Don't you guys think your taking the fun out of Renactment?

[Nex_Addo]

[quentin]

Have to say that I would like to see a conceptual change in steel fighting in NZ.
Broadly to split it up into "heavy", "light" and "formation".
Quite how to define the first two categories I leave to the community at large but mixing 'full plate pounders' and 'undertrained under armoured' limits what both groups can chose to do.

I would argue that we have enough combatents to do both at camps where the public isn't (get changed if you want to do both fights) and a left&right approach would suffice when the public is around.

Is a talking point anyway.
We would be damn fools to try and legistate/force it on people, KoM!

Q

p.s. I'm mostly there for the encampment anyway - as most of you know !

[Anna Cruse]

Nex - your ignorance is astounding, and your attempts at argument merely convince me that you are incapable of rational / logical thought, certainly not any worth appealing to. Try not to get hit in the head so much.

For those others who might be a little confused about my position, I am talking about the difference between accepted risk and criminal negligence or assault. If we don't make the effort to enforce our own rules (the ones we make to protect ourselves against unacceptable risk)they will (and should, for safety's sake) be enforced through the greater community that we are a part of, and that way will be far less forgiving.

Make good rules, abide by them, enforce them or pay dearly sometime soon.

Anna

[Guest]

hey guys i think that we are going about this all wrong you see i have been running a club as co captain since 2001 we do authentic fighting we spar with steel and we have never had a serious injury. and when i talk about injuries i mean the biggest one we have ever had was someones chain tearing a little bit of skin off. i know for fact that we have never let a person on the battle field that we know is untrained. we wont even think off signing someone of if he hasn't passed our first grade.

we as a club fight pretty hard we do head blow grappling etc when we spar. we want to do proper fighting styles when we go somewhere but alas we are stuck with sword tiggy at most places and it sucks i know at NAAMA that is what happens and that is why most of our club doesnt go and if we do all we do is socialize. but at tuapo we want something more real. and as for saftey at NAAMA i saw a guy trip over a spear and accidently hit someone in the head cool accidents happen, dude that got hit in the head had a big cry becuase he got hurt but when you looked at his helm he had no paddind whatsoever and the dude that tripped go all the grief for it which isnt fair. so i think that people should ensure that we are not jumping the gun and condeming people as unsafe if the person that gets hurt doesnt have the correct equipment. for example if you go into head blow with an open face helm you are asking someone to hit your teeth out your backside. i think we should police it better but i dont think an organization that is lord of everone is the way to go.

o and by the way i know of captains signing people who have only trained two or three times in off as safe at NAAMA .

and i think if we want to get it better we should rely on our marshals if they see something they should warn the person only once second time is off the field and if the person bitches then kick the whole club of the field it will quickly ensure that captains only sign of competent people.

[/quote]BEFORE GUNS MEN HAD BALLS

[Nex_Addo]

Anna you clearly don't get it. I don't know how you could truly believe that the event organizer should be held responsible. Does the organizer train the people? Should the organizer do a profile on every combatant? Of course not the job to decide who is safe and who is not should be the job of club captains as no-one else should know better then he on the safety of his members.
It seems Soulkeeper1 has got the right idea and its good to know I'm not the only one seeing it

[ann dugmore]

EAST is EAST and WEST is WEST:-

I got involved in this discussion when it seemed that there was an effort underfoot to put ALL re-enactment styles under one over-arching group based on NAAMA - this would seriously cut down the variety and enjoyment out of re-enactment.

Its strange how we are all at each other's throats (metaphorically speaking!) since it was first mooted!!

There is nothing wrong with NAAMA style or SCA style or TAUPO style or WMA style: as long as the combatants (sorry about the spelling last time I wrote that word - we all need to raise our language skills!) know and agree to the rules. We all fight differently for the different events and display fighting is different again.

I am more concerned that one group (or person) should try and set the standard of style of fighting and safety equipment for every major event
and I think the Romans are going to look pretty funny in flak jackets under their tunics!

[Anna Cruse]

Thanks to Patch for adding diplomacy...

About liability...

If a group of people put on an event and, through their spokespeople (in the case of the joust, the marshals), tell the people participating that there are specific rules in place and then have their enforcers fail to uphold those rules, they are liable. We CAN sue in NZ, just not for injury compensation. If someone gets injured through those circumstances the organisers can also be held for criminal negligence or worse. Remember the bike race organiser who was arrested for the death of a participant? And she was proven to HAVE told people the risks. The joust is also a very public event...

No, they don't know who's involved, but they do set up the circumstances by which the events happen. They provide the info (rules) and the enforcers. They say stop or go. They are the ones in control.

If a person knowingly misrepresents the abilities of another to get them into an activity that involves risk to them or others (in other words, captains who sign off people who can't fight safely) they are liable.

If a person misrepresents their own skill, they are liable (that includes club captains with no clue how to train or judge the ability of their people).

About unwanted physical contact...

If, in any activity, a person knowingly and deliberately physically infringes on another person, that is assault. This includes fouling people at soccer, cutting people off in cycling, or patting someone on the arse at golf. If it is a contact sport there are still limits: one is not allowed to smack someone in the face playing rugby, deliberately break an arm in judo, or hit people in the head at NAAMA (on or off the field). If someone on the street pokes me in the chest with their finger, I have the right to perform a citizen's arrest (truly).

Why make a big deal about it...

The last we heard, the rules at the joust were NAAMA rules. If they were, those who were hurt could take the whole thing down. What I "believe" about the situation makes no difference to what the reality is. Your appeals to "fun" and not being "unkind" to people who don't take the responsibility of their positions are not going to save them or the people who get hurt through their incompetence (even if sweet young Soulkeeper1 agrees with you *sigh*). Most sport bodies have internal methods of regulation and enforcement. If we in the greater medieval community don't start being responsible for ourselves, then the only recourse we have is from the outside.

We have to be willing to use Law, to protect ourselves. We don't have to wait until someone is crippled for life, or someone you love is killed by the arrogance and stupidity of those who think the rules don't apply to them, or are too lazy or weak to care.

What I believe (since you asked)...

People can make their own decisions about the level of risk they are willing to be exposed to, and no-one has any right to insist on more.

Accurate information about what to expect and an expectation of good enforcement of that level of risk are crucial for making such decisions (and protecting yourself from the Law).

Bad rules are better than no rules. Good rules work for everyone (there is a difference between anarchy and chaos)

Variety is the spice of life and the basis of growth. No-one is better off for the enforcement of only one path.

If one person dies, about 100 people are significantly affected - family, friends, workmates etc. Would you like to say sorry to each of them?

Humanity is worth fighting for.

Anna

[Patch]

“If the person is not following the rules then they are not safe.” – Nex.
“If a combatant agrees to fight by the rules but doesn't have adequate control…” – Anna
“…injured because that set of rules is not being played…” -Anna
“as long as the combatants know and agree to the rules” –Ann.

I am fairly certain that this may well be one of the fundamental points being argued. Oddly enough both if not all people who have commented agree wholeheartedly with the same sentiments.

Can you guys agree without so much bitter argument?

[Patch]

“the point is if you get hurt dont whine about it have a beer afterwards and laugh at it.” –Nex

I think that a couple of people picked up on the idea that the guys that took heavy hits were bitching about it or maybe 3rd parties were winging on their behalf.

As far as I can see no one was whining about the specific hurts that they received, and (almost) no one wants to suck the fun out of, or meddle at all in other groups styles of fighting.

I think that people were concerned that our sport that has been safe for years and years, suddenly become a lot more dangerous for no reason.

Only because we chatted about it in the open did we find out the truth.

As it turned out there were some big flaws in communication.
Some people believed it was one kind of combat when it was a completely different game. This included some of the fighters some of the bystanders and for all I know some of the marshals.

It is a good thing when people are concerned for each other.

It is a good thing to make sure that bad communication like this does not happen again.

Cheers,
-Patch.

[Guest]

anna are you a lawyer????
i admit i am not and you may be right but what i think nex is trying without much success to say is that if it happens and some person sues it will be the death of camps because i know that i would never run a camp if something like that happened and i am sure most others wouldnt either and there is something you are failing to mention its called PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE and i am a bussiness owner and i know for events like this you will need it. so in the end if it came down to it the insurance would cover them as far as a law suit goes.
all i was saying is that club captains should be responsible enough not to sign off on people who haven't trained enough . well i notice that you never made a comment about the FACT THAT SOME CAPTAINS AT NAAMA SIGN PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT HAD SUFFICENT TRAINING

o and by the way i am not some young buck so dont imply it again OK that way we can all still play nice with each other

[Kath]

I think people may have lost sight of a couple of things:

In the 'beginning' there was NAAMA and the said NAAMA rules
Several years ago some people sat down and came up with a form of head blow with charged blows (from behind the shoulder) which became initally known as 'Armoured Grade'. This was formalised and became the rules that MLH combatants play to.

Somewhere along the way in the past three years the initial 'Armoured Grade' got adopted by those in NAAMA wanting head blow and this became what seems to me to be a big fat grey area.

The event at Taupo offered distinct seperate combat being NAAMA, and a heavy armoured head blow version (whatever version it was) so engaging in a huge navel gazing exercise regarding the NAAMA rules/when an incident constitutes assults etc just isnt constructive.

The question could be:
Should NAAMA formally introduce and define a version of headblow combat within the NAAMA rules?

But since NAAMA is just a set of 'rules' on a piece of paper and not a functioning governing body its all pretty moot really.

PS: the organiser of the cycle race had the guilty verdict overturned.

[Guest]

This is an interesting conversation, because I hear it again and again over the years.

Someone gets hurt.
People worry about litigation, they decide more rules are needed.
Other people tell them to chill out.
Nothing much happens...

Here is my favourite rule from the SCA rulebook:

A. The Rules of the Lists are reprinted from Appendix B of the Corpora of the SCA.
1. Each fighter, recognizing the possibilities of physical injury to him or herself in such combat, shall assume unto himself or herself all risk and liability for harm suffered by means of such combat. No fighter shall engage in combat unless and until he or she has inspected the field of combat and satisfied himself or herself that it is suitable for combat. Other participants shall likewise recognize the risks involved in their presence on or near the field of combat, and shall assume unto themselves the liabilities thereof.

It's simple, if you don't believe the event is being run in a manner acceptable to you, don't go on the field. You can have the thespian "the show must go on" attitude if you want to, but never for a moment believe that the lions share of the blame for anybody getting injured is anyone other than themself.

Nobody makes you go on the field!

[Kath]

Sometimes I 'really' wish I could put things in writing in as a concise and logical manner as Derek has.

I hate to bang on at it but like I said before when various topics started post Taupo Tourney;

1. A couple of injuries occured at the event
2. People have got concerned
3. People believe 'something' should be done

I still firmly believe that;
1. Organisers of an event run the event and the combat thereof - they state who is organising/responsible for organising combat, appointing marshalls, communicating the rules to participants
2. If you are on the field you should d*mn well know what the rules are i.e is it NAAMA or is it 'Armoured Grade' or something else - refer to the grey area issue I raised earlier.
3. If you dont fully know whats going on, or are not happy with the way an event is being run then dont step on the field.

NAAMA needs
1. Incorporation
2. A set of Marshall requirements, qualification/grading
3. Ability for recourse i.e a hearing where an incident has occured on the day it occurs and settlement reached. Or as Derek commented - someone is removed from an event and they dont come back.

The above 'should' be done at NAAMA, by those IN NAAMA.

Another 5c bought to you by

Kath
the sometimes Celt

[valgardthr]

I concur that there should be some regulations around combat, but I agree with Derek whole heartedly - "If you dont fully know what's going on, or are not happy with the way an event is being run - then dont step on the field." At the end of the day, this is a "combatant beware" sport. Combat is full contact (for purposes of realism, and accuracy to actual battle conditions), and if you aren't comfortable with the possibility of injuries - don't step onto the field of battle. Accidents are unfortunate, and noone likes to see them happen, but the truth of the matter is - they can and do happen. It's an unavoidable part of the sport, just like any other sport ever played!!!

All of the re-enactors that wish to participate in the battles MUST complete so many weeks/months of training before they're allowed to battle. It can sometimes differ by club, but the minimum recommended time is 3 weeks of battle training. This is required for realism, accuracy, and above all SAFETY!

I attended the Taupo event and saw most of the incidents happen, and the injuries that I saw were either do to poor judgement by the re-enactor, and/or a plain out-and-out accident of combat. Case in point - one of the re-enactors was not wearing any shoes or foot protection, during a battle his foot was stepped on, and he suffered a couple broken toes. Another incident occurred during 'Head Blow', and yet when the re-enactor that incurred the blow saw a sword coming towards his helm, he committed the almost mortal sin of 'head blow' combat - he tried to dodge the blow by moving backwards while raising his head (looking up towards the oncoming sword strike). This of course opened his mouth up for injury - and that's what happened. He now has a chipped tooth. Both instances of poor judgement by the re-enactor.

There is a certain combatant (who shall remain nameless), but everyone knows he easily goes OTT in battles, and forgets the rules - thus resulting in his causing of quite a few injuries, and I agree that persons like himself should be removed permanently from combat. Myself, and other combatants I know will NOT take part in any battle that he enters. Same rule applies - if anyone does enter a battle with this particular person, you do so at your own risk. It's all relative - this sport is quite safe when the rules are adhered to, but the onus is on the individual to guage their abilities before entering a battle - if you have any doubts, sit that battle out!

Sorry for being so long-winded!!!

[Víkarr]

valgardthr mate, I think there might be a bit of contention regarding the circumstances of that injury.

http://www.gatheringdarkness.co.nz/forum/viewtopic.php?t=240

Unfortunately you usually need more than one person involved to get most of the interesting injuries to take place, which often means you'll get different prespectives of what actually happened from the different parties involved. This can sometimes end up in having the facts a bit distorted and people playing the blame game (which doesnt help much to stop the same sort of injury from reoccuring in the future). Injury reports help to clarify things a bit in these situations and I'm sure theres one out there written up sometime by someone and filed away somewhere for some future reference.

"Just the fact's ma'am."