haft padding passing more that .5" through a 2.5 hole

[bo1]

a mace came through the meapons check at ofest. it was a cool looking weapon, a red class barrel mace. it was for a monster, so it had 1-1.25 tall spikes on it. those spikes were roughly the shape of an equalateral triangle.

i failed it as those spikes were a hazard, in my opinion. i used the template as my reason for failing it. did i do it correctly?

shoudl i have used this rule-1.3.2. All non-striking surfaces must be padded adequately to prevent personal injury from incidental contact.

i realize that i had the athority to do what ever i wanted, but that isnt the point. killian and i had a long discussion about if it was failed correctly or not. killian was pleasant and in the end we just agreed to disagree.

my thinking is to change them to liik like trapizoids, with 2" tops and 3 in bottoms, and make them 1" tall. that way they pass the template test, but that is nither here nor there.

[Cyric]

To be technically correct, there is no template rule for anything other than the striking surface and the pommel. Things like crossguards, spikes, etc, do not have a rule that governs them, other than 1.3.2. If you felt the weapon was unsafe, then yes you can fail it. all you can really do is swing test it to see if you can feel core, since as incidental padding that's all you should really look for.

1.3.2. All non-striking surfaces must be padded adequately to prevent personal injury from incidental contact.

1.3.3. Two and one-half inch rule-No surface on a striking edge (sword tip, arrow head, spear head, javelin head, etc.) whether designed for stabbing or not, may readily pass more than 0.5 inch through a 2.5 inch hole; swords with a semicircular tip, with a minimum 1.5 inch radius are exempt from this rule. See Appendix A, 1.4.4.2.

1.3.4. The Weapon pommel must not readily pass through a 2" diameter hole.

[bo1]

i was pretty certian i was in the right, killian was certian that i was not.

but i can deffinatly use rule 1.3.2 for that purpose in the future.

[Davit]

Remember the word incidental though, it should not need to stand up to a normal hit test.

Also, rules should be applied to follow the rules, not get a specific result that we want.

[Big King Jimmy]

I completely disagree when the result is "safety" and "Lack of corneal abrasion."

[Peregrine]

I completely disagree when the result is "safety" and "Lack of corneal abrasion."

I agree

[bo1]

davit, i believe at my core that it is not safe to have those spikes, with their current shape and size, on that particular weapon. but when you fail something people want more than a" i dont like it reason". so i like to be able to site a rule that covers the area. this way i can be consistent, and not get personal about weapons passing or failing.

the main reason for me posting here is to get a better idea what people thought. i never want to fail a weapon, but i have to apply the book of war to test its saftey. if i opperate outside the bow, then i am not doing my job correctly.

[Elebrim]

If the word "adequately" in 1.3.2 is defined as suitable to complete a particular task or purpose, then 1.3.2 could be applied if it is argued that the spiked design rendered that area of padding unsuitable for its task as courtesy or safety padding.

I didn't see this particular weapon, but I have seen several weapons with spiked or jagged padding designs pass that were borderline at best and unsafe at worst. Either the spiked points are too narrow, or the gaps in between come too close to the core to be safe. I will not blame a weapons checker for failing a weapon like this out of potential safety concerns. Better safe than sorry in a full contact game, no matter how cool it is.

[Derian]

I don't want to get into arguing the point here -- I can see both sides. It's 99% hypothetical, and I simply don't have the energy to argue hypothetical points anymore.

With this is mind, instead of arguing over interpretations of the rules, what can we do to give credence to one viewpoint? Is there any precedent we can look to? Perhaps some way we could test things of this nature? It would be great to get a small modification or addition into the BoW to rule clearly on things like this (including crossguards, because that's come up an innumerable amount of times) one way or the other. It will make things like this so much easier for everyone involved down the road.

[Cyric]

the easiest way to do it would be to make 1.3.4. (The Weapon pommel must not readily pass through a 2" diameter hole) apply to all protrusions from a weapon, which would include crossguards and spikes.

[Davit]

If we are going to add a rule it should only applied to cored portions of weapons. Have you EVER heard of an all foam crossguard hurting someone, I think not. If you want to increase safety for "occular abrasion" how about focusing on things like, arrows covers and fletchings? I know for a face that there were at least two people who caught fletchings in the eye and no one in the last year of events I have been at (one of which I was of the weapons checkers in charge) who was caught by some less than an inch protrusions on haft padding.

[Peregrine]

should this be moved to the rule discussion forum?

[bo1]

perhaps, but i will continue anyway

i like where this is headed. a ruling that clears this issue up would be good. or simply tell me i was wrong. either way i applied my best judgement, and if i was wrong then so be it.

i would whole heartedly agree that no part of the weapon should pass more than .5 through a 2" hole, and give the usual exclusion of semi curcular tips. this wouldnt remove the 2.5 rule for tips either. but then again, i never hear about injuries from pommels, haft padding or foam spikes entering the eye. arrows are the worst offenders.

[Peregrine]

I have had two corneal abrasions, one from a jave and one from being stabbed in the eye with a passing sword. I will agree however that arrows are the most dangers thing on the field.

[Big King Jimmy]

Bo, no one can tell you you were wrong. You were the head weapons checker, you failed a weapon which you felt was on safe. You did EXACTLY what your job is to do. Do we want reasons to do it? Of course, but at the end of the day if a head weapons checker looks at something and says to himself "I can't find a reason to fail this, but this is just WRONG." Then if they don't fail it they've just just killed the first two parts. Safety first, playability second. That's the foundation of what we do. Your weapon passes rules, but it's not safe according to the guy whose job is to make that gut check. Then it fails.

[Poo]

Your weapon passes rules, but it's not safe according to the guy whose job is to make that gut check. Then it fails.

Then why have a rulebook when we can have one person check every weapon according to their subjective thoughts on what passes?

If we leave it up to a person, and they * someone off, then the next event when someone else is running ****, someone else is gonna get angry. I saw this happen in dag at one point, where a couple people decided that they hated speed bats, so they need to be 3". If we leave this **** up to people's judgment, there are always going to be arguments and tantrums. If the rules don't cover a subject adequately enough, then we need to change them, not give the judgment over to one person. **** a.

p.s. I'm not giving an opinion on the debacle at okfest, more like a blanket statement from what i've been seeing.

[Big King Jimmy]

That why, like a judge, a head weapons checker must be impartial, and interpret the rules as he sees them. It's common knowledge the the reason the pommel test is a 2" hole is that it's the eye socket test. Bo felt that the spikes were an eye hazard. He tested that fear the using the more relevant test he had available. It's not even a precedent, Moxk's had weapons fail for this same reason for years, and I know I've heard of others. Bo wasn't being radical, he was keeping a weapon he felt was going to hurt someone off the field. Bravo.

[Turin]

1.4. Creative interpretation of the rules to gain any advantage is discouraged. These rules are intentionally sparse to allow for ease of use. The Marshal, according to these rules, and medieval foam combat precedent, settles all disputes.

Poo, the rules have been left open, wisely, to encourage people to act creatively & with diversity. At times we find ourselves within the letter of the rules but outside the bounds of safety. The Marshal is there to catch these instances & redirect. It is inherently a subjective endeavor. So is hit-taking. The other option is to tighten down the rules in these regards & lose that sense of openness in the bargain.

[Sir Anastasia]

Equipment on the field should not have projections that can go into the eye. There are many rules in the BOW that do this for armor and weapons, you can take your pick. I think the Marshal's discretion is key here (good job!), and although I feel bad for people who come up with cool stuff that violates the word/spirit of these laws, they need to realize that this is for everyone's safety, and they need to stop requiring us to legislate every possible scenario in order to fail their weapons. This reminds me of someone complaining about their weapon failing for haft padding. The weapon was missing haft padding nearest the striking surface, but had it in the middle. Then they complained the BOW doesn't say where the haft padding has to be...it just has to have a certain length of it. They would have been able to smack people with the core if the weapon was allowed on the field. Don't be an idiot. There is a spirit to the law often more important than the word of it.

[Thorondor]

Don't be an idiot. There is a spirit to the law often more important than the word of it.

This is also why the wiki has some 'unwritten rules' that have been written down over time...
http://geddon.org/index.php/Unwritten_Rules

[Squire Moxk]

Moxk's had weapons fail for this same reason for years, and I know I've heard of others. Bo wasn't being radical, he was keeping a weapon he felt was going to hurt someone off the field. Bravo.

Actually my club in question never failed for that because I made sure the detail bits didn't stick out a half inch.



it looks so ugly now...

[Isk]

I followed this discussion earlier, but it has just come up with a spear I was testing. A spear hook is a non-striking part of the spear, part of the incidental padding and entirely made of foam. Therefore my first inclination is to require it to pass no more than a 1/2" through a 2" hole, but it is quite close to the business end of that eight foot spear. Should it be required to pass the 2" or the 2.5" template test?