# STS in BHFS



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

I don't know where people come up with these rumors:noidea:

The STS and side rods are STILL allowed in BHFS. If you are at a shoot and they tell you that you can't shoot it then it isn't an NFAA event or they have NO CLUE. I would print off the page or the rule book and keep it in my case if I were you:wink:


----------



## sharkred7 (Jul 19, 2005)

Thanks BH, that's what I thought but don't want to practice with rear weight and have to take it off when I get to a tourny.
John


----------



## kidnutso (Aug 29, 2004)

Brown Hornet said:


> I don't know where people come up with these rumors:noidea:
> 
> The STS and side rods are STILL allowed in BHFS. If you are at a shoot and they tell you that you can't shoot it then it isn't an NFAA event or they have NO CLUE. I would print off the page or the rule book and keep it in my case if I were you:wink:



Brown Hornet,

I guess I'm one that has NO CLUE.  Could you point me in the right direction to see the rule that says you can use side bars in BHFS in NFAA sponsored shoots? I have yet to be able to find it. I did get a clarification from the NFAA that you can use an STS. However, in the current rules on the website, the only thing I can find for FS Bowhunter reads this way:

7. Brush buttons, string silencers, positioned no closer than midway between the nocking point and where the string touches the wheel/cam, and bow quiver installed on the opposite side of the sight window, with no part of the quiver or attachments visible in the sight window are legal. *One straight stabilizer, coupling device included if used, which cannot exceed 12 inches at any time, as measured from the back of the bow, may be used. *

Can one assume if the rules don't say it's illegal, that it is legal? Or are there more rules published elsewhere?

Thanks.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

kidnutso said:


> Brown Hornet,
> 
> I guess I'm one that has NO CLUE.  Could you point me in the right direction to see the rule that says you can use side bars in BHFS in NFAA sponsored shoots? I have yet to be able to find it. I did get a clarification from the NFAA that you can use an STS. However, in the current rules on the website, the only thing I can find for FS Bowhunter reads this way:
> 
> ...


I would say yes...it isn't in the rule book but may be in the one that is being released this year. The rule went into effect on June 1 last summer....there have been tons of BHFS guys shooting Vbars....

OBT made a point to post about this again after the meeting at Vegas...if you really want/need clarification I would send your director or Mike Lepera and e-mail or PM

But they are legal....there only seems to be a state or two that is refusing to pay attention:embara:


----------



## mdbowhunter (Oct 22, 2002)

kidnutso said:


> Can one assume if the rules don't say it's illegal, that it is legal? Or are there more rules published elsewhere?


Yep, that's the clue. What got removed last year was the rule the disallowed a counter-balance. That was the change that permitted the STS. Once that rule was removed it opened the door for v-bars, back weights, etc. Like Hornet said, hopefully the 2008 rule book will be a little clearer on this issue. Right now, it is open to much interpretation.  Not a good thing. :embara:


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

Brown Hornet said:


> I would say yes...it isn't in the rule book but may be in the one that is being released this year. The rule went into effect on June 1 last summer....there have been tons of BHFS guys shooting Vbars....
> 
> OBT made a point to post about this again after the meeting at Vegas...if you really want/need clarification I would send your director or Mike Lepera and e-mail or PM
> 
> But they are legal....there only seems to be a state or two that is refusing to pay attention:embara:





> One straight stabilizer, coupling device included if used, which cannot exceed 12 inches at any time, as measured from the back of the bow, may be used.


I'm another one who was surprised they were legal. The way I read the rules, ONE straight stabilizer can be used. Aren't V-bars stabilizers? It would seem that a BHFS setup with v-bars would have 3 stabilizers.

-Andrew


----------



## Bruce K (Jun 1, 2002)

Not allowed in Australia , we play by the International rules ,


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

spangler said:


> I'm another one who was surprised they were legal. The way I read the rules, ONE straight stabilizer can be used. Aren't V-bars stabilizers? It would seem that a BHFS setup with v-bars would have 3 stabilizers.
> 
> -Andrew


:noidea: There is a loop hole in there though...

It says from the back of the bow (which is the front)...side rods and counter weights don't go forward....:wink:


----------



## kidnutso (Aug 29, 2004)

Well, I shoot field in the PA Field and Target Archers (PFATA) and the PA State Archery Association (PSAA). I'm pretty sure the PFATA follows NFAA rules. PSAA does for the most part, but not in entirety. Side stabs or V bars are one of the areas. They are not allowed in PSAA. 

So, I am opting to leave them off. 

Thanks for all the info.


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

Brown Hornet said:


> :noidea: There is a loop hole in there though...
> 
> It says from the back of the bow (which is the front)...side rods and counter weights don't go forward....:wink:


Yeah, I just don't see that as a loophole. While it does say that it must be measured from the back of the bow, it also states that there is ONE stabilizer allowed. It seems that the way the sentence is constructed the thesis of the sentence is that ONE stabilizer is allowed. The fact that it is measured from the back of the bow is simply a descriptor clarifying how the ONE allowed stabilizer is to be measured.

I'm not trying to argue with you, I understand they are legal and why...but I just can't see how the rules can be interpreted that way since the number of stabilizers would seem to trump how they are measured.

*shrug* I'll use em if they are legal and I'm shooting that style, it just seems silly to me.

-Andrew


----------



## mdbowhunter (Oct 22, 2002)

spangler said:


> I'm not trying to argue with you, I understand they are legal and why...but I just can't see how the rules can be interpreted that way since the number of stabilizers would seem to trump how they are measured.


Andrew,
You are not alone in this interpretation. The problem is the rules are not clear. If you haven't lived through the constant changes in the NFAA Bowhunter classes over the past 15+ years then it is very easy to be confused.  

Like I said in earlier post, they removed the no counter-balance rule which had been in place forever. This was the NFAA's round about way for allowing the STS. Now, that opened the door for any backward facing stabilizer, back weight or counter-balance. I too was surprised that this change would allow v-bars, but many NFAA Directors have verified here on AT that they are in fact legal.


----------



## rudeman (Jan 25, 2006)

*Get a Ruling?*

What you need if for a State Director or Councilman to make a ruling and then submit it to the RIC to review. (Rulings Interpretation Committee) Needless to say, a comment on AT is not a "ruling"!! Then it would be clarified once and for all and all state associations would have to abide by it (in NFAA-sanctioned events).

Maybe it's just me, but an STS is way different from a rear stabilizer or V-bar - IMHO.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

rudeman said:


> What you need if for a State Director or Councilman to make a ruling and then submit it to the RIC to review. (Rulings Interpretation Committee) Needless to say, a comment on AT is not a "ruling"!! Then it would be clarified once and for all and all state associations would have to abide by it (in NFAA-sanctioned events).
> 
> Maybe it's just me, but an STS is way different from a rear stabilizer or V-bar - IMHO.


Correct...

But only in a VERY small way....when the "comment" is made by directors and state reps that were at the meeting where the rule was made and voted on...OBT and Mike Lepera....then that is the rule:wink:


----------



## mdbowhunter (Oct 22, 2002)

rudeman said:


> Maybe it's just me, but an STS is way different from a rear stabilizer or V-bar - IMHO.


Yes, you are so right. That's one reason why I didn't dive into adding v-bars. Too much interpretation was needed when the NFAA removed the 'no counter-balance' rule. I prefer having things spelled out. If they are allowed, then say so.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

mdbowhunter said:


> Yes, you are so right. That's one reason why I didn't dive into adding v-bars. Too much interpretation was needed when the NFAA removed the 'no counter-balance' rule. I prefer having things spelled out. If they are allowed, then say so.


Yes you do


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

sharkred7 said:


> Is this still allowed? How about rear weight? I thought it was but heard from someone I respect that it will be changing June 1. Where can I find out for sure?
> I've also heard it allowed in some areas and not in others?
> 
> Thanks
> John


NFAA...okay.

State events...the state has the right to say no.


----------



## mdbowhunter (Oct 22, 2002)

Bobmuley said:


> NFAA...okay.
> 
> State events...the state has the right to say no.


If it is a NFAA sanctioned round, using NFAA targets and rules...how can a State say no?


----------



## mdbowhunter (Oct 22, 2002)

Brown Hornet said:


> Yes you do


I have a response...but it would get me banned!!! :wink:


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

mdbowhunter said:


> I have a response...but it would get me banned!!! :wink:


Maybe not:wink:

Wait a minute...you went back to Hoyt....


----------



## rudeman (Jan 25, 2006)

> when the "comment" is made by directors and state reps that were at the meeting where the rule was made and voted on...OBT and Mike Lepera....then that is the rule


My point was you need someone (state director) to officially rule on it for their state/region THEN send it to the RIC (which they are actually required to do). It can't just go to the RIC because this OBT and Mike Lepera made a comment on AT. What we need is for one of them to make the ruling for their state and then send it into the RIC. They'll either uphold the ruling or overrule it - but at least it'll be settled.


----------



## rudeman (Jan 25, 2006)

> State events...the state has the right to say no.


Not really. They then put themselves in jeopardy of losing their NFAA affiliation. The constitution IS pretty clear on that one. Whether it's actually enforced is another matter.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

rudeman said:


> My point was you need someone (state director) to officially rule on it for their state/region THEN send it to the RIC (which they are actually required to do). It can't just go to the RIC because this OBT and Mike Lepera made a comment on AT. What we need is for one of them to make the ruling for their state and then send it into the RIC. They'll either uphold the ruling or overrule it - but at least it'll be settled.


You are missing the point...Mike is an NFAA DIRECTOR (Mid Atlantic) OBT is the NC state rep...they voted on the rule change and passed it. They both have also beat it to death on here and given specific details as to what was stated in the NFAA Director meetings...

Now I don't know what the states that are giving guys problems are having a problem understanding....don't know if they just didn't go to the meetings in Vegas or not read the letters or agenda items or email or just being defiant....


----------



## TCR1 (Dec 22, 2004)

Brown Hornet said:


> You are missing the point...Mike is an NFAA DIRECTOR (Mid Atlantic) OBT is the NC state rep...they voted on the rule change and passed it. They both have also beat it to death on here and given specific details as to what was stated in the NFAA Director meetings...
> 
> Now I don't know what the states that are giving guys problems are having a problem understanding....don't know if they just didn't go to the meetings in Vegas or not read the letters or agenda items or email or just being *defiant*....


I think you hit the nail on the head in there somewhere...not sure where though :secret:


----------



## rudeman (Jan 25, 2006)

Now you've got me going. I'm tempted to have my State Director rule that rear stabs and v-bars are NOT allowed and put in for an RIC. Have him argue Spangler's point about ONE stabilizer trumps the front measurement loophole and therefore allows only ONE, front or back. In addition, I'd have him argue that "straight" means not at an angle and therefore the v-bars, sidebars, etc, would be excluded, also. Then, it'd be interesting to see the RIC response.

Now let me get my tongue out of my cheek, and can you all see how amiguous this rule is that the Directors voted in? They need to clarify it with an RIC, not with two directors chatting on a bulletin board.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

rudeman said:


> Now you've got me going. I'm tempted to have my State Director rule that rear stabs and v-bars are NOT allowed and put in for an RIC. Have him argue Spangler's point about ONE stabilizer trumps the front measurement loophole and therefore allows only ONE, front or back. In addition, I'd have him argue that "straight" means not at an angle and therefore the v-bars, sidebars, etc, would be excluded, also. Then, it'd be interesting to see the RIC response.
> 
> Now let me get my tongue out of my cheek, and can you all see how amiguous this rule is that the Directors voted in? They need to clarify it with an RIC, not with two directors chatting on a bulletin board.


You are arguing with people that think the same thing....however I understand the ruling..:wink:

But I would almost be willing to bet that you would be dissapointed if you filed:wink:


----------



## mdbowhunter (Oct 22, 2002)

rudeman said:


> They need to clarify it with an RIC, not with two directors chatting on a bulletin board.


Agreed. A decision by the RIC would help...but eventually the equipment rules need updating to make *EVERYTHING* clear. If v-bars are allowed, then say so.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

The difference between stabilizers, v bars, and counterweights has been defined for the new book effective June 01, 2008.

Don't know when the book will be out because we are still fighting about the arrow restriction rule and the illegal rescission thereof.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

Brown Hornet said:


> I would say yes...it isn't in the rule book but may be in the one that is being released this year. The rule went into effect on June 1 last summer....there have been tons of BHFS guys shooting Viboras....
> 
> OBT made a point to post about this again after the meeting at Vegas...if you really want/need clarification I would send your director or Mike Lepera and e-mail or PM
> 
> But they are legal....there only seems to be a state or two that is refusing to pay attention:embera:



hornet, stabilizers point to the target.12 " any thing else is allowed. side rods, back rods, Vbars. just don't have them point to the target.
The rule book will not be changed. If it is not prohibited, it is ok.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

*changes to the book June01, 2008*

Agenda Item Idaho - 1
page 32 Article II ByLaws Section F Paragraph 7

In the last sentence, after the word bow, add: v-bar, counterbalance, and string supressors may be used.


Agenda Item South Carolina - 1
page 28 Article I Section A Paragraph new 8, 9, 10

8. Stabilizer: A device extending away from the archer (back of the bow).

9. Counter balance: A device extending parallel to or toward the archer (face of the bow).

10. String Damping Device: A device made to stop the forward motion of the string.


----------



## sharkred7 (Jul 19, 2005)

Here's the reason I started this whole thread.

I don't believe side bars were the intention when they omitted the rule to allow STS. I have not used any counter weight up till now. I don't see an advantage to V-bars but for long distance field archery (where there IS significant separation in BHFS and FS) A counter weight to help level the sight IS helpful (and this can be done with V-bars also)

So I threw on a small heavy counter balance and it came into Question. Didn't want to practice with it if it would be deemed illegal.

I think the loop hole came in where there was confusion of the difference between COUNTER WEIGHT and STABILISER.

John


----------

