On being broken

[Dietrich von Stroheim]

Because of the number of broken arms, I think that forearm armour ought to be mandatory.

Fullcontact sports is always a matter of calculated risk, but I think that a reasonable level to armour ourselves to, is so that we can expect to be able to go to work after practice.

Broken arms is past that point IMO, and therefore not armouring them is, again IMO unacceptable risk.

I have to disagree with the suggestion to increase the mandatory level of armor. Teach new guys that it's a good idea, if you want, strongly recommend that forearm armor be worn, but some of us just don't care for it or feel we need it.

My arms are pretty well conditioned to block punches or kicks and I'm comfortable with the risk of being hit there with a flexy stick. I definitely don't recommend that mentality to everyone, but I personally wish we had fewer minimum armor rules and more training and guidance on 'here's what you should consider armoring, given your body type and the part of the Known World you are fighting in'

[Benedek]

Most injuries go unreported. I will/do pull shots on bare arms. It's not worth it to me to hurt somebody I'm not in a life or death fight with. As a lefty arms are easier to break.

Thor.

can you support these claims with some documented injury reports? how many arms have been broken? actually broken, not some guy telling you "i think my XXX is broken" but folks that have gone and had x-rays done? how do you explain the number of folks that have never had an arm broken, with or without armour, compared to those that have had verified breaks when suggesting required arm armour (which, by the way, the poster claims to have been wearing at the time which shows that nothing is fool proof).

regards
logan

Because of the number of broken arms, I think that forearm armour ought to be mandatory.

Fullcontact sports is always a matter of calculated risk, but I think that a reasonable level to armour ourselves to, is so that we can expect to be able to go to work after practice.

Broken arms is past that point IMO, and therefore not armouring them is, again IMO unacceptable risk.

Granted, I hit in a lighter hitting Kingdom, but for many years I never wore vambraces, and I fought almost exclusively 2 handed sword and sword and buckler.

I've taken a few hits that certainly put me out of fighting for the day but nothing serious. I now wear 16 ga stainless bazu's for persona reasons. I would not change the rules willy nilly on account of an exception and not a rule.

I still think it's silly to require elbow protection behind a shield, but to each their own (on a kingdom level) and I play this game knowing full well the risks and still do it. That's why we have a waiver.

[dukelogan]

youre probably right. probably. my point is that if we are breaking people left and right, to the point in which we should talk about adding even more armour requirements, then we have a problem. i can only go on what i know for facts and not hearsay. those facts are:

1. i spent 20 years in a hard hitting kingdom (not as hard as some folks think but certainly in line with all the others)

2. very few of the fighters ive known over the years (most of those in a large, hard hitting, kingdom) wear any kind of arm armour

3. i only know of one that ive ever seen in a cast from a broken arm. and i broke it through steel armour (ok it was the fifth or sixth shot but still)

these are facts that would indicate to me that there is no need to mandate arm armour. i stopped wearing it because it caused me more soft tissue injuries to my wrist than it was worth and my arms can take a pretty stout shot as history has proven. do i recommend folks consider wearing arm armour, sure. is it required for our sport to be "safe" absolutly not. again, facts prove that.

more rules clog the system. personal responsibility and willingness to take personal risks is the way to go.

regards
logan

Most injuries go unreported. I will/do pull shots on bare arms. It's not worth it to me to hurt somebody I'm not in a life or death fight with. As a lefty arms are easier to break.

Thor.

can you support these claims with some documented injury reports? how many arms have been broken? actually broken, not some guy telling you "i think my XXX is broken" but folks that have gone and had x-rays done? how do you explain the number of folks that have never had an arm broken, with or without armour, compared to those that have had verified breaks when suggesting required arm armour (which, by the way, the poster claims to have been wearing at the time which shows that nothing is fool proof).

regards
logan

Because of the number of broken arms, I think that forearm armour ought to be mandatory.

Fullcontact sports is always a matter of calculated risk, but I think that a reasonable level to armour ourselves to, is so that we can expect to be able to go to work after practice.

Broken arms is past that point IMO, and therefore not armouring them is, again IMO unacceptable risk.

[Kilkenny]

Because of the number of broken arms, I think that forearm armour ought to be mandatory.

Fullcontact sports is always a matter of calculated risk, but I think that a reasonable level to armour ourselves to, is so that we can expect to be able to go to work after practice.

Broken arms is past that point IMO, and therefore not armouring them is, again IMO unacceptable risk.

I don't intend to be mean here, but could you please tell me what the number of broken arms is, and where you got the information ? Also, what time period is covered by the data and what geographic region(s) ?

Along with the above, we also need to know what each individual was wearing for arm protection when their arm was broken.

To the best of my knowledge, this information simply does not exist in the SCA, but I am - seriously - quite interested in being proven wrong.

[dukelogan]

how many guys in your area have you seen walking around with a cast on their arm? i can only think of one. guys in crutches after acl surgery..... thats in the high single digits. clearly running, running while fat, and haybales need to be banned!!

regards
logan

Because of the number of broken arms, I think that forearm armour ought to be mandatory.

Fullcontact sports is always a matter of calculated risk, but I think that a reasonable level to armour ourselves to, is so that we can expect to be able to go to work after practice.

Broken arms is past that point IMO, and therefore not armouring them is, again IMO unacceptable risk.

I don't intend to be mean here, but could you please tell me what the number of broken arms is, and where you got the information ? Also, what time period is covered by the data and what geographic region(s) ?

Along with the above, we also need to know what each individual was wearing for arm protection when their arm was broken.

To the best of my knowledge, this information simply does not exist in the SCA, but I am - seriously - quite interested in being proven wrong.

[Armand d'Alsace]

Well we have one in this thread, we've had a few in Finland the last six months I've been told, and I've broken mine.

Empirical(anecdotal) evidence that people without forearm armour has not gotten their arms broken is not causative evidence that forearm armour should not be worn.

We need a line somewhere, or we could strongly recommend people to armour up, but leave all rules aside.

I think that we should armour forearms, you don't.

[Thorstenn]

I have 4 in recent memory. Names excluded.

#1 A Duke with Titanium full vambraces.
#2 squire Female, full leather Vambraces with padding. Broke arm near elbow
#3 squire male, leather vambrace little or no padding.
#4 squire male, soccer shin guard hidden, (not sufficient armor for Trimaris at the time) it rotated and broke both bones in the arm near the wrist.

If I remember correctly two of these required extra surgeries.
Oh! were a lighter hitting Kingdom to some

We are adults, injuries will happen, but contact sports have guidelines for a reason. Usually to minimise the liability of the organization.
Hockey, head to toe.
Football Head to toe.

Thor.

Because of the number of broken arms, I think that forearm armour ought to be mandatory.

Fullcontact sports is always a matter of calculated risk, but I think that a reasonable level to armour ourselves to, is so that we can expect to be able to go to work after practice.

Broken arms is past that point IMO, and therefore not armouring them is, again IMO unacceptable risk.

I don't intend to be mean here, but could you please tell me what the number of broken arms is, and where you got the information ? Also, what time period is covered by the data and what geographic region(s) ?

Along with the above, we also need to know what each individual was wearing for arm protection when their arm was broken.

To the best of my knowledge, this information simply does not exist in the SCA, but I am - seriously - quite interested in being proven wrong.

[dukelogan]

ummm, football requires a helm, mouth guard, shoulder pads, cup. hardly "head to toe".

im saddened to hear that shin guards arent "enough" here. certainly better than a piece of leather, but ok. reading our armour standards i cant see where it says that a shin guard isnt good. is this just the way marshals address armour inspections here or am i missing something.

im asking because i begin fighting again this weekend and need to be ready for whatever events i make in the next couple of weeks (before my hand surgery puts me sidelined for 6-8 weeks).

regards
logan

I have 4 in recent memory. Names excluded.

#1 A Duke with Titanium full vambraces.
#2 squire Female, full leather Vambraces with padding. Broke arm near elbow
#3 squire male, leather vambrace little or no padding.
#4 squire male, soccer shin guard hidden, (not sufficient armor for Trimaris at the time) it rotated and broke both bones in the arm near the wrist.

If I remember correctly two of these required extra surgeries.
Oh! were a lighter hitting Kingdom to some

We are adults, injuries will happen, but contact sports have guidelines for a reason. Usually to minimise the liability of the organization.
Hockey, head to toe.
Football Head to toe.

Thor.

Because of the number of broken arms, I think that forearm armour ought to be mandatory.

Fullcontact sports is always a matter of calculated risk, but I think that a reasonable level to armour ourselves to, is so that we can expect to be able to go to work after practice.

Broken arms is past that point IMO, and therefore not armouring them is, again IMO unacceptable risk.

I don't intend to be mean here, but could you please tell me what the number of broken arms is, and where you got the information ? Also, what time period is covered by the data and what geographic region(s) ?

Along with the above, we also need to know what each individual was wearing for arm protection when their arm was broken.

To the best of my knowledge, this information simply does not exist in the SCA, but I am - seriously - quite interested in being proven wrong.

[Thorstenn]

Your Grace, I said "at that time" rules have changed here since. And though I personally feel they should be required I like cohesion in rules so I am not willing to change them.
My personal feelings don't out weigh the groups,..... in most cases

Thor.

ummm, football requires a helm, mouth guard, shoulder pads, cup. hardly "head to toe".

im saddened to hear that shin guards arent "enough" here. certainly better than a piece of leather, but ok. reading our armour standards i cant see where it says that a shin guard isnt good. is this just the way marshals address armour inspections here or am i missing something.

im asking because i begin fighting again this weekend and need to be ready for whatever events i make in the next couple of weeks (before my hand surgery puts me sidelined for 6-8 weeks).

regards
logan

I have 4 in recent memory. Names excluded.

#1 A Duke with Titanium full vambraces.
#2 squire Female, full leather Vambraces with padding. Broke arm near elbow
#3 squire male, leather vambrace little or no padding.
#4 squire male, soccer shin guard hidden, (not sufficient armor for Trimaris at the time) it rotated and broke both bones in the arm near the wrist.

If I remember correctly two of these required extra surgeries.
Oh! were a lighter hitting Kingdom to some

We are adults, injuries will happen, but contact sports have guidelines for a reason. Usually to minimise the liability of the organization.
Hockey, head to toe.
Football Head to toe.

Thor.

Because of the number of broken arms, I think that forearm armour ought to be mandatory.

Fullcontact sports is always a matter of calculated risk, but I think that a reasonable level to armour ourselves to, is so that we can expect to be able to go to work after practice.

Broken arms is past that point IMO, and therefore not armouring them is, again IMO unacceptable risk.

I don't intend to be mean here, but could you please tell me what the number of broken arms is, and where you got the information ? Also, what time period is covered by the data and what geographic region(s) ?

Along with the above, we also need to know what each individual was wearing for arm protection when their arm was broken.

To the best of my knowledge, this information simply does not exist in the SCA, but I am - seriously - quite interested in being proven wrong.

[RenJunkie]

How bout just explaining to new people that the less armour they wear the more likely they are to wind up in a cast? That way if they're fine with broken bones (say skaters), they can go less. If they're a bit more wary, they can go with whatever limb protection makes them comfortable. And luckily, vammies can be had cheap. Or they can say, "Ya know, I don't dig this enough to be risking broken bones on a weekly basis".

Seems we are over complicating this. I'm all for not being broken, but just tell them the risks on this one and let them decide.

Christopher

[Thorstenn]

Would you give the same advice concerning helmets and cups
You can skate around your house with no safety gear, but at a skate park All the ones I have seen require safety equipment YMMV.

How bout just explaining to new people that the less armour they wear the more likely they are to wind up in a cast? That way if they're fine with broken bones (say skaters), they can go less. If they're a bit more wary, they can go with whatever limb protection makes them comfortable. And luckily, vammies can be had cheap. Or they can say, "Ya know, I don't dig this enough to be risking broken bones on a weekly basis".

Seems we are over complicating this. I'm all for not being broken, but just tell them the risks on this one and let them decide.

Christopher

[FrauHirsch]

I have 4 in recent memory. Names excluded.

#1 A Duke with Titanium full vambraces.
#2 squire Female, full leather Vambraces with padding. Broke arm near elbow
#3 squire male, leather vambrace little or no padding.
#4 squire male, soccer shin guard hidden, (not sufficient armor for Trimaris at the time) it rotated and broke both bones in the arm near the wrist.

Are the above just vambraces or full arms? I recommend cohesive and riveted articulated elbows with lames attached to the vambraces to all our new fighters, because the broken arms near the elbow were prevalent in the 80s around here when they were separate.

[William de Faleston]

After further thought and the discussions in this thread, I'm tending to agree, your Grace. I think it was a stout blow with some freak conditions.

I would be interested though in better injury reporting and data collection. For example, the only official record made of my incident so far is that I had a boo boo and the nice chiurgeon gave me an icepack. I didn't realize it was broken until the next day so until I report it to the MIC, it didn't really happen. Better info on real injuries would be a must, I think, before any major rules changes.

Thanks all, again, for the thought-provoking conversation, but I must, however, take issue with a few who have claimed that my bucket plastic vambrace was equal to no armor. As I said before, I had it for years, and it warded off blows in the past that would have harmed me had I not been wearing it. Was it adequate for this blow? No. Is it adequate for my future needs? No. If this discussion is revealing anything it is that each fighter should armor his or herself appropriately based on a number of factors, including body type, age, skill level, or, in Duke Logan's case, the supernatural ability to hit someone before they can even think about targeting your forearms.

That's something we probably all need to think about when talking to new and prospective fighters about armor.

[quote="dukelogan"]clearly the answer is no. how many bones get broken through armour vs how many blows land on armour with force? ive been hit in the forearms many many times in the last 20 years. i do not wear armour on my arms, i did for my first three years. ive never suffered a forearm injury. so clearly it can be done safely without armour and ive been doing it twice as long as you. these are the factors any scientific study must consider. percentages.

freak accidents can happen. they will happen. we should never consider changes based on things that are not substantially repetative unless the catastrohpic failure comes with a severe risk. a bone crack isnt one.

regards and get well soon!!!
logan

[quote="William de Faleston"]

This brings me to the blow. Was it “excessive?â€

[dukelogan]

oh, im just asking. are they considered ok or not? or is it one of those "it depends on the marshal inspecting you" kinda things. now i hate that crap, i wish the rules were either all suggestions or all hard lined rules. i understand how impossible the latter is. i dont need any arm armour, never have. but i have to comply with the rules and, well, you is smarter than me when it comes to how our kingdom works.

regards
logan

Your Grace, I said "at that time" rules have changed here since. And though I personally feel they should be required I like cohesion in rules so I am not willing to change them.
My personal feelings don't out weigh the groups,..... in most cases

Thor.

ummm, football requires a helm, mouth guard, shoulder pads, cup. hardly "head to toe".

im saddened to hear that shin guards arent "enough" here. certainly better than a piece of leather, but ok. reading our armour standards i cant see where it says that a shin guard isnt good. is this just the way marshals address armour inspections here or am i missing something.

im asking because i begin fighting again this weekend and need to be ready for whatever events i make in the next couple of weeks (before my hand surgery puts me sidelined for 6-8 weeks).

regards
logan

I have 4 in recent memory. Names excluded.

#1 A Duke with Titanium full vambraces.
#2 squire Female, full leather Vambraces with padding. Broke arm near elbow
#3 squire male, leather vambrace little or no padding.
#4 squire male, soccer shin guard hidden, (not sufficient armor for Trimaris at the time) it rotated and broke both bones in the arm near the wrist.

If I remember correctly two of these required extra surgeries.
Oh! were a lighter hitting Kingdom to some

We are adults, injuries will happen, but contact sports have guidelines for a reason. Usually to minimise the liability of the organization.
Hockey, head to toe.
Football Head to toe.

Thor.

Because of the number of broken arms, I think that forearm armour ought to be mandatory.

Fullcontact sports is always a matter of calculated risk, but I think that a reasonable level to armour ourselves to, is so that we can expect to be able to go to work after practice.

Broken arms is past that point IMO, and therefore not armouring them is, again IMO unacceptable risk.

I don't intend to be mean here, but could you please tell me what the number of broken arms is, and where you got the information ? Also, what time period is covered by the data and what geographic region(s) ?

Along with the above, we also need to know what each individual was wearing for arm protection when their arm was broken.

To the best of my knowledge, this information simply does not exist in the SCA, but I am - seriously - quite interested in being proven wrong.

[RenJunkie]

Now you're just being silly.

I was referring to forearm protection.

Forearms wont kill you if they get broken, and neither will they possibly damage your ability to have children. I'm doubtful there have been amputations due to SCA fighting injuries. No hard data, just figuring that if there had been, someone woulda brought it up by now.

I'm not advocating no safety standards, that would be stupid. But there is much debate about forearms in this thread, presumably because the OP got his broken, and I was merely suggesting that maybe the debate is getting a bit more complicated than it needs to be.

About forearms.

You'd never catch me thinking about so much as sparring without very good forearm protection. Logan and others feel they do not need it for themselves. Maybe they're right, but that's for them. My small bones are not ever gonna try that. But if guys who have redwoods for skeletons feel they're fine bare forearmed, have been fighting for 10 years, taken many a shot there and haven't shattered something, and that's the risk they chose to take, let them. If it takes 10 years to get a broken bone in your unarmoured or lightly armoured forearm, maybe that's an exchange rate you're fine with.

Just tell the new guys about the risks if they decide to be lightly armoured. That one day, they will likely have the arm in a cast. Most guys will take the protection.

Would you give the same advice concerning helmets and cups
You can skate around your house with no safety gear, but at a skate park All the ones I have seen require safety equipment YMMV.

Christopher

[Thorstenn]

First, thank you for a good response I was being over dramatic. Safety is in the eye of the organization. Rules change sometimes for the better sometimes not. Just look at the NFL and there looking at helmet to helmet suspension again. (not fond of it) I understand the accepted risks involved in this game and love it It's the big show IMO and everybody who plays it has some testicular fortitude.
One last thing to add from me on this debate. Having been on the giving end, and the receive end of broken bones, I would rather get broken then my opponent. I may not like everyone who plays but I respect them and every time I have broken someone I am not angry at, I get physically sick.

Again, RenJunkie, and everybody else.

Thank you.
Thor.

Now you're just being silly.

I was referring to forearm protection.

Forearms wont kill you if they get broken, and neither will they possibly damage your ability to have children. I'm doubtful there have been amputations due to SCA fighting injuries. No hard data, just figuring that if there had been, someone woulda brought it up by now.

I'm not advocating no safety standards, that would be stupid. But there is much debate about forearms in this thread, presumably because the OP got his broken, and I was merely suggesting that maybe the debate is getting a bit more complicated than it needs to be.

About forearms.

You'd never catch me thinking about so much as sparring without very good forearm protection. Logan and others feel they do not need it for themselves. Maybe they're right, but that's for them. My small bones are not ever gonna try that. But if guys who have redwoods for skeletons feel they're fine bare forearmed, have been fighting for 10 years, taken many a shot there and haven't shattered something, and that's the risk they chose to take, let them. If it takes 10 years to get a broken bone in your unarmoured or lightly armoured forearm, maybe that's an exchange rate you're fine with.

Just tell the new guys about the risks if they decide to be lightly armoured. That one day, they will likely have the arm in a cast. Most guys will take the protection.

Would you give the same advice concerning helmets and cups
You can skate around your house with no safety gear, but at a skate park All the ones I have seen require safety equipment YMMV.

Christopher

[Armand d'Alsace]

Now you're just being silly.

I was referring to forearm protection.

Forearms wont kill you if they get broken, and neither will they possibly damage your ability to have children. I'm doubtful there have been amputations due to SCA fighting injuries. No hard data, just figuring that if there had been, someone woulda brought it up by now.

Well, I don't think he was being silly.

If we expect everyone to understand the dangers in the sport, we may as well go with suggestions all the way, and dispense with the hard rules.

If we believe that enyone should be able to build a working suit of armour from reading the rules, we should have hard rules.

I,like Thorstenn would prefer if I knew that my opponents bones are unlikely to break, so I can strike with full force and intent with minimal risk of injuring them.

So the reasonong stands whether it is helmets or spauldrons we discuss.

The second part of it is:
What level of risk is acceptable?

You don't want people to die or become unable to reproduce, ok. I want people to be able to go to work, so the hobby doesn't take someones job or income away. This is the acceptable risk part.

Either arms are an acceptable risk, and then we don't need to armour them, because arminjuries are a part of the sport, like bruises.

Or they are not an acceptable risk, and we should take precautions to make sure that they are not damaged. If this requires armour or not, and if so, how much armour is required to put us back inte the acceptable risk zone.

So: the reasoning stands, but we disagree about what acceptable risk is, and if the reported injuries warrants a change in the rules.

[Hrolfr]

The second part of it is:
What level of risk is acceptable?

You don't want people to die or become unable to reproduce, ok. I want people to be able to go to work, so the hobby doesn't take someones job or income away. This is the acceptable risk part.

Either arms are an acceptable risk, and then we don't need to armour them, because arminjuries are a part of the sport, like bruises.

Or they are not an acceptable risk, and we should take precautions to make sure that they are not damaged. If this requires armour or not, and if so, how much armour is required to put us back inte the acceptable risk zone.

So: the reasoning stands, but we disagree about what acceptable risk is, and if the reported injuries warrants a change in the rules.

By stepping on the list, and becoming authorized, you (the 'generic you, not you Armgrim )determine the 'acceptable risk'.

Plain and simple.

We have minium armor that we must wear. Beyond that it your choice, based on your own risk assessment.

I wear just over the mins (some hidden plastic on the thighs and hardend leather vambraces). THAT is by my choice. I make that choice and accept that risk.

When my 14th C kit is done, I will wear a CoP. Why? Becasue it fits the kit. I wear more armor when the kit dictates it (ie my Pas kit). ymmv

[Armand d'Alsace]

By stepping on the list, and becoming authorized, you (the 'generic you, not you Armgrim )determine the 'acceptable risk'.

Plain and simple.

We have minium armor that we must wear. Beyond that it your choice, based on your own risk assessment.

I disagree.
By reading the rules of the list, I assess what this sport considers appropriate protection to keep the risk acceptable.

After having fought for a while I may consider the rules too strict for my own protection, or I may consider them too lax.

But the SCA sets the bar for the acceptable risk of the sport generally, I then choose wether or not that risk is acceptable to me personally.

And I personally, feel that the SCA should assess the risk at the level
"Participants should be able to go to work after participating"

Some feel that it should be at
"Participants should not lose the ability to reproduce"
level.

YMMV

[ThorvaldR Skegglauss]

By stepping on the list, and becoming authorized, you (the 'generic you, not you Armgrim )determine the 'acceptable risk'.

Plain and simple.

We have minium armor that we must wear. Beyond that it your choice, based on your own risk assessment.

I disagree.
By reading the rules of the list, I assess what this sport considers appropriate protection to keep the risk acceptable.

After having fought for a while I may consider the rules too strict for my own protection, or I may consider them too lax.

But the SCA sets the bar for the acceptable risk of the sport generally, I then choose wether or not that risk is acceptable to me personally.

And I personally, feel that the SCA should assess the risk at the level
"Participants should be able to go to work after participating"

Some feel that it should be at
"Participants should not lose the ability to reproduce"
level.

YMMV

Arngrim,

it is a matter of are we always going to cater to the lowest common denominator. I agree that in general it is a good idea to wear forearm protection. Anectdotally there are some small boned men and women who would be in severe danger of getting a broken arm if they took a shot to the forearm without armor.

But

I also believe that this is a big person's game. Minimum standards are just that, minimum. Whatever is established to prevent life threatening is the SCA level. That prevents lawsuits. Accepting that there are risks and choosing to not armour more is an individual's prerogative. In Drachenwald's rules it states that forearm protection is "highly recommended" that does not make it a requirement. Although I do like mine. I have had a fairly large lump on my forearm a couple of times from shots. I would not like to think about what that would have been like with out armour.

I also choose to not wear any shoulder armour. When I get that "uncomfortable" shot to the shoulder I only have myself to blame.

regards
ThorvaldR

[dukelogan]

i would like to point out that the examples of broken arms in this thread have all pretty much been done through armour. if all of the examples are true i think it would be pretty obvious that putting armour on the forearm still ends up with broken arms. the common denominator? arms and rattan. so ban both if you really want to try and make our sport risk free.

or, since clearly arm armour doesnt ensure that risk free sport, let people decide their risk level. i recommend new folks try vambraces and see if they like them. if their very thin vambraces dont feel like enough we bulk them up, if they feel they dont need them we drop them. its worked fine thus far.

regards
logan

[Vitus von Atzinger]

Alot of people would be better served to get away from Video/Computer games and get in actual fighting shape.

[Payn]

By stepping on the list, and becoming authorized, you (the 'generic you, not you Armgrim )determine the 'acceptable risk'.

Plain and simple.

We have minium armor that we must wear. Beyond that it your choice, based on your own risk assessment.

I disagree.
By reading the rules of the list, I assess what this sport considers appropriate protection to keep the risk acceptable.

After having fought for a while I may consider the rules too strict for my own protection, or I may consider them too lax.

But the SCA sets the bar for the acceptable risk of the sport generally, I then choose wether or not that risk is acceptable to me personally.

And I personally, feel that the SCA should assess the risk at the level
"Participants should be able to go to work after participating"

Some feel that it should be at
"Participants should not lose the ability to reproduce"
level.

YMMV

I believe that the SCA does hit your criteria. The minimums are designed to allow you to go back to work after participating. There's a line that I remember, but am not sure where to attribute it.

"The minimum armour rules are to provide life-altering injury, or death".

I think that they fulfill that requirement, as what we are talking about (a broken forearm) is not life-altering. Just a few-month-altering injury.

As a computer geek, I can type with one hand for a few weeks until my cast comes off. I can take the elevator for a few weeks if I have my tibia broken. 6 months or so later, I should be back to normal (including time to ramp back up).

If you have a job where you cannot accept those weeks/months of inconvenience/downtime, you are free to wear more.