed to remain, since compared to the ones made illegal, it was deemed reasonably safe - we don't care if the bolt from one person's shield scrapes up someone else's shield, weapons and shields are designed to take impact from one another, and our weapons are deemed safe enough to use on our (sometimes minimally) armored persons, so pushing with it (limited to legal target areas) is probably no more dangerous than striking a blow with it.
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)?
Finally, regarding your comment on my lack of 'justification' of the rules, that's not my job - I didn't write the rules, and I have very little say in changing them (at the Society level) if that were my desire; what is my job, as a marshal, is to interpret the rules in the manner I believe they were intended, and enforce them. If the rules change, or are clarified in such a way that is contrary to the way I've previously interpreted them, I will then enforce the new rules and interpretations as vigorously and (I hope) objectively as I had the old ones.
now there will be people desperatly trying to change some rules since they now have a way to actually make you go away. but hey, at least that would force them to the surface.
