1/2" Protrusion on Armor

[Tiberius Claudius]

Referencing this post in the Armory thread.

3.4. Armor may not have protrusions that rise more than 1/2 inch from the surface.

So, without trying to be a rules lawyer, what exactly does the term "from the surface" mean?

OP's helm has tusks that are obviously added after the fact, to the mandible armor that is on one plane. Thus, they protrude from the surface. His pointy crown bits though, continue in the same plane as the integral portions of the helm from which they stem and are of the same single piece. I wouldn't consider those to fail because they are the surface of the helmet, rather than separate accoutrements.

FB's helm has an undulating planar surface whose higher points are an integral part of the structure of the helm itself. I wouldn't necessarily consider them to "protrude from the surface" because I believe they are the surface. Now, if additional spikes, rivets, other doo dads were attached to stick out at any angle from that plane, then I would consider them to fall under the spirit of the rule.

What's the verdict on my opinion? Is the "surface" of helm limited to the 3D spheroid of the wearer's head?

[Cade]

Historically the rule was intended for Rigid projections only.

Obviously the Rigid part was lost somewhere along the line whether intentionally or unintentionally, and now its open to interpretation.

Right or wrong, this rule is generally applied to Rigid objects only, and not to leather. Look at the footage and pictures from events the past few years and you see plenty of helms and armor that would fail this rule if it had been applied to leather.

Just my 2c

[Kage]

Tiberius you have it pretty much correct. The only reason the helm would fail is because of the tusks, but the OP already knows that.

The rigid was dropped quite sometime ago, but it was originally there to prevent people from having large * spikes on their pauldrons. It now pretty much applies to all projections/protrusions that come off the surface of the armor.

[Plithut]

Kage, I disagree with your interpretation, I think Kade hit it spot on. The rule is so vague, it could be argued either way. I would like to see rigid added back into the rule.

[Kage]

I too would like to see rigid added back but that will be thing as a sport we will have to agree on. As it sits right now you can disagree all you want, but the rule is pretty clear. Nothing more than 1/2" from the surface which is pretty much the base that contours to the body.

/sarcasm
However I can't wait to cover my armor in 4 inch nail like spikes made of unhardened leather.


/end sarcasm

[Forkbeard]

Kage, you're being a douch. Armpr with longer than half inch protrutions is all over the **** west. There is a ton of that kind of crap at all of the evnts that you go to.
We should add rigid back into the wording.
fb

[Kage]

I too would like to see rigid added back but that will be thing as a sport we will have to agree on.

FB: I think you missed the /sarcasm on the pics there big guy.

[Plithut]

Okay then Kage, Define the Surface. Because I am just going to sit at every event and tell you that all of my protrusions are part of the surface of my armor. And let me tell you, at most Western Events now, the people who check/define armor is usually, FB, Bortas, or I.

[Kage]

Since I feel like it at the moment I'm going to break the rule down. I read the BoW and take it literally as written.

3.4. Armor may not have protrusions that rise more than 1/2 inch from the surface.

Alright there it is how it is written in the BoW.

1.) Armor for us in this sport is a protective layer allowing the wearer to absorb a hit to the cover location.
2.) Protrusion is a state or condition of being forward or projecting; alternatively it is an extension beyond the usual limits, or above a plane surface. Since I see surface on that one I'm going to go ahead and use that one.
3.) Surface is the outer or the topmost boundary of an object; the superficial or external aspect; or the exterior face of an object or one such face. I think you get the gist of it with those. So now lets move on.

Armor (our protective layer) can only have protrusions (something that extends above or from the plane) .5" off the surface (the outter most face/plane thats in contour with the body).

Armor as long as its part of the face can have extensions that go past .5", because they are not protrusions. They are part of the surface; prime example is FB's helm. Adding some thing to the face that extends above the plane or surface is a protrusion. You can argue all you want really that some thing you've attached to the surface is part of the surface but I will alway disagree with you. When I do I'm not being disrespectful, it is however my opinion and I will not back down. I will stand by what I believe until I discover something that completely proves me wrong.

Most of the time I'm lucky enough that I don't have to worry about checking people's armor, and I have seen some that I have to wonder how it made it to the field. If I'm not in charge of checking stuff its not my call though and I'm fine with that. But then again I seem to be angering people lately by pushing the envelope of the rules but still staying within them (i.e. blocking with arrows, yes I'm serious). Keep hearing that I'm just looking for loopholes. Maybe I should just stick half inch nails all over my armor. Just get them as close together as possible so its like a bed of nails. Would you pass it? I'm really not trying to be a douche bag (Thanks FB), but I am trying to understand where we're not on the same page. I have a hard time not understanding why you see the surface as something other than the base layer thats all one piece.

[Plithut]

Okay then, where does the surface stop? Like on Forkbeards helm in the thread that spawned this, do you count the faceplate as a protrusion or part of the surface? I get what you are saying Kage, yes I agree that stuff like you posted is ridiculous and should not be allowed. I just dont agree on your interpretation. The way I read and interpret what you have written, is that if there is ANYTHING excess off of what is needed to cover the area by our rules, fails (fyi that would include FOAM protrusions).

[Kage]

On FBs helm the face plate even with what look like spikes are not protrusions they are part of the surface. There can be excess over what needs to be covered and as long as it one piece I call it part of the surface. When what ever it is you are doing has to be attached and more or less 45 to 90 degrees off the surface then it is a protrusion. Foam spikes are still protrusions in my view.

Some examples of what I'm talking about. Might get us on the same page finally. Of course though my passing/fails depends on if the leather is armor grade and some of the examples may not be. Just going off looks.

This to me is pretty much all surface. (passing)


This one is combination of surface and protrusions (if the protrusions were .5" passing but in photo fails.)


All protrusions (fails. if the protrusions were the .5 I would probably pass it)

[Plithut]

As long as those weren't rigid I would pass it.

[Kage]

I wouldn't but at least we made it to the same page more or less.

[Plithut]

Yeah, I guess I am just old school and remember the Rigid part of the rule. As to where and when that got changed? Can anyone document that? I hate pointing it out but does it seem like one or two words seem to slip out of the BoW every now and again? Am I the only one who thinks this?

[Forkbeard]

Important words. It's **** up and we need to start tracking it. Print out some copies and store them. Then if things change we have deliberatly printed, verified and saved version to compare it to that isn't dependent on the intertubes.
FB

[Kage]

I have no idea when "rigid" was dropped from the rule. And I agree that words shouldn't just disappear over time. Which it seems to have over the years from numerous rules, and printing out a new set every so often might help from this happening. Good thoughts and ideas gentlemen. I'll go through some of my old copies of the BoW and see how long ago its been. That is if I can find my copies....

[Cade]

I remember it being gone as of 2008 if that helps.

I remember specifically because thats when i built my first helm and i had to go to my realm leader and ask about that rule because as a new person i was confused after seeing helms that clearly failed this rule, but were being passed.

So its gotta be before then.

[Arrakis]

Via the Wayback Machine:

3.4. Armor may not have protrusions that rise more than ½ inch from the surface.

http://replay.web.archive.org/200802221 ... iew/25/25/

3.4. Armor may not have protrusions that rise more than ½ inch from the surface.

http://replay.web.archive.org/200610051 ... /rules.php

3.4. Armor may not have protrusions that rise more than ½ inch from the surface.

http://replay.web.archive.org/200511230 ... /rules.php

3.4. Armor may not have protrusions that rise more than ½ inch from the surface.

http://replay.web.archive.org/200308012 ... /rules.php

3.4. Armor may not have protrusions that rise more than ½ inch from the surface.

http://replay.web.archive.org/200306230 ... /rules.php



So, I don't really know what to tell y'all. It doesn't look like "rigid" has been part of that specification in a long time. I think maybe you guys should quit worrying about the precise wording of that particularly vague and needfully ambiguous rule and start worrying about enforcing it in a way that promotes safety without restricting valid, safe pieces of armor.

[Plithut]

I know, I looked.