# 2712 ?



## oxberger (Nov 18, 2008)

Are 2712 legal for indoors?


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

For NFAA they are


----------



## oxberger (Nov 18, 2008)

what is the diameter of the shaft?


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

27/64 which is too big for USA Archery but NFAA you can use


----------



## oxberger (Nov 18, 2008)

what is the max for USA Archery?


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

oxberger said:


> what is the max for USA Archery?


23/64 I tink it is 9.3 MM


----------



## AdvanTimberLou (Aug 8, 2005)

Can't have arrow wraps though on your 2712's. That makes it too big of diameter and thus illegal for NFAA. Even though the wrap makes it easier to refletch. :wink:


----------



## CHPro (May 21, 2002)

I don't believe you are correct on the wrap statement. I thought the RIC decided wraps were legal but if an arrow was embedded up to the wrap in the target and could not be clearly called in it would need to be re-shot as a make-up (i.e. the wrap touching the higher score could not be scored as the higher score, has to be the arrow shaft). Same rule applies to the oversized bulldog collars used on some of the carbon fat shafts. Just referenced again in the latest issue of Archery I believe.

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


----------



## deadx (Aug 6, 2002)

Jeff, the folks who shoot Carbon Express 2712`s were warned before Vegas that their arrows were oversized if they had wraps or Bull Dog Nock Collars on them. I know, I was one of them and had to re-fletch all my indoor arrows to be legal. If I had left them on I could have been protested by my competitors and DQ`ed since my X-Jammer 27 Pro`s were indeed oversized with wraps and nock collars on them.


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

This is the Rule... In full....

*6. Maximum arrow shaft diameter allowed in NFAA competition will be 0.422 inches, with
point diameter not to exceed 0.425 inches. The shaft diameter will include any wrap
placed on the arrow and will include the size of the nock and the nock insert.*

Thats it y'all... the whole thing.

Some 27 shafts are smaller than others, some wraps are thinner than others... you might find a combo that works.
Mic 'em and see. You'll be stunned

Chuck


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

FV Chuck said:


> This is the Rule... In full....
> 
> *6. Maximum arrow shaft diameter allowed in NFAA competition will be 0.422 inches, with
> point diameter not to exceed 0.425 inches. The shaft diameter will include any wrap
> ...


I WAS shooting XXX GoldTips with GT Pin Nocks and 2-mil wraps on the back to help make re-fletching easier and less risky in scratching off the old glue when preparing to refletch.
Well...notice I said WAS shooting them. 2-mil wrap is about as thin as you can get, and with my XXX GoldTips, it puts my outside diameter including wraps at 0.426". I used a certified and calibrated calipers and repeated the measurements on all my shafts with wraps, 3 times and tossing a "ringer" measurement. Consistently 0.426"...so I'm out of luck even tho I use the thinnest wrap material I can find.

The rule is the rule, but I still think the RIC ruling made better sense, since if a XXX penetrates that deeply into any bale to come to the wraps, or even worse, the nock collar...then the BALE should have been changed long ago, hahaha.

Live with the rule; it is written. No wraps on a XXX arrow shaft; I don't think they make 1-mil wrap, but if they do, I don't think 1-mil would pass muster.
So, the safest way to fletch carbon XXX is to use feather tape. I think you can get that stuff off without risking damage to the carbon material?

However, since I'm no threat to anyone just yet, I'll go on and shoot my GT 22 Series, or maybe even the ULPro 500's or 600's (they are properly spined), or I gues I could shoot my 30X arrows. I've actually shot better X-count with the 22 Series anyways, haha.
field14.


----------



## CHPro (May 21, 2002)

> *RIC 2010-4.* Committee recommends to Uphold. Second by SC. *Motion passed. RIC Upheld*
> The Director from Indiana ruled the use of wraps on arrow shafts – increasing the diameter beyond
> 0.422 inches – would be legal as ong as the wrap is not in the scoring area. Arrows penetrating to the
> wraps would need to be reshot.
> ...


Hmmmm, pulled these from the minutes of the 2012 Annual Meeting. Can anyone confirm that these were overturned? I don't recall seeing these being readdressed at the 2013 meeting recently concluded.

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


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

CHPro said:


> Hmmmm, pulled these from the minutes of the 2012 Annual Meeting. Can anyone confirm that these were overturned? I don't recall seeing these being readdressed at the 2013 meeting recently concluded.
> 
> >>---------->


I'll get it over to Dave ASAP....will find and answer for ya 

Message sent.
Stay tuned for follow up

Chuck


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

CHPro said:


> Hmmmm, pulled these from the minutes of the 2012 Annual Meeting. Can anyone confirm that these were overturned? I don't recall seeing these being readdressed at the 2013 meeting recently concluded.
> 
> >>---------->


Thanks, Jeff! Those RIC rulings are the ones I knew I read last year concerning this "wrap and nock collar" issue! I read earlier that the rule that Chuck is talking about was posted in the "rules brochure" for the 2013 Vegas shoot and that Some archers were thus forced to re-fletch and reconfigure their arrows!

I see that Chuck Cooley is going to find out for us and get the debate resolved.

With only a couple of weeks until the NFAA National Indoors (most Sectionals are over already), people need a firm and final ruling on this wraps and nock collars issue.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

The directors vote in 2012 upheld the RIC ruling made in 2010; that RIC ruling was based upon the old rule.

There has not been any protest (yet) or RIC ruling based upon the new rule (now in affect). 

Imho, directors or RIC will have to lick that cat again. But of course, the law is whatever the judge says it is.


----------



## Brad HT (Dec 9, 2006)

Chuck...
Do we have an answer on this one yet? Im curious about this... Ive always heard that the bulldog was okay as long as it wasnt so deep that it caused issues with scoring... which would just be a crazy bad bale.. lol

B~


----------



## AdvanTimberLou (Aug 8, 2005)

I was hoping wraps would be ok because I had some cool 27 sz wraps made up by Onestringer but would not be NFAA legal as it would put my BEA over the shaft diameter allowable size. To me, wraps just make it _so_ much easier to refletch and add personality to arrows. 

You bury an arrow up to the wrap or collar your bales do have some issues! :wink:

So with Nationals coming up, those with wraps and collars might have to make some quick changes.


----------



## oxberger (Nov 18, 2008)

The answer I got from my state rep was you can use wraps, however, if the arrow goes up to the wrap the arrow has to be shot over.


----------



## AdvanTimberLou (Aug 8, 2005)

oxberger said:


> The answer I got from my state rep was you can use wraps, however, if the arrow goes up to the wrap the arrow has to be shot over.


Interesting. I know most wraps will put you over the maximum diameter and from what Chuck has said it over the maximum diameter the arrows would be called zeros and won't be shot over. This depends if someone wishes to protest. I believe this topic and skying the bow was talked about at their Vegas meeting. 

I personally see no harm in wraps. I like them. Adds some style to the arrows and makes refletching so much easier.


----------



## oxberger (Nov 18, 2008)

For those going to Nationals, if you have the time and could find out, that would be great. I just picked up a dozen and would like to put wraps on but not if they would be illegal.


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

Hey Guys....

Here is what I got when I asked around.

The general opinion is that the RIC ruling (in this case) is still standing. 
When a rule is protested and goes to the RIC they make a decision. I'm told that decision stands for 2 years. If no further action is taken then it reverts back to the original rule as written. Since this was brought up at the 2012 meeting then I would surmise it is still active and would stand.

I would suggest if you want it to be this way going forward...you should make it an agenda item for 2014 meeting...


CHuck


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

So the directors, by upholding a two year old RIC ruling actually overruled their own much more recent emergency mail-in vote that changed the rule in question to the language now in effect. Something seems so wrong with that.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

TNMAN said:


> So the directors, by upholding a two year old RIC ruling actually overruled their own much more recent emergency mail-in vote that changed the rule in question to the language now in effect. Something seems so wrong with that.


With a week to go until the Nationals, it sure would be wise if the NFAA got it straight concerning the 27 diameter arrows and "wraps or no wraps"? AND "nock collars or no nock collars" Right now there are two different rules/rulings out there along with "the general opinion" and an "I would Surmise"
That won't cut it at the Nationals WHEN somebody gets protested for wraps and or nock collars on 27 diameter arrows, regardless of all carbon or aluminum...it is too late then...what with 4 "rules" out there about this issue and no POSITIVE yes or no answer???

Whoopso...

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

TNMAN said:


> So the directors, by upholding a two year old RIC ruling actually overruled their own much more recent emergency mail-in vote that changed the rule in question to the language now in effect. Something seems so wrong with that.


Ummm What??????? where did THAT come from?


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

field14 said:


> With a week to go until the Nationals, it sure would be wise if the NFAA got it straight concerning the 27 diameter arrows and "wraps or no wraps"? AND "nock collars or no nock collars" Right now there are two different rules/rulings out there along with "the general opinion" and an "I would Surmise"
> That won't cut it at the Nationals WHEN somebody gets protested for wraps and or nock collars on 27 diameter arrows, regardless of all carbon or aluminum...it is too late then...what with 4 "rules" out there about this issue and no POSITIVE yes or no answer???
> 
> Whoopso...
> ...


I so want to swear right now.....for starters Tom you dont even GO to tournaments.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

#1 ... read the rule. Follow it. Cant do that?
#2...read the RIC regarding that rule...follow that.

Cut dried done

Why is this sooooooo complex?

I am NOT a rule maker, or a member of the RIC, nor can I speak for the entire body. You asked for my opinion... I gave it.
If you want it to be official...submit it to the NFAA, ask for a ruling by the RIC.
There are mechanisms in place for this and every other rule that you question.


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

p.22 of the Const: If a ruling by the Rules Interpretation Committee is not adopted and placed
into the contents of the NFAA Constitution and By-laws at the following Board meeting
the ruling will automatically become null and void.

Didn't see anything about the 2 years in effect business.


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

TNMAN said:


> p.22 of the Const: If a ruling by the Rules Interpretation Committee is not adopted and placed
> into the contents of the NFAA Constitution and By-laws at the following Board meeting
> the ruling will automatically become null and void.
> 
> Didn't see anything about the 2 years in effect business.


Thanks for finding that. I missed it several times...well that settles it then. I still go by my comment. Follow the written rule. 
Easy, no arguments that way


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

FV Chuck said:


> Thanks for finding that. I missed it several times...well that settles it then. I still go by my comment. Follow the written rule.
> Easy, no arguments that way


That would be the wise thing to do. I have spoken with some friends, and they're going to stay with their wraps for the indoor Nationals regardless. They are saying that the NFAA hasn't officially published this new rule in advance for all to see, so hasn't provided proper communication for all registrants like it should be done.
Is this new rule in the Indoor Nationals tournament brochure? I understand that it indeed is/was published for VEGAS well in advance??? If it is in the brochure, then those folks are at fault for not reading the brochure and tournament rules.

Just curious, because it could be a debacle next weekend as people may well be protesting arrow usage up the wazoo; or maybe not???


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

field14 said:


> That would be the wise thing to do. I have spoken with some friends, and they're going to stay with their wraps for the indoor Nationals regardless. They are saying that the NFAA hasn't officially published this new rule in advance for all to see, so hasn't provided proper communication for all registrants like it should be done.
> Is this new rule in the Indoor Nationals tournament brochure? I understand that it indeed is/was published for VEGAS well in advance??? If it is in the brochure, then those folks are at fault for not reading the brochure and tournament rules.
> 
> Just curious, because it could be a debacle next weekend as people may well be protesting arrow usage up the wazoo; or maybe not???


Its been printed for a year... see the 2012-2013 CBLs


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

FV Chuck said:


> Its been printed for a year... see the 2012-2013 CBLs


Chuck,
I know that, you know that...but the question has still come up...and there are LOTS of people out there that think the RIC Ruling from 2010 is still in effect and have yet to make that change to their equipment because they don't know about the year old rule now going into effect.
The word is NOT out there...and like pre and late registration...there are going to be arguments; there will likely be shooters there with nock collars and/or wraps on their 27 diameter arrows that are totally unaware of the "year long" written rule...that was NOT in effect until this past NFAA meeting...because of the hidden "rule" about RIC rulings only being good for two years or until the next NFAA meeting.

For me, I can't go to the Nationals mainly because my wife is still under Home Care and I cannot leave her entirely alone for 3 days, and the other is that mustering the funds to go...blah, blah...so for me it makes no difference.

Just trying to get things more "ProActive" and head off this thing before it starts, because it "could" be a problem and cause a lot of hassle and grumbling! I'm hoping it doesn't and nothing comes of it, but why run that risk? 6 days to go...and how many out there aren't aware of the RIC ruling NOT being good anymore?

At Vegas, I was told by a very reliable source that some shooters were re-fletching their arrows and/or removing nock collars just a very short time before the tournament?
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

field14 said:


> Chuck,
> I know that, you know that...but the question has still come up...and there are LOTS of people out there that think the RIC Ruling from 2010 is still in effect and have yet to make that change to their equipment because they don't know about the year old rule now going into effect.
> The word is NOT out there...and like pre and late registration...there are going to be arguments; there will likely be shooters there with nock collars and/or wraps on their 27 diameter arrows that are totally unaware of the "year long" written rule...that was NOT in effect until this past NFAA meeting...because of the hidden "rule" about RIC rulings only being good for two years or until the next NFAA meeting.
> 
> ...


Yes Tom I know of your wifes medical issues...its troublesome and I wish you grace and strength..

As for the rules. Well. .... its written. It seems as if many here were able to find it and become aware. I suppose if they are protested in Lvlle it may not go they way they hope...
Vegas. Yes...many last moment changes were taking place.


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

Fwiw... this doesent even cross my desk unless its a pro anyway so im not sure how I got caught up in it...and for the most part. Shooters follow the rules whatever they are. I dont think this is the mountain your portraying it to be and I actually dont think there will be this big revolt or blow up at the shoot....
Its going to be no big deal.

Hey how many more shameless plugs do you think you can fit into these posts by the way. Can we just keep it on point and not be quite so forward about that aspect?


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

FV Chuck said:


> Yes Tom I know of your wifes medical issues...its troublesome and I wish you grace and strength..
> 
> As for the rules. Well. .... its written. It seems as if many here were able to find it and become aware. I suppose if they are protested in Lvlle it may not go they way they hope...
> Vegas. Yes...many last moment changes were taking place.


Thanks, Chuck.
She's faring well, but until she is released from Home Care, she is home bound, and I do mean home bound, except Doctor, hairdresser, and church. Hopefully that will change in a week or two and free us both up a bit.

Yes, it is definitely written. Of course the side of it that you and I know all too well...no matter how well it is communicated orally, in writing, and even audio-visually, there are those that still won't get the word. You could announce something during the reading of the rules of the tournament...and likely many aren't listening to those because "I've heard this so many times, I'm sick of it." So, they turn it off and miss the IMPORTANT stuff! This includes top level shooters, too!

I'm hoping you are correct and that this wraps/nock collar issue becomes a non-issue. There are bound to be other "issues" arise; there always are those that push things to and beyond the limits.

Whether or not I GO to tournaments really doesn't matter one iota...I'm a PAID UP Member of the NFAA, and have been a fully paid up member of the NFAA since 1969. and that establishes my right to ask questions and to place my concerns "legally". 
So, yes, it matters, because in spite of me not "attending" tournaments, I'm still asked by many people about the NFAA rules and what stands...so...that counts too. I have been asked about this very issue with regard to wraps and nock collars by more than one person...and obviously they want to know. I won't "pass the buck" and tell the to contact so and so; I"ll try to find out that answer.


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

field14 said:


> Thanks, Chuck.
> She's faring well, but until she is released from Home Care, she is home bound, and I do mean home bound, except Doctor, hairdresser, and church. Hopefully that will change in a week or two and free us both up a bit.
> 
> Yes, it is definitely written. Of course the side of it that you and I know all too well...no matter how well it is communicated orally, in writing, and even audio-visually, there are those that still won't get the word. You could announce something during the reading of the rules of the tournament...and likely many aren't listening to those because "I've heard this so many times, I'm sick of it." So, they turn it off and miss the IMPORTANT stuff! This includes top level shooters, too!
> ...


Im sure fellow competitors who protest will take great sympathy in the i didnt know or didnt care defense.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

FV Chuck said:


> Im sure fellow competitors who protest will take great sympathy in the i didnt know or didnt care defense.


I hear you on that! We all should know that "ignorance of the rule(s) is no excuse." But you can bet that due to the lack of clarity of WHICH ruling is in effect (RIC or the 2012 book, or the 2013 meeting, whatever) those that it happens to will be howling very loudly and making yet another controversy.
Sure hope that doesn't happen, however. Maybe it is a mountain out of a mole hill...we'll know by this time next Saturday, ha.


----------



## CHPro (May 21, 2002)

> p.22 of the Const: If a ruling by the Rules Interpretation Committee is not adopted and placed
> into the contents of the NFAA Constitution and By-laws at the following Board meeting
> the ruling will automatically become null and void.


TNMAN - The above does not state where in the Constitution and By-Laws the ruling must be placed. I would like to hear from someone(s) on the Board stating unequivocally that the RIC ruling must be within the numbered Sections of the C&B to fulfill the requirements you reference from page 22. Otherwise my interpretation would be that the ruling was adopted and included in the Appendix of the C&B before the next Board meeting had occurred following the adoption and therefore does fulfill the requirements. I believe the Appendix is an official part of the C&B isn't it?

Just thinking out loud here, but seems to me that having the RIC ruling adopted and published in the Appendix does make it official...............

Still hoping some of the Directors and/or possibly a Councilman or two familiar with the C&B interpretation and implementation can chime in with a more firm ruling than is currently being argued/discussed. Doesn't hurt me, I'm not using wraps on my 27's, but would hate to see inconsistency in the advice/direction being given by Directors and even myself as a state Pro Rep to anyone raising the question on the wrap or collar legality.

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


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

CHPro said:


> TNMAN - The above does not state where in the Constitution and By-Laws the ruling must be placed. I would like to hear from someone(s) on the Board stating unequivocally that the RIC ruling must be within the numbered Sections of the C&B to fulfill the requirements you reference from page 22. Otherwise my interpretation would be that the ruling was adopted and included in the Appendix of the C&B before the next Board meeting had occurred following the adoption and therefore does fulfill the requirements. I believe the Appendix is an official part of the C&B isn't it?
> 
> Just thinking out loud here, but seems to me that having the RIC ruling adopted and published in the Appendix does make it official...............
> 
> ...


That's the point I've tried to make all along...the inconsistency of what is being told to the people when they ask. IF this carried through until Saturday, and IF there are protests, things could get ugly in a hurry...and here comes yet another controversy over the NFAA rules and how unclear and discombobulated some of them are. The left hand doesn't know for sure what the right hand is doing.
Read the rules? Certainly...but...even the Directors and Councilmen aren't sure on this one?


----------



## Brad HT (Dec 9, 2006)

You know.... I actually find this conversation interesting, and I am learning a ton. This being my first year as a professional, I know that I have a lot to learn, and really want to get more into the political side of the NFAA. So this type of conversation is great. On the other side, Chuck, I know you are a very busy person and have a lot to do, as well that this conversation is probably becoming a nuisance for you… For whatever its worth, I appreciate you taking the time to comment and put your thoughts in, as well as what you do to get the shows running… If it was me getting ready for Louisville, I would just re-fletch my arrows and be ready for this coming weekend, but unfortunately, I can’t come… I want to, but cannot. Though the piece that would affect me more is the bulldog collar issue…. I would do what I could to be compliant, but in the future, I would like to see a rule written where wraps and bulldog collars are legal, as long as they are not being used in scoring circumstances… 

Just my thoughts…

B~


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

CHPro said:


> TNMAN - The above does not state where in the Constitution and By-Laws the ruling must be placed. I would like to hear from someone(s) on the Board stating unequivocally that the RIC ruling must be within the numbered Sections of the C&B to fulfill the requirements you reference from page 22. Otherwise my interpretation would be that the ruling was adopted and included in the Appendix of the C&B before the next Board meeting had occurred following the adoption and therefore does fulfill the requirements. I believe the Appendix is an official part of the C&B isn't it?
> 
> Just thinking out loud here, but seems to me that having the RIC ruling adopted and published in the Appendix does make it official...............
> 
> ...


What you say makes sense. Looking at it closer, the language on p22 is only intended to address what happens if a ruling is not adapted. You obviously have more experience with this than I.

Actual changes to the rules have to be made by BOD, which is exactly what happened with the mail-in vote of late 2011. That the latest rule conflicts with RIC 2010-4 is worrisome. Chuck's "follow the rules" is the best advice I have heard yet.


----------



## CHPro (May 21, 2002)

I completely concur. I wasn't aware there was an "emergency" BOD vote to affirm the rule as written in the C&B vs the RIC ruling that was upheld and placed into print in the C&B Appendix. Seems however if we are to take this further, if the RIC ruling was subsequently overturned in 2011 or 2012 and not noted as such in the C&B either as an additional Appendix item or a removal of the prior adopted RIC ruling prior to the 2013 BOD Meeting then per pg 22 it is no longer valid as of the conclusion of this year's BOD Meeting. Hence the current Appendix RIC ruling allowing the wraps and collars is now, once again, the ruling that should be followed. But then again, I'm not a lawyer nor did I even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night so I could be completely overthinking things and incorrect to boot. Wouldn't be the first time, just ask my better half, lol! Nor would it be the last in all likelihood either .

I understand you've got your own hands full Chuck. Hoping possibly some of the other readers here can take this up with their Directors and get them to start discussing what the final ruling should be so we have things straightened out by next indoor season. After this weekend I could care less, skinny arrows are coming out next Monday  and won't be getting returned to the arrow tubes in the basement until October.

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


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

OK everyone.... Here's where I think we're at...

After speaking *at length* with Dave Hryn (MA Councilman, RIC Chairman) who has also spoken with Brian Scheffler (VP NFAA) I think I have found some answers.

Dave and Brian indicate that their notes (along with other Councilpersons involved prior) show that a review of the mins from the 2012 BOD meeting did in fact *uphold* the RIC rulings in question, and the RIC was adopted along with other RIC's that have nothing to do with arrows.

Somehow in the print process, after a review of the e-version of the Constitution & By-Laws, the RIC's that were adopted did not make the book, even though they were supposed to.

Further..... When Dave and I spoke it was his opinion as well as Brian's that for the upcoming weekend the RIC's would prevail...meaning Wraps/collars would not be a problem unless they are touching the face and thus would have to be re-shot...

I know this has been fairly convoluted, and it took some deep digging by those who keep really good notes and have great memories about these kind of things to find the error.

I want to profusely thank Dave for his hard effort and finding this answer.

Hope this helps.

CHuck

((PS.... please, if you need more guidance on this reach out to your Dir's or Councilpersons, they are eager to help ))
===============================================
This is whats missing from the book for 2012-13
===============================================
Pages 85 & 86 of 2012-2013 NFAA Constitution & By-Laws

NFAA POLICY SECTION
RIC Rulings Upheld

RIC August 2, 2010 In regards to non-NFAA members being allowed to shoot in a guest class at the Wisconsin State Outdoor Field Tournament, the Wisconsin Director ruled that for shoots sanctioned by the state association not the NFAA, non-NFAA members would be able to shoot in a guest class.

The Rules Interpretation Committee agrees with the Director from Wisconsin in that the required tournaments under Article III, Section B, item 2.5 require NFAA membership. Those tournaments in which NFAA membership may be waived, items 2.7.1 through 2.7.4 are designated State level only. The required tournaments are a portion of the conditions of Association Membership which must be met to be in compliance. Lack of compliance could result in Expulsion or Suspension of Association Membership.

RIC 2012-1 The NFAA Director for Florida was asked to rule on whether or not the SURE-LOC Lethal Weapon pin sight attachment, when used with the SURE-LOC movable sight, was legal in the NFAA Freestyle Bowhunter style. The Director ruled the sight was legal because it had five (5) fixed pins. 

Based upon Article II, Section F, Paragraph 1, the Rules Interpretation Committee agrees with the Director. The sight meets the requirements as listed for use in Freestyle Bowhunter style of competition

RIC 2010-4 The NFAA Director from Indiana ruled the use of wraps on arrow shafts – increasing the diameter beyond 0.422 inches – would be legal as long as the wrap is not in the scoring area. Arrows penetrating to the wraps would need to be reshot.

The Rules Interpretation Committee agrees with the Director from Indiana.

RIC 2010-3 Request for RIC Ruling from manufacturer – Eastman Outdoors/Carbon Express. They request RIC to make an official ruling on X Jammer 27 arrows with the Bull Dog Nock Collar on the nock end of the arrow. The shaft itself is under the maximum diameter however the Bull Dog Nock Collar that fits over the shaft at the nock end is larger than 0.422 inches. 

The Rules Interpretation Committee fells the use of the Bull Dog Nock Collar would be legal for use in NFAA competition with the following condition. Only the shaft of the arrow could be scored. If an arrow equipped with a Bull Dog Nock Collar was embedded in the target face so that the nock collar was in the scoring area, that arrow could not be scored and would need to be reshot.

RIC 1-31-11 The manufacturer of a product called “The True Spot Sight” asked the RIC for a ruling on the legality of this sight in the Freestyle Bowhunter and Freestyle Limited Bowhunter styles of competition. The sight consists of a multi-part housing with an insert aperture and a fixed reference point (pin) located so as to be visible through the aperture.

The Rules Interpretation Committee feels the sight meets the requirements as listed for use in Freestyle Bowhunter and Freestyle Limited Bowhunter styles of competition.


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

I still have trouble understanding. Looking at the minutes of 2012 meeting, BOD voted to change the rules to allow "guest participants" at all State level shoots, including the two required/sanctioned shoots. A little bit later on the same day, the BOD upheld RIC Aug 2, 2010, which ruling disallowed guest participants at the two required state shoots. I'm pretty sure that the States can now have guest participants, despite an RIC ruling to the contrary being upheld. Maybe I'm wrong about that one too.

Why vote to uphold those two RIC rulings AFTER the two very recent rule changes that directly conflict with the RIC rulings? How many members of BOD knew they were effectively voiding the new arrow rule language (passed by mail-in ballot in late 2011) when they voted to uphold RIC 2010-4? Was that the intent? I will talk to my TN director about all of this, but have my doubts that anyone can explain any of it.

It's good that we now have some unofficial guidance on this wraps business prior to the biggest shoot of the year, but imho, the conflict between our current arrow rule and RIC 2010-4 still needs to be cleaned up.

edit: I actually like the re-shoot provisions over the current language. Wraps should not make an arrow illegal. What I don't like is the conflict.


----------

