Pommel 2 inch hole .5 inches?

[varadin]

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


So I have always judged this rule as being the same as a weapons tip rule. half and inch through, i think its passing through a 2 inch hole and thus I fail things for pommel. This recently (spring wars) came to my attention that it can be read as the whole pommel, where as I have always taken it to mean, any of the pommel passing through.

How do you guys judge this, I've seen a very common check being .5 inches through and failing it. But now I realize some places may allow for a very odd terrible shaped pommel to pass beyond that as long as the template catches on it somewhere.

[Sir Anastasia]

I have always interpreted it as "any part" and have extended it to cross-guards or other parts of weapons. We have done it this way since 2001, first in the mid-west and now in California.

I usually just take a look-see to determine whether I can put any part of it in my eye easily. I would bring it to template and if a part extended through, I would fail it. If any part could easily enter an eye socket, then it fails for template. The point of the rule is generally to prevent this type of injury. Marshals can also fail things based on concerns of safety or precedent without having to worry about fighters quoting the rules at them verbatim. Common sense is our first defense!

I hope that answers your question. When I imagined what you said, I pictured a weapon like this:

http://www.icollector.com/U-S-Eagle-Pom ... h_i9386748

This would get stuck in the template and would not pass through if "dropped" on to it. But it has a huge stupid eagle beak begging to peck your eyes out. It is a bad pommel.

[varadin]

exactly the problem, the rule doesn't follow the way we check it. Its just about worthless to have a 3inches of a pommel through a template if it stop 3 inches down.

[Sir Killian]

The pommel should not pass easily thru a template... If it is like throwing a hot dog down a hall way then it fails..
If you have to force it thru to fail it you fail as a **** checker... And hilts and cross guards have no criteria... If they are core less who could care less... We have bigger fish to fry, like poorly built red swords made out of hockey sticks or archery equipment....

[varadin]

Here is the issue though Killian, By the rule. ALL of these pass right now. None of them would pass through the template. Two completely go against the idea of the rule though.

Is this a huge issue? No, but its an issue in the rules. So why not fix it and make the game safer and better.

Cause honestly, can you tell me you would pass the second two? Why doesn't the rule reflect what we enforce.

[Sir Killian]

Because the rules are kept simple for the sake of speed and ease...

The last pommel to the right in would be failed simply because they are trying to bend the rules and is highly unlikely to be adequately padded.. The second pommel as long as it is adequately padded I'd allow it to slide. This leaves room for interperation and benefit of the doubt.

What the most common occurrence is, is when a persons pommel is just barely big enough, and people jam the pommel thru... Weapons check is always about safety first, and playability second. I have seen one person get pommeld in the 13yrs I've been active... Its a moot point, all it would do is be grammar nazi ing the rules... Which we don't need...

This only becomes problem if weapons check is not competent and well run. And that's on us as good veterans to teach the new fighters how we were taught

[varadin]

When its a Veteran fighter who argues it(a member of your unit a knight none the less) Its not a moot point. I've watched 4 fighters get pommeled this year, so maybe we just play harder.. or lead with our faces out in Ohio.

I don't understand why you are against this changing. It fixes a minor issue, why are you argueing this at all? Whats the point of a rule if its not there to actually encourage safety, because right now. You are failing things that pass by the rules because they fail the spirit of the rule... Why not make the rule reflect what we actually enforce.

And if you pass that second pommel you shouldn't be checking weapons IMO because that thing will plunge right into someones eye.

[Sir Killian]

1 changing rules sets a precedence
2 if the pommel 2 is adequately padded the likely hood of injury is low to nil,I have bigger fish to fry at weapons check... I would inform the person I feel the weapon is borderline by the rules and that they should modify it for regular use. But if it is between them fighting and not fighting I am not going to disallow the use of said pommel..
The rules are sparse for a reason... Making things finite is fine but it makes the weapons checkers job longer and more arduous... And it sets a precedence of re writing rules for the sake of rewriting the,...
I have never passed a weapon that a person has been hurt by, in the 13 yrs. of regular active fighting... That I am aware of...

Your arguing a slippery slope and its unnecessary. I see your point of view but this problem could be changed by teaching the weapons checkers right from wrong and less with the re writing of a rule that is perfectly fine

[Sir Par]

I don't see it as a slippery slope issue Killian. It's more about standardization. We've had more realms pop up without the benefit of veteran leadership in the last two years than ever before. We want the BOW to be easy, accessible, and usable for EVERYONE, not just guys like you, me, and Baldi who've been around forever. It would be a simple rule change and would just make pommels standardized like everything else. Is it hurting anyone? No probably not. Is it unsafe? Like you said I've never seen a pommel injury either. Would it help new people understand what we do when they come to weapons check? Absolutely.

[Sir Killian]

It is a slippery slope because of the fact that people are adding rules to checking weapons that don't exist... If someone taught you to check the pommel in that fashion they were wrong... And by suggesting that cause people incorrectly check pommels is a reason to change a rule is a slippery slope... And yeah you can argue all you want that you check pommels correctly but if you add 1/2 in rule to non striking parts your doing it wrong

The 1/2 in rule is for striking surface because it has the highest capability to strike an opponent in the eye.

A pommel is incidental padding and therefore doesn't need that rule,
Common sense still supersedes loop holes and idiocy but I feel the rule has been good for 13+ yrs why change it now....

[Sir Anastasia]

"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."

One thing to consider is that precedent is not the same everywhere all across the country. Your precedent and mine are the same age, but mine is much more conservative and gets applied to any part of the weapon that could fit in an eye. This is easy for me because where ever I go, my stuff passes due to a stricter interpretation. Not so easy for people with a looser interpretation and a skimpier pommel. Varadin's drawing and argument are a fair point, the rule could be re-written to reflect that more conservative interpretation to protect new people from having their gear fail at events. I think protecting those individuals should be a major consideration because having your gear fail for a misunderstanding can be traumatic for newcomers.

[Sir Killian]

The pommel in question is pommel 2 pommel 3 is just an asinine argument.
Safety requires some common sense on the part of the checker... I guarantee that pommel 2 and 1 are equally safe...

And 1.4 was written in regards to the fighting aspect



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.

There is the rule clear as frakking day.... It isn't a striking surface therefore it is exempt from your imaginary rule...
By the book and as a person who has been checking weapons on a national level for nearly 13yrs I have never seen an issue with a pommel of shapes 1 or 2....
What you do in your realm or at your event is fine, but by national standards its legit...

Book of war'd!

[Sir Par]

So how do you check that Killian? Is it with any part of the pommel coming out of the template? Because I can guarantee you that is how weapons have been checked the last three Armageddons, and the last three Chaos Wars. This has become the national standard for the last three years. Why not just standardize it so that someone without the benefit of our experience gets the same information from reading a sentence as you do. The idea that "the less rules the better" is kind of silly. It should be the "CLEAREST" rules the better. And we should make our rules understandable to the lowest common denominator of experience. In short Killian, this isn't about you, its about brand new realms being able to understand things the same way a 10 year vet can.

[Sir Killian]

I'm not trying to make it about me at all... I'm fighting a precedence... If we change rules that don't need to be changed then what's to say other rules will be messed with that don't need changing

I check the pommel as the rules are written... The pommels varadin is posting about have passed for the last 6yrs running... The pommel must not readily pass thru a 2 in hole....

Just sayin is all I think changing rules for the sake of changing rules is stupid and does nothing but make inconsistency everywhere... Face it y'all added a rule that was never there and now to change the rules so your way of checking weapons is the right way is silly... As a head weapons checker it's your job to protect every fighter on the field, as a knight it's my job to do the same, but it's also my job to grow the sport and and it's knit picky stuff like this that makes people go crazy.... When I first started you needed common sense and a good back to check weapons and the basic sense of caring for a fellow fighter.... This has devolved into a minutiae detail and if the **** is safe it's safe... Let them play...

[Sir Killian]

Btw I'm not angry in any way... But I don't see how much clearer that rule can be... If the whole pommel slips thru then it's no go... If it does not then its a go.... If it slips thru it prolly has very little foam and you can feel core... If you can't feel core the pommel and it doesnt slip thru it has done its job. It's not a striking surface and thus is incidental padding like the haft padding of a flail

[Sir Anastasia]

The pommel in question is pommel 2 pommel 3 is just an asinine argument.
Safety requires some common sense on the part of the checker... I guarantee that pommel 2 and 1 are equally safe...

And 1.4 was written in regards to the fighting aspect

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.

There is the rule clear as frakking day.... It isn't a striking surface therefore it is exempt from your imaginary rule...
By the book and as a person who has been checking weapons on a national level for nearly 13yrs I have never seen an issue with a pommel of shapes 1 or 2....
What you do in your realm or at your event is fine, but by national standards its legit...

Book of war'd!

"Appendix 1.3.2. All non-striking surfaces must be padded adequately to prevent personal injury from incidental contact." I interpret that to mean it has to be padded such that it doesn't fit in your eye. Otherwise you can make cross-guards that CAN fit in the eye. Why would you let that on the field?

The whole rule (1) talks about both aspects (game and checking). The Book of War is very explicit: "Marshal [is the] Person responsible for rules enforcement AND weapons inspection." and "determines Equipment classifications according to the guidelines outlined in Appendix A." and "All Equipment must be inspected and properly marked if appropriate, according to the guidelines outlined in Appendix A, before it is used in combat." After all that, we get to 1.4. It doesn't say "ONLY FIGHTING." There is considerable precedent for weapons checking criteria being under the Marshal's discretion. If what you say is true, then creative interpretation of the rules to gain an advantage with anything in Appendix A WOULD be fine. So, do you believe that any creative interpretation of the rules to make a cheesy weapon or armor would be allowed then, because 1.4 only applies to fighting? Probably not...

But, my point is this:

Over 1000 miles away and your national and my national may not be exactly the same. But they are both national trends. I'm not saying you're wrong - if you are the Marshal, then you ARE right because of rule #1. But, the rules are subject to interpretation (pommels, shield rigidity, hit tests, ect.), that interpretation does vary by region - if something is unclear, then it may well be in the interest of the organization to clarify them. If we don't care about differences (I don't!), then we don't need to change the rules. The one thing we cannot afford to do is believe there are no differences. We just had a whole thread on ONE issue that is interpreted differently depending on region.

[Sir Killian]

Where does the book of war talk about eyes?
Why is no one worried about nocks on arrows?
Why do people feel the need to check incidental padding as if it was part of a striking surface

A trend is not a rule... By the rules you all are wrong
The pommels 1 and 2 are safe... As I explained a pommel where core cannot be felt and does not readily pass thru a template is safe... How hard is that to believe... I am more worried about a persons fist than the * pommel... A arrow nock can go into my eye... So I now am going to fail all of them because the incidental area of an arrow isn't padded.... That's a stupid argument... People added the .5 in by mistake and won't admit they were wrong.... The difference between 1 and 2 are nil... And I'm sorry to be blunt.

There is a huge difference between striking and non striking, why test them the same?

And your right on the 1.4 rule... I will give you that one being all encompassing

As for a cross hilt if its made from closed cell foam with no core I am totally cool with it... If its made from PVC or fiberglass I'd look hard into the weapon and make a decision... Usually when someone builds a cross hilt onto a weapon there is something wrong with the blade or the tip
when I was new back in 2000 I'd fail a questionable item until I had a more experienced fighter such as sir kyrian check the weapon and explain to me why it passed or failed... I was taught by some of the most well respected weapons checkers on the sport, so I feel ok holding my ground here

[varadin]

Btw I'm not angry in any way... But I don't see how much clearer that rule can be... If the whole pommel slips thru then it's no go... If it does not then its a go....

By your own wording there though you are saying that pommel 3 passes. If you want I can make that pommel safe for hit and bring it to an event(im pretty good with foam). We both would fail that though. Why don't the rules back the call we would make. It makes for less arguments at check and less new people with wrong ideas. So by the rules that you are trying to enforce, you are failing something against the rules.

I understand what you are saying about fighting a precedence, but that is why we have places to discuss rule changes, and have War council votes in which realm admins will shut down worthless changes. This forum is about talking about changes. Your only arguement against it is that it sets up a bad precedence for more rules to change. How is making the rules clearer to how we check a bad thing.

And that pommel 2 would have failed at any weapons check I was in, and I know most of the head checkers from most events ive been at recently (Forrest-Springwars, Chavez-Beltain, Vale??-WPO, Joemick- Okfest) would have failed that as well. Par says he would have failed it at Geddon and hes run the last 3 geddon checks... So stand your ground, but your Standing alone sorry buddy.

The Rules should back the call.

[Sir Killian]

There is a point where common sense comes in... but by the rules your right... there is also a difference between you building a pommel like that and a new kid in bfe starting a realm doing so... its not a discussion if everyone agrees... its a agreement...

All I'm saying is the rule is pretty clear, it sets a precedence of changing other rules by changing this... if we remove the term incidental padding then I'm ok with it... make all padding be tested the same way... but until that happens its incidental padding and there fore is less stringient rule for passing

[Squire Moxk]

I've always read the rule as, A Pommel can not pass through the 2 inch hole at all.

A pommel in our game as far as the rules are concerned is just the cap on the bottom of the core, it doesn't matter how it is affixed. It's purpose is to prevent the pointy part of the weapon going in your eye. The only part that actually counts as pommel would be the part that is at the very bottom of the weapon no matter how it is constructed. All the other parts that make up a pommel are courtesy padding, or just tape in some extreme circumstances and therefor count as handle. So I've always treated it during weapons check as taking a template perpendicular core, and if the foam cap penetrates the template at all it fails. I think that that is the most consistent way to work in the rule set.

Adding the ability of a pommel to fit half an inch though the template just makes for less safe pommels to be allowed on the field.

[Squire Moxk]

Also while we are on the topic, sword tips are only allowed to pass a half inch into the two and a half inch hole because our rules are written with the idea in mind that a swords will have a rounded tip. This assumption was made due to the nature of sword construction at the time of the books writing, and for the most part is still the prevailing construction methodology. The rounded tip design is also much safer as far as eyes are concerned.

[Sir Killian]

But as long as the pommel is adequately padded it is incidental padding and thus is checked at a more lax criterion...

Pommel argument 3 aside... For slippery slope
And it's more than just eyes that pommels are there to protect, but that's a whole different topic

People cannot pick and choose what rules to follow at events that use the book of war, the rules are there and the pommels are safe, this has become a discussion that supports my point that its silly for a person to change rules that are fine and in my opinion clear... It's like a habit people do something one way for one reason or another and sooner or later they begin to feel that is how things work. Well habits are not rules . It's a bad habit that started somewhere and now people wrongly assume that it's the right way. No reason for people to change a rule to justify the way they check weapons. It hasn't been unsafe for 13+ years I've been around... It's not game breaking... And it is foam swords so realism is out the window...

The real question is what makes a pommel safe? It's durability and the inability to feel core on the end of the weapon with a rough size of 2 inches

1 durability - the protects fighters from having pommels fly off in battle thus exposing core and/or whipping a weapon at said opponent .

2 the inability to feel core - this protects fighters from being gouged/hit by PVC, kitespar, banshop pole, golf club, etc etc this mostly protects the wielder but is also protecting the opponent

3 the rough size of 2 inches - this is to protect the opponent or wielder from the core of the weapon penetrating the eye ball/occular socket of an opponent, fox has the largest eyes of any fighter I know and his eyeballs are less than 2 inches in size... And I have a huge Rottweiler head and my occular area(ie from my eyebrows to my cheeks bones) is maybe just a bit over 2 inches

[Sir Killian]

1 7/8" x 1 3/4" is the size of my eye... How bout all of you? This is just out of curiosity

[Squire Moxk]

But as long as the pommel is adequately padded it is incidental padding and thus is checked at a more lax criterion...

I concur.

[varadin]

absolutely, for hit. Why should something thats padded less be able to punch you in the eye harder?

[Arrakis]

This is preposterous.

The rules are very clear.

Can the pommel, defined as the "[n]on-striking Surface that covers the end of the Handle", readily pass through a 2" hole? That is, can you easily push the padding that covers the end of the handle of the weapon, where handle is defined as the "[n]on-padded portion of the Weapon designed as a handhold", entirely through a 2" hole? If yes, weapon fails, if no, weapon passes.

This isn't Boeing. We aren't building these foam weapons for Pratt & Whitney. Jesus.