location of incidental padding on a red/green.

[Magpie Saegar]

Okay, so I'm building a red/greed "naginata" for my fiancée.

I know that the applicable rule is as follows:

1.4.2.3. The maximum handle length for Class 2 Weapons is eighteen (18) inches or one-third (1/3) of the overall length, whichever is greater. This cannot exceed one-half (1/2) of the overall length.

Now, the way she was trained to fight, she wants to choke up on the weapon a bit so she can block leg shots with the pommel end of the weapon. Effectively, this means moving the handle up further. She also wants a maximum length handle.

So is this allowed?


O))))))=========)))))))))))))]]]]]]]]]]]]

11" (11.6% OAL) Pommel/incidental
31" (32.6% OAL) handle
53" (55.8% OAL) incidental/blade

Ostensibly, it would meet the rule, as the handle is less than 1/3 the OAL, and the total padded portion is more than 2/3 the OAL.

But is it okay that part of that incidental is BELOW the handle? Discuss.

[The Lost Celt]

I don't see why it'd fail if it fits the template.

However I'm going to throw another idea out there, since it is related, I have a portion of loose incidental about 8-10 inches along the handle length on my glaive, i.e. secured but not attached to the core.

If I remember correctly the way I held it (choked up) and felt comfortable there was incidental padding there, I didn't want my hands messing up the incidental nor affecting my grip, so I did it that way - it's over the 2/3rds by about 4in, and that way I can choke up or stay back. Got a few funny looks when the weapons checkers saw it but it still fits the guidelines.

[Davit]

You should be fine Magpie.

[Magpie Saegar]

Alright, cool. I was pretty sure it was legit, wanted to double check.

[Arrakis]

I feel like this sort of thing raises a lot of issues and questions.

Isn't the spirit of the rule to prevent unpadded handle from being present on weapons above the 1/3 point of the weapon? What's to stop people from putting ALL of their incidental below their handle and having only 12" of blade above the handle on a 5' weapon? How much of the pommel is the pommel? Just the foam that extends past the core? How does this interact with the rules that requires 12" plus handle and pommel? Does some part of a standard-length pommel count as incidental and count towards your 12"?

Etc.

[Magpie Saegar]

I also think that there's nothing but common sense stopping you from putting incidental padding after the striking surface.

But since I haven't seen much of a problem with people abusing this, I don't think it's an issue.

As far as unpadded handle more than 1/3 of the way up the weapon, I think that's also only a problem if someone is holding the weapon by the pommel/incidental and swinging it around. If they are holding the handle, it should be fine.

Though then there's the issue of whether they could generate appropriate force for a red strike while holding the pole arm in the middle rather than on one end. Not sure.

/ramble.

[Arrakis]

Etc.

/ramble.

I love our half-hearted * debate/discussion on this topic.

[The Lost Celt]

Well Arrakis, I was wondering about spirit of the rules before I posted it. As it were I never thought to include the actual length of the finished weapon vs. length of the core, I remeasured and it passes even without the loose incidental, but I think I'll keep it on anyway as it doesn't get in the way and it might just save a bruise someday...

I've seen axes where there was a second handle put into the center of the head or behind the beard where it wouldn't hit the opponent swung normally, would this be considered an unfair advantage?

Also there are hand an a half swords to think about.

I guess it can be looked at both ways, when I think about taking advantage I think min red/dagobats, however mechanical leverage is a big thing with mass weapons so if it weren't unpadded I'd be gripping and chewing up the padded portion in the long run, some of the more extreme cases you were suggesting kind of fail on the safety aspect or even effect the wielders ability to handle the weapon efficiently/safely.

Anyhow that's all I got for now, other than leverage I don't see any advantage in constructing that way, however I feel that's how mass weapons were used at times so I don't think that's unfair, as far as the SPR aspects I don't see how it goes against those either.

[Arrakis]

I've seen axes where there was a second handle put into the center of the head or behind the beard where it wouldn't hit the opponent swung normally, would this be considered an unfair advantage?

Handle directly behind any striking surface automatically fails check in Belegarth; those are considered punching weapons and are explicitly illegal.

I don't see what you mean about hand-and-a-half swords. H-n-a-H's traditionally had handles no longer than 10 inches. In Bel, you can legally do 18" handles on min reds.

[Forkbeard]

We've been doing this for years.
I've put an extra 10 inches of padding on the handle of a glaive many times. It allows you to move you handle forward and stay in the rules.
I have not put ALL the haft padding down there, but 2 of my glaives have 48" blades with only about 15" of haft padding on them. I can't see how more blade and less haft would be bad or dangerous.
I guess it all depends on you striking surface legnth.
FB

[Arrakis]

I'm not talking about the probably-okay uses of this sort of interpretation. I'm talking about providing precedent for:



and other such weapons where someone wielding the pole from low on the grip or from the lower incidental padding and the bottom of the handle, for extra range, even if that's not how they usually fight with that particular weapon, would be much more prone to hitting charging florentine fighters and others with the unpadded Handle rather than safely-padded haft.

I don't understand why you would want to move unpadded core closer to the striking surface. Can anyone enlighten me?

[Soo Ma Tai]

As far as our rules go, that weapon would be perfectly legal. I made a pole arm with a 10" or so section of haft padding in the center of two 9" grip areas to increase the spread between my hands for more leverage. That weapon passed at CW no probs. Changing the fulcrum of the weapon can be beneficial for a user with smaller stature, making the weapon more balanced and easier to swing and control.

I can make a sword with 18" of unpadded handle and 12" of striking surface, no haft padding and it's legal. I see no difference between the two as far as safety goes. In fact, why would that be any more or less safe than a q-staff made to our rules?

[Arrakis]

As far as our rules go, that weapon would be perfectly legal. I made a pole arm with a 10" or so section of haft padding in the center of two 9" grip areas to increase the spread between my hands for more leverage. That weapon passed at CW no probs. Changing the fulcrum of the weapon can be beneficial for a user with smaller stature, making the weapon more balanced and easier to swing and control.

You wanted to be able to fight with 18" separating your hands (generously giving you 5" hands)? I just grabbed a nearby core and tried that; ridiculous at the length I picked up (46"). Sounds not entirely unreasonable, though, for long pole fighting. If your pole is seven feet long or longer, you can have 28" of handle legally; that's fine. If you want to pad some of that handle section, even in the middle of it, separating the sections, that's just extra nice of you. But, if you had a 6' polearm and were trying to put a 28" handle on it and then pad part of the interior of the handle in order to make it not illegal, well, I think that's against the spirit of Rule 1.4.2.3, which I perceive to be a rule limiting how far up on your weapon (by ratio) your core can be unpadded. I would fail such a weapon.

I can make a sword with 18" of unpadded handle and 12" of striking surface, no haft padding and it's legal.

Except it's not:

1.4.1.4. The maximum handle length for a Class 1 Weapon is eighteen (18) inches or one-third (1/3) of the overall length, whichever is greater. This cannot exceed one-half (1/2) of the overall length.

Emphasis mine.

I really don't think that blues should be allowed to have handle up to half the length of the weapon. It's excessive and I can't count the number of times I've blocked somebody's long-handle blue and gotten cracked across the knuckles with unpadded core. But that's another issue.

I see no difference between the two as far as safety goes. In fact, why would that be any more or less safe than a q-staff made to our rules?

Quarterstaves have to pass striking levels of padding each end, so it's harder to build a Q-stick with easily-gripped padding for the rear hand. Being that the incidental padding under a handle area would only be subject to the rule requiring that core not be felt through the incidental padding on a Non-Striking Surface, you could easily cover that area with one layer of 4# foam and be in the clear. Now you've basically extended your unpadded handle farther up the length of your weapon.

It's one of those things where our gear is supposed to be safe for anybody to use. If someone builds that weapon I just drew and never uses it from anywhere but the handle and never ever hits someone with the handle, great! But if they drop it on the field and someone else scoops it up and decides they want the extra reach and starts swinging it with one hand on the pommel and one hand just above the top of the lower haft padding, that's a LOT of handle flying around halfway up the length of a long swung weapon, the very situation rules like 1.4.2.3 were designed to prevent. If it were supposed to be okay to have that much handle that far up a swung weapon, the rules for handle length for reds and blues would be the same as for green-only weapons.

[The Lost Celt]

I really don't think that blues should be allowed to have handle up to half the length of the weapon. It's excessive and I can't count the number of times I've blocked somebody's long-handle blue and gotten cracked across the knuckles with unpadded core. But that's another issue.

Actually I think it's one and the same, a min striking surface with incidental padding to gain weight advantage is really the crux of the issue, these weapons also pass the rules but certainly have more potential to cause a few bruises than a person with an 8 foot weapon who shaves 4inches off the padding before the start of the handle and puts it somewhere else and then some to increase his/her leverage so they can handle the weapon properly.

As far as safety goes it's more along the lines it's not so much how much incidental is between the fighter and the opponent but how much striking surface is around and how likely you are to be hit with what's in between, I'd argue that hafting with the weapons you described is much more prevalent in this sport, and the likelyhood of that happening in the hands of an inexperienced player is much greater if based on nothing but prevalance alone, even if we get past the impression that anyone who picks up your weapons on the field isn't a total retard

[Forkbeard]

That's one of the problems, Celt. At least 10% of the people who pick up your weapon on the field ARE **** retards. And we have to build everything safe enough to be used by any poopy pantsed drooler out there.
Alright, we have established that,
a)this haft padding tomfoolery is cool as long as it's minor, like on a polearm it give better leverage by a few inches.
b)this * is NOT cool when someone is trying to gain advantages by putting their handle directly under their striking surface and putting all or most of the haft padding in the pommell area.
Right?
Then we're already covered.
The problems is solved by my favorite ruleof all.
No manipulation of the rules to gain advatage. I love that rule so much. We need to stop being afraid to use it more.
It's the classic parental "becuase I said so" that **** rules-lawyer kids, need.
FB