# NFAA rule problems



## SonnyThomas

I shot Adult and Senior Male Free Style and never came across a issue. And if a issue, there is the State Director and Regional Councilmen.

I'd take your....question....elsewhere as it is not related to this forum.....


----------



## Stash

The rule book in any sport isn't there to teach a beginner how to play a game. Look at a golf or baseball rule book - it takes a trained judge/referee/umpire to know most rules and be able to find and properly interpret the more obscure ones.

The basics should be learned from a coach or other archers who have done it before.


----------



## Iowa shooter

When I shot Vegas this year no one on my target could agree on how to score. For example if the paper target is curling back because there is no cardboard behind it, do you score by where the line is or where it should be if the paper was flat?


----------



## wolf44

are you an NFAA member? If so, talk to your state rep, write a proposal and submit it.


----------



## montigre

This is a topic for the NFAA forum. 

BTW, Rule 9.2 "All clothing shall be loose fitting and shall not give support to any part of the body." Pertains to clothing materials that can provide a structural shooting advantage to the competitor (as used in rifle/trap rules) and has nothing to do with one's undergarments.


----------



## Supermag1

I think it has more to do with the constant rule/class changes that take place. I was at a shoot yesterday where they didn't know that the age for senior had changed.


----------



## huteson2us2

I have been a member of NFAA for over 40 years. Still don't know the rules as they change every year. At the Nationals last year, our group had a problem with what constitutes a shot arrow and we are all advanced and experienced tournament archers. 

Everyone had a different idea. When I finished that day, I looked it up on the internet and found out it was different from what anyone thought. When I mentioned the rule to a member of the group that I had shot with, I was told that what I had found was a rule a couple of years old and no longer true. 

So Falcone has a point that concerns advanced target archers. The need for clear rules that can be understood by experienced and advanced target archers.


----------



## field14

Falcone said:


> I've gotten to the point in my local club were people mistaking seem to think I might be the guy to ask when you want to know things. As with most clubs I have shot with, my local range is set up as Field and hunter. One thing I noticed right off was that at my club, and all others I have been to, if you ask a rules question, even a basic one, you tend to get multiple answers that conflict. Having read all 100 pages of the current rules I think I know why. The rules, as written, have problems.
> 
> 1. You should not have to read 100 pages to figure out how to shoot any round.
> You can't just read the section of Field and Hunter, you have to read multiple sections. The field and hunter section does not tell you this.
> 2. The rules have evolved over such a long period of time, it is time to rewrite them from scratch for maximum readability.
> _Did you know that wearing a bra or athletic supporter is a violation of the rules when you shoot crossbow_?
> 3. Any set of rules that you can not hand to a 5th grader and have them understand need to be rewritten.
> Go ahead, try it. Hand the NFAA bylaws to anyone who is not already an elite competition archer and then ask them to explain the rules to you.
> 4. Because there is little agreement on rules at the local club shoots, at the end of the day no one knows who won.
> I know. I have awards I have won. No one in the groups I shot with complained. I was doing it wrong.
> 
> So, anyone think it's worth fixing?


If you read the rules under crossbows...you will find that it is expressly FORBIDDEN to use any electronice listening devices on the line, or in the practice ends. Yet...in the "normal" archery part of the rules...there is absolutely no mention of it being illegal to use listening devices while shooting on the line or the practice ends! DOUBLE STANDARD...since at places like Vegas, the crossbow shooters are on the same shooting line, but normally at one end of that shooting line...thus hearing the same noises and distractions as the other shooters.
What is good for the "goose" is good for the gander.
I tried to bring this up, tried to get an agenda item going to make it the same for both, and both times, it fell on deaf ears!

The rules are NOT completely clear and easy to read and many are way open to interpretation and "followed" more on opinion and differing opinions from group to group to group. A dicey one has come into play of late...that of "Pulling the line" in 3-D they can "pull a line", yet in NFAA competition and TARGET archery, the arrow is called as it lies and "pulling a line" doesn't exist...unless there are several 3-D shooters on the bale, that is...

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## FV Chuck

Couple of great resources right here... 

NFAAUSA.com

Go to the Documents tab - 
https://nfaausa.com/documents

From there a great guideline is this.
https://nfaausa.com/sites/default/files/Archery-Range-Guidelines_0.pdf

As for the "lack of information" - We print a magazine thats mailed to every paid address on file ( somewhere between 10,000 and 12,000 copies), have no less than 3 majors a year, print the rules in book and online format, and EVERY SINGLE state Director has a copy in electronic and printed format. ... Clubs have accessibility to all of this as well. 

Aside from putting each one of you in a line and asking if youve seen a rulebook.... I'm not sure what additional efforts could be made for spreading the word. 
At some point in life one must take at least a smidgen of self accountability to at least glance at a rule book once in a while. For what it's worth ANY rule change generally goes into effect June 1 of any year... so you might want to look at the web or the rulebook about that time frame... new rules or changes are generally marked to make finding them easier.

To the OP's post about complicated rules... It's a game. You can make it as simple or complicated as you want. As humans we live in a society of rules. This isnt much different...
You can rest assured that each one of those are there because someone wanted them at some point. We dont go about making them for no good reason. The NFAA membership has brought each one of those to the BOD and asked them to make it a rule. Majority wins the vote.

As for the Sports Bra.... I can GUARANTEE that is being interpreted incorrectly. ... further. If you think this might be the case for ANY rule in the book there is an RIC (Rules Interpretation Committee) dedicated to resolving and sorting out something that might be misconstrued or applied incorrectly. All you need to do is contact your State Elected Dir for resolution.

CC


----------



## field14

FV Chuck said:


> Couple of great resources right here...
> 
> NFAAUSA.com
> 
> Go to the Documents tab -
> https://nfaausa.com/documents
> 
> From there a great guideline is this.
> https://nfaausa.com/sites/default/files/Archery-Range-Guidelines_0.pdf
> 
> As for the "lack of information" - We print a magazine thats mailed to every paid address on file ( somewhere between 10,000 and 12,000 copies), have no less than 3 majors a year, print the rules in book and online format, and EVERY SINGLE state Director has a copy in electronic and printed format. ... Clubs have accessibility to all of this as well.
> 
> Aside from putting each one of you in a line and asking if youve seen a rulebook.... I'm not sure what additional efforts could be made for spreading the word.
> At some point in life one must take at least a smidgen of self accountability to at least glance at a rule book once in a while. For what it's worth ANY rule change generally goes into effect June 1 of any year... so you might want to look at the web or the rulebook about that time frame... new rules or changes are generally marked to make finding them easier.
> 
> To the OP's post about complicated rules... It's a game. You can make it as simple or complicated as you want. As humans we live in a society of rules. This isnt much different...
> You can rest assured that each one of those are there because someone wanted them at some point. We dont go about making them for no good reason. The NFAA membership has brought each one of those to the BOD and asked them to make it a rule. Majority wins the vote.
> 
> As for the Sports Bra.... I can GUARANTEE that is being interpreted incorrectly. ... further. If you think this might be the case for ANY rule in the book there is an RIC (Rules Interpretation Committee) dedicated to resolving and sorting out something that might be misconstrued or applied incorrectly. All you need to do is contact your State Elected Dir for resolution.
> 
> CC


Well done, Chuck. However I do think there is a need to clear the "jargon" out of the rules and clear inconsistencies with regard to interpretation. Over the years, having shot in so many places, I've seen a lot of "loose interpretations" of how the rules are followed. One of many, but the most frequent is the way the bunny target is shot. I've seen it "interpreted" and followed expressly:
1. That since "they do it this way here" you MUST shoot the bunny from top to bottom and CANNOT shoot it from bottom to top.
2. That "since they do it this way here", you shoot the bunny on your ROW from left to right and NOT right to left! Obviously this "local interpretation is in clear violation of the NFAA rules for shooting the bunny target; but I've seen it done this way in NFAA sanctioned events. NEVER in a State, Sectional, or National, however. Just the locals and they way "they want it done."

One other one that is weird, but the way it was done in the early 1970's and from time to time I ran across it: On the hunter round, lets say you are shooting a 23-20 target. You are on the bottom left. Well, "locally" they shoot it 2 and 2, 2 in the lower left, two in the lower right..AND when you move from 23 to 20, you cross over and if you shot your first two from the left, you shoot your last two from the right! Sure, that saves arrows...but that isn't the way the targets like the 23-20 are done anymore.

I've even shot some tournaments where the first two guys on something like a 45 walk up will shoot the entire target, then walk back and let the other two shoot the target and then go to score the arrows. Often times, this is on a course where you could shoot 4 abreast.
Another one: 35 fan. The locals interpret it as...the first man is alone on the target on the LEFT most stake. He/she shoots their shot, then moves over one to the right and the next person takes the left stake. Now you have two people on stakes and the other two stakes are wide open. Not until the first person is on the farthest stake to the right does the last person get to get onto a stake. Then he/she, is shooting their last arrows all by themselves! I've seen this one numerous times. Talk about a time killer!

So, yes, there are tons of "local variations" of the rules, and also "interpretations" of how to score if somebody shoots too many arrows or for example on a walkup, shoots two arrows from the 45 yard stake, and then shoots his next arrow from 40, then 35, and oh, oh, now what to do? This one is interpreted differently all the time and a huge argument erupts with regard to the proper scoring for this person.

So, while the rules are there; too many are wide open to local interpretation and yes, even bullying by "an old fart." Many don't know the system for rules changes and when they take effect and where to look. Some don't care, others just are never educated about it.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## FV Chuck

I get the "local rule" issues... totally do.

I often equate it to golf. Certain rules or tendencies on different courses in different parts of the country. Which ultimately is fine for "local" events...but when a club is holding a STATE or National event. Then really the rules must be uniform... there is no other way.

As for the clarity or muddiness of the rules. It's something that was recognized a year or so ago so now we actually have a committee of people going through the book to try and clean it up to make it more user friendly. Not change anything per-se... just clean it up and make it more readable where possible. Watch for changes over the next couple sessions as it gets reviewed and approved.


----------



## archer_nm

Tom it is not the rule book but the local interpreting of the rules that needs to be handled, if archers weren't so intent on trying to get the upper hand on the competion the book would not be so thick. The written word should be what rules on a situation.


----------



## montigre

FV Chuck said:


> I get the "local rule" issues... totally do.
> 
> I often equate it to golf. Certain rules or tendencies on different courses in different parts of the country. Which ultimately is fine for "local" events...but when a club is holding a STATE or National event. Then really the rules must be uniform... there is no other way.
> 
> As for the clarity or muddiness of the rules. It's something that was recognized a year or so ago so now we actually have a committee of people going through the book to try and clean it up to make it more user friendly. Not change anything per-se... just clean it up and make it more readable where possible. Watch for changes over the next couple sessions as it gets reviewed and approved.


Where's the like button when you need it. Thanks for sharing this info, Chuck!


----------



## field14

archer_nm said:


> Tom it is not the rule book but the local interpreting of the rules that needs to be handled, if archers weren't so intent on trying to get the upper hand on the competion the book would not be so thick. The written word should be what rules on a situation.


Bob,
I agree with you on that! The "local rules" are really something, and then when "bullied" the newbies fall in line because they don't know any better and also have never read the rule book either; trusting their "friends" to interpret the rules for them. However, that being said, if the rules were more clearly written and worded so there wasn't room for interpretation....
The other thing we are dealing with is "what happens on this bale, stays on this bale" scenario. 

There also could be some modernization of the rules. Most all courses are set up in 14-target units these days, and most of them have 2 units. Thus, they are not shooting the same 14 twice in a row. It would be, IMHO, much better to eliminate the top target bottom target and the left target-right target switch at the halfway point and simply let the group decide which target each shooter gets for the day, and be done with it. Just an opinion, and not likely to happen. IF we were always shooting the same 14 twice, then I could see the top to bottom switch, but don't really think its something needed these days. But I digress from the issue of rules clarity.

The other thing is why is it explicity written in the rules for cross-bows about electronic listening devices being prohibited, but for "regular bows" it is just fine? The crossbow people are normally on the same line indoors and hear the same instructions, but the regular bow shooters are allowed to basically plug their ears while shooting on the line? Listening devices can be a safety hazard, and with today's technology, also can (and maybe even are) used for coaching on the line??? Once again, a big inconsistency in the NFAA rule book that should be dealt with.

Chuck, the problem with local rules comes into play when people from different places gather at State, Sectional, or National events, and get into groups with people from yet other places. That is when the arguments (sometimes very heated) take place. You get, "Well where I'm from we do it this way" and the other guy says, "Well according to the rules that isn't right, and we do it this way." Then perhaps a 3rd party in the group gets involved and "well where I'm from, we do it this way." The 4th guy is half lost. The biggest ones are with how to shoot the Bunny, and with how to properly score it on a walk up or fan when somebody mistakenly shoots two arrows from the same stake, and then goes on to the next stake and continues on...and "runs out of arrows" on that 4th stake...and most times, shoots the 5th arrow. Oh, oh...how to score the target for this person? The rules aren't really clear about that one, and it does happen, too.

It is really good to hear that there is a committee working on cleaning up the rules and getting them to "read" better. That has been something needed for quite some time; years, in fact.


----------



## field14

archer_nm said:


> Tom it is not the rule book but the local interpreting of the rules that needs to be handled, if archers weren't so intent on trying to get the upper hand on the competion the book would not be so thick. The written word should be what rules on a situation.


Bob,
I agree with you on that! The "local rules" are really something, and then when "bullied" the newbies fall in line because they don't know any better and also have never read the rule book either; trusting their "friends" to interpret the rules for them. However, that being said, if the rules were more clearly written and worded so there wasn't room for interpretation....
The other thing we are dealing with is "what happens on this bale, stays on this bale" scenario. 

There also could be some modernization of the rules. Most all courses are set up in 14-target units these days, and most of them have 2 units. Thus, they are not shooting the same 14 twice in a row. It would be, IMHO, much better to eliminate the top target bottom target and the left target-right target switch at the halfway point and simply let the group decide which target each shooter gets for the day, and be done with it. Just an opinion, and not likely to happen. IF we were always shooting the same 14 twice, then I could see the top to bottom switch, but don't really think its something needed these days. But I digress from the issue of rules clarity.

The other thing is why is it explicity written in the rules for cross-bows about electronic listening devices being prohibited, but for "regular bows" it is just fine? The crossbow people are normally on the same line indoors and hear the same instructions, but the regular bow shooters are allowed to basically plug their ears while shooting on the line? Listening devices can be a safety hazard, and with today's technology, also can (and maybe even are) used for coaching on the line??? Once again, a big inconsistency in the NFAA rule book that should be dealt with.

Chuck, the problem with local rules comes into play when people from different places gather at State, Sectional, or National events, and get into groups with people from yet other places. That is when the arguments (sometimes very heated) take place. You get, "Well where I'm from we do it this way" and the other guy says, "Well according to the rules that isn't right, and we do it this way." Then perhaps a 3rd party in the group gets involved and "well where I'm from, we do it this way." The 4th guy is half lost. The biggest ones are with how to shoot the Bunny, and with how to properly score it on a walk up or fan when somebody mistakenly shoots two arrows from the same stake, and then goes on to the next stake and continues on...and "runs out of arrows" on that 4th stake...and most times, shoots the 5th arrow. Oh, oh...how to score the target for this person? Since he/she shot every arrow after the stake from which he/she shot two arrows, then he/she shot arrows from the WRONG STAKE, and those arrows are "zeroes." Then, in addition to the "zeroes", another point is deducted for the 5th arrow shot. The rules aren't really clear about that one, and it does happen, too.

It is really good to hear that there is a committee working on cleaning up the rules and getting them to "read" better. That has been something needed for quite some time; years, in fact.


----------



## FV Chuck

Tom... 
Write up the the things that need to be looked at. I can't guarantee a change but I can guarantee a look. 
Some of them might be for a good reason.... 

As for rules at a State or National... 

#1Honestly dude. Who would go for the first time and not look at a rule book? 
#2 we as senior members of the org should be sharing the rules and rulebook at every opportunity to the new people. 
It's shouldn't be a who's more right or what rules they approve of or don't. A rule is a rule. Explain it. 

Maybe we can start including something with new members so they can read it... And try to make sure every club has one for reference at all times. 

Bottom line... Written rules trump "how we do it around here or back home" E V E R Y... T I M E


----------



## field14

FV Chuck said:


> Tom...
> Write up the the things that need to be looked at. I can't guarantee a change but I can guarantee a look.
> Some of them might be for a good reason....
> 
> As for rules at a State or National...
> 
> #1Honestly dude. Who would go for the first time and not look at a rule book?
> #2 we as senior members of the org should be sharing the rules and rulebook at every opportunity to the new people.
> It's shouldn't be a who's more right or what rules they approve of or don't. A rule is a rule. Explain it.
> 
> Maybe we can start including something with new members so they can read it... And try to make sure every club has one for reference at all times.
> 
> Bottom line... Written rules trump "how we do it around here or back home" E V E R Y... T I M E


Lots of people likely go to the Sectionals and/or Nationals without ever really sitting down to read the rules. Heck, Chuck, people go to VEGAS and don't read the rules, too. Then when "hit with one" they claim ingorance about the rule(s). 

Yes, those that have been in the game for awhile should go over those with people they introduce to the game. However, when it comes to "rules" today's people don't like rules and will pee and moan because they have to listen to them, and get worse when they have to "follow them." It is easier to try to circumvent the rules to gain an advantage, including torquing people off by arguing over the rules, or bullying your way into, "ok, we'll let it go this time, but don't do it again, ok?"

Something to try would be to go through the "book" and one by one, hit up the most common rules violations because of people not understanding the rules. The proper way to shoot the bunny would be a starter? Yeah, I KNOW it is in the rule book; but we already know that people aren't reading it and just up and do things how they like to. "Rules are for fools", if you know what I mean. Then of course, "The NFAA has too many silly rules, so that's why I don't shoot field." Yeah, as if the IBO and ASA, and World Archery Federation don't have a ton of rules either, haha. 

Another good one to really discuss in the "Archery Magazine" would be to completely discuss exactly how to score on those fans and walk-em-ups when somebody shoots two arrows from the same (obviously, one is from the wrong) stake and how to make sure you don't lose more than just those 5-points for the entire target's score. That gets into heated discussions quickly. Seen it happen more than once, but when fully explained, the "offender" doesn't like it, but does understand. Question is, how often is this done, and how often, when done is it scored improperly?


----------



## Arrowwood

> You can't just read the section of Field and Hunter, you have to read multiple sections. The field and hunter section does not tell you this.


Yes, the field rules are found in articles one and three - extremely awkward.



> Maybe we can start including something with new members so they can read it


The NFAA sends new members a small pamphlet about field archery rules but there's not much to it. Nothing about which target to shoot, for example.


----------



## FiFi

Why would you have "local " rules in the first place, that in itself make no sense at all and can only lead to problems


----------



## brtesite

field14 said:


> Bob,
> I agree with you on that! The "local rules" are really something, and then when "bullied" the newbies fall in line because they don't know any better and also have never read the rule book either; trusting their "friends" to interpret the rules for them. However, that being said, if the rules were more clearly written and worded so there wasn't room for interpretation....
> The other thing we are dealing with is "what happens on this bale, stays on this bale" scenario.
> 
> There also could be some modernization of the rules. Most all courses are set up in 14-target units these days, and most of them have 2 units. Thus, they are not shooting the same 14 twice in a row. It would be, IMHO, much better to eliminate the top target bottom target and the left target-right target switch at the halfway point and simply let the group decide which target each shooter gets for the day, and be done with it. Just an opinion, and not likely to happen. IF we were always shooting the same 14 twice, then I could see the top to bottom switch, but don't really think its something needed these days. But I digress from the issue of rules clarity.
> 
> The other thing is why is it explicity written in the rules for cross-bows about electronic listening devices being prohibited, but for "regular bows" it is just fine? The crossbow people are normally on the same line indoors and hear the same instructions, but the regular bow shooters are allowed to basically plug their ears while shooting on the line? Listening devices can be a safety hazard, and with today's technology, also can (and maybe even are) used for coaching on the line??? Once again, a big inconsistency in the NFAA rule book that should be dealt with.
> 
> Chuck, the problem with local rules comes into play when people from different places gather at State, Sectional, or National events, and get into groups with people from yet other places. That is when the arguments (sometimes very heated) take place. You get, "Well where I'm from we do it this way" and the other guy says, "Well according to the rules that isn't right, and we do it this way." Then perhaps a 3rd party in the group gets involved and "well where I'm from, we do it this way." The 4th guy is half lost. The biggest ones are with how to shoot the Bunny, and with how to properly score it on a walk up or fan when somebody mistakenly shoots two arrows from the same stake, and then goes on to the next stake and continues on...and "runs out of arrows" on that 4th stake...and most times, shoots the 5th arrow. Oh, oh...how to score the target for this person? Since he/she shot every arrow after the stake from which he/she shot two arrows, then he/she shot arrows from the WRONG STAKE, and those arrows are "zeroes." Then, in addition to the "zeroes", another point is deducted for the 5th arrow shot. The rules aren't really clear about that one, and it does happen, too.
> 
> It is really good to hear that there is a committee working on cleaning up the rules and getting them to "read" better. That has been something needed for quite some time; years, in fact.



tom, Xbow rules were adopted from Xbow org. The shooting rules for indoor is that you can not use ear plugs or walkmans. they just may not be in the book. 
The reason for all of the confusion at sectionals or Nationals is because of the Local rules. If they would just follow the book from the beginning, there would be no problem


----------



## gcab

Oh good lord, now the NFAA is wrong and the rule book is terrible because all archers just make up their own rules at a local shoot and then bully others at the big tournaments? Do people really like to just hear themselves type so much that there is no common sense? There is a rule book. One reads it, one learns the real rules. Has nothing to do with any local anything.


----------



## gcab

I propose that the NFAA provides a time keeper, a tailor for outfits, a Level 19 certified coach for form and draw checks, and a lawyer certified in 6 languages to read the rules. This group will be a different group for every target, or in the case of indoor, a different group per end. They will inspect the condition, lengths and appearance of the articles of clothing, certify that the draw motion for every archer is within a 1 degree variance of perfectly level off a 3 degree down slope while facing NNW, read the rules to the archer for every shot so the archer themselves does not need to be bothered with reading or understanding themselves, and then be timed for each action so as to not take 11 hours to shoot half a round. Seems like that will take care of issues that are present in all these tournaments, albeit none that I have been too in the last 3 years.


----------



## Pete53

do nfaa directors and officers of the nfaa when they go to nfaa archery events & shoots that do have a official nfaa meeting have their travel expenses paid for by the nfaa ? is that in the nfaa book some place ? the reason i ask that question here in my home state the maa has less than a 100 members, so as a maa member really our dues are not enough even to pay this director`s expense`s , in the rule book is this a good thing to be aloud in a small state organization if it doesn`t cover how many state members it has? that`s another thing that maybe should be looked at if the nfaa does not want to improve policies with state organizations. yes i know some are not going to like what i posted but i think its time to clean these things up for the good of the nfaa .


----------



## huteson2us2

In our case at the Nationals in Darrington, an archer was letting down when release went off. He had annouced that he was letting down. The arrow landed within 10 feet and stuck in the ground. The archer that shot the arrow announced that since he announced letting down, it was OK to grab the arrow and shoot again. (an old rule from years ago) Another archer stated that if it landed within 10 feet, it can be picked up and shot again. (indoor rule) I stated that if the string propelled the arrow it was a shot arrow. (not sure since this was the rule a couple of years ago. Might have been changed.) The fouth archer stated that if you can lay down with a foot touching the stake and reach out with your bow as far as you can and touch the arrow with the end of your bow, the arrow can be shot again. ( A new one for me?)

The correct way is to pick one and score the target. Then at the end of the day, question someone in authority. If you picked the wrong method, the archer loses the points. As he did in this case. Later that day, I tried to look up the rule on the internet and after a hour of trying I did find it.

Now how many of you know the correct answer to this rule? Nfaa Outdoors Field at 50 yard target. How many knows how many times this rule was changed over the years?


----------



## FV Chuck

Pete - 

"State" events are run by the state, rules and policies differ from state to state. I would steer you to your State CBL or State officers for clarification.

Keep in mind the NFAA "National" is made up of a collection of State orgs. that each have their own charter and policies. "National" things only kick in for ...yep you guessed it National events.


----------



## FV Chuck

huteson2us2 said:


> In our case at the Nationals in Darrington, an archer was letting down when release went off. He had annouced that he was letting down. The arrow landed within 10 feet and stuck in the ground. The archer that shot the arrow announced that since he announced letting down, it was OK to grab the arrow and shoot again. (an old rule from years ago) Another archer stated that if it landed within 10 feet, it can be picked up and shot again. (indoor rule) I stated that if the string propelled the arrow it was a shot arrow. (not sure since this was the rule a couple of years ago. Might have been changed.) The fouth archer stated that if you can lay down with a foot touching the stake and reach out with your bow as far as you can and touch the arrow with the end of your bow, the arrow can be shot again. ( A new one for me?)
> 
> The correct way is to pick one and score the target. Then at the end of the day, question someone in authority. If you picked the wrong method, the archer loses the points. As he did in this case. Later that day, I tried to look up the rule on the internet and after a hour of trying I did find it.
> 
> Now how many of you know the correct answer to this rule? Nfaa Outdoors Field at 50 yard target. How many knows how many times this rule was changed over the years?


Sounds like you guys did the best you could.... going forward it's recommended that the archer shoot a provisional arrow and then "AS A GROUP" deal with it when you return to the clubhouse and the rule is found. This way if it's allowed, he gets it. If not, you simply take it out of the mix. 

Best - 
Chuck


----------



## FV Chuck

Tom - 

Dont defend the lazy -


----------



## Rolo

You want confusion...the standard has been to read and apply the rules according to the 'written word'. Simple enough, with some complexities thrown in. There was an AI (thankfully it failed) that wanted to change that so that whomever was interpreting the rule in that situation had some lee-way, and would be allowed to interpret and apply the rule according to what that person's belief was concerning the 'intent' of the rule.


----------



## archer_nm

Like gcab stated above buy a rule book or get one on line and get a copy, BUT read the RULES and then you have a good understanding and can hold your own in a situation.......


----------



## archer_nm

Rolo when did this happen, I have been involved for over 20 years and don't recall anything of the sorts


----------



## Rolo

archer_nm said:


> Rolo when did this happen, I have been involved for over 20 years and don't recall anything of the sorts


2014 meeting. FL-3.


----------



## TNMAN

Right now in the NFAA shooting rules, there are four completely different ways of defining and treating "dropped" or "mis-shot" arrows, depending on whether it's indoor, 900 round, 3d, or outdoor round (f&h).

There are good safety reasons for NOT allowing accidentally/purposefully shooting into the ground on a letdown.


----------



## Pete53

chuck thanks for getting back to me and will check out the rule on state directors going to the national meetings,that even with a small state amount of members if they still get their expense paid. i also do like your answer on the shot arrow in the ground "just shoot another arrow ,score it and figure it out later," because if you didn`t do that it might take an hour to figure it out and hold all the line up. that`s a good answer and if i see that problem will tell them your answer.
'


----------



## FV Chuck

Pete53 said:


> chuck thanks for getting back to me and will check out the rule on state directors going to the national meetings,that even with a small state amount of members if they still get their expense paid. i also do like your answer on the shot arrow in the ground "just shoot another arrow ,score it and figure it out later," because if you didn`t do that it might take an hour to figure it out and hold all the line up. that`s a good answer and if i see that problem will tell them your answer.
> '


Cool! Hey by the way... when shooting the Provisional Arrow... make sure you mark it with a number or something so it's identifiable when you get to the target. It will make a difference for sure!


----------



## brtesite

Pete53 said:


> do nfaa directors and officers of the nfaa when they go to nfaa archery events & shoots that do have a official nfaa meeting have their travel expenses paid for by the nfaa ? is that in the nfaa book some place ? the reason i ask that question here in my home state the maa has less than a 100 members, so as a maa member really our dues are not enough even to pay this director`s expense`s , in the rule book is this a good thing to be aloud in a small state organization if it doesn`t cover how many state members it has? that`s another thing that maybe should be looked at if the nfaa does not want to improve policies with state organizations. yes i know some are not going to like what i posted but i think its time to clean these things up for the good of the nfaa .


the member states are required to send a rep to the annual meeting. The Nfaa does partially fund the directors travel. it does vary from year to year.The council & officers go full bore.


----------



## brtesite

Rolo said:


> 2014 meeting. FL-3.


It did fail Good thing


----------



## brtesite

Pete53 said:


> chuck thanks for getting back to me and will check out the rule on state directors going to the national meetings,that even with a small state amount of members if they still get their expense paid. i also do like your answer on the shot arrow in the ground "just shoot another arrow ,score it and figure it out later," because if you didn`t do that it might take an hour to figure it out and hold all the line up. that`s a good answer and if i see that problem will tell them your answer.
> '


 Out door, any arrow propelled by the string is a shot arrow. Those guys shooting at Darrington didn't know the rules. 


If you shoot more than the prescribed amount of arrows, you then get whacked for shooting more than that amount & will lose points for it. Don't try to be using logic as the written word does not lend it self to logic. If you know the rules, you don't have to go thru all of these scenarios.


----------



## archer_nm

Rolo, I will give you a little on FL-3, but it said both the written word and the intent could be used, but the interpretation is left up to the RIC committee. This will hit home "this was the intent of the author"


----------



## Rolo

archer_nm said:


> Rolo, I will give you a little on FL-3, but it said both the written word and the intent could be used, but the interpretation is left up to the RIC committee. This will hit home "this was the intent of the author"


Absent a "statement of intent" from whomever drafted the rule, subject to whatever discussion occurs at the meeting, how could the RIC ever determine what the 'intent' was? Personally, I think it becomes an issue because the understanding of the 'intent' of the rule, even with or without a "statement of intent", after it is discussed and voted on at a meeting may be difficult to determine. The 'legislative history' is not recorded, so nothing to fall back on. I haven't been going to meetings nearly as long as you have, but it does amaze me when talking to other Directors who differently they interpret the 'intent' or effect of AIs soon after they are adopted, and to some degree, how different the long term of interpretation of the results of the AIs. 

Then, add to that the issue with the Directors being able to vote to uphold or not the RIC, and we're back to 46-47 people's understanding of what they believed the intent is/was at the time the Rule was adopted. 

Prime example: OD Nationals Pro Division: the 'X' was supposed to be counted as a '+1' not a '6'. If folks can't follow the written word, following the 'intent' could potentially lead to a hodgepodge of rulings, subject to whomever is on the RIC, and theoretically, and Director who is asked to make the initial ruling. 

I understand the purpose of that AI, but I can't say I've seen an RIC lately that has not applied the written word and also the 'intent'. Not saying it is a completely bad idea, but based on the current structure, especially a lack of recording of the meeting and discussion of the AI, applying the intent has a big potential to be full of pitfalls.


----------



## archer_nm

I agree that there is issues but with all of the different folks at the Directors meeting you will never make anything easy, but in the RIC we talk at great length and vote before we rule on a request. Trust me I am on your side of this issue.


----------



## FiFi

Rolo said:


> Absent a "statement of intent" from whomever drafted the rule, subject to whatever discussion occurs at the meeting, how could the RIC ever determine what the 'intent' was? Personally, I think it becomes an issue because the understanding of the 'intent' of the rule, even with or without a "statement of intent", after it is discussed and voted on at a meeting may be difficult to determine. The 'legislative history' is not recorded, so nothing to fall back on. I haven't been going to meetings nearly as long as you have, but it does amaze me when talking to other Directors who differently they interpret the 'intent' or effect of AIs soon after they are adopted, and to some degree, how different the long term of interpretation of the results of the AIs.
> 
> Then, add to that the issue with the Directors being able to vote to uphold or not the RIC, and we're back to 46-47 people's understanding of what they believed the intent is/was at the time the Rule was adopted.
> 
> Prime example: OD Nationals Pro Division: the 'X' was supposed to be counted as a '+1' not a '6'. If folks can't follow the written word, following the 'intent' could potentially lead to a hodgepodge of rulings, subject to whomever is on the RIC, and theoretically, and Director who is asked to make the initial ruling.
> 
> I understand the purpose of that AI, but I can't say I've seen an RIC lately that has not applied the written word and also the 'intent'. Not saying it is a completely bad idea, but based on the current structure, especially a lack of recording of the meeting and discussion of the AI, applying the intent has a big potential to be full of pitfalls.



5+1=6


----------



## Rolo

FiFi said:


> 5+1=6


Of course, that wasn't the nature of the rule that was passed, for specific reasons. While the end result was effectively 6 points for an 'X', the recording of scores, intent of the Rule and actual rule was supposed to be a '+1' rule.


----------



## Pete53

back to the director`s recieving a refund for a attendance at a national meeting ,here`s a rule the Nfaa should use for reimbursement for each director. it should be on a percentage of the number of their state members that are also nfaa members that way if you have a great director who mantains good membership and relationships in his state he is rewarded. and if they have a poor state and nfaa membership like here minnesota they get very little reward .the NFAA needs people to help increase membership, not a director to ride it out just for the money or expenses, that`s just ridiculus .


----------



## field14

brtesite said:


> tom, Xbow rules were adopted from Xbow org. The shooting rules for indoor is that you can not use ear plugs or walkmans. they just may not be in the book.
> The reason for all of the confusion at sectionals or Nationals is because of the Local rules. If they would just follow the book from the beginning, there would be no problem


WHY aren't they in the book IF they are "rules?" It matters not where they were adopted from...one side has explicitly prohibited them, and the other is using, "Unwritten rules", and asking for problems should someone decide to enforce an "unwritten rule" using the "safety" clause? Nope...needs to be in writing in BOTH crossbow and "regular Bows".
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## brtesite

field14 said:


> WHY aren't they in the book IF they are "rules?" It matters not where they were adopted from...one side has explicitly prohibited them, and the other is using, "Unwritten rules", and asking for problems should someone decide to enforce an "unwritten rule" using the "safety" clause? Nope...needs to be in writing in BOTH crossbow and "regular Bows".
> field14 (Tom D.)


there are rules that are tournament rules that may not be in the book. The ear things are one of them. As long as they are in the torny rules that are passed out at the shoot , they stand. No one is going to complain that if they knew that they were not allowed to use ear plugs they would have stayed home. If the rules are passed out at the shoot, it is not an "unwritten rule" is it not.


----------



## archer_nm

Pete the Directors got $400 for their trip to Vegas, in most cases that might pay for the airline tickets then they had to pay for their rooms and food. Hardly a vacation, for the most part it is dedication to the NFAA and the States.


----------



## Falcone

"Aside from putting each one of you in a line and asking if youve seen a rulebook.... I'm not sure what additional efforts could be made for spreading the word. (fv-Chuck) "
It is frequently not how often you do something, but how well. I am pleased to see the NFAA has realized the rules could use "some" help and are working on it. It would be informative to know the progress on this. I've requested information on the committee from my rep but have as yet not received a reply.


----------



## Rolo

archer_nm said:


> I agree that there is issues but with all of the different folks at the Directors meeting you will never make anything easy, but in the RIC we talk at great length and vote before we rule on a request. Trust me I am on your side of this issue.


I gotcha and didn't think otherwise.



archer_nm said:


> Pete the Directors got $400 for their trip to Vegas, in most cases that might pay for the airline tickets then they had to pay for their rooms and food. Hardly a vacation, for the most part it is dedication to the NFAA and the States.


That pretty much sums it up. Some States contribute to the Director's travel, others don't. I haven't encountered a Director who complains about it either...they ain't doing it for the pay, they actually care about the association and archery in general. Some care so much, that they might derail a thing or two, or not realize and understand they have the answer to the question in front of them, they may also have a lot of people in their State that are greatly concerned too, that they have to report back to...

That's for you Bob, but not about you...:wink:


----------



## wa-prez

brtesite said:


> Out door, any arrow propelled by the string is a shot arrow. .


I tried an Agenda Item a few years back to address the issue of release shooters shooting into the ground on a letdown.

The rule says, "A dropped arrow is one which falls while being transferred from the quiver to be nocked on the string, or in preparation for a shot; or which falls from the string during a controlled letdown. (A dropped arrow may be re-shot)." ARTICLE IV
Tournaments, J. Scoring, #13).

My item was to define a "Controlled Letdown" - in a controlled letdown the release aid or fingers stays in contact with the string until the bow returns to brace height. I guess it WOULD be sufficient to focus on the words "falls from the string" because an arrow which is propelled isn't "falling" even if it is propelled straight down.


----------



## FiFi

Rolo said:


> Of course, that wasn't the nature of the rule that was passed, for specific reasons. While the end result was effectively 6 points for an 'X', the recording of scores, intent of the Rule and actual rule was supposed to be a '+1' rule.


What specific reasons? against to a 6 as opposed to a +1 when both result in exactly the same thing


----------



## SonnyThomas

field14 said:


> A dicey one has come into play of late...that of "Pulling the line" in 3-D they can "pull a line", yet in NFAA competition and TARGET archery, the arrow is called as it lies and "pulling a line" doesn't exist...unless there are several 3-D shooters on the bale, that is...
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


Tom, "pulling the line" has been in effect since at least 2003, 11 years. I understand that it originated with Rinehart targets when they were the target the ASA used at the time. Think about foam and the softer foam of the Rinehart target, now copied by McKenzie for several years. Rule; Must touch the line for the higher score or words of that effect. For sure "must touch the line." Foam stretches, paper doesn't. Not only does foam stretch, it also rolls, sucked by the arrow. I've seen lines "pulled" or sucked by as much as a 1/4". The bigger the arrow the more pulling or sucking. I didn't care this, still don't in some instances, but then simplicity, "must touch the line." 
And then came the "dry" arrow. Dry, rough, the arrow, regardless of diameter, "pulls" more.

It's been a while, Tom, but for the years I shot NFAA, never did I see those who shot 3D score paper targets other than the proper manner. BUT! I see that they are now manufacturing pliable plastic target faces. Hopefully, paper will remain the target for competition... 

More on arrow scoring; Rule; All arrows must remain in the target and scored before removing (all most typed pulling ). Foam being soft. Pekin, scoring 12s. Slid my arrow right down the side of Steve B's (you know who) arrow that *was* in the ASA 12 ring. *was* being a real key word. It wasn't after I shot. Yep, robbed Steve of 2 points as my arrow shoved his out to a 10.

Of the ear plugs and radios and the such, 100% with you and more. There to shoot a event, I'm there to shoot the event, not there to listen to music or whatever. Ear plugs to damp noise? What noise? Case of the nerves? Get over it. My two cents; I'd call ear plugs and listening devices a safety issue. I can see a danger situation being avoided but for some yo-yo listening to Ted Nugent ripping his guitar strings.

Cell phones and the like, we can't seem to get away from them. Still, you or others on the line phones should be shut off. Break in the action, sure, check your phone in case a emergency call. Call if you have to. 

Rule; No one will be turned away. I don't know exactly where this is, but said there. What it was; You had to shoot X number Qualifiers to be eligible for the Illinois State Indoor Championship. Some said they couldn't make a Qualifier for one reason or another and one for sure due to health. All was going according to the State Constitution, joke... I questioned; We have so many shooting the Indoor that we have to turn them away?" Evidently, "turned away" struck a cord with Bob McCutheon. He checked on it and sure enough, "no one will be turned away." Qualifiers were removed and replaced with the present Aggregate Award.

People can't read even if in black and white. One in our club didn't understand that of a Free Style bow. A Mr. Know-It-All fell in line and the next our club had a "Sponsored" class for anyone having a long stabilizer. We had a class called Unlimited for those with movable sights. Oh yes we did. This went on until I was elected in 2001 and at the 2002 Officers meeting I explained to the other elected Officers. The Sponsored class was eliminated and the Unlimited class fully utilized.


----------



## Rolo

FiFi said:


> What specific reasons? against to a 6 as opposed to a +1 when both result in exactly the same thing


So AMs could more easily compare their scores to the Pro Division.

That's how the AI was presented, that's how the AI was adopted.


----------



## gcab

Definitely needed. Ams can't add or subtract.


----------



## FV Chuck

I was the only e who wrote it and proposed the 5 +1.
I did it specifically to retain the integrity of the score system so any Archer could compare a standard scored round with a Pro scored round. 
It was to be able to keep the record book in tact and to extinguish the possibility of new scores being put in the book with asterisks denoting an new course or National record. 
The idea was to allow for more challenging scoring for the pros, and to allow for more lead changes, more excitement, and the possibility of lead changes throughout the larger events. 
It was by all accounts 100% successful in meeting those objectives except for the proper public reporting. 
Archers were more engaged, more cognizant of their score and efforts, and the leader board finishing positions changed daily.


----------



## wa-prez

The scoring provisions for Pros as they were written haven't come about in reality as I've seen so far.

The Pro's scores were supposed to be recorded / reported as 20 + 4 = 24 for any given target, and 554 + 100 = 654 for a total.

But in practice, the score reports are just showing the 658. So the non-pros can't compare their 550 against that and see how close they came.

Good idea (maybe) but there are still some bugs to be worked out.


----------



## erdman41

I would just like to see the +1 so you can tell if they shot clean or not. Plus even to compare pro to pro. Did one guy shoot 6-4's but just slayed the x's to win or did the highest "base" score also have the highest +1 (x) count.


----------



## field14

FV Chuck said:


> I was the only e who wrote it and proposed the 5 +1.
> I did it specifically to retain the integrity of the score system so any Archer could compare a standard scored round with a Pro scored round.
> It was to be able to keep the record book in tact and to extinguish the possibility of new scores being put in the book with asterisks denoting an new course or National record.
> The idea was to allow for more challenging scoring for the pros, and to allow for more lead changes, more excitement, and the possibility of lead changes throughout the larger events.
> It was by all accounts 100% successful in meeting those objectives except for the proper public reporting.
> Archers were more engaged, more cognizant of their score and efforts, and _the leader board finishing positions changed daily_.


Chuck,
Posted below are the results of the Women's and Men's Pro Freestyle for the NFAA Outdoor Nationals in 2013 where the "6" scoring was first implemented. Ben English and Jamie Van Atta both had an insurmountable lead after the very first day . In addition, to the gap between Ben and 2nd place, there was another gap between 2nd & 3rd place...before things "tightened up a bit." Ben and Jamie pretty much won it going away. That sure didn't tighten up the top of the leader board. In both the Women's and Men's Pro Freestyle, the event for 1st place was over after day #1. Definitely not a whole heckuva lot of leader board finishing positions (at the top 3 slots) changing daily.


----------



## FV Chuck

field14 said:


> Chuck,
> Posted below are the results of the Women's and Men's Pro Freestyle for the NFAA Outdoor Nationals in 2013 where the "6" scoring was first implemented. Ben English and Jamie Van Atta both had an insurmountable lead after the very first day . In addition, to the gap between Ben and 2nd place, there was another gap between 2nd & 3rd place...before things "tightened up a bit." Ben and Jamie pretty much won it going away. That sure didn't tighten up the top of the leader board. In both the Women's and Men's Pro Freestyle, the event for 1st place was over after day #1. Definitely not a whole heckuva lot of leader board finishing positions (at the top 3 slots) changing daily.
> 
> View attachment 1958839


Thank you Tom for yet another pointless and meaningless snapshot in time.
I dont even know what point your trying to make here other than to beat the horse. Congratulations.... it's still dead.

Yes. I know. You know....We ALL know. The scores were NOT reported as the rule was written. It has been asked that they be republished properly, I'm sure they will do so.

Had you actually tracked the event on a day to day basis, as it was occurring.. (as I did) you would have seen shuffling among the top shooters. There was a last day swap in positions for several people. Example... Broadwater based on whats there started in 9th end of Day 1.. finished 3rd; Bass, 2nd to 4th;, ....I stopped at that, I'm sure there are several more swaps.
Yes Ben and Jamie did win, they actually would have won using old scoring as well.
Further... since you dont shoot in the Pro division... why are you busting on this? 
It literally has less than zero effect on you or your game......


----------



## Rolo

Let me state...I highlighted this particular thing for illustrative purposes regarding the purpose of this thread, not for it to de-volve into a discussion of the '+1' for Pros. I like the idea myself. 

And Chuck is absolutely correct...look below the top places, and there was a whole lotta shuffling going on throughout, which was the entire purpose of the rule change.


----------



## field14

wa-prez said:


> I tried an Agenda Item a few years back to address the issue of release shooters shooting into the ground on a letdown.
> 
> The rule says, "A dropped arrow is one which falls while being transferred from the quiver to be nocked on the string, or in preparation for a shot; or which falls from the string during a controlled letdown. (A dropped arrow may be re-shot)." ARTICLE IV
> Tournaments, J. Scoring, #13).
> 
> My item was to define a "Controlled Letdown" - in a controlled letdown the release aid or fingers stays in contact with the string until the bow returns to brace height. I guess it WOULD be sufficient to focus on the words "falls from the string" because an arrow which is propelled isn't "falling" even if it is propelled straight down.


I didn't pick up on this until now. In the 1970's, in fact before the target change to the 5-4-3 scoring currently used, this same issue came up. Shooters started intentionally, during a "controlled" let down, holding the bow at full draw and then pointing the bow/arrow at the ground in front of them/the shooting stake and then shooting the arrow. This got to be a very frequent occurrence, mostly because at the time, just like now, many folks were shooting the hinge-style Stanislawski releases, or Sizemores, or a variety of other triggerless releases.
It got so that it was a "safety issue" and if I recall, and subsequently that practice of shooting the arrow deliberately into the ground in front of the stake was banned. I think it ended up that during a controlled let down, if the arrow was "released" off the string and you could reach it either with your bow/stabilizer without leaving the shooting stake, then it was a "dropped arrow" and NOT a "shot arrow." I don't ever recall seeing or hearing about the lay down on the ground and extend your body with your foot on the stake scenario described earlier.
Interesting that the issue has arisen again, some 40 years later. Apparently it "was" resolved way back then, but once again has raised its ugly head?


----------



## markdenis

field14 said:


> I didn't pick up on this until now. In the 1970's, in fact before the target change to the 5-4-3 scoring currently used, this same issue came up. Shooters started intentionally, during a "controlled" let down, holding the bow at full draw and then pointing the bow/arrow at the ground in front of them/the shooting stake and then shooting the arrow. This got to be a very frequent occurrence, mostly because at the time, just like now, many folks were shooting the hinge-style Stanislawski releases, or Sizemores, or a variety of other triggerless releases.
> It got so that it was a "safety issue" and if I recall, and subsequently that practice of shooting the arrow deliberately into the ground in front of the stake was banned. I think it ended up that during a controlled let down, if the arrow was "released" off the string and you could reach it either with your bow/stabilizer without leaving the shooting stake, then it was a "dropped arrow" and NOT a "shot arrow." I don't ever recall seeing or hearing about the lay down on the ground and extend your body with your foot on the stake scenario described earlier.
> Interesting that the issue has arisen again, some 40 years later. Apparently it "was" resolved way back then, but once again has raised its ugly head?


The exact same thing you are talking about happened to me in a outdoor state field tournament a year or two ago. I let down a shot and the arrow fell a few feet away from me...far enough I could not reach down and pick it up without taking a small step forward. So, I used the end of my stabilizer to reach out and retrieve the arrow without moving my feet. One of the people on our squad said "that is a shot arrow" and my response was "show me in the rule book where I can not retrieve my arrow if I do not move my position" The arrow came off the string and bounced on my riser propelling my arrow forward.


----------



## FiFi

Rolo said:


> So AMs could more easily compare their scores to the Pro Division.
> 
> That's how the AI was presented, that's how the AI was adopted.


how could they compare their scores when they don't count X's anyway


----------



## erdman41

FiFi said:


> how could they compare their scores when they don't count X's anyway


They still keep track of x's for tie breaking reasons.


----------



## markdenis

In my opinion, an extra point for the X is about the dumbest rule I have ever seen NFAA pass. Stand about 5 yards away from your 40 yard target and shoot 16 arrows at the X-ring and see what happens. This rule turned a game of skill into a game of luck.


----------



## Rolo

FiFi said:


> how could they compare their scores when they don't count X's anyway


Um...that's kinda the point. The Pro Division didn't count Xs for anything other than ties too. So pro A shot a 556. Amateur B shoots a 550. Kinda easy to compare raw scores.

And, I simply explained the rule, that's it...that's the way the rule was written...why don't you read post 55.


----------



## archer_nm

Ask the Pros, they wanted this or at least the majority did


----------



## brtesite

archer_nm said:


> Ask the Pros, they wanted this or at least the majority did


Thought they were part of the Nfaa


----------



## archer_nm

Yes Mike, this was a Pro issue and was voted on by your Directors and passed. Gee isn't a majority the American Way


----------



## brtesite

archer_nm said:


> Yes Mike, this was a Pro issue and was voted on by your Directors and passed. Gee isn't a majority the American Way



think you missed the point


----------



## archer_nm

No Mike I got the point, my point was that our Directors seem to vote for the minority and once again have put up a speed bump between the Pros and the Open shooters


----------



## Pete53

ya i kinda like the + 1 rule ,so just as soon as the pro`s become kind to us old-under rug seniors and vote in the silver senior pro division, i just may show up to shoot and pay the NFAA Pro Division fee.


----------



## FS560

archer_nm said:


> No Mike I got the point, my point was that our Directors seem to vote for the minority and once again have put up a speed bump between the Pros and the Open shooters


absolutely!!!

regarding the rule book, am I crazy or what, the last time I checked, the rule book is written in ENGLISH.

las year I not spel achar but I foun 75 doller now I are one. Rul bok, wha dat?


----------



## FV Chuck

FS560 said:


> las year I not spel achar but I foun 75 doller now I are one. Rul bok, wha dat?


That is probably the single most disrespectful post I have ever read. Even on Archerytalk. 

Wow. 

It's statements like this from our leaders and our membership that feed the Neverending loop of eating our own young while we stand around and wonder why we can't grow. 
Excellent job Jim.


----------



## TNMAN

FV Chuck said:


> That is probably the single most disrespectful post I have ever read. Even on Archerytalk.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> It's statements like this from our leaders and our membership that feed the Neverending loop of eating our own young while we stand around and wonder why we can't grow.
> Excellent job Jim.


That line was mostly a blast from the past for me. Must have heard it 30 times my first year shooting pmfs after one season of open. Just a way of welcoming the new guy back then. Can't speak for Jim Quarles, but feel sure it was not directed at current pro's. But more than a little out of place considering the forum.


----------



## FV Chuck

Jim has a resume of involvement that spans decades. 

I'm disgusted by his tone and his slant. 

As you say, Especially considering the forum we are in. 

It's this mindset and vocalization by our senior, respected (up until now) members against their OWN membership that will kill an organization. 
If your that bitter, do us all a favor and don't renew. We don't need it quite that bad.


----------



## FV Chuck

FS560 said:


> absolutely!!!
> 
> regarding the rule book, am I crazy or what, the last time I checked, the rule book is written in ENGLISH.
> 
> las year I not spel achar but I foun 75 doller now I are one. Rul bok, wha dat?



For what it's worth....

Someone flagged this as a rude post to the mods. Presumably to get it deleted or otherwise dealt with. Because I am a mod, I got the e-mail.

I say Do NOT delete it. Leave it.....
Seeing peoples true colors will ultimately make our organization stronger. 

If he was willing to say it (type it) in public along with his name... Jim Quarles. Then let it stand as his voice on record.


----------



## TNMAN

FV Chuck said:


> ----I'm disgusted by his tone and his slant.


Every engineer on here recognizes it as a really old "engineer joke". Loses a little when applied to professional archers, imho.


----------



## field14

TNMAN said:


> Every engineer on here recognizes it as a really old "engineer joke". Loses a little when applied to professional archers, imho.


I thunk it was funny, too! I'm not an engineer, but I got the drift. Chuck just isn't "old"......yet! Just has a bit to learn, is all.
:darkbeer:


----------



## Falcone

*Really?*



FV Chuck said:


> That is probably the single most disrespectful post I have ever read. Even on Archerytalk.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> It's statements like this from our leaders and our membership that feed the Neverending loop of eating our own young while we stand around and wonder why we can't grow.
> Excellent job Jim.[/QUOTE
> 
> It was an OLD joke. I don't know the poster, but I took it to be a "Don't take yourselves so seriously" remark (It's what that joke has meant for at least the last 40 years). But if you truly believe that to be "the most disrespectful post you have ever read", try these...
> 
> “Aside from putting each one of you in a line and asking if youve seen a rulebook...”
> “1Honestly dude. Who would go for the first time and not look at a rule book? “
> "National" things only kick in for ...yep you guessed it National events.
> “Dont defend the lazy”
> “Thank you... for yet another pointless and meaningless snapshot in time”
> “I dont even know what point your trying to make here other than to beat the horse. Congratulations.... it's still dead”
> “Further... since you dont shoot in the Pro division... why are you busting on this? “


----------



## OT3D

Falcone said:


> FV Chuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is probably the single most disrespectful post I have ever read. Even on Archerytalk.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> It's statements like this from our leaders and our membership that feed the Neverending loop of eating our own young while we stand around and wonder why we can't grow.
> Excellent job Jim.[/QUOTE
> 
> It was an OLD joke. I don't know the poster, but I took it to be a "Don't take yourselves so seriously" remark (It's what that joke has meant for at least the last 40 years). But if you truly believe that to be "the most disrespectful post you have ever read", try these...
> 
> “Aside from putting each one of you in a line and asking if youve seen a rulebook...”
> “1Honestly dude. Who would go for the first time and not look at a rule book? “
> "National" things only kick in for ...yep you guessed it National events.
> “Dont defend the lazy”
> “Thank you... for yet another pointless and meaningless snapshot in time”
> “I dont even know what point your trying to make here other than to beat the horse. Congratulations.... it's still dead”
> “Further... since you dont shoot in *the Pro division*... why are you busting on this? “
> 
> 
> 
> :thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up
> 
> As I understand the "rules" all you need to do to label yourself a "pro" in the NFAA is pay the dues and entry fees.
> 
> For some, perhaps, it is an ego inflating device for those who have short-comings in other areas. :crutch:
Click to expand...


----------



## Pete53

THUMBS UP FOR : Field 14 - Falcone - QT3D, I think the wanna-be -pro archer took a hit ? OUCH !!


----------



## huteson2us2

The rule says, "A dropped arrow is one which falls while being transferred from the quiver to be nocked on the string, or in preparation for a shot; or which falls from the string during a controlled letdown. (A dropped arrow may be re-shot)." ARTICLE IV
Tournaments, J. Scoring, #13).

This is the rule I stated at the Nationals. According to this rule, an arrow that pops from the string due to pressure from a nock while letting down, is a shot arrow because it is propelled by the string. ( This was brought up at A National tournament in the 90s). We did shoot another arrow and marked it. The people in my group all had 30 years or more in the NFAA each and were not beginners. Since we went with the dropped arrow instead of the shot arrow, the archer lost an additional point for shooting a 5th arrow. Chuck: You forgot to mention the lost point for shooting another arrow even though it was marked.

The point I was making is that the rules are written like the Constitution and can be intrepetived many different ways. Instead of changing the rules so often, how about making them clear for everyone. The condesending attitude from the NFAA leadership does not help everytime we members point out a problem and ask for help.


----------



## Falcone

huteson2us2 said:


> The rule says, "A dropped arrow is one which falls while being transferred from the quiver to be nocked on the string, or in preparation for a shot; or which falls from the string during a controlled letdown. (A dropped arrow may be re-shot)." ARTICLE IV
> Tournaments, J. Scoring, #13).
> 
> This is the rule I stated at the Nationals. According to this rule, an arrow that pops from the string due to pressure from a nock while letting down, is a shot arrow because it is propelled by the string. ( This was brought up at A National tournament in the 90s). We did shoot another arrow and marked it. The people in my group all had 30 years or more in the NFAA each and were not beginners. Since we went with the dropped arrow instead of the shot arrow, the archer lost an additional point for shooting a 5th arrow. Chuck: You forgot to mention the lost point for shooting another arrow even though it was marked.
> 
> The point I was making is that the rules are written like the Constitution and can be intrepetived many different ways. Instead of changing the rules so often, how about making them clear for everyone. The condesending attitude from the NFAA leadership does not help everytime we members point out a problem and ask for help.


And we made it back to the original topic (problems interpreting the rules). I shoot longbow (no release), so this is not my area. But, it seems the intent of the rule is to not penalize a shooter for a slip of the fingers, but at the same time not rewarding someone for lacking control in a let down and having to fire the arrow into the ground (mentioned in a previous post). 
So if the wording was changed such that you can re-shoot any arrow you can reach from the line, and that the arrow is not stuck into the dirt above the tip, then you eliminate the arguments about how it got there. Simple?


----------



## archer_nm

Here is a great idea, (I may have said something similar earlier) buy a rule book, read it and if you don't understand a rule contact your STATE Director and ask for his/her understanding. Then if it is something you think can be written better then have your Director put in an agenda item for the BOD to vote on. Also as I stated in another post we as the RIC take both the written word and the intent by the author to make a ruling. (Rules interpretation Committee) so everyone knows what it stands for and I am one the three members of the RIC who get to have all the fun.


----------



## brtesite

archer_nm said:


> Here is a great idea, (I may have said something similar earlier) buy a rule book, read it and if you don't understand a rule contact your STATE Director and ask for his/her understanding. Then if it is something you think can be written better then have your Director put in an agenda item for the BOD to vote on. Also as I stated in another post we as the RIC take both the written word and the intent by the author to make a ruling. (Rules interpretation Committee) so everyone knows what it stands for and I am one the three members of the RIC who get to have all the fun.


 bob, I have to disagree with you . if you are trying to think you know what the intent the author meant when the rule was written, then you should be at the track picking the winners. There is no place in the constitution that gives you the right to do that. Some of those rules were written before you became director or councilman. That is why the written word was adopted when J. Slack was pres. I was one that voted on it. 
This is why there is so much confusion as to what the rules are, because every one is putting there own interpretation on the rule. If you just read the rules as written & follow them with out thinking about it , there would not be a problem . 
if some of the rules seem out of line, don't try to correct them on the spot .if you do, every one is not on the same page when adjudicating an incident. Go thru the proper channels of an agenda & fight it out on the floor.


----------



## Falcone

archer_nm said:


> Here is a great idea, (I may have said something similar earlier) buy a rule book, read it and if you don't understand a rule contact your STATE Director and ask for his/her understanding. Then if it is something you think can be written better then have your Director put in an agenda item for the BOD to vote on. Also as I stated in another post we as the RIC take both the written word and the intent by the author to make a ruling. (Rules interpretation Committee) so everyone knows what it stands for and I am one the three members of the RIC who get to have all the fun.


 So, Bob, do I understand it is your position as Sectional Councilman and a member of the RIC that members should not discuss rule issues except with their State Directors? If the discussions here are an indication, if everyone who does not understand a rule, or finds that they understand it differently from someone else, contacts their STATE Director, said directors will be busy people indeed. 
I guess that would be one way to force changes, if enough people piled on to their State Directors with every disagreement of every rule until it got fixed. Personally, I thought having a discussion on an open forum to hammer out options, and maybe figure out some fixes, would be more proactive. 
Just for the record (again) I did download the rules and read them all before concluding that their meaning was not exactly obvious (the need for a RIC speaks to that in and of itself). And judging by the rule quoting done in this thread, it is obvious others have obtained and read the rules as well. What is not obvious is what possible objection could you have to archers in a forum talking about the rules?


----------



## archer_nm

Mike I also disagree with what you are saying and you know this too since you have been there! the RIC Uses any means to make our decision and when possible the intent of the author. Yes you are correct that is novt always possible, but sometimes it is.


----------



## archer_nm

Falcone I never said that members should not discuss the rules or their meaning, but as it is shown in the posts in this thread some don't even take the time too look over the rules and try to understand what they have read. Some have even wanted a judge to be on
Site to make calls on each target. I personally don't think it is that hard to understand but then I have been a member for a lot of years.


----------



## brtesite

archer_nm said:


> Mike I also disagree with what you are saying and you know this too since you have been there! the RIC Uses any means to make our decision and when possible the intent of the author. Yes you are correct that is not always possible, but sometimes it is.


Bob, that is the very problem with the rules. you will not be on the RIC forever , nor will the others. So what your interpretation of what the author meant, will not be the same with the new RIC. what you are doing is directly against the "Constitution". It sounds a little like what we have in DC. Did not the agenda to allow the authors interpretation fail? If the leaders don't follow the book, then ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Yes I was on the RIC, & even the chair. My committee read the words & made the decision based on that alone. The language is pretty clear as to what it says. to many people are trying to read into the rule what is not there. Case in point , shot arrow. If it is propelled by the string ,it is shot. Not why it came off, or "I was letting down & said so, or the cams are very aggressive & it pulled me.
I put an agenda to help with that by saying "letting down", but the directors in their infinite wisdom shot it down the reason was that they didn't want their concentration broken by some one screaming "letting down" . Those were the very words. So now you will have what you have until some one comes up with a better solution. By the way , the rule is there because some top archer shot an arrow into the ground in front of himself to clear the bow of water from the rain. Someone got pissed and wrote an agenda. 

There are many rules that passed because some one got pissed.


----------



## Pete53

why not change the shot arrow rule ? like maybe- any arrow that can be retrieved from the front of the determined shooting line 10 feet out may be shot over during that round. or maybe someone has an even better idea ?


----------



## brtesite

Pete53 said:


> why not change the shot arrow rule ? like maybe- any arrow that can be retrieved from the front of the determined shooting line 10 feet out may be shot over during that round. or maybe someone has an even better idea ?[/QUOTE
> 
> Pete, I'll give you another gem. that was an agenda a few years back. Guess what the the rational was to defeat it. " How do you determine 10 feet if the the shooting stake is at the end of a cliff" That is a quote from the director . He convinced the majority to defeat it.


----------



## field14

brtesite said:


> Pete53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> why not change the shot arrow rule ? like maybe- any arrow that can be retrieved from the front of the determined shooting line 10 feet out may be shot over during that round. or maybe someone has an even better idea ?[/QUOTE
> 
> Pete, I'll give you another gem. that was an agenda a few years back. Guess what the the rational was to defeat it. " How do you determine 10 feet if the the shooting stake is at the end of a cliff" That is a quote from the director . He convinced the majority to defeat it.
> 
> 
> 
> There is the 10 foot line indoors. In spite of that, I think it ludicrous to "require" a 10 foot line in front of each shooting stake outdoors, however. The SIMPLE rule of being able to reach/touch the arrow with YOUR bow or stabilizer without leaving the shooting stake would work just fine..cliff or not! Silly thing about the "cliff" scenario! Like Mike says, some director may have gotten "pissed" or whatever and submitted an agenda item.
> Similar to having BOTH a time limit AND a "let down rule" at the same time. Who cares if a person lets down 4 times (indoors) as long as the TIME LIMIT of 4 minutes isn't exceeded? If he/she can let down that many times and still make the time limit, it should not matter.
> However, since there is no time limit outdoors (IMHO, there should be one, perhaps 5 or 6 hours (with ability to modify it for foul weather), that let down rule does make some sense (if it is enforced unilaterally across the board, that is).
Click to expand...


----------



## markdenis

That would seem simple to me. If the arrow fell off a cliff, it would be more than 10 feet away. The truth is many written rules in this sport as with others can be argued. You could basically write any rule to address the let-down rule from, "no arrow counts as a shot arrow unless it sticks in the scoring zone" to "a timed rule where once the arrow is nocked it must be shot within a pre-determined time".

To write a rule that would satisfy everyone is probably impossible. Common sense goes a long way when writing any rule.


----------



## brtesite

field14 said:


> brtesite said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the 10 foot line indoors. In spite of that, I think it ludicrous to "require" a 10 foot line in front of each shooting stake outdoors, however. The SIMPLE rule of being able to reach/touch the arrow with YOUR bow or stabilizer without leaving the shooting stake would work just fine..cliff or not! Silly thing about the "cliff" scenario! Like Mike says, some director may have gotten "pissed" or whatever and submitted an agenda item.
> Similar to having BOTH a time limit AND a "let down rule" at the same time. Who cares if a person lets down 4 times (indoors) as long as the TIME LIMIT of 4 minutes isn't exceeded? If he/she can let down that many times and still make the time limit, it should not matter.
> However, since there is no time limit outdoors (IMHO, there should be one, perhaps 5 or 6 hours (with ability to modify it for foul weather), that let down rule does make some sense (if it is enforced unilaterally across the board, that is).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time should be the limiting factor indoors & the let down rule outdoors, but not both at the same time.
Click to expand...


----------



## field14

brtesite said:


> Time should be the limiting factor indoors & the let down rule outdoors, but not both at the same time.



I agree with the "not at the same time" reasoning, Mike. Many moons ago, the TIME LIMIT was put into place because of a few that were letting down numerous times during an end indoors. It got so bad, that a few particular persons were taking upwards of 7 or 8 minutes to shoot 5 shots! So, they put in the 5-minute rule. It has since become 4 minutes for NFAA Blue face, and now what used to be 3 minutes for the Vegas round indoors is down to two minutes. No need to have a let-down rule AND a time limit, since the time limit pretty much takes care of the let downs. 

However, I still think that there should be a _*time limit*_ for completion of a 28-target field and hunter round outdoors, and to heck with the let down rule. I'd say that 6 hours maximum (5 hours may be a bit "short" to be accepted by some of the masses) from the sound of the horn until the scorecards must be turned in for a field and/or hunter 28 target round is ample time. (With allowances for foul weather permitted, at the discretion of the tournament chair/committee). _I would certainly think that "peer pressure" to complete the round on time would come to bear big time if a person in the group was letting down several times on each target and holding up the entire group!_
Then, the other rule about reaching the arrow with your bow/stabilizer without leaving the stake would work quite well outdoors, too. I think that permitting the intentional shooting of the arrow into the ground in front of the stake is a safety risk, so that should not be allowed.


----------



## deadeyedickwc

heres another rule for you that need to be fixed,the skying rule,their is a rule that sez no skying , just nothing to back it up . its a big safety issue , wish the directors would address this ,


----------



## FV Chuck

Not picking a fight... Just curious.

What words would you add to back it up?... that way something can be written etc. 
Just looking for input here.


----------



## Rolo

field14 said:


> There is the 10 foot line indoors. In spite of that, I think it ludicrous to "require" a 10 foot line in front of each shooting stake outdoors, however. The SIMPLE rule of being able to reach/touch the arrow with YOUR bow or stabilizer without leaving the shooting stake would work just fine..cliff or not! Silly thing about the "cliff" scenario! Like Mike says, some director may have gotten "pissed" or whatever and submitted an agenda item.
> Similar to having BOTH a time limit AND a "let down rule" at the same time. Who cares if a person lets down 4 times (indoors) as long as the TIME LIMIT of 4 minutes isn't exceeded? If he/she can let down that many times and still make the time limit, it should not matter.
> However, since there is no time limit outdoors (IMHO, there should be one, perhaps 5 or 6 hours (with ability to modify it for foul weather), that let down rule does make some sense (if it is enforced unilaterally across the board, that is).


I can envision the potential for manipulation and complaint already. Someone makes an expandable stabilizer for just this purpose. Legal in Freestyle. Bowhunters complaining that the FS dudes get an advantage because a 12" stabilizer does not reach as far. Vertically challenged folks complaining that tall folks get an advantage...and on and on.

The 10 foot rule works indoors because it's indoors and easy. It becomes an issue outdoors because of circumstance. I'm all for modifying the rule outdoors if it can be done in such a way that will solve a problem, an actual one, not a perceived one or one that does not often become a concern, and that is 'fair' to all and does not open the floodgates to complaints.

That said, I don't have a problem with the current rule either...it seems to be one that encourages folks to be in control of their equipment, which is a good thing IMO.


----------



## Rolo

deadeyedickwc said:


> heres another rule for you that need to be fixed,the skying rule,their is a rule that sez no skying , just nothing to back it up . its a big safety issue , wish the directors would address this ,


Yep...there is a rule, and it is somewhat vague, and much easier to interpret inside than out. As I understand the enforcement, 1 warning and then the boot. Not sure if it has ever been implemented2 years that it has been in the book.


----------



## Pete53

skying rule maybe, hand on bow arm must not go above the shooter`s head ?? except when shooting a field course with a target vertically above the archer.this is just a very rough ideal for a rule. but i do believe skying is a very unsafe practice and needs to be addressed.


----------



## wa-prez

field14 said:


> I still think that there should be a _*time limit*_ for completion of a 28-target field and hunter round outdoors, and to heck with the let down rule. I'd say that 6 hours maximum (5 hours may be a bit "short" to be accepted by some of the masses) from the sound of the horn until the scorecards must be turned in for a field and/or hunter 28 target round is ample time. (With allowances for foul weather permitted, at the discretion of the tournament chair/committee). _I would certainly think that "peer pressure" to complete the round on time would come to bear big time if a person in the group was letting down several times on each target and holding up the entire group!_.


Problem with an absolute time limit for shooting a Field round is there is no reasonable way to account for how much of that time you (and your group) are actually SHOOTING, how much time walking the range and scoring, and how much WAITING for the group ahead of you. You would need a start / stop time clock (like chess players use) so you could subtract wasted time. And I wouldn't want to be disqualified or rushed because the OTHER people in my group take inordinate time to shoot, or can't walk the course at a normal pace, or are too disorganized to get the scorecards out and start writing when it's time to record scores, or can't add straight...

There are just too many factors outdoors that are out of the individual archer's control. The 3-letdown rule works as well as anything.

Tournament organizers DO usually set a time from when the archers are off the course to when the scorecard must be turned in.


----------



## wa-prez

Pete53 said:


> skying rule maybe, hand on bow arm must not go above the shooter`s head ?? except when shooting a field course with a target vertically above the archer.this is just a very rough ideal for a rule. but i do believe skying is a very unsafe practice and needs to be addressed.


There is a rule for this now, it was added into the 2013-2014 NFAA Constitution and By-Laws:

ARTICLE II NFAA Shooting Styles and Equipment Rules
A. General
Paragraph #7. No archer shall draw a bow with the bow hand above the top of the head when drawing on a horizontal plane, parallel to the ground.

Probably COULD have been worded better, but at least it is in there.

And even if you ARE shooting at a steep up-hill target, the better form would be to draw in a normal manner, then bend at the waist (backward) to bring your sight onto the target.


----------



## markdenis

I have been around this game many years and I have never seen anyone hurt or property damage from a high drawn arrow that got away. On the other hand, I have seen more than one arrows glancing off low things then striking something unattended. Seems to me the rule is backwards. It should be a rule to draw high to avoid damage and injuries. Of course that is just what I have personally witnessed over the years.


----------



## Arrowwood

I know of a close call sky drawing incident. The arrow landed in a soccer field people were using a couple hundred yards away. They weren't too happy about it.


----------



## markdenis

Arrowwood said:


> I know of a close call sky drawing incident. The arrow landed in a soccer field people were using a couple hundred yards away. They weren't too happy about it.


So the archer was shooting in the direction of a soccer field 200 yards away?


----------



## Arrowwood

Something like that, yes. It might have been farther - I heard people were surprised a recurve could shoot that far. It was a target tournament.

Back to the rules, deadeye's point was the rule doesn't say what to do when skying occurs.


----------



## Pete53

have seen a lite fixture 8 feet long hit dead center on a 14 foot ceiling indoors with glass falling down "we were only on a 20 yard indoor range". also in that same building two more arrows are still in ceiling. so outdoors who knows ?? safety first?


----------



## field14

markdenis said:


> I have been around this game many years and I have never seen anyone hurt or property damage from a high drawn arrow that got away. On the other hand, I have seen more than one arrows glancing off low things then striking something unattended. Seems to me the rule is backwards. It should be a rule to draw high to avoid damage and injuries. Of course that is just what I have personally witnessed over the years.


So, just because YOU didn't "see anything happen", we should continue to allow the bad practice...and abandon the RULE that has been passed (finally) by the NFAA to FINALLY agree with the FITA/WFA? Can you PROVE that some animal in a field wasn't hit? Can you PROVE that somebody didn't have a close call? I know of MANY close calls on ranges and several of those were not from a "skid off" of the top of a bale, either.
You are saying that it is OK to point a deadly weapon into the air FIRST and and then lower it to the target...so just in case it goes off, it is "harmless" when/if something looses the arrow off into the wild blue? What are you thinking? You ain't a gonna do that with a rifle or pistol, are you? If you did, you wouldn't stay on the range for more than about 2 seconds and you'd be escorted off the range.

You are saying that since you figure nobody has been hit, injured, or killed that this senseless practice should just be allowed to continue unabated until something happens; and then do something about it...after the fact?
Thank heavens that the NFAA finally, after long, constant debate chose to do something about it. Like it or not, it is the RULE now. Of course, the NFAA may have "different" enforcement of it. However, in the NAA/FITA/WFA...you get ONE warning about sky drawing....and no matter who you are or what you "think" about the rule...you do it a second time and you are escorted off the range.
SAFETY FIRST...not last.


----------



## field14

Pete53 said:


> have seen a lite fixture 8 feet long hit dead center on a 14 foot ceiling indoors with glass falling down "we were only on a 20 yard indoor range". also in that same building two more arrows are still in ceiling. so outdoors who knows ?? safety first?


I, too, have seen fluorescent lights, incandescent lights, and flood lights shattered as a result of "sky drawing" indoors. By LAW, technically, the range is supposed to be cleared out, then the person to clean it up is supposed to put on PPE (personal protective equiment) to sweep up the mess. The minimum time to let the dust settle is 10-15 minutes. The "crap" by law, is then supposes to be properly disposed of in an appropriate container (also prescribed by law). The mercury contained in the flo. tubes is a carcinogen! Of course, those sky drawers don't give one rat's #$$ about anything but themselves. 
http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl

http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/ma...eaning-up-broken-fluorescent-light-bulbs.html

Imagine too, if a sprinkler head was shot out and the entire place got flooded? How long do you think that range would be around after that? Fire Dept, and all?
I also know of an incident where sky drawing was involved...and the arrow went through the sheet rock wall...both sides, across the adjacent room and stuck into the wall on the other side, barely missing an employee sitting at her computer station. The next day, the club lost their indoor range; the building owner told them to clear out their stuff muy pronto!


----------



## markdenis

Archery has been here for a very long time, so in modern times and just for fun post a link where someone got injured from a arrow falling out of the sky from an archer that let it go by accident. The chances of getting hit by an asteroid are probably more likely. 

As you can tell, I am not a big fan of rules that someone dreams up and thinks it is dangerous. Maybe we should stop squirrel hunting with a 22, maybe we should pass a law that if your arrow deflects off the intended target and goes wild, the archer that shot it should be warned then banned if it happens again. 

Someone explain to me how a glancing arrow that could go anywhere is less dangerous than an arrow that is launched in a direction that should be safe to begin with!


----------



## field14

markdenis said:


> Archery has been here for a very long time, so in modern times and just for fun post a link where someone got injured from a arrow falling out of the sky from an archer that let it go by accident. The chances of getting hit by an asteroid are probably more likely.
> 
> As you can tell, I am not a big fan of rules that someone dreams up and thinks it is dangerous. Maybe we should stop squirrel hunting with a 22, maybe we should pass a law that if your arrow deflects off the intended target and goes wild, the archer that shot it should be warned then banned if it happens again.
> 
> Someone explain to me how a glancing arrow that could go anywhere is less dangerous than an arrow that is launched in a direction that should be safe to begin with!


Well, let's us see:"The weapon -- possibly _misfired from an archer at a nearby sports complex_ -- fortunately did not strike any major arteries. 
May 8, 2012:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/man-gets-shot-in-neck-with-arrow_n_1499463.html

And this July 27, 2011: "An 80-year-old Missouri woman enjoying a chocolate doughnut at her kitchen table was hit in the face by a stray arrow apparently shot by a neighbor honing his archery skills, police said on Wednesday". Sure, it glanced off his bale...but went over 100 yards, through her window and hit her in the jaw!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/27/us-crime-arrow-idUSTRE76Q66S20110727

This one: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xsnt3u_woman-injured-by-arrow_travel 

THen this one:
http://archive.wtsp.com/news/waterc...alif-girl-recovering-after-being-hit-by-arrow

Matters not whether they should or shouldn't have "been there." Matters not whether or not the arrow was loosed during a "sky draw" in an archery tournament...it does matter that NO WEAPON SHOULD BE POINTED IN AN UNSAFE DIRECTION AT ANY TIME>..drawing a bow back or not! It is a loaded weapon and the shooter should be under control at all times, period!

You people are just too blooming "soft" when it comes to sky drawing and archery....thinking that "they shouldn't be there in the way" or depending upon FULL safety of ranges, when in fact, many ranges have very unsafe targets within them!

We have been fortunate, and for someone to say, "Well to date, it hasn't happened yet; show me any case of someone being hit."
What if it was your mom, or daughter that took that hit?

In addition to this sky drawing madness, we have situations where newbies are so overbowed that they sway their bodies and hips and not only sky draw their bows, but point them katty-wampus at unsafe angles, on the level, and nearly parallel to the shooting line...then get to full draw and move the bow to the direction of the target face. Many are in the habit of doing all this...AND turning their heads 180 degrees to the intended path of the arrow, too! I see this all the time of late. Often times, I get the $e$$ off the shooting line all together. Said something to a parent once about it and it nearly came to blows because the parent defended his kid that was UNSAFE...saying the kid had to get ready for hunting season and it was the only way he could draw the bow. "Who made you boss of the range anyways?" he said.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Rolo

field14 said:


> I, too, have seen fluorescent lights, incandescent lights, and flood lights shattered as a result of "sky drawing" indoors.


That can happen with or without a 'sky draw' as defined...the practice of drawing safely, whether a 'sky draw' or not is more important, but harder to regulate...


----------



## field14

Rolo said:


> That can happen with or without a 'sky draw' as defined...the practice of drawing safely, whether a 'sky draw' or not is more important, but harder to regulate...


NAA/FITA/WFA...doesn't have a problem regulating it at all. They give ONE warning...and if you pull the unsafe act again, regardless of who you are...you are DQ'd and taken off the shooting line. Period. No appeals; no if's and's or but's.

The other problem is that it isn't funny to shoot out a light...especially fluorescent ones...what with the EPA regulations (that aren't, in most cases, even followed nor are the shops even aware of the regulations and clean up procedures). Technically, one busted bulb at a tournament could shut down the entire tournament...and push the lines well off schedule, if even allowed to continue! This isn't a joke, folks...it is the real deal...and nobody seems to give one rat's #$$ about the situation...thinking, oh, what the heck, no big deal.


----------



## markdenis

field14 said:


> Well, let's us see:"The weapon -- possibly _misfired from an archer at a nearby sports complex_ -- fortunately did not strike any major arteries.
> May 8, 2012:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/man-gets-shot-in-neck-with-arrow_n_1499463.html
> 
> And this July 27, 2011: "An 80-year-old Missouri woman enjoying a chocolate doughnut at her kitchen table was hit in the face by a stray arrow apparently shot by a neighbor honing his archery skills, police said on Wednesday". Sure, it glanced off his bale...but went over 100 yards, through her window and hit her in the jaw!
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/27/us-crime-arrow-idUSTRE76Q66S20110727
> 
> This one: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xsnt3u_woman-injured-by-arrow_travel
> 
> THen this one:
> http://archive.wtsp.com/news/waterc...alif-girl-recovering-after-being-hit-by-arrow
> 
> Matters not whether they should or shouldn't have "been there." Matters not whether or not the arrow was loosed during a "sky draw" in an archery tournament...it does matter that NO WEAPON SHOULD BE POINTED IN AN UNSAFE DIRECTION AT ANY TIME>..drawing a bow back or not! It is a loaded weapon and the shooter should be under control at all times, period!
> 
> You people are just too blooming "soft" when it comes to sky drawing and archery....thinking that "they shouldn't be there in the way" or depending upon FULL safety of ranges, when in fact, many ranges have very unsafe targets within them!
> 
> We have been fortunate, and for someone to say, "Well to date, it hasn't happened yet; show me any case of someone being hit."
> What if it was your mom, or daughter that took that hit?
> 
> In addition to this sky drawing madness, we have situations where newbies are so overbowed that they sway their bodies and hips and not only sky draw their bows, but point them katty-wampus at unsafe angles, on the level, and nearly parallel to the shooting line...then get to full draw and move the bow to the direction of the target face. Many are in the habit of doing all this...AND turning their heads 180 degrees to the intended path of the arrow, too! I see this all the time of late. Often times, I get the $e$$ off the shooting line all together. Said something to a parent once about it and it nearly came to blows because the parent defended his kid that was UNSAFE...saying the kid had to get ready for hunting season and it was the only way he could draw the bow. "Who made you boss of the range anyways?" he said.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


Thank you for proving my point...not a single case of injury caused by a sky draw...glance offs yes, and I read them all. You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid so maybe we should only have archery tournaments underground. You want to pass rules that involve safety issues? How about passing a rule to check each arrow for damage which has proven itself over and over again to be dangerous if you don't...plenty of pics and stories to prove it but I see no rule that governs it. Even if I missed a rule somewhere that has addressed it, there is no enforcement of the rule which makes it useless.


----------



## field14

markdenis said:


> Thank you for proving my point...not a single case of injury caused by a sky draw, and I read them all. You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid so maybe we should only have archery tournaments underground. You want to pass rules that involve safety issues? How about passing a rule to check each arrow which has proven itself over and over again to be dangerous if you don't...plenty of pics and stories to prove it but I see no rule that governs it. Even if I missed a rule somewhere that address it, there is no enforcement of the rule which makes it useless.


Say WHAT? Sure...the "sky draw" itself doesn't do the deed...it is the POTENTIAL of the accidental discharge of the arrow from the bow; either from touching the trigger, or a d-loop breaking, or a release spring letting loose, or a failure of the operator to control his/her back tension release..and the LOOSING of the arrow is where the damage comes from. If the bow is pointed in a SAFE direction from the get go, then that POTENTIAL is minimized or eliminated.
So...you STOP the POTENTIAL...by STOPPING the "sky drawing."

You point again? Sky drawing is an UNSAFE ACT that has the POTENTIAL of causing bodily harm, injury, or worse, along with the POTENTIAL of serious property damage! 
You'll never convince me that sky drawing at any time is a warranted and acceptable practice....never. 

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Rolo

field14 said:


> NAA/FITA/WFA...doesn't have a problem regulating it at all. They give ONE warning...and if you pull the unsafe act again, regardless of who you are...you are DQ'd and taken off the shooting line. Period. No appeals; no if's and's or but's.


What's the unsafe act? Is it defined in the rules? Like I said, a light can be shot out without the bow being drawn in a 'sky draw' fashion.

So, what's the definition of the unsafe act under NAA/FITA/WFA?


----------



## markdenis

field14 said:


> Say WHAT? Sure...the "sky draw" itself doesn't do the deed...it is the POTENTIAL of the accidental discharge of the arrow from the bow; either from touching the trigger, or a d-loop breaking, or a release spring letting loose, or a failure of the operator to control his/her back tension release..and the LOOSING of the arrow is where the damage comes from. If the bow is pointed in a SAFE direction from the get go, then that POTENTIAL is minimized or eliminated.
> So...you STOP the POTENTIAL...by STOPPING the "sky drawing."
> 
> You point again? Sky drawing is an UNSAFE ACT that has the POTENTIAL of causing bodily harm, injury, or worse, along with the POTENTIAL of serious property damage!
> You'll never convince me that sky drawing at any time is a warranted and acceptable practice....never.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)



First, I have no desire to convince you of anything. You believe whatever you want and I will do the same. And second, if I was concerned about pushing for rule changes, I would rather focus my attention on problems that already exists in this sport.


----------



## field14

Rolo said:


> What's the unsafe act? Is it defined in the rules? Like I said, a light can be shot out without the bow being drawn in a 'sky draw' fashion.
> 
> So, what's the definition of the unsafe act under NAA/FITA/WFA?


Yes, it is very definitely defined in the Rules of the World Federation of Archery (WFA).

Even the 4-H associations for archery have a rule AGAINST "sky drawing"...they aren't wishy-washy or non-concerned about SAFETY like so many on here are:
http://d114-h.tamu.edu/files/2012/12/2013-D11-Archery-Rules.pdf
Specifially, this 4H group makes it entirely CLEAR: _"Sky drawing will not be allowed and an archer maybe asked to leave the competition if they cannot safely draw their bow in a level manner."_
On another forum, an archer apparently was "nearly hit" (oh, wait, "nearly hit" doesn't mean anything to some of you on here, but I'll continue anyways!):
http://www.archery-forum.com/showthread.php?31099-sky-drawing-your-bows

SKY DRAWING YOUR BOWS (quoted from the thread): "... We seem to be having a lot of trouble lately with Novice's sky drawing their bow and and letting go before they are on target, Sunday's shoot was nearly marred by a one of the Shooters nearly being hit, What do other Clubs do to try and stamp out this sort of thing.We do tell them when We see them that it's dangerous, but then You see some of the top Archers doing the same exact thing as We are telling them not to do."

You can read the rest of the thread if you dare.... Post #2 says what is done at their location...and on and on and on...I cannot fathom anyone that would consider "sky drawing" as something to allow!!! An accident waiting to happen, has happened (even tho markdenis denies it and says "sky drawing" didn't do it).

THen there is the GB rules which adhere to WFA rules: (b) is a direct quote of the WFA rules that are ENFORCED, period! Read on folks...SOME associations take the safety seriously!
Section 1
102.
General
(a)No archer may draw his bow, with or without an arrow, except when standing at the shooting line or peg. If an arrow is used, the archer shall aim toward the targets but only after being satisfied that the field is clear both in front of and behind the targets.
(b)_When drawing back the string of the bow an archer shall not use any technique which, in the opinion of the judges, could, if accidentally loosed, allow the arrow to fly beyond a safety zone or safety arrangements (overshoot area, net, wall, etc). If an archer persists in using such a
technique, he will, in the interest of safety, be immediately asked by the Judge to stop shooting and to leave the area._
(c)If anyone present where archery is taking place becomes aware that shooting should be halted for safety reasons, that person must call “FAST”. On hearing this call, all archers must immediately stop shooting, returning all unshot arrows to the quiver. If necessary, the call of “FAST” should be repeated by other archers to ensure that everyone has heard and stopped shooting. Shooting will recommence only on the instruction of the Judge.
(d) _The Judge, in consultation with the appointed tournament organiser is empowered to require any individual who is considered to be jeopardising the safety of the tournament to immediately leave the shooting ground._

They don't play games and wait for it to "happen" before doing something about it!

Markdenis...the problem with sky drawing and the potential harm DOES exist...it is RAMPANT with the new shooters and even with "some" of the better pros, too. Those particular "pros" with the problem don't compete in WFA events...likely because they'd have to change their "style" in order to stay in the competition!
I cannot believe you would even consider to allow the potential harm/damage that sky drawing could result in and not want something done proactively to stop it.
Of course, you are late...because the sky drawing rules are already in place...excepting for IBO and ASA (maybe?).

Enough of this...but...if I'm on a course or range and someone in my group is sky drawing, I'll say something ONCE...then I leave that unsafe person/group and go look for a range official. I don't care what they think of it either. I won't be a party to unsafe practices.


----------



## Rolo

field14 said:


> (b)_When drawing back the string of the bow an archer shall not use any technique which, in the opinion of the judges, could, if accidentally loosed, allow the arrow to fly beyond a safety zone or safety arrangements (overshoot area, net, wall, etc). If an archer persists in using such a
> technique, he will, in the interest of safety, be immediately asked by the Judge to stop shooting and to leave the area._


Ah...so it's not specifically defined...'sky draw' that is. This rule would also cover the 'double reverse chicken wing' method of drawing a bow which actually puts the arrow on a similar plane to the 'sky draw' but eh bow never goes above the person's head.

Though the rule is vague and subject to whatever the tournament organizer deems correct...

Hey, that's like the ear phone issue...if the tournament director deems it unsafe, it is not allowed. We've come full circle...


----------



## field14

Rolo said:


> Ah...so it's not specifically defined...'sky draw' that is. This rule would also cover the 'double reverse chicken wing' method of drawing a bow which actually puts the arrow on a similar plane to the 'sky draw' but eh bow never goes above the person's head.
> 
> Though the rule is vague and subject to whatever the tournament organizer deems correct...
> 
> Hey, that's like the ear phone issue...if the tournament director deems it unsafe, it is not allowed. We've come full circle...


Best and most simple thing... DO NOT DO IT! Interesting that you mention earphones. Did you know that ANY electronic listening device is strictly PROHIBITED by the NFAA for cross-bow shooters...but the NFAA failed to put the exact same prohibition on the "regular bows" side of the NFAA Rule book?
Interesting, huh? They leave it, again, up to the tournament director...instead of ADDRESSING IT UP FRONT!

BUT...back to the sky drawing thing. The rule is there...don't push the limits of it if you don't want to be spoken with and if you fail to comply, asked to leave the shooting line.
They won't listen to your "lawyer talk" or anything...out you go...especially in a WFA sanctioned event. There are a few WAF shooters from the USA and another country that are pushing this right at the limit...but...their bow hand does NOT come above their head at any time during the shot cycle; otherwise......

You won't "out-interpret" the line judges and tournament chair.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Rolo

field14 said:


> Best and most simple thing... DO NOT DO IT! Interesting that you mention earphones. Did you know that ANY electronic listening device is strictly PROHIBITED by the NFAA for cross-bow shooters...but the NFAA failed to put the exact same prohibition on the "regular bows" side of the NFAA Rule book?
> Interesting, huh? They leave it, again, up to the tournament director...instead of ADDRESSING IT UP FRONT!
> 
> BUT...back to the sky drawing thing. The rule is there...don't push the limits of it if you don't want to be spoken with and if you fail to comply, asked to leave the shooting line.
> They won't listen to your "lawyer talk" or anything...out you go...especially in a WFA sanctioned event. There are a few WAF shooters from the USA and another country that are pushing this right at the limit...but...their bow hand does NOT come above their head at any time during the shot cycle; otherwise......
> 
> You won't "out-interpret" the line judges and tournament chair.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


I think the ear phone issue is fairly clear...it's unsafe and therefore not allowed. Easy peasy...there doesn't need to be a specific rule to address every safety issue. The ear phone issue, that you continually raise, is a non-starter. They ain't allowed period because they are unsafe. Not sure how many times Mike has explained this to you, but you're always coming back to it, this thread, and countless threads before it.

The reality is that the WAF rule does not have a strict definition of 'sky draw'...it covers a number of things without specifics, that could be deemed dangerous. See, rather than understand what I was saying, you want to think I would have an issue with the WAF rule...to the contrary, the rule seems pretty clear to me...draw a bow in a dangerous manner, which includes manners other than 'sky drawing' and you can get the boot...

Kinda like ear phones...engage in a dangerous practice, you can get the boot...it doesn't need to be specifically spelled out in the rules...which was my point, a point that was entirely missed. And, since you want to get personal...weren't you a school teacher? You would have thought that this would be easily understood if you were...don't you have a stool to kick or something? :wink:


----------



## markdenis

field14

Obviously you did not read my last post, but it really makes no difference to me. You have an opinion one way and I have an opinion another way, but to say pros won't shoot a particular event because they can't sky draw is ridiculous. Again, in my opinion there are way more safety problems with archery in general that should addressed long before sky-drawing. 

Personal injuries caused by unintentional sky draw mishaps.....0 
Personal injuries caused by glancing arrows.....MANY

You proved it by the link you sent me.

So until someone proves to me sky drawing is more dangerous than than an asteroid landing on someone, I will maintain my position.


----------



## field14

Yeah, I guess this generation has it "right". NOT. You know, "Rules are made to be broken." "Push the rules to the limits, break them if need be; until you get caught, it is OK." "Rules are for fools." "Do what you want; if it feels good, then it is OK." "If you don't like a rule(s) break it/them until "they" get tired of dealing with it and then you can get rid of the rule, the coach, the boss, the teacher, the wife, the husband." "The rules are: there are no rules."
WAH, WAH, WAH.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## gcab

field14 said:


> Yeah, I guess this generation has it "right". NOT. You know, "Rules are made to be broken." "Push the rules to the limits, break them if need be; until you get caught, it is OK." "Rules are for fools." "Do what you want; if it feels good, then it is OK." "If you don't like a rule(s) break it/them until "they" get tired of dealing with it and then you can get rid of the rule, the coach, the boss, the teacher, the wife, the husband." "The rules are: there are no rules."
> WAH, WAH, WAH.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


Unbelievable. Sometimes people should move on and find a new hobby. Noonne has said anything about ignore rules, there are no rules or anything else you said. You are the one that went on and on in another thread of changing rules because all these mythical archers that you shoot with at all the nationals events you go to supposedly want them changed. So which is it: have rules and follow them or moan and groan endlessly for years about the same nonsense constantly to have rules changed? Has nothing to do with generations at all, but you are terrible for the sport at this point with all the arguing and nonsense you post constantly. Maybe just keep doing puzzle books to occupy your time so those of us that enjoy archery can enjoy and improve it without your nonsense.


----------



## Pete53

SKY DRAWING,so as an archer some of you feel just let sky drawing go on tell someone gets hurt or killed ? sky drawing even in a building and hitting the ceiling could hurt,kill someone or even burn the building down if arrow hits an electrical outlet-gas pipe. so some archer`s on here say don`t worry it hasn`t happened yet , and now let`s talk about using a 22 for squirrel hunting ,in my state during youth gun training we promote using a shotgun for squirrel hunting and why so you don`t end up shooting someone,we teach safety first. here`s another example a trained 10 year police sniper on a legal gun range with a backstop that is 200 feet high, shot a 30 caliber bullet over the 200 foot bunk went thru both sides of a occupied house in a housing development,BATF came out did an investigation made recomendations so this did not happen again,the BATF didn`t say no one got hurt just keep shooting .so as archer`s some say just keep those unsafe shooting practices: we have not killed or stuck an arrow in anyone yet so its no big deal. i think a lttle common sense and safety is much more important than some people are posting on here ! i do hope our youth if they have read all these post understand the practice of safety needed in all shooting sports including archery.


----------



## Pete53

grab,you got it wrong Field 14 has his heart in it and does not want to see anyone hurt in archery,so tom brings up a few things for safety,it just may save a life or help archery be more safe. ya, now go ahead and post something nasty about me too ?


----------



## Falcone

markdenis said:


> field14
> 
> So until someone proves to me sky drawing is more dangerous than than an asteroid landing on someone, I will maintain my position.


"I shot an arrow over my house and have injured my neighbor" Shakespeare (King Richard?)
The range I shoot at mostly is 15 acres. Sounds like a lot, but when you stick 28 Field and Hunter targets, a few 3D's, practice range, and parking lot, it gets a bit tight. AND we have neighbors over every fence. Like a lot of clubs (most?) we don't own our land outright, we lease from the county. The county does not need us to be there. One lawsuit from a disgruntled neighbor who finds an arrow sticking out of his kids playhouse and we are done. Argue all you want, but don't high draw at my range. 

(ever notice longbows never go off accidentally? ;-)


----------



## Rolo

For the love of comprehension...no one has said anything about ignoring, stretching, or anything else about not adhering to the rules. Well, except for a couple of folks who either fail to comprehend, or are incapable of comprehending. 

'Sky drawing' has the potential to cause significant harm. Unsafe, but not 'sky drawing', drawing methods have equal potential to cause significant harm. A lot of other stuff has the potential to cause significant harm. Things that potentially could cause significant harm should be discouraged and prevented. A specific rule for each thing is not needed...like the rule Field posted, yet doesn't seem to understand. Simply put, the rule stands for the proposition that unsafe drawing practices are not allowed...whether they are 'sky drawing' or anything else. It's the same reason that ear phones are not allowed, even though there is not a specific rule, they are unsafe. This has been explained countless times by someone who has been in the game and is still in it longer than Field. But we always come back to the same thing...

It's not that hard to figure out the rules that exist, and the constant drivel about what is already known is getting old and worn. I guess if you're not going to be on the line actually shooting, the next best thing is to complain about what goes on on the line, even though you weren't there to see it...


----------



## gcab

Pete53 said:


> grab,you got it wrong Field 14 has his heart in it and does not want to see anyone hurt in archery,so tom brings up a few things for safety,it just may save a life or help archery be more safe. ya, now go ahead and post something nasty about me too ?


Has nothing to do with that. Go through the last 3 years or so and you will see that its always the same stuff, same problems, same argument, same issues created, same fights started, same nonsense of stuff that is heresay second or third hand. That's the reality. Yes I know he's been a paid member for 10 decades or whatever it is now, and know that he hasn't been able to go to tournaments for personal reasons. But still moans about all this stuff for these tournaments, although hasn't seen any of it happen at them since he is not there. Go back and read through all of his posts for the last few years, you'll understand better.


----------



## rsarns

How about the NFAA just getting the new rules and amendments out in a timely manner? The new rules that were voted on in Feb are still not available on the NFAA website, and they take effect on June 1st. Some of these rules are major equipment changes including what is legal as far as the bow itself goes. With Outdoor Nationals, sectionals and State tourneys coming soon.


----------



## field14

gcab said:


> Unbelievable. Sometimes people should move on and find a new hobby. Noonne has said anything about ignore rules, there are no rules or anything else you said. You are the one that went on and on in another thread of changing rules because all these mythical archers that you shoot with at all the nationals events you go to supposedly want them changed. So which is it: have rules and follow them or moan and groan endlessly for years about the same nonsense constantly to have rules changed? Has nothing to do with generations at all, but you are terrible for the sport at this point with all the arguing and nonsense you post constantly. Maybe just keep doing puzzle books to occupy your time so those of us that enjoy archery can enjoy and improve it without your nonsense.


If rules weren't being ignored, changed locally, and having such differing interpretations, then this thread wouldn't have been started. I did NOT start this thread.
Your abusive and insulting manner above is yet another thing that has driven people off AT. I will just consider the "source", because you don't seem to want to hose anyone but me. Don't want to talk about all the controversies and CHEATING that has gone on over the past 3 years, due to RULES VIOLATIONS, do you? Or "misinterpretations" of rules that are not clearly written and so open to interpretation?

ME bad for the sport? Take a look in the mirror!
Nuf of this baloney and insults. If you don't like my posts, put me on your ignore list. Insulting drivel like you posted above is yet another violation of RULES (of AT)....but of course, "rules are for fools."
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## FV Chuck

132 posts.... 

Probably some of the most level headed attempts at conversations and progress I've ever seen by some newer names (ones I dont see often on here anyway) Some very hard objections by others.....nothing gained. 

Even when people are on the same side your still feuding about semantics. Interesting.

Points of interest I think are worth noting (IMHO anyway) - Pro Forum, Non Pro Topic, Pro advice and opinions waved off, Non-Pro member opinions and posts driving the whole thing. 

Very enlightening.


----------



## archer_nm

Ren the only reason that the rules have not been posted is that it is to 1june and the current rules are still in effect, look into the document section to see what is passed and will be in effect. If they posted both rule books it would only confuses archers and they would use the wrong rules, catch 22.


----------



## Pete53

this pro archer -non pro thing common it`s all about commonsense and safety.don`t give me this crap about being a pro archer when did anyone on this post on rules win any real archery shoot for money ? get over this pro archer bull crap, anyone who things that way or just insults the people on here that are trying to make archery better,safer and more enjoyable,needs to grow up . I do hope a couple of NFAA directors see a little good come out of this discussion on rules. paying $75.00 to be called a pro archer does not make anyone a guru. its the unknown archer that we all need to help and humble ourselves too.


----------



## deadeyedickwc

yes their is a nfaa rule that sez no skying only problem their is no penalty for doing it , the directors forgot that, we need that done asap


----------



## FV Chuck

Pete53 said:


> this pro archer -non pro thing common it`s all about commonsense and safety.don`t give me this crap about being a pro archer when did anyone on this post on rules win any real archery shoot for money ? get over this pro archer bull crap, anyone who things that way or just insults the people on here that are trying to make archery better,safer and more enjoyable,needs to grow up . I do hope a couple of NFAA directors see a little good come out of this discussion on rules. paying $75.00 to be called a pro archer does not make anyone a guru. its the unknown archer that we all need to help and humble ourselves too.


....just to be clear Pete. Because I'm confused a bit. ... You've been cheerleading for a Master ( or super) Senior PRO division for over a year now? Saying that you cant wait for it to be adopted so you can go Pro?... Do I have that right?
Because It kind of sounds like your hammering against Pro's in one comment, then wanting to be one in others. 

Am I reading that wrong?. ..

I'm all about helping the "unknown archer" as you put it. Donating my time and travel and lessons to archers on a regular basis. I think many of us on this thread have donated thoooooosands of hours over the course of our careers (Pro or not) ... 
Striking out at those who have helped in the past wont endear them to helping in the future dude.
In fact I think it would be great if there were no handles to hide behind on here. It's a heckuva start dont you think?

FWIW. I dont think I ever gave an opinion on SkyDraw. Personally it looks unsafe to me but I've also never encountered an injury because of it. I think writing a proper rule for it is a giant can of worms that has yet to be conquered although some progress has been made, there is room for improvement.
As for the firing of a shot into the ground on purpose...nope never even heard of someone doing that much less seen it. With the cost of todays arrows and the power of the bows I cant imagine anyone ever would ...but I've seen some pretty stupid stuff so who knows.


----------



## wa-prez

rsarns said:


> How about the NFAA just getting the new rules and amendments out in a timely manner? The new rules that were voted on in Feb are still not available on the NFAA website, and they take effect on June 1st. Some of these rules are major equipment changes including what is legal as far as the bow itself goes. With Outdoor Nationals, sectionals and State tourneys coming soon.


Wow, guess what!

I just looked and the NFAA 2014-2015 Constitution and By-Laws HAS been posted on the NFAA website. I don't know what day they put it up, has been a while since I looked for it.

Here's the link: https://nfaausa.com/sites/default/files/2014-15 ConstByLaws.pdf

Or to navigate there quickly anytime (without starting from ArcheryTalk) go to www.nfaausa.com and click the link for "Resources", then choose "Documents".


----------



## markdenis

deadeyedickwc said:


> yes their is a nfaa rule that sez no skying only problem their is no penalty for doing it , the directors forgot that, we need that done asap


How would the sky draw rule be enforced? 

First of all, an arrow hitting anything other than the intended target is dangerous. So that would leave out drawing anywhere near the ground. Example of that would be a person drawing straight down on a concrete floor...an arrow released in this position could injure many people at once when it exploded. So that is out. 

Next would be high drawing or sky drawing whatever you want to call it. Anything other than an arrow drawn exactly on target (which nobody in this sport does or can do for that fact) would be considered dangerous in case of an unwanted release, so what angle would be safest to put in the rule? A common knowledge of physics dictates an arrow falling straight down would have the least chance of injuring or killing a person. It is simply a pin point entrance. An arrow falling at any angle has a greater chance of injury or death to people. 

So if the NFAA has designated specific angles a person can draw a bow, they are advising people to do the wrong thing. Maybe they do not address the high draw rule with specifics which would be the smart thing do.

So I ask again....what angle is acceptable? The answer would be *NONE!* You have to draw exactly on the target. Good luck enforcing that rule.


----------



## Pete53

chuck ,what i said is might shoot and pay the pro fee ,as far as being a pro i may never be that good of an archer,but you won`t see me brag and belittle anyone on here either. i was a pro in my line of work for 35 years and made a good living,so how many pro archer`s make a good living with archery? 10 maybe 20? but it also looks like the so-called pro archer`s don`t want the silver senior pro division either yet, till maybe they get old and don`t compete as well. also have you noticed the 50 year olds are now winning most of the senior pro shoots now ? so as one older gentlemen posted on another archery talk thread just sweep us under the rug.


----------



## Rolo

Pete53 said:


> but it also looks like the so-called pro archer`s don`t want the silver senior pro division either yet, till maybe they get old and don`t compete as well. also have you noticed the 50 year olds are now winning most of the senior pro shoots now ? so as one older gentlemen posted on another archery talk thread just sweep us under the rug.


Here's the reality...the Pro Divisions exist because of support from the manufacturers. If is not the current Pros, not the NFAA, not the ASA, not the Ibo, and not any other organization that 'does not want' a Silver Senior Pro Division. No matter how good or bad of an 'ideal' it may seem to be, without the support of the manufacturers, the SS Pro Division will not exist, and would fail in an ill-advised attempt to create it without the support of the manufacturers. Period.

There was actually a 15 signature agenda item for a SS Pro Division, it was pulled by the sponsor before it ever came to the floor for discussion or a vote...why...there was no support from the manufacturers.

So, while I know you think a SS Pro Division is a great 'ideal', my question is what have you done to encourage the manufacturers to support such a division? Instead of repeatedly asking for others to do it for you, why don't you do something to encourage its creation? Start with the manufacturers...


----------



## Pete53

rolo,to create a silver senior pro division, so i person should not bring it to the attention of the NFAA or bring it thru the director`s of the NFAA organization," that i have belong too off and on since 1973".but go directly to the manufactures like Easton and they will then make this decision for the Nfaa directors on the silver senior pro division, so really i am sending my dues to the wrong organization ? sounds kiss a-- to me ,i don`t do that !


----------



## gcab

So the older shooters aren't winning, so a new division needs to be created so they can win. Always amazes me when the older generations call out the younger ones for being lazy, entitled, coddled, ect(like above), but yet time to create divisions so the older ones can win. Interesting, always see Fred Couples out there mixing it up with the younger ones, and doing quite well. My guess, he probably practices and strives to get better. Yes they have the seniors as well, but so does archery. But my guess is also that archery would be the only sport that creates a new division for every 3-5 years just so more people can win. Most likely, this is why money is so thin for payouts since it is split up so many ways. Maybe should be like teeball and just give everyone a trophy and small cone after tournaments.


----------



## field14

markdenis said:


> How would the sky draw rule be enforced?
> 
> First of all, an arrow hitting anything other than the intended target is dangerous. So that would leave out drawing anywhere near the ground. Example of that would be a person drawing straight down on a concrete floor...an arrow released in this position could injure many people at once when it exploded. So that is out.
> 
> Next would be high drawing or sky drawing whatever you want to call it. Anything other than an arrow drawn exactly on target (which nobody in this sport does or can do for that fact) would be considered dangerous in case of an unwanted release, so what angle would be safest to put in the rule? A common knowledge of physics dictates an arrow falling straight down would have the least chance of injuring or killing a person. It is simply a pin point entrance. An arrow falling at any angle has a greater chance of injury or death to people.
> 
> So if the NFAA has designated specific angles a person can draw a bow, they are advising people to do the wrong thing. Maybe they do not address the high draw rule with specifics which would be the smart thing do.
> 
> So I ask again....what angle is acceptable? The answer would be *NONE!* You have to draw exactly on the target. Good luck enforcing that rule.


WFA has no problem at all ENFORCING it. Don't like the rule? then either write a clear, concise, and properly formatted agenda item and submit it to your NFAA Director...or comply with the existing rule; plain and simple.
You seem to just be splitting hairs to be argumentative. If you watch most all of the Pros and top level shooters they are WELL within compliance of the rule about "sky drawing". There are a few that are out of limits, yes, but funny thing is that those seem to be able to comply when it is an NFAA or WFA or NAA event; pushing the limits, but complying.
The "How" to enforce it comes easily, but you are right, the NFAA should have put in the same or similar verbage into the rule as to the consequences of violation like the WFA and the rest of the countries in the world have done. Even the 4H'ers have a rule about this unsafe practice, too AND the consequences.
So, to agree with you somewhat...the consequences of a violation are what is missing...and the current rule is relying on the "safety" clause instead.

Splitting hairs about this and that only puts up a smoke screen and the semantics being played do the same. Just don't draw your bow with your bowhand above your head, and you likely are just fine with regard to the NFAA rule. Pretty much the same with WFA; they aren't witch hunting, but violations are dealt with in WFA and other orgs world-wide.

Chuck,
I haven't seen anyone intentionally shoot an arrow into the ground in front of the stake since they "banned" the practice back in the mid-1970's. However for a few years after the shot arrow rule was redefined (I don't remember the exact wording from way back then), it was common practice for people to intentionally shoot the arrow into the ground a few feet, but well within reach from the shooting stake, into the ground on a let down. Those with triggerless releases did it quite a bit. That practice fell by the wayside after it was banned, however. Of course we were only shooting "cheap" aluminum arrows back then. I'll have to sit down sometime and figure out the cost of aluminum X-7's back then and convert that to 2014 dollars....I think we'd all be surprised by that conversion.

field14 (Tom D)


----------



## markdenis

field14 said:


> WFA has no problem at all ENFORCING it. Don't like the rule? then either write a clear, concise, and properly formatted agenda item and submit it to your NFAA Director...or comply with the existing rule; plain and simple.
> You seem to just be splitting hairs to be argumentative. If you watch most all of the Pros and top level shooters they are WELL within compliance of the rule about "sky drawing". There are a few that are out of limits, yes, but funny thing is that those seem to be able to comply when it is an NFAA or WFA or NAA event; pushing the limits, but complying.
> The "How" to enforce it comes easily, but you are right, the NFAA should have put in the same or similar verbage into the rule as to the consequences of violation like the WFA and the rest of the countries in the world have done. Even the 4H'ers have a rule about this unsafe practice, too AND the consequences.
> So, to agree with you somewhat...the consequences of a violation are what is missing...and the current rule is relying on the "safety" clause instead.
> 
> Splitting hairs about this and that only puts up a smoke screen and the semantics being played do the same. Just don't draw your bow with your bowhand above your head, and you likely are just fine with regard to the NFAA rule. Pretty much the same with WFA; they aren't witch hunting, but violations are dealt with in WFA and other orgs world-wide.
> 
> Chuck,
> I haven't seen anyone intentionally shoot an arrow into the ground in front of the stake since they "banned" the practice back in the mid-1970's. However for a few years after the shot arrow rule was redefined (I don't remember the exact wording from way back then), it was common practice for people to intentionally shoot the arrow into the ground a few feet, but well within reach from the shooting stake, into the ground on a let down. Those with triggerless releases did it quite a bit. That practice fell by the wayside after it was banned, however. Of course we were only shooting "cheap" aluminum arrows back then. I'll have to sit down sometime and figure out the cost of aluminum X-7's back then and convert that to 2014 dollars....I think we'd all be surprised by that conversion.
> 
> field14 (Tom D)


I have to laugh if you think "hand below the head" stops an arrow from going up as opposed to hand above the head. But as long as it quiets the critiques it is all good. I actually like the way the NFAA has written the rule. It protects them from about anything regarding an injury from a so called sky drawn arrow. 

But here is my point: All injuries that I have ever heard, read or seen are not from an arrow that was sky drawn. Why? Because physics explains it. An arrow traveling parallel or close to it is many times more dangerous than an arrow falling straight down. Sky drawing is actually the safest way to draw a bow if the arrow is accidentally pre-launched. Prove to me I am wrong. Prove to me an arrow falling straight down is more dangerous than an arrow screaming head high out of control for long distances. And do it without saying "well it might happen some day" because anything can happen some day. A toad could fall out of the sky an put my eye out, an asteroid could fall out of the sky and smash me to pulp...the examples are endless.

A glancing arrow can go just as far as a sky drawn arrow, and a glancing arrow will be in the "injury zone" for a much longer time than a sky drawn one. This can be proven. At its surface, a sky drawn arrow sounds dangerous, but the facts and physics prove it to be the safest way to draw a bow. 

So good luck with a rule that actually puts people in a more dangerous situation.

If you are discussing indoor events and property damage, then it is a different ballgame altogether.


----------



## Supermag1

markdenis said:


> I have to laugh if you think "hand below the head" stops an arrow from going up as opposed to hand above the head. But as long as it quiets the critiques it is all good. I actually like the way the NFAA has written the rule. It protects them from about anything regarding an injury from a so called sky drawn arrow.
> 
> But here is my point: All injuries that I have ever heard, read or seen are not from an arrow that was sky drawn. Why? Because physics explains it. An arrow traveling parallel or close to it is many times more dangerous than an arrow falling straight down. Sky drawing is actually the safest way to draw a bow if the arrow is accidentally pre-launched. Prove to me I am wrong. Prove to me an arrow falling straight down is more dangerous than an arrow screaming head high out of control for long distances. And do it without saying "well it might happen some day" because anything can happen some day. A toad could fall out of the sky an put my eye out, an asteroid could fall out of the sky and smash me to pulp...the examples are endless.
> 
> A glancing arrow can go just as far as a sky drawn arrow, and a glancing arrow will be in the "injury zone" for a much longer time than a sky drawn one. This can be proven. At its surface, a sky drawn arrow sounds dangerous, but the facts and physics prove it to be the safest way to draw a bow.
> 
> So good luck with a rule that actually puts people in a more dangerous situation.
> 
> If you are discussing indoor events and property damage, then it is a different ballgame altogether.


I feel dumber just for reading your posts. You've obviously never heard of flight shooting or understand how gravity and Newton's Laws effect projectiles.


----------



## markdenis

Supermag1 said:


> I feel dumber just for reading your posts. You've obviously never heard of flight shooting or understand how gravity and Newton's Laws effect projectiles.


Are you comparing "optimal angle" with shy drawing? Are you comparing an arrow traveling 200fps to another glancing arrow traveling 340fps? Explain to me how Newton's Law compares the difference.


----------



## gcab

Supermag1 said:


> I feel dumber just for reading your posts. You've obviously never heard of flight shooting or understand how gravity and Newton's Laws effect projectiles.


Agree with this... post doesn't make much sense. But I do agree with the bow hand level with head or below has nothing to do with anything. I think it is more the release hand. When this rule came out, there was a picture of a certain pro female drawing.. release hand way down and low. Bow hand level with head. The arrow is pointing upwards at like a 45 degree level. Now how is that all of a sudden safe just because her bow hand isn't higher than her head?


----------



## brtesite

you all can do all the scenarios you wish, but the fact remains that in the eyes of the tourny chairman, if he feels it is unsafe , it is. end of story


----------



## markdenis

brtesite said:


> you all can do all the scenarios you wish, but the fact remains that in the eyes of the tourny chairman, if he feels it is unsafe , it is. end of story


You are correct, and I follow the rules. But because he thinks it is unsafe does not make him right.


----------



## brtesite

markdenis said:


> You are correct, and I follow the rules. But because he thinks it is unsafe does not make him right.


He will usually get the consensus of another official at the shoot .

It is not only just the traditional way of sky drawing, but seeing some of the contortions that archers go thru to get the string back because of being over bowed.


----------



## Pete53

back to the age thing,just a couple of years ago the NFAA drop it to 50 years of age in the senior division,why because the 50 year olds complained ,what they should have done is moved it up to 60 years of age for the senior division or maybe even 65 years of age ? it won`t be long and they will drop it probably to 45 years of age for the senior division. not all young people that work are lazy sure there are some that are but i had a tuff job for 35 years as a electrical lineman or pole climber and i did see some dam good young hard worker`s that as a foreman or crew leader i could count on,but what the problem is no one will let us get rid of the poor worker anymore ,its turned into a feel good thing for all ,most that are poor workers are town kids or from a broken family.i know i seen it many times many places our country needs do something about it. hank williams jr. said it best: country boy will survive ! so you people on here that want to be negative,insult people and not want to help improve the safety of archer`s continue on !


----------



## markdenis

gcab said:


> Agree with this... post doesn't make much sense. But I do agree with the bow hand level with head or below has nothing to do with anything. I think it is more the release hand. When this rule came out, there was a picture of a certain pro female drawing.. release hand way down and low. Bow hand level with head. The arrow is pointing upwards at like a 45 degree level. Now how is that all of a sudden safe just because her bow hand isn't higher than her head?


I see you figured that out. And actually, bow wrist angle actually has more to do with high launch than low release hand. All of this really makes no difference to me anyway...I follow all the written rules in this game. It just fascinates me how some people are dead set on changing something and have no clue what the causes and effects are.


----------



## markdenis

brtesite said:


> He will usually get the consensus of another official at the shoot .
> 
> It is not only just the traditional way of sky drawing, but seeing some of the contortions that archers go thru to get the string back because of being over bowed.


Ya, I have to laugh at that too. The bow and arrow is in every conceivable position trying to get it back. I just stand back and snicker!


----------



## field14

markdenis said:


> I have to laugh if you think "hand below the head" stops an arrow from going up as opposed to hand above the head. But as long as it quiets the critiques it is all good. I actually like the way the NFAA has written the rule. It protects them from about anything regarding an injury from a so called sky drawn arrow.
> 
> But here is my point: All injuries that I have ever heard, read or seen are not from an arrow that was sky drawn. Why? Because physics explains it. An arrow traveling parallel or close to it is many times more dangerous than an arrow falling straight down. Sky drawing is actually the safest way to draw a bow if the arrow is accidentally pre-launched. Prove to me I am wrong. Prove to me an arrow falling straight down is more dangerous than an arrow screaming head high out of control for long distances. And do it without saying "well it might happen some day" because anything can happen some day. A toad could fall out of the sky an put my eye out, an asteroid could fall out of the sky and smash me to pulp...the examples are endless.
> 
> A glancing arrow can go just as far as a sky drawn arrow, and a glancing arrow will be in the "injury zone" for a much longer time than a sky drawn one. This can be proven. At its surface, a sky drawn arrow sounds dangerous, but the facts and physics prove it to be the safest way to draw a bow.
> 
> So good luck with a rule that actually puts people in a more dangerous situation.
> 
> If you are discussing indoor events and property damage, then it is a different ballgame altogether.


What is this "YOU" crap... First, field14 did NOT write the rule. Secondly, I guess you just choose to NOT read the rule the NFAA has on the books either...but rather to blame it on ME? I ain't but a speck of sand on the beach when it comes to the NFAA.
You also don't have a very good understanding of physics, acceleration, momentum, and VECTORS either! You've likely never shot a round of ARCHERY GOLF either. Likely you've never seen or even heard of "flight shooting" and what the world record for distance of an arrow shot out of bow stands at.
Don't like the sky drawing rule as WRITTEN by either the NFAA or the WFA/NAA? Then again, write the agenda item to CHANGE IT...but do not blame ME for writing the rule, cuz I had nothing to do with it...excepting voicing my opinion concerning the need of something concerning the SAFETY of everyone from the shooting line down range and beyond.
You don't seem to give a rat about much else but arguing...and fighting a rule that is there... go ahead, sky draw in a tournament, do it, after all, you don't "like the rule" and I'm sure YOUR interpretation will overrule the judges when you are called on the violation of the RULE.

In addition, about the only CHANGE to the NFAA rule as written that I would like to see..?? State the consequences of a violation...but of course the NFAA would "never" follow directly the WFA/USA Archery rule about sky drawing and the consequences...or would they? You see, the NFAA/USA Archery has adopted the same archery coaches' programs and procedures and are now working in unison. HMMMMM....

Just maybe there will be some rewriting that involves consequences. But until that time, like it or not...quibble over semantics or not...it is what it is and the "physics of markdenis" doesn't have squat to do with it.

How can you even fathom that sky drawing is the safest way to draw a bow? WHAT? You have zero control over the "mechanical things" that could go wrong by drawing the bow in that UNSAFE direction...NO control period... You mistakenly touch the trigger = Launched arrow into an UNSAFE PATH. A spring breaks on your release aid = Launched arrow into an UNSAFE PATH; You rotate your wrist ever so slightly, or put your middle finger down a tad too firmly on a triggerless release aid = Launched arrow into an UNSAFE PATH; You d-loop breaks at the wrong time = Launched arrow into an UNSAFE PATH; your bowstring breaks at the wrong time = Launched arrow into an UNSAFE PATH. You don't consider the POTENTIAL things that could go wrong with your BEST technique.

By the way, perhaps you should give a coaching lesson to Kisek Lee concerned BEST techniques for drawing a bow, too. I'm sure he would be all ears and eyes when you show him this super safe way of drawing a bow! Write him and send him photos; he'd love it.

field14 (tom D)


----------



## Rolo

Pete53 said:


> rolo,to create a silver senior pro division, so i person should not bring it to the attention of the NFAA or bring it thru the director`s of the NFAA organization," that i have belong too off and on since 1973".but go directly to the manufactures like Easton and they will then make this decision for the Nfaa directors on the silver senior pro division, so really i am sending my dues to the wrong organization ? sounds kiss a-- to me ,i don`t do that !


What we have here is a failure to understand...

Everyone understands that you want the NFAA to create a SS Pro Division for you, and whomever else may want to join. Though, I am unaware of a groundswell of interest of a SS Pro division. So, if there is not support or interest from the members for such a division, there won't be one. It's not really a "build it and they will come thing". 

How does one create that interest...well the easiest and best way is to get the various manufacturers to support said division by offering contracts and contingencies. Without manufacturer or sponsor support for a division, there ain't going to be much of a division...see: Olympic Pro Division. The manufacturers don't tell the NFAA what to do, despite whatever conspiratorial belief you may have about Easton (the irony of your avatar is not lost on me), but they do say: "Hey, we think there is a place for a SS Pro Division, and we are willing to get behind it if you are willing to create it."

Tell me...what is your interest in having a SS Pro division anyway? If there is not going to be manufacturer pay-outs for it, is it just so you can say you're a 'Pro'? If there is no SS Pro division, what's wrong with shooting in the AM division?



Pete53 said:


> back to the age thing,just a couple of years ago the NFAA drop it to 50 years of age in the senior division,why because the 50 year olds complained ,what they should have done is moved it up to 60 years of age for the senior division or maybe even 65 years of age ? it won`t be long and they will drop it probably to 45 years of age for the senior division. not all young people that work are lazy sure there are some that are but i had a tuff job for 35 years as a electrical lineman or pole climber and i did see some dam good young hard worker`s that as a foreman or crew leader i could count on,but what the problem is no one will let us get rid of the poor worker anymore ,its turned into a feel good thing for all ,most that are poor workers are town kids or from a broken family.i know i seen it many times many places our country needs do something about it. hank williams jr. said it best: country boy will survive ! so you people on here that want to be negative,insult people and not want to help improve the safety of archer`s continue on !


Ah...perhaps the root of your misunderstanding. The Senior age was lowered to bring the age divisions into unison with other archery orgs. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. It was the 'tweeners' who complained that they were going to not be able to compete with the 50 year olds that complained and wanted their own division...and the Silver Senior division was born, not to satisfy 50 years olds, but to satisfy the 60 year olds. So, maybe it was a "feel good for all" solution, just the opposite way of what you were thinking...


----------



## Rolo

field14 said:


> How can you even fathom that sky drawing is the safest way to draw a bow? WHAT? You have zero control over the "mechanical things" that could go wrong by drawing the bow in that UNSAFE direction...NO control period... You mistakenly touch the trigger = Launched arrow into an UNSAFE PATH. A spring breaks on your release aid = Launched arrow into an UNSAFE PATH; You rotate your wrist ever so slightly, or put your middle finger down a tad too firmly on a triggerless release aid = Launched arrow into an UNSAFE PATH; You d-loop breaks at the wrong time = Launched arrow into an UNSAFE PATH; your bowstring breaks at the wrong time = Launched arrow into an UNSAFE PATH. You don't consider the POTENTIAL things that could go wrong with your BEST technique.


Just curious...but everything you have described can happen with an "unsafe" draw, regardless of whether the draw was a 'sky draw' or not, no? Drawing a bow in a manner that projects the arrow on an upward path, even though the hand isn't above the head, can result in the same stuff happening, no? Hell, even not 'sky drawing' and pointing at the target while drawing, the same stuff can happen, no?

So, all this focus on 'sky drawing' and not a focus on the actual issue...unsafe drawing of a bow...seems a wee bit misplaced to me. I think that was the point, one of them, that markdenis was making. I also happen to agree, at least in theory...an arrow that is accidentally discharged straight up, creates the least likelihood of injury or damage compared to one that is accidentally released on a horizontal angle...at least statistically. The arrow going straight up, is going to come back down and travel the least horizontal distance...the arrow shot on the horizontal plane is obviously going to cover more horizontal distance...since we live in a horizontal, and not vertical world, the arrow traveling horizontally when accidentally discharged is going to be statistically more likely to hit something or someone that it was not intended to on an accidental discharge...


----------



## brtesite

Rolo said:


> What we have here is a failure to understand...
> 
> Everyone understands that you want the NFAA to create a SS Pro Division for you, and whomever else may want to join. Though, I am unaware of a groundswell of interest of a SS Pro division. So, if there is not support or interest from the members for such a division, there won't be one. It's not really a "build it and they will come thing".
> 
> How does one create that interest...well the easiest and best way is to get the various manufacturers to support said division by offering contracts and contingencies. Without manufacturer or sponsor support for a division, there ain't going to be much of a division...see: Olympic Pro Division. The manufacturers don't tell the NFAA what to do, despite whatever conspiratorial belief you may have about Easton (the irony of your avatar is not lost on me), but they do say: "Hey, we think there is a place for a SS Pro Division, and we are willing to get behind it if you are willing to create it."
> 
> Tell me...what is your interest in having a SS Pro division anyway? If there is not going to be manufacturer pay-outs for it, is it just so you can say you're a 'Pro'? If there is no SS Pro division, what's wrong with shooting in the AM division?
> 
> 
> 
> Ah...perhaps the root of your misunderstanding. The Senior age was lowered to bring the age divisions into unison with other archery orgs. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. It was the 'tweeners' who complained that they were going to not be able to compete with the 50 year olds that complained and wanted their own division...and the Silver Senior division was born, not to satisfy 50 years olds, but to satisfy the 60 year olds. So, maybe it was a "feel good for all" solution, just the opposite way of what you were thinking...



how do you satisfy the 80yr olds who have to shoot against the young 70 yr olds. Think it will ever stop?


----------



## markdenis

Rolo said:


> Just curious...but everything you have described can happen with an "unsafe" draw, regardless of whether the draw was a 'sky draw' or not, no? Drawing a bow in a manner that projects the arrow on an upward path, even though the hand isn't above the head, can result in the same stuff happening, no? Hell, even not 'sky drawing' and pointing at the target while drawing, the same stuff can happen, no?
> 
> So, all this focus on 'sky drawing' and not a focus on the actual issue...unsafe drawing of a bow...seems a wee bit misplaced to me. I think that was the point, one of them, that markdenis was making. I also happen to agree, at least in theory...an arrow that is accidentally discharged straight up, creates the least likelihood of injury or damage compared to one that is accidentally released on a horizontal angle...at least statistically. The arrow going straight up, is going to come back down and travel the least horizontal distance...the arrow shot on the horizontal plane is obviously going to cover more horizontal distance...since we live in a horizontal, and not vertical world, the arrow traveling horizontally when accidentally discharged is going to be statistically more likely to hit something or someone that it was not intended to on an accidental discharge...


You got it, but it appears some people just can't understand the concept of physics when applied to archery safety. When an archer accidentally releases an arrow there is no safe direction. The least safe is horizontal and the safest is straight down.


----------



## Rolo

brtesite said:


> how do you satisfy the 80yr olds who have to shoot against the young 70 yr olds. Think it will ever stop?


With all due respect, and with a full dose of intended sarcasm...it is the one thing that is assured of. :wink:


----------



## Rolo

gcab said:


> When this rule came out, there was a picture of a certain pro female drawing.. release hand way down and low. Bow hand level with head. The arrow is pointing upwards at like a 45 degree level. Now how is that all of a sudden safe just because her bow hand isn't higher than her head?


That's the double reverse chicken wing method...and definitely as 'dangerous' as a 'sky draw', yet perfectly within the rules...


----------



## markdenis

field14 said:


> What is this "YOU" crap... First, field14 did NOT write the rule. Secondly, I guess you just choose to NOT read the rule the NFAA has on the books either...but rather to blame it on ME? I ain't but a speck of sand on the beach when it comes to the NFAA.
> You also don't have a very good understanding of physics, acceleration, momentum, and VECTORS either! You've likely never shot a round of ARCHERY GOLF either. Likely you've never seen or even heard of "flight shooting" and what the world record for distance of an arrow shot out of bow stands at.
> Don't like the sky drawing rule as WRITTEN by either the NFAA or the WFA/NAA? Then again, write the agenda item to CHANGE IT...but do not blame ME for writing the rule, cuz I had nothing to do with it...excepting voicing my opinion concerning the need of something concerning the SAFETY of everyone from the shooting line down range and beyond.
> You don't seem to give a rat about much else but arguing...and fighting a rule that is there... go ahead, sky draw in a tournament, do it, after all, you don't "like the rule" and I'm sure YOUR interpretation will overrule the judges when you are called on the violation of the RULE.
> 
> In addition, about the only CHANGE to the NFAA rule as written that I would like to see..?? State the consequences of a violation...but of course the NFAA would "never" follow directly the WFA/USA Archery rule about sky drawing and the consequences...or would they? You see, the NFAA/USA Archery has adopted the same archery coaches' programs and procedures and are now working in unison. HMMMMM....
> 
> Just maybe there will be some rewriting that involves consequences. But until that time, like it or not...quibble over semantics or not...it is what it is and the "physics of markdenis" doesn't have squat to do with it.
> 
> How can you even fathom that sky drawing is the safest way to draw a bow? WHAT? You have zero control over the "mechanical things" that could go wrong by drawing the bow in that UNSAFE direction...NO control period... You mistakenly touch the trigger = Launched arrow into an UNSAFE PATH. A spring breaks on your release aid = Launched arrow into an UNSAFE PATH; You rotate your wrist ever so slightly, or put your middle finger down a tad too firmly on a triggerless release aid = Launched arrow into an UNSAFE PATH; You d-loop breaks at the wrong time = Launched arrow into an UNSAFE PATH; your bowstring breaks at the wrong time = Launched arrow into an UNSAFE PATH. You don't consider the POTENTIAL things that could go wrong with your BEST technique.
> 
> By the way, perhaps you should give a coaching lesson to Kisek Lee concerned BEST techniques for drawing a bow, too. I'm sure he would be all ears and eyes when you show him this super safe way of drawing a bow! Write him and send him photos; he'd love it.
> 
> field14 (tom D)


Again, I presume you forgot to read my post. And what right do you have to call me "crap". I did not say you wrote the rule because it is obvious you did not. I said I followed all rules, but I guess you forgot to read that part too. I was also wondering how do you do flight shooting or archery golf? Doesn't the archer aim in the sky? What makes you think drawing in the sky is unsafe if it is in a safe direction? How do you know anything about my range and what is the safest direction to draw. Why are flight shooters even allowed to compete if drawing or shooting in the sky is so terribly unsafe as you implied? There is probably a good chance that the direction they are drawing and shooting is a safe direction. How do you know my range and others are not designed like that? You don't of course! 

However, I will at least consider your rants as logical if you can prove to me that a horizontal out of control arrow is safer than arrow falling straight down. Good luck with that of course.

I have expressed my opinion on the subject, and if you don't like it, I really don't care. Simple!


----------



## Supermag1

I'm just going to follow Mark Twain's advice in regard to continuing this "discussion".


----------



## dbucy

an archer is letting down a shot,on today's bows most have a pretty strong cam...the arrow leaves the bow,but wait--the release is still on the string,as is the nock (pin nocks)...this arrow wasn't shot--isn't this an equipment failure?


----------



## CHPro

> Maybe should be like teeball and just give everyone a trophy and small cone after tournaments.


I'll pass on the trophy, but certainly wouldn't mind if they passed out the small cones after each tournament !

>>------->


----------



## FV Chuck

CHPro said:


> I'll pass on the trophy, but certainly wouldn't mind if they passed out the small cones after each tournament !
> 
> >>------->


I'm with you buddy  
... I'll see ya at the Ice Cream Shack!


----------



## target1

FV Chuck said:


> I'm with you buddy
> ... I'll see ya at the Ice Cream Shack!


I'm with you on this...


----------



## deadeyedickwc

guys your talking about a rule that has no enforcement to it , it was put on the books , but someone forgot to give us the guidelines to enforce it as a judge ,i can tell you its very dangerous ,but where is the starting point for enforcement , thats the question, all this fighting about it doesn't help we need to come up with a rule that works


----------



## brtesite

deadeyedickwc said:


> guys your talking about a rule that has no enforcement to it , it was put on the books , but someone forgot to give us the guidelines to enforce it as a judge ,i can tell you its very dangerous ,but where is the starting point for enforcement , thats the question, all this fighting about it doesn't help we need to come up with a rule that works


 As with any of the NFAA rules , It is up to the group to see that the rules are followed. If the arrow is not on the bow when letting down, it is a shot arrow even if the nock is on the string. 
As for equipment failure, it is not for the immediate arrow, but for the ones that follow. If the string breaks on the shot, that arrow counts. Then you may take the allotted time to fix the "failure"


----------



## field14

brtesite said:


> As with any of the NFAA rules , It is up to the group to see that the rules are followed. If the arrow is not on the bow when letting down, it is a shot arrow even if the nock is on the string.
> As for equipment failure, it is not for the immediate arrow, but for the ones that follow. If the string breaks on the shot, that arrow counts. Then you may take the allotted time to fix the "failure"


Might also add you get ONE and only ONE "equipment failure" in a day's shooting...not two or three... This includes you trying to say, "Well, the problem isn't what I thought it was, so I need another equipment failure time out." Nope...you get ONE, period. You do get two practice ends to "correct" your site or insure things are ok again...and CANNOT claim another failure to garner more practice arrows either.
Oh, and if you leave the course, you MUST come back to that target where the failure occurred and start your scoring from there forward...you cannot "start over" or get "do overs" cuz of that equipment failure. I've seen people try that trick more than once in my years of shooting. Didn't work then, won't work now.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## FV Chuck

field14 said:


> Might also add you get ONE and only ONE "equipment failure" in a day's shooting...not two or three... This includes you trying to say, "Well, the problem isn't what I thought it was, so I need another equipment failure time out." Nope...you get ONE, period. You do get two practice ends to "correct" your site or insure things are ok again...and CANNOT claim another failure to garner more practice arrows either.
> Oh, and if you leave the course, you MUST come back to that target where the failure occurred and start your scoring from there forward...you cannot "start over" or get "do overs" cuz of that equipment failure. I've seen people try that trick more than once in my years of shooting. Didn't work then, won't work now.
> field14 (Tom D.)


Are those opinion or rule Tom? 
I've never heard of them before... Didn't find it in a cursory glance at the rule book either. 

If it's a rule please cite location. 
If it's your opinion please state that as well.


----------



## field14

FV Chuck said:


> Are those opinion or rule Tom?
> I've never heard of them before... Didn't find it in a cursory glance at the rule book either.
> 
> If it's a rule please cite location.
> If it's your opinion please state that as well.


Chuck,
It is under the shooting rules, "Outdoor Shooting rules, Section one, starting with paragraph 6.) starting on page 47 of the NFAA By-Laws and Constitution. To save you time by going in and reading it, I'll copy paste the quote from the 2014 NFAA Official RULES:
"_.....An archer leaving the range for any reason other than an emergency situation or an
equipment failure may be privileged to return to his/her group and complete the unfinished round or subsequent
rounds. He/she will not be privileged to make up any arrows missed in the interim. If deemed an emergency, or an equipment failure, then in the presence of the tournament official he/she will be allowed to shoot missed targets.
7.In the case of an equipment failure the archer may have the needed time, as granted by a
tournament official, for equipment repair or replacement and may shoot arrows required to assure that the proper sight set tings are accurate, within the 45 minute maximum time limit. Then, in the presence of the tournament official, be allowed to shoot the targets missed.
*This occurrence of repair or replacement may not happen more than once in any tournament day.*
_
In addition many tournaments I've attended also publish that in their "tournament rules"...>"ONE equipment breakdown per day, period." Without this rule (that has been in the book for years), you would have some people claim an equipment breakdown every other target, or at least trying to, when things weren't going their way, and for any reason imaginable. I have, as I said seen people TRY to claim two or even three "equipment failures" in a single day/round...and again, They didn't believe it after claiming their second one and failing, so they'd try it again...and fail again. Some people just don't "get it." I even remember one case of a person at a tournament that instead of going back to the target he had the failure on, he and his "partners" tried to START OVER from the beginning...THAT was nipped in the bud quickly and the guy was so angry at not getting a full do-over, he left the tournament. Oh, yeah...lotsa years and observations under my belt.

'Nuf said. Not many "new tricks" can be brought forth, hehehehehe. Matters not that I haven't been at an NFAA Nationals for years, either. I'm a "card Carrying NFAA member" of long standing...1968. How long have you been in the NFAA? Before my medical problems, I used to practice, live, and breath FIELD tournament shooting and was out and about every single chance I got. Same with indoors, too. I'm not yet "brain dead" or so out of touch that you may think I am.
Oh, and above that the prior paragraph, Para. 5 clearly states, that, "*No archer may practice on any shot of a course to be used for tournament shooting later the same day*". Yes! I have seen that one violated by people "sneaking out" onto the course ahead of time to "practice" instead of using the practice bales provided. 
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## field14

In another area of the Official rules, page 64 paragraph 11. also mentions: "EQUIPMENT FAILURE: An archer declaring equipment failure, verified by the group may leave the ra nge to report the equipment failure to a tournament official. Upon reporting to an official, the archer will have forty-five minutes (45) to make necessary repairs or replacement and re-sight the repaired equipment. The archer will then rejoin the original group and continue shooting the remaining targets. All targets missed will be shot under make up rules with a scorekeeper and witness. Any equipment failure that results in an arrow being released toward a target will be scored as it lies, a missed target may not be re-
shot. *Each archer is limited to one (1) equipment failure per tournament*. _If a second equipment failure occurs, the archer will remain with his or her group to act as a scorer orscorekeeper_."
As good ole "Foghorn Leghorn" says many times, "Listen up, ya mights just learn sumpin'." hahahaha.


----------



## TNMAN

field14 said:


> Might also add you get ONE and only ONE "equipment failure" in a day's shooting...not two or three... This includes you trying to say, "Well, the problem isn't what I thought it was, so I need another equipment failure time out." Nope...you get ONE, period. * You do get two practice ends to "correct" your site or insure things are ok again*...and CANNOT claim another failure to garner more practice arrows either.
> Oh, and if you leave the course, you MUST come back to that target where the failure occurred and start your scoring from there forward...you cannot "start over" or get "do overs" cuz of that equipment failure. I've seen people try that trick more than once in my years of shooting. Didn't work then, won't work now.
> field14 (Tom D.)


Pretty sure it's 15 minutes max and one practice end for indoors. 45 minutes max and as many arrows as you need for outdoors.

edit: Ok, looked it and above is correct. Oddly enough, for 900 rounds, a "reasonable time" is granted by t-official and no practice arrows are allowed. We sure have a lot of rules.


----------



## field14

TNMAN said:


> Pretty sure it's 15 minutes max and one practice end for indoors. 45 minutes max and as many arrows as you need for outdoors.
> 
> edit: Ok, looked it and above is correct. Oddly enough, for 900 rounds, a "reasonable time" is granted by t-official and no practice arrows are allowed. We sure have a lot of rules.


For indoors it is understandable since Indoors, any arrows missed are made up AFTER the official round is over and before the next line time starts. NO practice, you continue right on to finish up the scoring arrows you missed during the equipment breakdown. If they allowed 45 minutes indoors for this, then entire line times would be disrupted from "make up arrows." Can't let that go on. Another interesting thing is that not having enough arrows in your quiver to handle a broken nock or an arrow that loses its tip...is NOT an "equipment break down", and most times the person that doesn't have enough arrows has to run to his/her bowcase and hope they make it back to the line before the end is officially over (time limit for completion of the end). Some people have tried the "broken nock" trick and didn't carry spare arrows in their quivers...and paid the price.

Outdoors, you gotta be careful with that 45 minutes' rule (tournament chair NEEDS to put the person on the clock immediately)...that is MAX...and that includes rejoining your group if they've waited for you, too! Most tournaments I've been at and/or "chaired" for 900 rounds, the reasonable time was a MAX of 45 minutes...thus staying in line with the other 45 minute "break" rule.
It is still ONE and only ONE "equipment breakdown" per event. 

I'm really surprised that some "have never heard of the ONE equipment break down rule"; actually shocked, in fact! However, a person has to read deep and read ALL of the paragraphs as the one equipment break down is not a separate sub-paragraph, and like you said, there are differences in the wording, too, "per day", Per "tournament"...huge difference! ONE for all of Redding? Interesting.

field14 (tom D.)


----------



## TNMAN

Tom, Outdoors or 3d, the rules do not read that the max time allowed for repair/replacement and sighting-in also includes time for walking back to your group. Does this come from your personal experience at a particular shoot, or from a ruling? The wording of the rules (and common sense) do not support this. Readily admit to not having your experience, but I can read.


----------



## field14

TNMAN said:


> Tom, Outdoors or 3d, the rules do not read that the max time allowed for repair/replacement and sighting-in also includes time for walking back to your group. Does this come from your personal experience at a particular shoot, or from a ruling? The wording of the rules (and common sense) do not support this. Readily admit to not having your experience, but I can read.


I've never had the "personal experience" of an equipment breakdown that was "repairable" during an event. In my two equipment breakage cases, the bows exploded; one was a limb, the other a riser, thus not repairable; tournament was over for me, haha.
However, I've witnessed several of them over the years, and in all the cases, the 45 minutes included getting back to your vehicle/bowcase and then getting back to the group, and it was decided and ruled upon by the tournament chairperson/committee. Several of the other equipment failures I've been witness to in my group and groups close by were taken care of right there on the spot because the shooter(s) had spare parts or whatever to take care of the problem without leaving the group at all. 
There were "rulings" in every one of those cases where a person had to leave the course/group, and the person was put on the clock. Time is of the essence, so it makes complete sense to not have a person dilly-dallying and taking forever for this. I was surprised that the wording wasn't there concerning getting to and from the target, since I thought an RIC ruling had been written MANY years ago concerning this very thing!

Otherwise, a person could dilly-dally for HOURS piddling around and his/her entire group would be held up...and if the "other part of the rule" is followed by a witness and tournament official goes out an hour or more later, getting back to the correct target would be problematical...and waiting would throw off the event timing for getting scorecards turned in, sorted, and the awards or next day's target assignments compiled and posted.
People are known to dilly-dally, thus the TIME LIMITS, and even nowadaze a "let down rule" to boot.

field14 (tom D.)


----------



## TNMAN

Don't doubt a bit of what you say. If ruling(s) were made as stated, just another example of where the written word of the rules (in total) means little. It is clear, imho, that the 45 minutes is for repair/replacement/sight-in. The (below) "will then" phrase clearly indicates a time period subsequent to the 45 minutes allowed for repair.

"Upon reporting to an official, the archer will have forty-five minutes (45) to make necessary
repairs or replacement and re-sight the repaired equipment. The archer *will then *rejoin the
original group and continue shooting the remaining targets. All targets missed will be shot
under make up rules with a scorekeeper and witness." 

The above para is from the nfaa 3d rules. Admittedly, it is not quite as clear under Outdoor Shooting Rules, but the same type wording is there. Incorrect/left handed rulings have sometimes been made for expediency, when what is really needed is a rule change or clarification.


----------



## field14

TNMAN said:


> Don't doubt a bit of what you say. If ruling(s) were made as stated, just another example of where the written word of the rules (in total) means little. It is clear, imho, that the 45 minutes is for repair/replacement/sight-in. The (below) "will then" phrase indicates a time period subsequent to the 45 minutes allowed for repair.
> 
> "Upon reporting to an official, the archer will have forty-five minutes (45) to make necessary
> repairs or replacement and re-sight the repaired equipment. The archer *will then *rejoin the
> original group and continue shooting the remaining targets. All targets missed will be shot
> under make up rules with a scorekeeper and witness."
> 
> The above para is from the nfaa 3d rules. Admittedly, it is not quite as clear under Outdoor Shooting Rules, but the same type wording is there. Incorrect rulings are often made for expediency, when what is really needed is a rule change or clarification.


The initial bone of contention was about the ONE equipment failure per day or tournament...and that rule is very, very clear and not open to interpretation. 

Concerning the TIME LIMIT part, I agree with the rule CLARIFICATION, and will also say the rule should be either written in ONE place for all games, or that the wording be the same in each section and leave less or nothing open to interpretation of where, when, and how the time starts/ends.
The rulings made that I witnessed and aslo was, a couple of times involved in having to make a ruling, were made with an NFAA director present to help us "interpret" the rule and still keep the tournament running without causing undue delays due to the person "dilly-dallying" around. We ruled that 45 minutes was it, and included getting back onto the range. Nice when an NFAA Director is present, ha!

A person with a spare bow shouldn't need any sort of time to grab the spare and get moving. People should have spare arrow rests (or blades, whatever), nocks, etc with them in their case(s), too. They are in effect holding up their entire shooting group and in actuality, the entire tournament, too. Can ill afford to give them "forever". People are carrying around stools etc nowdaze and I know that all of us in the past had all sorts of spare stuff with us in our quivers for WHEN something goes haywire. Having to leave the range to go get something was the LAST thing we wanted to do. Heck we even carried spare scope rods, too. PSE shooters carried spare turn-buckles, and the list goes on.

I believe that there is something in motion to completely go thru the Rules and By Laws and consolidate, clarify, check for inconsistencies (there are a lot of them in there), and rewrite things as necessary before the next NFAA Director's meeting. Sure hope so.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Pete53

field14 - touche` ! & cooley look`s like more ice cream for the card carrying pro ! he-haw


----------



## FV Chuck

Thanks for looking that up Tom. 

Only having 1 equipment failure in 18 years I don't have as much experience with it as you might. 

FWIW it was OD Nats. and I was given 45min from the time we found a range official to get back to the stake ready to go. They were very helpful with a side by side Gator and taking me to check the backup bow, and get me back out there. 

If you were offended by my post you needn't be. 
I legitimately was curious.


----------



## wa-prez

field14 said:


> In another area of the Official rules, page 64 paragraph 11. also mentions: "EQUIPMENT FAILURE: An archer declaring equipment failure, verified by the group may leave the ra nge to report the equipment failure to a tournament official. Upon reporting to an official, the archer will have forty-five minutes (45) to make necessary repairs or replacement and re-sight the repaired equipment. The archer will then rejoin the original group and continue shooting the remaining targets. All targets missed will be shot under make up rules with a scorekeeper and witness. Any equipment failure that results in an arrow being released toward a target will be scored as it lies, a missed target may not be re-
> shot. *Each archer is limited to one (1) equipment failure per tournament*. _If a second equipment failure occurs, the archer will remain with his or her group to act as a scorer orscorekeeper_."
> As good ole "Foghorn Leghorn" says many times, "Listen up, ya mights just learn sumpin'." hahahaha.


THIS reference is from the 3D section of the rules, the other previously cited is from the Field / Outdoor section. Don't know why they are different. As to the specific phrase about, "If a second equipment failure occurs, the archer will remain with his or her group to act as a scorer or scorekeeper" the implication is that if a second person in a group ALSO has an equipment failure, before the first one gets back, he / she would stay with the group to ensure there are a minimum of three archers for scorekeeping. That also presumes there were four in the group in the first place. Or maybe it means there would be a minimum of two people, no sole shooter. 

Too bad we can't write clear language in the rules that doesn't leave us wondering, second-guessing or looking for loopholes.


----------



## r49740

Heres another rule question, unrelated to equipment failure. Ive heard it a lot since I had started shooting, and never really read the rule book to start with so just took it as rule. But reading the rules, I see it stated no where except for traditional or barebow(can't remember which). Do arrows(specifically freestyle) have to match(ie, fletching, nocks, wraps)? If so, where is that actually written in the rules? I don't see it.


----------



## field14

FV Chuck said:


> Thanks for looking that up Tom.
> 
> Only having 1 equipment failure in 18 years I don't have as much experience with it as you might.
> 
> FWIW it was OD Nats. and I was given 45min from the time we found a range official to get back to the stake ready to go. They were very helpful with a side by side Gator and taking me to check the backup bow, and get me back out there.
> 
> If you were offended by my post you needn't be.
> I legitimately was curious.


Chuck, it is all good that you learned something you didn't know about...concerning the ONE "equipment failure" rule in a day's event, or ONE equipment failure in a tournament! I knew for positive I had been forced to give interpretations of said rule several times in the past. The stories I related are NOT B.S.; people have tried to pull things like that.
I've been very fortunate in my archery career to have been in the thick of things when field tournaments were common. In addition to this, I've also been fortunate to have shot in events in 38 of the 48 contiguous States as well as in Alaska, Hawaii, and even Guam. I can well remember in most places I've been that there were field shoots within a 100 mile (or less) radius that I could go to every weekend from March thru August! We even had rotational tournaments every single Sunday at a "league of clubs" in several places I've been a member; talk about fun!! The last one was in the later 1980's up to the mid 1990's when I lived in Western NY. We had indoor tournaments every Sunday during the winter (from range to range to range), and then come spring, the outdoor field/hunter tournaments started and went on every Sunday from March/April thru the NYFAB tournament in August. What a hoot! Lotsa scores on the NFAA card for sure; filled the thing up and then some.
Being able to attend so many events in so many different places gives one lots of experience in what can and will go awry; thus my approach I call, "ProActive Archery", because it isn't "if", it is "when" something will happen, ha.
Back in the 60's 70's and even 80's, it seemed that about the time you got your bow shooting really really well, something was about to break; be it the arrow rest, the bowstring, a cable, or even from time to time, a release aid or peep site (peeps were made out of plastic, so were easily broken). I quickly learned to carry extras with me, including extra Dacron bowstrings that were already "shot in." Those things were notorious for stretching or the mono serving slipping, or strands breaking under the nocking points. I know of a Vegas tournament that was won by a shooter whose bowstring was failing, but he just kept clicking the bow sight to cover it...and still shot a perfect 1,200 for the win!
Limbs were constantly blowing up; risers would break, arrow rests would give out, nocks would get shot off (they were glue on nocks back then), so you carried glue and extra nocks (and hopefully you had 'em indexed and marked for exact rotational replacement).
With that came a lot more equipment failures (and claims of such) than what we have today.
The newbies are so lucky with the huge improvements in materials, especially strings and cables as well as the risers and limbs! Cable breakage was usually the end of your tournament day, and cable breakage happened a lot! Scope rods breaking was also common, so we carried spares, same with the blades on arrow rests, or springies, or Match I/II, or a sticky Berger Button....
Take those experiences and the fact that I've been involved in being the chairperson for leagues, tournaments from local level, to State, and yes, even up to the Sectional level...and the experiences just weigh in. Gotta be up on those rules and RIC's, cuz you may have to refer to them and also confer with others in the know; most always, there was an NFAA Director around to help make sure we were doing the right thing, but not always. Firm, Fair, and friendly rulings, ha.
I'm not a BS'er and will call it the way I've seen it over the years. I might not know ALL of the rules in that big book, but if I've read it somewhere, I'm going to remember it pretty well.
My book, "ProActive Archery" is a compilation of becoming ProActive in most everything archery related (and life, too, I guess). It isn't a bunch of BS, the editors/publishers wouldn't publish that sort of thing. You can google it, you just might pick up something or learn sumpin' from it. Credit is given where credit is due, and it ain't "copy catted." Some may not agree with everything in it, but that is their choice, and they may just see and do things a bit differently; what works for them works, too, or they wouldn't do it, ha.


----------



## field14

r49740 said:


> Heres another rule question, unrelated to equipment failure. Ive heard it a lot since I had started shooting, and never really read the rule book to start with so just took it as rule. But reading the rules, I see it stated no where except for traditional or barebow(can't remember which). Do arrows(specifically freestyle) have to match(ie, fletching, nocks, wraps)? If so, where is that actually written in the rules? I don't see it.


It used to be clearly written that the arrows were to match in fletching, length, type, and point weight, with "allowances for wear and tear". 

I do know that In WFA (formerly FITA), ALL arrows are to match in fletching, length, point weight and arrow wraps (if used) to include the archers NAME being on each and every arrow. I also believe it is a rule overseas that ALL arrows of any individual archer are to have their first and last names on them, too.
I'll hunt and peck around in the NFAA Rule book...I don't recall them ever taking it out...especially because of the BHFS rules...if they allowed varying point weights, lengths, and arrow weights and nocks...then BHFSers would have a field day with different sets of arrows for different distances, know what I mean?
In freestyle, I can't imagine anyone wanting to intentionally shoot different arrows that are mismatched on purpose? 

field14 (Tom D.)

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## field14

field14 said:


> Chuck, it is all good that you learned something you didn't know about...concerning the ONE "equipment failure" rule in a day's event, or ONE equipment failure in a tournament! I knew for positive I had been forced to give interpretations of said rule several times in the past. The stories I related are NOT B.S.; people have tried to pull things like that.
> I've been very fortunate in my archery career to have been in the thick of things when field tournaments were common. In addition to this, I've also been fortunate to have shot in events in 38 of the 48 contiguous States as well as in Alaska, Hawaii, and even Guam. I can well remember in most places I've been that there were field shoots within a 100 mile (or less) radius that I could go to every weekend from March thru August! We even had rotational tournaments every single Sunday at a "league of clubs" in several places I've been a member; talk about fun!! The last one was in the later 1980's up to the mid 1990's when I lived in Western NY. We had indoor tournaments every Sunday during the winter (from range to range to range), and then come spring, the outdoor field/hunter tournaments started and went on every Sunday from March/April thru the NYFAB tournament in August. What a hoot! Lotsa scores on the NFAA card for sure; filled the thing up and then some.
> Being able to attend so many events in so many different places gives one lots of experience in what can and will go awry; thus my approach I call, "ProActive Archery", because it isn't "if", it is "when" something will happen, ha.
> Back in the 60's 70's and even 80's, it seemed that about the time you got your bow shooting really really well, something was about to break; be it the arrow rest, the bowstring, a cable, or even from time to time, a release aid or peep site (peeps were made out of plastic, so were easily broken). I quickly learned to carry extras with me, including extra Dacron bowstrings that were already "shot in." Those things were notorious for stretching or the mono serving slipping, or strands breaking under the nocking points. I know of a Vegas tournament that was won by a shooter whose bowstring was failing, but he just kept clicking the bow sight to cover it...and still shot a perfect 1,200 for the win!
> Limbs were constantly blowing up; risers would break, arrow rests would give out, nocks would get shot off (they were glue on nocks back then), so you carried glue and extra nocks (and hopefully you had 'em indexed and marked for exact rotational replacement).
> With that came a lot more equipment failures (and claims of such) than what we have today.
> The newbies are so lucky with the huge improvements in materials, especially strings and cables as well as the risers and limbs! Cable breakage was usually the end of your tournament day, and cable breakage happened a lot! Scope rods breaking was also common, so we carried spares, same with the blades on arrow rests, or springies, or Match I/II, or a sticky Berger Button....
> Take those experiences and the fact that I've been involved in being the chairperson for leagues, tournaments from local level, to State, and yes, even up to the Sectional level...and the experiences just weigh in. Gotta be up on those rules and RIC's, cuz you may have to refer to them and also confer with others in the know; most always, there was an NFAA Director around to help make sure we were doing the right thing, but not always. Firm, Fair, and friendly rulings, ha.
> I'm not a BS'er and will call it the way I've seen it over the years. I might not know ALL of the rules in that big book, but if I've read it somewhere, I'm going to remember it pretty well.
> My book, "ProActive Archery" is a compilation of becoming ProActive in most everything archery related (and life, too, I guess). It isn't a bunch of BS, the editors/publishers wouldn't publish that sort of thing. You can google it, you just might pick up something or learn sumpin' from it. Credit is given where credit is due, and it ain't "copy catted." Some may not agree with everything in it, but that is their choice, and they may just see and do things a bit differently; what works for them works, too, or they wouldn't do it, ha.


The looking for loopholes is bothersome, isn't it...or pushing the limits just to see how far a person can go and still get away with it by THEIR interpretation of the "the's" and the "a's", etc. GRRRRRR. Makes it tough on everyone.

Either way, however ONE individual shooter can only have ONE "equipment failure" claim per shooting day. That part doesn't change. An individual cannot fix one equipment failure, come back and shoot a bit, and then claim another equipment failure and go fix it up again. Nope.


----------



## r49740

field14 said:


> It used to be clearly written that the arrows were to match in fletching, length, type, and point weight, with "allowances for wear and tear".
> 
> I do know that In WFA (formerly FITA), ALL arrows are to match in fletching, length, point weight and arrow wraps (if used) to include the archers NAME being on each and every arrow. I also believe it is a rule overseas that ALL arrows of any individual archer are to have their first and last names on them, too.
> I'll hunt and peck around in the NFAA Rule book...I don't recall them ever taking it out...especially because of the BHFS rules...if they allowed varying point weights, lengths, and arrow weights and nocks...then BHFSers would have a field day with different sets of arrows for different distances, know what I mean?
> In freestyle, I can't imagine anyone wanting to intentionally shoot different arrows that are mismatched on purpose?
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


Was brought up since I have x10s with different color wraps on one dozen then another. I get bored looking at the same colors all the time, so I change wrap colors and fletching colors sometimes. If it was a rule, I know they would have to match in the target, for the arrows shot for that end or target. But I don't see it anywhere listed, which to mean, would mean that it is not a rule other than a "its what has always been said". Maybe it got deleted, or maybe im just not seeing it. I am talking NFAA, not FITA. I was steered towards the equipment section, but it isn't stated anywhere I have found.


----------



## field14

r49740 said:


> Was brought up since I have x10s with different color wraps on one dozen then another. I get bored looking at the same colors all the time, so I change wrap colors and fletching colors sometimes. If it was a rule, I know they would have to match in the target, for the arrows shot for that end or target. But I don't see it anywhere listed, which to mean, would mean that it is not a rule other than a "its what has always been said". Maybe it got deleted, or maybe im just not seeing it. I am talking NFAA, not FITA. I was steered towards the equipment section, but it isn't stated anywhere I have found.


By golly, that rule about arrows being identical in weight,size, fletching, etc, with allowances for wear and tear is NOT there for FREESTYLE and FREESTYLE LIMITED.

However, it IS there for Barebow (p.30, B, sub-para 7.), Competitive Bowhunter (p31, E., Sub para. 11.), FreeStyle Bowhunter (p 31-32, F, sub para. 6.), FSLimited BOWHUNTER (p. 32, g., sub para. 1. says it is the same as FS Bowhunter, with with added restrictions. As you said it is alos there for Traditional, et cetera, too.

I was almost certain concerning the BOWHUNTER divisions with regard to arrow size, weight, diameter, and fletch (with allowances for wear and tear) because it would be so Easy in a FIXED PINS class/division to come up with different size arrows, or different lengths and point weights for several distances and set your pins accordingly.
Over the years, they've lifted so many restrictions on the BOWHUNTER Divisions, that is is so close to FreeStyle it is unreal. When I first started, I think it was called HEAVY TACKLE and there were very specific restrictions. Up until sometimes in the 1990's, the MINIMUM point weight was 125 grains, too. Peeps had to be fully tied in with no space above or below it to look thru. NO BUBBLES. NO pin guards. Pins had to be of straight stock. No pin guards or housings surrounding the 5 fixed pins. Used to have a max site extension of 5", too. It has been pretty much opened up excepting the length of the stabilizer, and the five fixed pins, and no optics in the bowsight...but can use clarifiers/verifiers now.

I've most often had two dozen arrows I used. One dozen were my "practice arrows" and the others were tried and group tested "Tournament arrows" and each dozen was indeed fletched differently so I could tell them apart.


field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## r49740

field14 said:


> By golly, that rule about arrows being identical in weight,size, fletching, etc, with allowances for wear and tear is NOT there for FREESTYLE and FREESTYLE LIMITED.
> 
> However, it IS there for Barebow (p.30, B, sub-para 7.), Competitive Bowhunter (p31, E., Sub para. 11.), FreeStyle Bowhunter (p 31-32, F, sub para. 6.), FSLimited BOWHUNTER (p. 32, g., sub para. 1. says it is the same as FS Bowhunter, with with added restrictions. As you said it is alos there for Traditional, et cetera, too.
> 
> I was almost certain concerning the BOWHUNTER divisions with regard to arrow size, weight, diameter, and fletch (with allowances for wear and tear) because it would be so Easy in a FIXED PINS class/division to come up with different size arrows, or different lengths and point weights for several distances and set your pins accordingly.
> Over the years, they've lifted so many restrictions on the BOWHUNTER Divisions, that is is so close to FreeStyle it is unreal. When I first started, I think it was called HEAVY TACKLE and there were very specific restrictions. Up until sometimes in the 1990's, the MINIMUM point weight was 125 grains, too. Peeps had to be fully tied in with no space above or below it to look thru. NO BUBBLES. NO pin guards. Pins had to be of straight stock. No pin guards or housings surrounding the 5 fixed pins. Used to have a max site extension of 5", too. It has been pretty much opened up excepting the length of the stabilizer, and the five fixed pins, and no optics in the bowsight...but can use clarifiers/verifiers now.
> 
> I've most often had two dozen arrows I used. One dozen were my "practice arrows" and the others were tried and group tested "Tournament arrows" and each dozen was indeed fletched differently so I could tell them apart.
> 
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)



Didn't think I saw it anywhere, so just looks like a case of was a rule at some point, so that's what everyone is used to saying. But unwritten means its not a rule. Probably a lot of the "how it has always been" kind of stuff should go away and be based actual rules we have now, whether they make sense or not, to make it easier for people to follow. But that's probably a different discussion.


----------



## Joe Barbieur

It has been about 5 years since I posted on AT and it seems not much has changed. I have not shot a tournament in almost that long. I also did not read every post on this thread but I think I read most of them.
For those that cannot compete with the younger guys, ole well. Most of us could not beat them anyway no matter what age we were. If you shoot to win, why bother, if you shoot to compete, that is different. We all compete, against each other and most of all ourselves. 
I think the crossbow rules need to be changed, they were never written by any member of the NFAA, and they were directly copied from the crossbow federation (or some similar organization) and to my knowledge have not changed. Along those lines I think the NFAA leans on one guy as the “expert” in that field.
I know the NFAA rules are a little muddled, I helped to pass some of them and at every major there is a rules interpretation committee to figure out something if a protest comes up. The rules are written by average guys that do their best. One issue is even though they are supposed to do what is best for archery they sometimes do what is best for their class. If you have a strong bare bow guy as a state director you can bet he will push items for his class. Not all are like that but some are.
When an age class is dropped, say an over 80 (pick your age, who cares) someone will complain that, and I quote from a meeting years back, “now you are telling me as a senior I can no longer compete”. NO ONE said they could not compete; they just don’t get their own class.
For classes my though is this. If at BOTH indoor and outdoor nationals, there are not at least 10 shooters in a class, that class is dropped until a petition with 50 shooters of that style sign and present to the NFAA directors meeting. Of those 50 they have to have one from each state sign. That will cut down on shooting styles and shooting classes. Just how many “champions” does a sport need? How many classes are there that have less than 10 shooters that shoot both national events?
Now we will see what the feedback is, maybe I have been gone too long or not long enough.


----------



## brtesite

Joe Barbieur said:


> It has been about 5 years since I posted on AT and it seems not much has changed. I have not shot a tournament in almost that long. I also did not read every post on this thread but I think I read most of them.
> For those that cannot compete with the younger guys, ole well. Most of us could not beat them anyway no matter what age we were. If you shoot to win, why bother, if you shoot to compete, that is different. We all compete, against each other and most of all ourselves.
> I think the crossbow rules need to be changed, they were never written by any member of the NFAA, and they were directly copied from the crossbow federation (or some similar organization) and to my knowledge have not changed. Along those lines I think the NFAA leans on one guy as the “expert” in that field.
> I know the NFAA rules are a little muddled, I helped to pass some of them and at every major there is a rules interpretation committee to figure out something if a protest comes up. The rules are written by average guys that do their best. One issue is even though they are supposed to do what is best for archery they sometimes do what is best for their class. If you have a strong bare bow guy as a state director you can bet he will push items for his class. Not all are like that but some are.
> When an age class is dropped, say an over 80 (pick your age, who cares) someone will complain that, and I quote from a meeting years back, “now you are telling me as a senior I can no longer compete”. NO ONE said they could not compete; they just don’t get their own class.
> For classes my though is this. If at BOTH indoor and outdoor nationals, there are not at least 10 shooters in a class, that class is dropped until a petition with 50 shooters of that style sign and present to the NFAA directors meeting. Of those 50 they have to have one from each state sign. That will cut down on shooting styles and shooting classes. Just how many “champions” does a sport need? How many classes are there that have less than 10 shooters that shoot both national events?
> Now we will see what the feedback is, maybe I have been gone too long or not long enough.



Joe , did you think there would have been any thing changed in the time you were gone. Same stuff ,different day


----------



## Pete53

well now guys just maybe all the NFAA problems need to change ?? start at the top and start over ,people like field 14 with all his knowledge and archery background can surely make difference, but they do need all our support . either we change or watch as the Nfaa slowly just goes away ?? young people want a change ,they need to be asked what,when and how ? young people live in a much faster time,more gadgets,work is different, different education and many come from broken families. and the other problem is older people are living longer and are more healthy so us the Nfaa needs to make room for them too ??


----------



## Mr. Roboto

I personally think the NFAA rule book needs to be redone. Not necessarily changing the content, but making it more readable. For one, use a document that has a name that represents what it is, i.e. rule book versus bylaws. Bylaws gives the impression that this is more of a business/legal/management document. Divide the rule book in to multiple rule books. For example. a book that defines styles/class. Another on tournaments, etc. Make it easier for people to find things. Use pictures. Lots of pictures/sketches. Pictures does a lot more to define something than a bunch of words that the lawyers will dissect to find every way that they can legally cheat the spirit of the rule because of the wording. Just look at the whole longbow definition nightmare as an example.


----------



## carlosii

Mr. Roboto said:


> I personally think the NFAA rule book needs to be redone. Not necessarily changing the content, but making it more readable. For one, use a document that has a name that represents what it is, i.e. rule book versus bylaws. Bylaws gives the impression that this is more of a business/legal/management document. Divide the rule book in to multiple rule books. For example. a book that defines styles/class. Another on tournaments, etc. Make it easier for people to find things. Use pictures. Lots of pictures/sketches. Pictures does a lot more to define something than a bunch of words that the lawyers will dissect to find every way that they can legally cheat the spirit of the rule because of the wording. Just look at the whole longbow definition nightmare as an example.


Good suggestion. Sounds like a good starting point would be a matter of cut and paste.


----------



## Joe Barbieur

About a decade ago I tried to separate the rules and by-laws at the general meeting. I separated all of the rules from the constitution and by-laws and suggested two books. One for the constitution and by-laws and one of rules. The constitution and by-laws can only be changed with a meeting of the Directors, that meeting takes place once a year. To take that a step further, if there is a protest or rule infraction the tournament rules committee will meet and decide if there was indeed an infraction. At the next general Directors meeting they will vote to uphold that ruling. 
Any organization is broken down into three parts, who we are (constitution), how we conduct business (by- laws) and how we govern our tournaments (rules).
Our constitution is separate but our rules and by laws are combined as one. I know of no other organization that conducts business that way.
It will take the current group of directors to make that change, good luck with that…..


----------



## OT3D

Over 3,000 different individuals participated in the seven ASA Pro Ams this year. They have had great growth in nearly all classes, especially among youth and women. Their rules are condensed to a small fold out pamphlet.

Meanwhile NFAA is struggling, field is losing shooters and venues.

Perhaps its time those running NFAA, and field archery generally, come down off the mountain, smell the coffee, and get their act together


----------



## FV Chuck

OT3D said:


> Over 3,000 different individuals participated in the seven ASA Pro Ams this year. They have had great growth in nearly all classes, especially among youth and women. Their rules are condensed to a small fold out pamphlet.
> 
> Meanwhile NFAA is struggling, field is losing shooters and venues.
> 
> Perhaps its time those running NFAA, and field archery generally, come down off the mountain, smell the coffee, and get their act together


You do understand that NFAA is growing, participation numbers set a record at every event this year, we paid out more than we have ever paid before (more than $250K in guarantees) and our events list is growing right?... (( IFAA Worlds this year, Junior Worlds next year, plus a new Outdoor field Championship this fall, not to mention all the new Sanctioned Pro-Am's ))

Field?.. yes, it's always a challenge to keep participation... but I can ASSURE you with every fiber of my being that NFAA is not *repeat NOT struggling.

Let me just ask real quick... and this is not meant to be argumentative. It's a legit question.
Please give me maybe 2 or 3 examples of what (exactly) you would do that we are not, and how it would help, and what the expectations would be.

I'll present it at the planning meeting in 3 weeks.

RS-
CHuck


----------



## field14

FV Chuck said:


> You do understand that NFAA is growing, participation numbers set a record at every event this year, we paid out more than we have ever paid before (more than $250K in guarantees) and our events list is growing right?... (( IFAA Worlds this year, Junior Worlds next year, plus a new Outdoor field Championship this fall, not to mention all the new Sanctioned Pro-Am's ))
> 
> Field?.. yes, it's always a challenge to keep participation... but I can ASSURE you with every fiber of my being that NFAA is not *repeat NOT struggling.
> 
> Let me just ask real quick... and this is not meant to be argumentative. It's a legit question.
> Please give me maybe 2 or 3 examples of what (exactly) you would do that we are not, and how it would help, and what the expectations would be.
> 
> I'll present it at the planning meeting in 3 weeks.
> 
> RS-
> CHuck


Chuck,
You and I have our disagreements on things, but tell you what. I whole-heartedly AGREE with what you posted above concerning the NFAA!
I'd like to see the 2 or 3 examples of exactly what these people would do that the NFAA are not and how it would help, and what the expectations would be!!
Likely many of those of the nature about the NFAA's "wrong-doings" are getting their information 2nd hand...and haven't actually participated, or if they have, weren't really "into it."
T


----------



## OT3D

It might be easier to participate in field if there were any events within reasonable distance.

NFAA might be growing, I haven't seen any numbers. I would wonder, at what rate are they growing? The dollar figure of $250,000 is impressive, but how much of that went to the Vegas shoot?

Indeed the "wrong doings" are second handed. However, given the discussions on this forum involving board members and state representatives, one cannot help but get the impression that there are problems internal to the organization. 

Here's a suggestion. How about assigning a staff person to work with local people to develop more field ranges? The local folks at Cullman, Alabama, worked with the state to develop a facility that includes target ranges for youth and adult, several 3D shooting lanes, and a shelter facility that includes restrooms and picnic area. It should be noted that this in only one of several such facilities that have been built in the state.

Visit any local archery shop and you'll see postings for upcoming 3D shoots in the area. The organization needs to develop a handbook, or provide hands-on technical assistance to help local groups grow interest in field archery.

I am not aware of any significant effort in these areas on the part of either national organization or the state level organization in my state.

Not trying to be argumentative, but it is frustrating for someone who is interested in shooting field but unable to find an event within reasonable distance. Yes, the national events are probably attracting more people, but I cannot afford to go to Homestead, Redding, or Yankton. 

Thank you for considering my comments.


----------



## Mr. Roboto

So why is the big positive plug for how well the NFAA is doing is based on Cash Money Payouts? Is there a hidden agenda to change the NFAA to the PAA (Professional Archers Association). I am not saying that there is anything wrong with making that type of a change. If that is what the people that are doing all the hard work behind the scenes keeping the NFAA afloat want to do then let them do it. But at least be honest and tell people that is the goal so people and state organizations can decide if they want to orient themselves around a professional sport or an amateur sport.

I doubt there will ever by any financial incentive by the NFAA to encourage people to choose Traditional or Longbow as their style of choice.

Anyways, here is one thing that I would like to see is a cross the board compatibility of classes/styles, age groups, and distances, etc, with the different archery associations, so we shooters don't have to have different equipment/setups and shooting techniques (for example string walking) in shooting different tournaments.

On the website, have a specific drop down that is solely dedicated to explaining rules, styles, equipment, tournaments, tournament formats, distances, targets (and their physical geometries). Use pictures to help explain things. Break these out into separate documents that people can download. Make it easy for people to understand and learn about the specifics for different styles and tournaments.

On the results page, can we go back further than 10 years ago?

Last but not least, how about using awards that are made in America!!!!!

Pete


----------



## r49740

OT3D said:


> It might be easier to participate in field if there were any events within reasonable distance.
> 
> NFAA might be growing, I haven't seen any numbers. I would wonder, at what rate are they growing? The dollar figure of $250,000 is impressive, but how much of that went to the Vegas shoot?
> 
> Indeed the "wrong doings" are second handed. However, given the discussions on this forum involving board members and state representatives, one cannot help but get the impression that there are problems internal to the organization.
> 
> Here's a suggestion. How about assigning a staff person to work with local people to develop more field ranges? The local folks at Cullman, Alabama, worked with the state to develop a facility that includes target ranges for youth and adult, several 3D shooting lanes, and a shelter facility that includes restrooms and picnic area. It should be noted that this in only one of several such facilities that have been built in the state.
> 
> Visit any local archery shop and you'll see postings for upcoming 3D shoots in the area. The organization needs to develop a handbook, or provide hands-on technical assistance to help local groups grow interest in field archery.
> 
> I am not aware of any significant effort in these areas on the part of either national organization or the state level organization in my state.
> 
> Not trying to be argumentative, but it is frustrating for someone who is interested in shooting field but unable to find an event within reasonable distance. Yes, the national events are probably attracting more people, but I cannot afford to go to Homestead, Redding, or Yankton.
> 
> Thank you for considering my comments.


Why would it be the NFAA's responsibility to build field ranges in all the different states? Why should membership dues go towards that? You should talk to your state park reps and have them work on installing courses, but that isn't the NFAA's responsibility and shouldn't be


----------



## OT3D

r49740 said:


> Why would it be the NFAA's responsibility to build field ranges in all the different states? Why should membership dues go towards that? You should talk to your state park reps and have them work on installing courses, but *that isn't the NFAA's responsibility and shouldn't be*


I was not suggesting NFAA build ranges and I'm pretty sure you know that I didn't say that. I suggested that IF NFAA wanted to promote their organization and format it MIGHT be a good idea to provide technical assistance to those seeking to have facilities developed in their community.

I would also suggest that few people know just what the NFAA's responsibility is to the membership, if its not to help develop the organization and promote the sport. Maybe it is just to generate money for the national office and promote their national events. It could be why ASA is growing at a pretty rapid pace while field archery is taking a back seat.


----------



## field14

OT3D said:


> I was not suggesting NFAA build ranges and I'm pretty sure you know that I didn't say that. I suggested that *IF NFAA wanted to promote their organization and format it MIGHT be a good idea to provide technical assistance to those seeking to have facilities developed in their community.*
> 
> I would also suggest that few people know just what the NFAA's responsibility is to the membership, if its not to help develop the organization and promote the sport. Maybe it is just to generate money for the national office and promote their national events. It could be why ASA is growing at a pretty rapid pace while field archery is taking a back seat.


Above, in RED is the responsibility, one of many, of the NFAA State DIRECTOR. Of course, if nobody contacts him/her about what you mention, they cannot crap out a new range on the spot! It is up to the CLUBS or even individuals to contact the NFAA DIRECTOR of their State to get that assistance, advice, and expertise. IF that NFAA Director won't cooperate, then said NFAA Director should be canned!
As far as advertising local shoots...that is the CLUB'S responsibility. However, over the years, I've seen it a lot where the club will take in a flyer, or even a stack of them that are announcing a FIELD tournament or a TARGET tournament and the flyer ends up in the trash...or buried behind the 3-D shoot flyers and announcement. Worse yet, the shop knows a field/target range exists, but will say they know "Nothing about it."
Don't say this doesn't happen...it has gone on for years and years. Flyers delivered or put out at 3-D shoots disappear as soon as the person(s) bringing those flyers turn their backs. Don't say it doesn't happen...I've been the witness to this, and the one put down for bringing in flyers for a target shoot that "nobody will attend anyways, so why bother putting the flyer up? Field shooting is dead and besides it is too hard and it takes too long."

field14 (Tom D)


----------



## FV Chuck

Ot3d.

Have your read the Constitution and Bylaws? 
It outlines your state responsibilities and the National. 

It also has a mission statement. 

Take a peek. 
It's pretty interesting....especially the last line of the Preamble

Page 1:
PREAMBLE
This body, in drafting the Constitution and By-laws for the federation of states, intends that a
basic format of government must exist for the benefit of all archery. We ask that all state
associations abide and conduct themselves within its framework. In addition, this body recognizes
the sovereignty of each state to promote individual programs to create more archers and
memberships.

Purpose
A. To unite field archery associations of states into one organized unit that will work uniformly and
effectively in providing for the development of the sport of archery in conformance with the will of
a majority of the membership.
B. To provide the basic plan by which individual archers can organize into clubs that join together to
form an Association within a state, in order to regulate and administer the sport within the
described region.
C. To provide a basic plan by which such field archery associations may become affiliated with the
National Field Archery Association.
D. To foster, expand, promote and perpetuate the practice of field archery and any other archery
games as the NFAA may adopt and enforce uniform rules, regulations, procedures, conditions, and
methods of playing such games.
E. To encourage the use of the bow in the hunting of all legal game birds and animals, and to protect,
improve, and increase the sport of hunting with a bow and arrow.
F. To conduct a continuous educational program designed to acquaint the public and the archer with
the use of the bow as a recreation and a weapon suitable for the hunting of legal game.
G. To conduct tournaments to determine national championships in all archery games adopted by the
NFAA and to provide sanctions for tournaments.
H. To develop programs dedicated to the conservation and preservation of game and its natural
habitat, and to cooperate with the federal and state agencies and sportsman and conservation
organizations also dedicated to this purpose.
I. To cooperate with other archery associations to foster and perpetuate the use of the bow in
accordance with its ancient and honorable traditions.
J. To foster and perpetuate a spirit of good fellowship and sportsmanship among all archers.
K. To evolve and conduct programs that will give recognition to archers for proficiency with the bow
and arrow in all sanctioned competition and hunting accomplishments.
L. To regularly inform each member, in good standing, as to the major problems and issues affecting
the sport of archery and hunting with bow and arrow, and/or to the action proposed or taken in
order that the membership may make its will known to their duly elected representatives.

https://nfaausa.com/sites/default/files/2014-15 ConstByLaws.pdf


----------



## OT3D

FV Chuck said:


> Ot3d.
> 
> Have your read the Constitution and Bylaws?
> It outlines your state responsibilities and the National.
> 
> It also has a mission statement.
> 
> Take a peek.
> It's pretty interesting....especially the last line of the Preamble
> 
> Page 1:
> PREAMBLE
> This body, in drafting the Constitution and By-laws for the federation of states, intends that a
> basic format of government must exist for the benefit of all archery. We ask that all state
> associations abide and conduct themselves within its framework. In addition, this body recognizes
> the sovereignty of each state to promote individual programs to create more archers and
> memberships.
> 
> Purpose
> A. To unite field archery associations of states into one organized unit that will work uniformly and
> effectively in providing for the development of the sport of archery in conformance with the will of
> a majority of the membership.
> B. To provide the basic plan by which individual archers can organize into clubs that join together to
> form an Association within a state, in order to regulate and administer the sport within the
> described region.
> C. To provide a basic plan by which such field archery associations may become affiliated with the
> National Field Archery Association.
> D. To foster, expand, promote and perpetuate the practice of field archery and any other archery
> games as the NFAA may adopt and enforce uniform rules, regulations, procedures, conditions, and
> methods of playing such games.
> E. To encourage the use of the bow in the hunting of all legal game birds and animals, and to protect,
> improve, and increase the sport of hunting with a bow and arrow.
> F. To conduct a continuous educational program designed to acquaint the public and the archer with
> the use of the bow as a recreation and a weapon suitable for the hunting of legal game.
> G. To conduct tournaments to determine national championships in all archery games adopted by the
> NFAA and to provide sanctions for tournaments.
> H. To develop programs dedicated to the conservation and preservation of game and its natural
> habitat, and to cooperate with the federal and state agencies and sportsman and conservation
> organizations also dedicated to this purpose.
> I. To cooperate with other archery associations to foster and perpetuate the use of the bow in
> accordance with its ancient and honorable traditions.
> J. To foster and perpetuate a spirit of good fellowship and sportsmanship among all archers.
> K. To evolve and conduct programs that will give recognition to archers for proficiency with the bow
> and arrow in all sanctioned competition and hunting accomplishments.
> L. To regularly inform each member, in good standing, as to the major problems and issues affecting
> the sport of archery and hunting with bow and arrow, and/or to the action proposed or taken in
> order that the membership may make its will known to their duly elected representatives.
> 
> https://nfaausa.com/sites/default/files/2014-15 ConstByLaws.pdf


Yes, I have read them. 

Given the current state of field archery in this country is what gives rise to the concern some members have for how effective NFAA has become. Particularly items D, E, and F.

Perhaps the national directorship, and elected representatives, need to look beyond what they see as the constraints these documents represent and take a more proactive position in meeting the needs of the sport.

If there is any doubt as to the interest in archery among young people, just look at what interest has been generated by the movie series based on the Hunger Games movie and it companion sequels.


----------



## FV Chuck

I'm really having an incredibly hard time absorbing your opinion. 

I mean, it seems so contrary to what I'm experiencing that I wonder if I'm brainwashed or your just not seeing the entire picture.

#1 - to your point of constraints. We've tried to do things in the past that seemed to push envelopes. Virtually every time it's overruled by state level elected leadership. So believe when I say, it's not often HQ will try to push it. It never works out well.

#2 - To your point of D- Maybe you missed what was easily the most successful National Field event in recent history, backed by the IFAA World Championships? By any measure, even the most cynical would rank it as an amazing series of events!
#2a - Also to your point of D - You know we have added another National Target Event for ALL shooters this fall at HQ right? 
#2b - Also to your point of D - Did you know we landed the Jr WORLD Championships at HQ next year?.. 80 countries will be represented, hundreds of shooters. We beat out several other countries on the bid. It's by far the biggest thing for the NFAA in decades.

E - I've no frame of reference on that other than to say Bowhunting in the USA is rising faster than a rocket. It's hard to say with a straight face we arent reaping the benefit, and contributing to it's success.

F - Again, I have to point to the alarming expansion and success in our coaching programs, our student growth, our compound academy's. 

Your home state may be failing you in your opinion, but at the national level in my opinion the last 2 to 5 years they have been the best on record for growth, development, and implementation of programs and benefits.

RS-
Chuck


----------



## Mr. Roboto

So who makes the decision not to have Traditional and Longbow divisions at Vegas, but at the same time allow crossbow divisions?

Since you mentioned National Target Event, I have sent in emails asking but no response, with the National Target event require adult Traditional and Longbow shooters shoot from the adult distances, or force them to shoot the girly distances? Okay, maybe the girly comments causes the NFAA not to answer my emails, but there are no published rules of the format for the national target on the website yet.

Pete


----------



## Joe Barbieur

Pete, do we need those divisions so we have more champions or can they shoot flights and participate with everyone else. Is it all about winning or is it about shooting? As for crossbows and not have them with vertical bows that one should seem obvious. 
Why is it every “style” seems to want its own division so they can have a “champion”. 

And FYI Vegas (WAF) is a subsidiary of the NFAA and is not governed by the NFAA but is governed by a board of directors for the WAF.


----------



## FV Chuck

Mr. Roboto said:


> So who makes the decision not to have Traditional and Longbow divisions at Vegas, but at the same time allow crossbow divisions?
> 
> Since you mentioned National Target Event, I have sent in emails asking but no response, with the National Target event require adult Traditional and Longbow shooters shoot from the adult distances, or force them to shoot the girly distances? Okay, maybe the girly comments causes the NFAA not to answer my emails, but there are no published rules of the format for the national target on the website yet.
> 
> Pete


Yes Joe is right, there is a Board that makes the decisions on what styles/classes are shot in Vegas. 
As someone who sits in on that, I can say this is the first request I've seen in 4 years for it. I would make the leap it's not a large group and thats why it's not been there.

My hunch with the girly comments?. Yeah. When your less then respectful to those you seek help from....you might be disappointed with the response. Or lack thereof. 
Might I suggest a more even tone?... and address it to [email protected] she will likely forward it to Brian Sheffler our VP who would be the Tournament Chair for that event. He may seek advice from Tim, Dave, or Bob who all have a very good handle your styles and rules. Personally it's not a common area for me so I would defer to their expertise.
You might want to ask for a clarification from the RIC (Rules Interpretation Committee) to get a final answer. Natalie can also handle that for you but you need to indicate the question in a complete format, be specific, and be respectful.


----------



## wa-prez

Mr. Roboto said:


> Will the National Target event require adult Traditional and Longbow shooters shoot from the adult distances, or force them to shoot the girly distances?
> Pete


The rule allowing Traditional and Longbow archers to shoot from the "Youth" blue stakes applies ONLY at State level and below.

So any National event would use the full distances.

I read the rules for the National Target somewhere, I think it is in the booklet they put out at Nationals. If I can't find it online, I'll scan and post.


----------



## wa-prez

Here are the rules for the NFAA Outdoor National Target Championship 2014:



> Yankton to Host Inaugural NFAA Outdoor National Target Championships
> The NFAA Easton Yankton Archery Complex will host the first annual NFAA Outdoor National Target Championships, October 4-5, 2014.
> The event will be a two-day outdoor shoot featuring NFAA 900 Round on Day 1 and NFAA Classic 600 Round on Day 2.
> To celebrate the first year of the NFAA Outdoor Target tournament, the NFAA will offer a Professional Guarantee for the Male and Female Freestyle Divisions.
> The PMFS class will have a guaranteed first place payout of $2,500 and the PFFS class will have a guarantee first place payout of $1,500.
> All additional professional payouts will be based on the NFAA payout chart, as outlined in the NFAA Constitution and Bylaws.
> The NFAA 900 Round will consist of 5 ends of 6 arrows shot at 3 distances, beginning with the furthest distance. Five minutes will be allowed for each end. The target will be the 122 cm single-spot target face with gold-red-blue-black-white (10 through 1) scoring areas. Cub distances will be 30-20-10 yards, Youth distances will be 50-40-30 yards, and Young Adult/Adult/Senior distances will be 60-50-40 yards.
> The NFAA Classic 600 Round will consist of 4 ends of 5 arrows shot at 3 distances, beginning with the closest distance. 4 minutes will be allowed for each end. The target will be the 92 cm NFAA single-spot target face with gold-red-blue-black-white (10 through 6) scoring areas. Cub distances will be 10-20-30 yards. Youth distances will be 30-40-50 yards, and Young Adult/Adult/Senior distances will be 40-50-60 yards.


And I'll attach the registration form.


----------



## Mr. Roboto

FV Chuck said:


> Yes Joe is right, there is a Board that makes the decisions on what styles/classes are shot in Vegas.
> As someone who sits in on that, I can say this is the first request I've seen in 4 years for it. I would make the leap it's not a large group and thats why it's not been there.
> 
> My hunch with the girly comments?. Yeah. When your less then respectful to those you seek help from....you might be disappointed with the response. Or lack thereof.
> Might I suggest a more even tone?... and address it to [email protected] she will likely forward it to Brian Sheffler our VP who would be the Tournament Chair for that event. He may seek advice from Tim, Dave, or Bob who all have a very good handle your styles and rules. Personally it's not a common area for me so I would defer to their expertise.
> You might want to ask for a clarification from the RIC (Rules Interpretation Committee) to get a final answer. Natalie can also handle that for you but you need to indicate the question in a complete format, be specific, and be respectful.


Thanks for the reply Chuck,

Yeah, I will have to admit that I may have been disrespectful with regards to "girly distance". But it is still a very sore subject to many of us trad/longbow shooters who have not liked the recent rule changes, and their lack of overall consistency. Nationals/sectional versus everything else. Anyways, since the National Target Championship is a new event, and nothing in the bylaws about this new event, I was trying to find out if there are any specific rules about it that would be different than what people think/expect/assume. So without anything specifically written down, then it is only guesswork until you show up at the event.

As for the vegas event, I know I chewed on a couple people's ears at Darington last year. But I guess it just stayed in Darrington. Actually there is a lot of Traditional and Longbow shooters that would be interested in going. The problem is that most of them don't want to have to either shoot with the Oly shooters and compete against their 10s and X's in the regular flights, or have to spend and extra $50 to shoot in the barebow class against all those awesome barebow compound shooters. So then why would a Trad/longbow shooter want to spend $1000+ to attend the event. And thus the perception, from an organizer point of view is that there isn't much interest from those shooters in attending so why have a class for them. It become self fulfilling.


----------



## Joe Barbieur

Mr. Roboto said:


> Thanks for the reply Chuck,
> 
> Yeah, I will have to admit that I may have been disrespectful with regards to "girly distance". But it is still a very sore subject to many of us trad/longbow shooters who have not liked the recent rule changes, and their lack of overall consistency. Nationals/sectional versus everything else. Anyways, since the National Target Championship is a new event, and nothing in the bylaws about this new event, I was trying to find out if there are any specific rules about it that would be different than what people think/expect/assume. So without anything specifically written down, then it is only guesswork until you show up at the event.
> 
> As for the vegas event, I know I chewed on a couple people's ears at Darington last year. But I guess it just stayed in Darrington. Actually there is a lot of Traditional and Longbow shooters that would be interested in going. The problem is that most of them don't want to have to either shoot with the Oly shooters and compete against their 10s and X's in the regular flights, or have to spend and extra $50 to shoot in the barebow class against all those awesome barebow compound shooters. So then why would a Trad/longbow shooter want to spend $1000+ to attend the event. And thus the perception, from an organizer point of view is that there isn't much interest from those shooters in attending so why have a class for them. It become self fulfilling.


Maybe I can help a little with the why not shoot Vegas part. For those that shoot flights they do it for the fun of shooting that event. It is the least expensive to enter and put the word “crap” into crap shoot for winning anything. (ok maybe wrong analogy but you get my meaning). They shoot for the fun, to be at the Vegas shoot, to compete not against like equipment but against like scores. How big will a trad guy’s head get when he beats a wheely guy? Yes it can and does happen. 
So why not shoot, why not be there? If enough show up then maybe it is an argument for a separate class. I am never in favor of more classes, I think there are WAY to many now, but the best way to gain one is participate and show how many would be willing to be ion that class.


----------



## archer_nm

Roboto the rule for Traditional style states. that "For all tournaments BELOW the sectional level, all traditional archers MAY (I repeat MAY! MAY!) shoot at Youth distances" It Is up to the Tournament Director or in my state we allow all of the TRAD to decide as a group but so far they have shot from Adult stakes. As far as Vegas goes last year half of the shooters in the BB style had no training wheels and there were even some longbows. With our group it is enjoying the tournament and the freinds we love to visit with, if we win something that is the frosting on the cake. We have a great time regardless of how we finish


----------



## Arcus

For the Classic 600 Round, why no scoring rings below 6? Those occasional 60-yd errant shots by us barebow archers sure could use the extra rings.


----------



## Mr. Roboto

Yeah, I know, the rules say "May" and I drive event organizers crazy when I say I want to shoot the adult distances because that messes up the whole system of where do they put me. I wonder how many state records are falling because people are shooting the shorter distances, and yet the record books wont reflect if the record was set at the older distances or the shorter distances.

As for the national target, I was wanting to get clarification because sometimes there is confusion to actual execution of the rules. For example at the Outdoor Nationals last year in Darrington, I know of 1 person that thought the format was F/H/A/F/H and came only to shoot the Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, only findout after getting there that it was a F/H/F/H/A. The registration forms didn't make it clear, and there is continual debate and changes to this rule format. So it is easy to get confused when something isn't explicitly stated. Its a new format, so these things can happen. 

Another example, Arcus asked a good question, no scoring rings below 6. Does this mean that gold is 10, red is 9, blue is 8, black is 7, white is 6, or is this using a multi-color target, but not scoring below 6. This is subject to lots of interpretation and can have an effect on participation.

38 barebow shooters last year. I wonder how the size of that group as a whole would change if it was broken up into the barebow-compound, barebow-recurve, traditional, longbow. I know, the event organizers get to choose the format they want to use, and we archers either have to submit to them, or not come. But unless there are yahoos like me voicing my thoughts about splits, they will never know if there is enough interest to seriously consider making a split.


----------



## archer_nm

*NFAA rule problem*

I would expect no State records are falling if the person did not shoot from the normal adult distances. Who was the person that did not know the Target order in Darrington? On the NFAA web site it is very clear that on the 900 round you shoot the 122 cm Target and on the 600 round you shoot the 92 cm target and it states that there are only 10 thru 6 scoring area on the smaller target. As far as Vegas goes I have worked my butt off trying to get the numbers up in the BB style and have watched it grow, splitting up at this time is not feasible nor something we would want to do. You have seen the Championship Bowhunter Freestyle go away because of low participation numbers and the same is for any other style with low numbers. To have a BB Recurve or a Longbow Division/Style you would need to SHOW UP in big numbers for at least a couple of years and be seen. The problem lies in if they show up and are watered down in the recurve flights no one will see the numbers, but if they shoot with the BB the numbers would be noticed.


----------



## gcab

Mr. Roboto said:


> Yeah, I know, the rules say "May" and I drive event organizers crazy when I say I want to shoot the adult distances because that messes up the whole system of where do they put me. I wonder how many state records are falling because people are shooting the shorter distances, and yet the record books wont reflect if the record was set at the older distances or the shorter distances.
> 
> As for the national target, I was wanting to get clarification because sometimes there is confusion to actual execution of the rules. For example at the Outdoor Nationals last year in Darrington, I know of 1 person that thought the format was F/H/A/F/H and came only to shoot the Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, only findout after getting there that it was a F/H/F/H/A. The registration forms didn't make it clear, and there is continual debate and changes to this rule format. So it is easy to get confused when something isn't explicitly stated. Its a new format, so these things can happen.
> 
> Another example, Arcus asked a good question, no scoring rings below 6. Does this mean that gold is 10, red is 9, blue is 8, black is 7, white is 6, or is this using a multi-color target, but not scoring below 6. This is subject to lots of interpretation and can have an effect on participation.
> 
> 38 barebow shooters last year. I wonder how the size of that group as a whole would change if it was broken up into the barebow-compound, barebow-recurve, traditional, longbow. I know, the event organizers get to choose the format they want to use, and we archers either have to submit to them, or not come. But unless there are yahoos like me voicing my thoughts about splits, they will never know if there is enough interest to seriously consider making a split.




So a class of 38 needs to be split into 4 classes of less than 10 each? For what.. so that there is a watered down champion yet again? So create 4 classes where there was one, and create a new target that is much larger so that these 4 classes can now hit the target. sounds great


----------



## Arrowwood

"...create a new target that is much larger so that these 4 classes can now hit the target". 

The 92 cm face is not new, and doesn't need to be "created".

NFAA Classic 600 Target Round.
Rules same as the NFAA 600 Round except as follows:
1.
The NFAA Archery Classic 92 cm Target Face shall be used. At the discretion of tournament management, the center version of the Face may be used utilizing only the 6 through 10 rings.

---
At the Vegas shoot, archers can shoot the three-spot or the regular 40 cm. face


----------



## FV Chuck

Mr. Roboto said:


> Yeah, I know, the rules say "May" and I drive event organizers crazy when I say I want to shoot the adult distances because that messes up the whole system of where do they put me. I wonder how many state records are falling because people are shooting the shorter distances, and yet the record books wont reflect if the record was set at the older distances or the shorter distances.
> 
> As for the national target, I was wanting to get clarification because sometimes there is confusion to actual execution of the rules. For example at the Outdoor Nationals last year in Darrington, I know of 1 person that thought the format was F/H/A/F/H and came only to shoot the Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, only findout after getting there that it was a F/H/F/H/A. The registration forms didn't make it clear, and there is continual debate and changes to this rule format. So it is easy to get confused when something isn't explicitly stated. Its a new format, so these things can happen.
> 
> Another example, Arcus asked a good question, no scoring rings below 6. Does this mean that gold is 10, red is 9, blue is 8, black is 7, white is 6, or is this using a multi-color target, but not scoring below 6. This is subject to lots of interpretation and can have an effect on participation.
> 
> 38 barebow shooters last year. I wonder how the size of that group as a whole would change if it was broken up into the barebow-compound, barebow-recurve, traditional, longbow. I know, the event organizers get to choose the format they want to use, and we archers either have to submit to them, or not come. But unless there are yahoos like me voicing my thoughts about splits, they will never know if there is enough interest to seriously consider making a split.


State records are not on the national radar. States run their own gigs, you wanna shoot from the cubbies stakes. Fine. Wanna shoot from the longest? Fine. It's a state event. The national office does not control what a state does. They ultimately can decide that you shoot in tutu's if they are so inclined.
Please please please I beg you to remember the separation of state orgs vs national. 

Darrington, 1 person. Really? Out of the 300 or so? ... You know, personally...if I have even the slightest hint of a question before loading up and flying or driving to a National event, there's a pretty good chance I'm going to at least call, email, or ask someone. At some point we have to get back to personal responsibility. No organization or group, or governments should be held to task for holding everyone's hand at every step to make sure they are on the proper path. You disseminate the information, make available people or resources to answer questions, and get to the job of hosting an event. No disrespect intended but seriously, I've never met a tougher, more resourceful group of shooters than the long bow bare bow guys... Your gonna need to try really hard to convince me that he was caught off guard.


----------



## rsarns

Joe Barbieur said:


> Pete, do we need those divisions so we have more champions or can they shoot flights and participate with everyone else. Is it all about winning or is it about shooting? As for crossbows and not have them with vertical bows that one should seem obvious.
> Why is it every “style” seems to want its own division so they can have a “champion”.
> 
> And FYI Vegas (WAF) is a subsidiary of the NFAA and is not governed by the NFAA but is governed by a board of directors for the WAF.


Joe, most of us shooting Vegas with BB recurve shoot against the compounds. This past year there were more recurves shooting in the BB class than there was compounds. There are many that shoot IBO and other venues that have stated they would come to Vegas but really don't want to pay $275 to compete against compounds. I myself don't mind, but it would increase the numbers if there was a BB recurve class.


----------



## Joe Barbieur

It has been a little while since I have shot Vegas but I don’t remember flights costing that much, maybe they have gone up some.

As for competing, I compete against myself, other for ice cream, I am only interested in doing what I can and not really looking at what others do. I was and never will be a consistent 60X shooter, I shoot for me and to enjoy others around me. I shoot because it is what I do; it is part of me and part of how I live. I enjoy archery and I do what I can so others can enjoy it also.

At Vegas, at least in the flights division, you are never really shooting against another piece of equipment; you are shooting against yourself, to do the best you can, to have fun doing it, to be a part of a REALLY large venue. If you go to “compete” against equipment in my mind you have already lost, not because you did not shoot well but because the mind set was there before the first arrow was shot.

I always have to speculate when I hear the words “others have stated”. I don’t disbelieve you but that is really an open context term. Others can be one or one hundred.

If they really want a class, have them show up and all wear the same color shirts on Saturday all day long. Make sure that the organization knows it is “whatever color shirt day” and why. If you can get the attention of organizers you are on the way to achieving what you want.


----------



## Mr. Roboto

Thanks for the reply Chuck,

Come on Chuck, you know this shoot 3 of the 5 day rule can be confusing. One of the big arguments to change it from a 5 day shoot to a 3 day shoot is because some people can't make it for all 5 days. Part of the arguments towards the change was to have the animal round in the middle and not on sunday. This Friday vs Sunday issues keeps bouncing around. It can be very confusing. You are correct in that when in doubt, pick up the phone and call headquarters. Since the rules do state that it can be either or, at the very least, the registration form should say the precise format. That was not the case last year. 

As for state formats versus national formats. Again, you are correct in that the states can choose what ever format they want to shoot. But the reality of it is, that what ever the National format is, the states and local events tend to follow. It is much easier for state and local event organizers to point their fingers to the national rule set and follow them as opposed to doing something different. It is really difficult to get a group of people to volunteer their time to put on an event only to get some legalistic loudmouths browbeating them about how the national rules say this or that. So in general it is just less stressful to follow the national rule sets. So in essence the national formats do have a trickle down effect to the state levels. I am not even saying anything is wrong with that. I am curios to see how many state Target events will change from the 2 day 900 round they used to run to a 900/600 round format next year.


----------



## wa-prez

Mr. Roboto said:


> As for the national target, I was wanting to get clarification because sometimes there is confusion to actual execution of the rules. Its a new format, so these things can happen.
> 
> Another example, Arcus asked a good question, no scoring rings below 6. Does this mean that gold is 10, red is 9, blue is 8, black is 7, white is 6, or is this using a multi-color target, but not scoring below 6. This is subject to lots of interpretation and can have an effect on participation.


Even after I posted the info copied from the NFAA Tournament Booklet handed out at the Outdoor National, this statement is confusing.



> The target will be the 92 cm NFAA single-spot target face with gold-red-blue-black-white (10 through 6) scoring areas.


So if it has gold, red, blue, black and white - all five colors - how is it scored just 10 through 6. Something doesn't match up.

The photos that were included with the tournament announcement (and I didn't reproduce in my earlier post) show a 92 cm single spot target on one butt (presumably for the youth, as it is at a shorter distance) and FOUR 92 cm 5-ring targets (for the 600 round) on another butt.







The Single Spot Face







The Four-Spot Face


----------



## Mr. Roboto

The USAA announced a couple months ago that they have eliminated the barebow class from their national target event because not enough people show up. One of the complaints is the 6 ring target at the nationals.

Its like I said before, rules need to be very clear and precise that doesn't lead to misinterpretation by the lay person. Use pictures, and if necessary, words.


----------



## Arcus

wa-prez said:


> So if it has gold, red, blue, black and white - all five colors - how is it scored just 10 through 6. Something doesn't match up.


Could it be that each color's "separation ring" is ignored, i.e., all the gold is 10, all the red is 9,...all the white is 6. Somewhat analogous to the NFAA field targets, in which you cannot score less than a 3 (unless, of course, you miss the entire target).


----------



## CHPro

Its the 92cm face, 5-ring target with gold (10/9), red (8/7), and 1 blue (6) colored rings which is used for the "Classic" round. Possibly some divisions use the full size 92cm face that includes the 5-1 scoring rings, though I don't recall any using that face at the indoor Classic in April the past couple years. Anyway, just pointing out that part of the information includes a typo when it is referencing the 5-ring target that scores 10-6 and then goes on to note the full spectrum of colors gold/red/blue/white/black. Obviously can't have all colors available on the 10-6 scoring individual target faces.

>>--------->


----------



## Arcus

CHPro said:


> Its the 92cm face, 5-ring target with gold (10/9), red (8/7), and 1 blue (6) colored rings which is used for the "Classic" round. Possibly some divisions use the full size 92cm face that includes the 5-1 scoring rings, though I don't recall any using that face at the indoor Classic in April the past couple years. Anyway, just pointing out that part of the information includes a typo when it is referencing the 5-ring target that scores 10-6 and then goes on to note the full spectrum of colors gold/red/blue/white/black. Obviously can't have all colors available on the 10-6 scoring individual target faces.
> >>--------->


So, it's called a 92 cm face, but the scoring area is less than 92 cm - did I get that right?


----------



## Pete53

so if you are talking about me" Pete53" wanting a class to win, nope i don`t need that trophy at 60 years of age just a money class where i might pay for some gas to get back home. we all know some archers shoot in classes with very few archers in them and call themself`s state or national champions when they win and they really only shot against a small handful of archers. i would welcome only 2 adult male classes pro and amatuer and use any equipment that shoots a arrow in a vertical bow. boy would there be crying then, right now some of those classes need to be eliminated,we all know which archery classes. When some talk about the NFAA failing maybe not in all states ,but here in Minnesota it has failed big time and know one seems to want to fix this problem ,Its also really sad the state club has 2,000 MSAA members and are not affiliated with the NFAA ,and yes it is much larger than any other minnesota archery club .MSAA state indoor has always around and over 1,000 shooter`s for that state indoor shoot and not a nfaa affiliation ? so yes rules are important but so is membership ,here`s maybe the problem > leadership ? and i bet nothing will get done here in Minnesota ?


----------



## rsarns

Joe Barbieur said:


> It has been a little while since I have shot Vegas but I don’t remember flights costing that much, maybe they have gone up some.
> 
> As for competing, I compete against myself, other for ice cream, I am only interested in doing what I can and not really looking at what others do. I was and never will be a consistent 60X shooter, I shoot for me and to enjoy others around me. I shoot because it is what I do; it is part of me and part of how I live. I enjoy archery and I do what I can so others can enjoy it also.
> 
> At Vegas, at least in the flights division, you are never really shooting against another piece of equipment; you are shooting against yourself, to do the best you can, to have fun doing it, to be a part of a REALLY large venue. If you go to “compete” against equipment in my mind you have already lost, not because you did not shoot well but because the mind set was there before the first arrow was shot.
> 
> I always have to speculate when I hear the words “others have stated”. I don’t disbelieve you but that is really an open context term. Others can be one or one hundred.
> 
> If they really want a class, have them show up and all wear the same color shirts on Saturday all day long. Make sure that the organization knows it is “whatever color shirt day” and why. If you can get the attention of organizers you are on the way to achieving what you want.


There is no "flights" for BB it is only championship, hence the $275 fee. The point being made is that there is a number of Recurve shooters who (barebow) would like to have their own class, as it is we are the majority of the BB class (which is for compounds). There was a move by Richard L. to get this in front of the WAF Board in 2012 (?) after we had 33 shooters in Louisville. This year if you combined the Louisville Trad (Recurve BB) classes there was probably 50+ in all the age groups. I will continue to shoot the BB Championship flight in Vegas with my recurve against compounds, but there are several of the BB compound shooters who actually shoot recurves everywhere but Vegas. Something about not wanting to "Bring a knife to a gun fight" analogy.


----------



## wa-prez

When I shot Vegas this year (for the first time in a long time) in FSL Flights, one thing really struck me.

It was nice to be among 33 archers in the category, instead of being a singleton, like I usually am at State, Sectional, and even National. 

Part of this is because in Flights, Men and Women are combined (I think I was the only lady) and all "adult" age groups are also lumped together (I'm Silver Senior). Plus the guys shooting Bowhunter Freestyle Limited (pins and fingers) were combined with us too.

I think (at least in this stage of my archery career) the real thing important about the categories (styles and age groups) isn't really the competition, but the social aspect. It was nice to be with other people using similar equipment, where my 46" axle-to-axle bow doesn't look like a freak. And we could share information about what kinds of rests, tabs, sights etc work well for us finger shooters. 

Without Freestyle Limited being a separate category, we would have been lost in the crowd, would not have had the "critical mass" to get together. 

I can see that the same thing applies to Barebow and to Traditional / Longbow shooters. At least the Traditional guys can recognize each other by their long sticks!


----------



## Mr. Roboto

According to the rules and bylaws, on page 60

NFAA Classic 600 Target Round.
Rules same as the NFAA 600 Round except as follows:
1. The NFAA Archery Classic 92 cm Target Face shall be used. At the discretion of tournament management, the center version of the Face may be used utilizing only the 6 through 10 rings.
2. The round is shot starting at the closest distance and progressing to the longest distances.

Since it has been stated that the National Target is using the 92cm target with scoring 10 to 6, then one has to "assume" that the NFAA is talking about the Center Version of the 92cm target.

Finding dimensions to this target is a bit difficult since not much shows up on search of the internet. But from Maple Leaf Press here is what I get

122 cm target for the 900 round
10 ring - 12.2 cm diameter
9 ring - 24.4 cm diameter
8 ring - 36.6 cm diameter
7 ring - 48.8 cm diameter
6 ring - 61 cm diameter
5 ring - 73.2 cm diameter
4 ring - 85.4 cm diameter
3 ring - 97.6 cm diameter
2 ring - 109.8 cm diameter
1 ring - 122 cm diameter

92 cm target for the 600 round
10 ring - 9.2 cm diameter
9 ring - 18.4 cm diameter
8 ring - 27.6 cm diameter
7 ring - 36.8 cm diameter
6 ring - 46 cm diameter
5 ring - 55.2 cm diameter
4 ring - 64.4 cm diameter
3 ring - 73.6 cm diameter
2 ring - 82.8 cm diameter
1 ring - 92 cm diameter

The 6 ring has a diameter of 46 cm. The physical paper size for the Center Spot 92cm target is 19" x 19"

For the 122 cm target, the 6 ring has a diameter of 61 cm. So in essence, a 6 ring on a 92 cm Center Spot target is equivalent to a little smaller than the 7 ring on the 122 cm target.

So for anyone that can't get 100% of their arrows in the red or gold on the 122cm target, will score zeros. For all the Barebow, Trad, and longbow shooters out there, if you cant shoot close to 800 on a 900 round, you will be shooting zeros on the 600 round.

Now this is just pure speculation on my part because the "written rules" do not define any specific information about this.


----------

