[SCA-AE] Petition to rescend the new elbow cop regulation.

[Vels inn Viggladi]

>Milord,
>   Shield sizes are a good point to question.
>
>   I fight with either a wankle or a buckler.
>   My Choice of shield defines that I need to wear an elbow.
>   if you look a the Spirit in which the regulations were created, I don't 
>think that a (sorry here) Tuchuck war shield is to be considered an 
>acceptable tourney shield.

While the vast majority fight with heater style shields, typically shoulder 
to should in breadth, and chin to knees in length. This is considered a 
'standard' 14th century cavalryman's shield, that which the emulated would 
have carried.

>   I can't recall at the moment what it was but in the recent tourney's 
>wasnt' there a determination of the maximum shield size to be used in a 
>tourney?

I do believe Aethelmearc has a law for this, specifically related to what 
size shield may be fought in a Crown Tourney, but not limited to other 
single combats. And, this is a Kingdom law, it is not universal. IIRC, that 
is the longest linear distance of the face of the shield cannot exceed the 
reach of the bearer when measured from armpit to fingertips.


>   If we are using (for sake of arguement) a 24" shield, who is to say how 
>long one's forearm is, or
>upper arm is.

In which case, a large enough person could not get considerable enough 
coverage from that shield to meet the percieved minimum standard protection 
without adding a rigid elbow cop.

>   Suppositions are not good points to base armor requirements on.

In which case we should rewrite the entirety of the protective armor 
requirements. Blow acknowledgment is based on the 'supposed' protected value 
of a knee length chain hauberk, hardened leather arms and legs, and a 
conical style helm with nasal.
Armor as worn is for it's expected protective value, quite different from 
the intended emulation.

>We all need to play the same basic game, which means we need to keep to a 
>good general base
>line for safety and security concerns.

Which some feel that they have, while others seek to add more 'protection' 
to the base line whether those affected find it necessary or not. As it is 
seen, we are all currently playing the same basic game, have been for forty 
something years. If your belief of "basic" is a higher level of similarity 
than someone elses, then that is another matter. More-so, if you and another 
from across the known world both have higher than current ideas about what 
is "basic", but differ significantly in how, who should then be right? Who 
should then be playing the game as someone from somewhere else sees it? It 
comes back to homogenizing the game (tm).

>   It's these requirements for safety that lead me to believe that the 
>Shield arm elbow is not just a Good idea, it is a mandate.

And it will be come December, a mandate from the SEM. A mandate which those 
who disagree with you today are attempting to address as members of this 
organization.

>   As for my earlier story about hurting some one by hitting their elbow. I 
>had been told "no elbow cup is needed in this kingdom". It was after that, 
>while still being concerned, but not having a legal leg to stand on, that I 
>fought the gentle, and subsequently hurt them.
>
>   For me, any more, I will ask my opponent to don the elbow. no matter 
>what the rules end up saying.
>
>   --Eirik

That was your priviledge from the beginning. And also, if you decided it 
would not be safe to fight him otherwise, you had your choice to decline the 
combat. You didn't. He was injured. I would ask that you not force others to 
made redress for your culpability in this. It is a disservice to others.
So too is the repeated commentary about those who do not wear required, 
approved equipment intentionally, cheating, blow shucking or just being 
thick... Yes, these things do happen, but you seem to be attempting to tie 
these wrong actions to this conversation without merit. They are seperate 
beasts. Please consider this before continuing with the association that 
demonstrates as oblique libel. You seem very interested in tarring any who 
disagree with this change to armor regulations as rule-breakers, even before 
the rule goes into effect. Please do not, it is not befitting.





Vels

_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip  
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001