# All Carbon Arrows Banned at major UK WRS FITA events



## watch_man (Mar 29, 2007)

The entry forms are now out for World Record Status FITA Star and 70m WRS events, a total of 5 days to be held at Kirby Muxloe in the UK.

All of these World Record Status events have stated in their entry forms that all arrows shot must be detectable along their entire length, so banning all carbon arrows despite them being FITA legal.

These are all very important major shoots on which ranking points, classification and GB/England selection scores will be obtained.

So this is no longer an issue of what may happen, it now has happened - In the UK, clubs at local level with the blessing of GNAS are deciding which FITA regulations to impose, in this case banning arrows such as the nano.

I expect other clubs will follow if Kirby Muxloe sets this president.


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

Wow, that seems kind of machiavellian. I can sort of see the reasoning in light of the multi-use fields, but still...

It really hurts small arrow co's like Carbon Express and Carbontech, while basically giving Easton a complete UK monopoly on the high end arrows. 

Couldn't there be a provision that all competitors must find all arrows they lost, and have the hosting club supply a rental metal detector for post-tourney searching? All moot now, since it's a done deal.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

watch_man said:


> The entry forms are now out for World Record Status FITA Star and 70m WRS events, a total of 5 days to be held at Kirby Muxloe in the UK.
> 
> All of these World Record Status events have stated in their entry forms that all arrows shot must be detectable along their entire length, so banning all carbon arrows despite them being FITA legal.
> 
> ...


Are you saying this is a lost arrow issue? I cannot believe that that would take precedence over FITA rules, ever. Must be some way to challenge that.


----------



## watch_man (Mar 29, 2007)

calbowdude said:


> Wow, that seems kind of machiavellian. I can sort of see the reasoning in light of the multi-use fields, but still...
> 
> It really hurts small arrow co's like Carbon Express and Carbontech, while basically giving Easton a complete UK monopoly on the high end arrows.
> 
> Couldn't there be a provision that all competitors must find all arrows they lost, and have the hosting club supply a rental metal detector for post-tourney searching? All moot now, since it's a done deal.


Some competitions do have the provision that you must find your own arrows and our metal detector usually finds the nanos without too much of a problem.

Unfortunately it appears that FITA are allowing the UK to do what they want. Perhaps they will ban anyone shooting with a camo bow next!


----------



## watch_man (Mar 29, 2007)

Hutnicks said:


> Are you saying this is a lost arrow issue? I cannot believe that that would take precedence over FITA rules, ever. Must be some way to challenge that.


In the terms and conditions of entry you must accept the condition not to shoot all carbon arrows or they will not accept your entry. I suppose you could enter, turn up with nanos and then appeal. However I have a feeling if you did this no club in the UK would ever accept your entry again.

It is surely something FITA should deal with. Can you imagine this happening in any other major olympic level sport???? Can you imagine top runners turning up to be told they couldn't run in spikes as it was a health and safety issue!


----------



## archeryal (Apr 16, 2005)

I understand that the decision is not completely arbitrary: they are concerned about multi-use venues, such as one that will later be used for soccer (sorry - football) rugby, etc. 
They fear that a carbon shaft will be left on the ground, hidden from view and expose carbon slivers which someone will slide-tackle into and get the slivers under the skin and perhaps in the bloodstream. 
I can see this happening after the grounds are mowed, crushing or breaking the shaft. 
I'm not sure how to correct this, and it could particularly be a problem for a shooter who is sponsored by an all-carbon arrow manufacturer. Additionally, someone who uses all-carbon shafts would have to purchase carbon/aluminums and re-tune for them for the event. 
I don't know if metallic foil arrow wraps would do the job, or if the arrows could be sprayed or otherwise coated with a metallic finish (preferably inside). 
Alternatively, maybe you could assure the organizers that you will have high-quality metal detectors on hand, able to find either the metal point or nock insert on any lost shaft. I doubt that you'd get a shaft to completely shatter, spraying shards all over. 
The worst case would be an arrow hitting the target stand at an angle, but I think the shaft would be at worst, in two pieces, allowing you to find the point or nock insert.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

I can halfway see the reasoning there, but it assumes that carbons are undetectable and that is not the case. If lost arrows are the issue then counting in on registration and a a count out on exit would do the trick, you don't leave unless you have all your shafts.


----------



## watch_man (Mar 29, 2007)

archeryal said:


> I understand that the decision is not completely arbitrary: they are concerned about multi-use venues, such as one that will later be used for soccer (sorry - football) rugby, etc.
> They fear that a carbon shaft will be left on the ground, hidden from view and expose carbon slivers which someone will slide-tackle into and get the slivers under the skin and perhaps in the bloodstream.
> I can see this happening after the grounds are mowed, crushing or breaking the shaft.
> I'm not sure how to correct this, and it could particularly be a problem for a shooter who is sponsored by an all-carbon arrow manufacturer. Additionally, someone who uses all-carbon shafts would have to purchase carbon/aluminums and re-tune for them for the event.
> ...


You are correct in what you say and this is the reason behind it. However if a carbon/alu such as an X10 is run over by a lawnmower, the carbon can come off the outside too.

I think the real point is this - These are World Record Status events shot under FITA regulations, they are not local club events or even National record status events. Surely it cannot be classified as WRS if the regulations are changed, meaning if a new World Record is shot, it would have been achieved under different regulations than one shot in another country.

Do the FITA rules actually mean anything? what if my club applied for WRS and then allowed us to shoot 30X or other illegal arrows? would any records still stand then?

Surely if a club cannot provide a venue that allows the event to be shot under FITA regulations then it should not enjoy WRS.


----------



## arc2x4 (Jun 4, 2007)

Well since safety is the goal here, I think that its much too dangerous to play any sport in an open field. Forget the carbon splinters, 

YOU COULD GET HIT BY LIGHTNING.

So I think for safety sake playing in an open field should be banned.


----------



## archerycharlie (Nov 4, 2002)

*BaaaaaaaaaHummmmmmmmmmBuggggggg*

Now don't this just suck big time.ukey: AC


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2007)

Yuor missing a much larger picture here, if true and authourised by Fita this would allow any club to decide which fita legal equipment can be used not just arrows. A saftey argument can be used for much more than arrows.

ie and argument can be made to shoot inside a shelter if UV rays are above a certain point.

this is bad very bad


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Sean McKenty said:


> Yuor missing a much larger picture here, if true and authourised by Fita this would allow any club to decide which fita legal equipment can be used not just arrows. A saftey argument can be used for much more than arrows.
> 
> ie and argument can be made to shoot inside a shelter if UV rays are above a certain point.
> 
> this is bad very bad


I totally agree, this is a precedent which needs to be challenged and defeated. The concept of the local venue overruling FITA in an event is completely contrary to the concept of level competition worldwide in tourneys of record. I should think that FITA themselves would come down upon this and let the organizers know they are running an unofficial event.


----------



## watch_man (Mar 29, 2007)

Sean McKenty said:


> Yuor missing a much larger picture here, if true and authourised by Fita this would allow any club to decide which fita legal equipment can be used not just arrows. A saftey argument can be used for much more than arrows.
> 
> ie and argument can be made to shoot inside a shelter if UV rays are above a certain point.
> 
> this is bad very bad



You've hit the nail on the head Sean. I know we discussed this when it was a possibility, but now its actual reality. Judges in the UK seem happy to enforce this ruling and so there appears to be nobody to appeal to.

By reversing this, does this mean if a new World Record is shot using a Nano in the USA an archer can appeal to FITA to have the record annulled because he or she was banned from shooting the Nano in their Country?


----------



## champus (May 28, 2006)

Maybe, in future you can only use HOYT bows for FITA in UK.


----------



## 442fps (Dec 23, 2003)

Bad 

It's starts in the UK , but who's next ?

Maybe some english shooters must stand together and go to court if necessary .

I tell you for sure , if the start the same here in France , i will take every legal chances and possibilities , also with an Armada of lawyers if necerssary .


----------



## archeryal (Apr 16, 2005)

I believe I've read in some of the English chat sites that this was a requirement set by the people who control the field (school, parks department, etc.) not the club or group organizing the shoot. 
If you don't comply with their requirements, you don't get to use their field. 
I doubt that it's a conspiracy, so let's look at it as a problem to be solved. By the way... Ho, ho, good will towards men, Christmas spirit, remember?


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2007)

archeryal said:


> I believe I've read in some of the English chat sites that this was a requirement set by the people who control the field (school, parks department, etc.) not the club or group organizing the shoot.
> If you don't comply with their requirements, you don't get to use their field.
> I doubt that it's a conspiracy, so let's look at it as a problem to be solved. By the way... Ho, ho, good will towards men, Christmas spirit, remember?




The problem here is that the host commitee would even entertain the idea of banning an archer who is clearly Fita legal or tell them to just go buy Easton/Cartel arrows to compete.

To qualify to host WRS Ftia star the field must be suitable, since the field isn't they should have never been awarded any Fita recognistion at all


This is very telling of the host comittee and the GNAS itself


----------



## Rhinopolis (Jun 22, 2006)

Maybe the answer to this in the long run is to come up with a way to detect all carbon arrows. I have often thought scenting arrows and training a dog to find them would work great. Run the shafts through some ground beef and let Rover do the work.


----------



## huffy (Jun 20, 2004)

I think that Sean's reply sums it up, if the ground is not suitable to allow equipment that compleys with the FITA rules, it should not hold a WRS shoot.

If they wish to hold a shoot that is shooting a FITA round that’s OK but they should not be applying for the WRS standard. Chances are it would not make much difference to the amount of entries

Best wishes, Mark


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

watch_man said:


> The entry forms are now out for World Record Status FITA Star and 70m WRS events, a total of 5 days to be held at Kirby Muxloe in the UK.
> 
> All of these World Record Status events have stated in their entry forms that all arrows shot must be detectable along their entire length, so banning all carbon arrows despite them being FITA legal.
> 
> ...


Conceptually I think it’s a good thing and here is why.
It appears that an entity has figured out how to conduct an archery event that would not otherwise take place.

The test I use to determine if an effort is worthwhile is to ask “How does it help?”
In that case of target archery, the test question is “How does it help to grow target archery”
Assuming that the reason for the all detectable shaft is to appease the owner of the field, so stipulating enables the event to take place.
The alternative is no event, and that would hinder, not help, the growth of target archery.

As for non FITA compliant:
So long as the arrows are rules compliant, not to big and otherwise rule compliant, the stipulation does not give an unfair advantage.

What can “we” do to help grow target archery?
Host tournaments that allow as many to take part as possible.
Find fields that will allow the use of any FITA compliant arrows.
Partner with other archery disciplines and sports to share space.
Invent a carbon shaft detector…

Note that hosting a Star FITA is not difficult; in fact, hosting a Star FITA is a great way to supporting and helping to grow the sport.
Serving others is one of the most rewarding things you can do.
Imagine if every archer would set down their bow once a year and hosted a tournament.
There would be multiple events taking place all the time.
Archers would have the choices.
There would be opportunities near to all.
The sport would grow.


----------



## watch_man (Mar 29, 2007)

So does that mean Indy Car racing should be allowed at your local track even if it didn't meet the requirements ..... just to grow the sport.

We are only saying that if it is a FITA sanctioned WRS event then it should abide by the rules FITA lays down.

If it is to grow the sport of target archery what does it matter if it is not WRS? The organisers could have it as a club FITA or even a National RS FITA and nobody would complain.



Serious Fun said:


> Conceptually I think it’s a good thing and here is why.
> It appears that an entity has figured out how to conduct an archery event that would not otherwise take place.
> 
> The test I use to determine if an effort is worthwhile is to ask “How does it help?”
> ...


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2007)

Saying that is good to pick and choose to which legal Fita equipment because the tournament might not happen is realy a stretch to say the least. They can host anything they want but also wanting the Fita Star ranking with but not complying with Fita rules is about as selfish as you can get.

Explain how telling some archer that although you comply with EVERY Fita requierment to participate including equipment that because we deem it unsafe for you to use this legal arrows you cannot shoot in this registered event but you can go to the Easton booth over there and purchase a set of approved arrows.

I find it very difficult to beleive that they could find Fita judges that would participate in this. I feel any judge that would approve of this should have their certification stripped.

It is the job of the host commitee to find a field approved to host a Star event, they didn't do that and the Star registration should be stripped and limited to a local shoot after all you don't need a Star tournament to shoot arrows so saying it wouldn't happen is bogus.


----------



## jerrytee (Feb 5, 2005)

FITA should be informed and the status should be withdrawn. The club is imposing an extra rules which are not in the FITA rules and there fore is not a shoot carried out under FITA rules. It's just a private open shoot carried out under non FITA rules.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

watch_man said:


> So does that mean Indy Car racing should be allowed at your local track even if it didn't meet the requirements ..... just to grow the sport.
> 
> We are only saying that if it is a FITA sanctioned WRS event then it should abide by the rules FITA lays down.
> 
> If it is to grow the sport of target archery what does it matter if it is not WRS? The organisers could have it as a club FITA or even a National RS FITA and nobody would complain.


Absolutely! As long as the cars are limited to 60 mph and forced to run on street tyres, but the race still counts for championship points.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Sounds like a James Easton ruling to me...:wink:


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

JAVI said:


> Sounds like a James Easton ruling to me...:wink:


Maybe we should look into what land HE owns in England


----------



## jerrytee (Feb 5, 2005)

I have just done a little research and if the wording of the entry form states that you must use 'detectable' arrows then you should be able to turn up with all carbon arrows and shoot. Because all carbon arrows are detectable, with ground penetrating radar.


----------



## Harleyman (Oct 6, 2007)

We put on one shoot a year in U.K. pure carbon arrows are not allowed to be used as we share our field with Rugby players. We have to be able to find the "lost" arrow with a metal detector so carbons are out!! So, you must shoot alloys or carbon alloys on our field!


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2007)

Thats great and fine but getting registered as a Fita Star is total BS and shouldn't happen, if it is not Star event then nobody would care what you did


----------



## watch_man (Mar 29, 2007)

Harleyman said:


> We put on one shoot a year in U.K. pure carbon arrows are not allowed to be used as we share our field with Rugby players. We have to be able to find the "lost" arrow with a metal detector so carbons are out!! So, you must shoot alloys or carbon alloys on our field!


Fine and I have no problem with that as long as your club does not seek FITA Star status for the shoot. If a club cannot meet the FITA requirements for the field then it should not apply for the WRS.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

watch_man said:


> Fine and I have no problem with that as long as your club does not seek FITA Star status for the shoot. If a club cannot meet the FITA requirements for the field then it should not apply for the WRS.


This pretty much sums up all the problems (and solutions).
If they can't handle with all the rules they shouldn't go for a Star - since nobody mentioned - what happens with endorsed shooters who are obliged to shoot CX or Carbotech or whatever all-carbon shafts?


----------



## Oswyn Ferret (Oct 10, 2007)

a) Where does it say in the FITA rule book that it is not open to organisers to restrict equipment because of local conditions (I seem to remember a large four-yearly tournament that doesn't allow compound shooters, for instance)
b) Would it alter the flavor of this discussion if one of the most active participants had a family member sponsored by Nano?:wink:


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2007)

Oswyn Ferret said:


> a) Where does it say in the FITA rule book that it is not open to organisers to restrict equipment because of local conditions (I seem to remember a large four-yearly tournament that doesn't allow compound shooters, for instance)
> b) Would it alter the flavor of this discussion if one of the most active participants had a family member sponsored by Nano?:wink:


The Olympics are covered under a different set of rules and proceadures which are all spelled out in a seperate text and it also says that the field must meet the eligability requierments set down by Fita. I would like to see the organisers full that one off at the Olympics. Do you think the organising commitee would even consisder it in the first place

Fita Stars have requierments that the club clearly doesn't meet and shouldn't be privilaged with a Star status.

It make no difference who is or isn't sponsored, what does matter is that a club willfully refuses to follow Fita regs but still want the perks of a Star shoot


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

You have to assume that when the NGB (GNAS in this case) gave world record status to the tournament they were unaware that the organisers intended not to comply with FITA regulations.

If someone does nominally achieve a world record then GNAS would be unable to submit a record application as this requires confirming that the tournament was run in accordance under FITA regulations.

So archers attending the shoot should be aware that award of a world record is not really a possibility.

The above (not being a lawyer) is my interpretation of this isue. Banning all carbon arrows seems to clearly breach FITA rules.

This seems to be a woolly area. In the case of all carbon arrows they are clearly allowable by the rules. But what if a tournament organiser banned entry to anyone having red hair or a blue riser. No mention in the rules here.

Maybe what's needed is a FITA rule amendment forbidding arbitrary extensions to the existing rules. If you want to ban people with red hair then lobby for an amendment to the rules.

There's been a mass of anti-all carbon arrow propaganda in the UK over the past year and it has generated a lot of hysteria. Maybe what's needed is a directive from FITA that if you ban all carbon arrows you don't get WRS accreditation. This would make life a lot easier for NGBs and tournament organisers.

All my opinion of course.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Nano-philia! 

Would someone care to point out exactly which FITA rule has been violated?

The FITA rules specify, broadly, what equipment MAY be used and what MAY NOT be used. No where does it, nor should it, say what equipment MUST be used. The FITA rules and a free market allow the design of products which the makers hope you will use. At no time should FITA be involved in demanding that any PARTICULAR product be used or face disqualification. 

If, in fact, all-carbon arrows are determined to be difficult to find, then perhaps everyone should ban them. Some have commented that perhaps a better arrow locator should be developed. Perhaps metal threads (or whatever) will be added to the carbon. Either way, the market should respond, not FITA. Or, more immediate, perhaps the UK committee responsible for the decision should be asked if a demonstration would be appropriate prior to a final decision. 

As long as the FITA field requirements have been met, the local venue has every right to add rules it feels necessary to address local safety concerns. Please quote the FITA rule that says a venue may NOT address local concerns as long as the FITA field requirements have been met. The UK committee did not violate any FITA field requirements (or at least no one has been able to suggest which one it may be). 

The ban, as Mr. Pian points out, applies to everyone. So, it is fairly administered. The ban is unfortunate, no one will question that, but FITA has no business getting involved in an argument over which arrows are easier to find. 

Granted, the point was made that we are talking about competing for top dog here, so the argument that Easton has also been discriminated against as an all-carbon arrow maker falls lightly. However, is it FITA’s responsibility to determine who the top dog is? No, a free market is. 

So, the way I see it, only two arguments are valid. One, how will the market respond to the issue regarding ease of finding lost arrows, or two, whether or not the UK committee was misguided in its decision (and what can be done to change it) . 

Leave FITA out of it. They have already done their job.


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2007)

Yuor post makes no sense at all, all carbon arrows are not banned by Fita and meet eligibility requierments under Fita, what your are endoring is banning an archer for useing legal equipment or telling him/her to buy another companies there by intergecting the organising commitee into the free market.

Tell ya what register a fita star and ban stabilisers, claiming that some one could get hit in the head with those long rods and see how far you get.

The host club can run any shoot it wants to but asking Fita to endorse this with a Star status is BS if Fita does endorse it then it is Fita's problem to say exactly what can and cannot be used at every fita star tournament.

Why is it nobody can find an all carbon arrow in England with a metal detector but they can anyplace else????

If missing the target is such a great concearn why don't they put netting up to catch the arrows, why is it the most simplest solutions are over looked in favour of banning participation??


----------



## comp1 (Dec 18, 2007)

I have been reading all of these posts and it seems everyone is missing what appears to be obvious to me.

1.	A ban on a particular type of arrow for a few events adversely affects a competitor in an unreasonable manor. Such bans amount to favoring one archer over another because it is not system wide. This is un-sportsman like conduct at the very least.

2.	A venue that cannot accommodate all the various elements typically allowed by the rules is as inappropriate as a venue that is at a 45-degree angle. 

3.	FITA regulates all elements of an event from layout to who can wear what for purposes of continuity and fairness worldwide. This situation is nothing more than a problem that could not have been foreseen a few years ago and FITA has the exclusive responsibility to respond to it.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

*I have been reading all of these posts and it seems everyone is missing what appears to be obvious to me.*

*1.	A ban on a particular type of arrow for a few events adversely affects a competitor in an unreasonable manor. Such bans amount to favoring one archer over another because it is not system wide. This is un-sportsman like conduct at the very least.
*
Actually, no one missed this. This general feeling has been stated throughout the thread. Everyone would agree that those folks who just spent a ton of $ on Nanos are adversely effected and that it is unreasonable that the UK committee banned them. It also favors those who have purchased x-10's or ACE's or whatever, no one questions that. The question is who's problem is it? It should be taken up with the UK committee.

*2.	A venue that cannot accommodate all the various elements typically allowed by the rules is as inappropriate as a venue that is at a 45-degree angle. 
*
The UK committee has apparently accommodated all the "various elements" and were approved. No one yet has provided the specific rule that has been violated. 

*3.	FITA regulates all elements of an event from layout to who can wear what for purposes of continuity and fairness worldwide. This situation is nothing more than a problem that could not have been foreseen a few years ago and FITA has the exclusive responsibility to respond to it.
*
You are asking FITA to predict the future of equipment development and address everything that might possibly happen to any and every single piece of equipment and then make rules about them? Things that even GT hasn't thought of yet? Go ahead, we'll wait. You don't work for the federal government by any chance, do you?


----------



## comp1 (Dec 18, 2007)

Actually, I operate from the single premise that no unfair advantage goes to anyone. Therefore, if you want to change things you need to do it system wide. I think you also are making things more complicated than is required. 

My previous statement stands for good reason.

““Keep it simple stupid” Founder of the skunk works”

No, I am not a covert government accountant spying on archery talk for purposes of undermining youth worldwide.  

CGASATPUW


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Sean McKenty said:


> Why is it nobody can find an all carbon arrow in England with a metal detector but they can anyplace else????



Exactly! Isn't all the frustration really a response to this problem? 

Say, you are a judge. Contact your partners in UK and get them to take it to the source... Find out what the process was for arriving at the decision to ban all-carbon arrows. What tests did they conduct? Was it based on hearsay? What is the process for appealing their decision? Would the committee reverse its decision if the venue could guarantee an arrow-free field? What would the venue's plan of action be to accomplish that guarantee...a completely raked field?


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2007)

The big question is does fita even know what the club has in mind. Does Fita even know that the host club has plan in effect to disallow a fully eligible shooter under fita from participating based soley on their arrow choice that also is legal under fita equipment.

I know a club in Canada had asked prior to asking for a star if shooting under a shelter was ok, Fita declined it, maybe they shouldn't have asked first


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

comp1 said:


> Actually, I operate from the single premise that no unfair advantage goes to anyone. Therefore, if you want to change things you need to do it system wide. I think you also are making things more complicated than is required.
> 
> My previous statement stands for good reason.
> 
> ...



Hey! I'M a retired government accountant! I can tell you that spying in the interests of National Security is recommended and rewarded. And, frankly, youth should be undermined before the little *******s take over! Wait, that's their job, isn't it. Hmmm, may have to rethink that one. =)


----------



## Custard (Feb 23, 2007)

Of course it is plainly wrong to any right thinking person to restrict use of equipment in a WR tourney. Whatever the piece of equipment is, if one competition bans it, and another allows it, the comps are not run allowing equal competitiveness.


> Would it alter the flavor of this discussion if one of the most active participants had a family member sponsored by Nano?


 No, why would it? If Carbon Express brought it up the premise would be the same.



> Because all carbon arrows are detectable, with ground penetrating radar.


 Is this true? if so it would negate the whole problem, unless they are very expensive?


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

comp1 said:


> Actually, I operate from the single premise that no unfair advantage goes to anyone. Therefore, if you want to change things you need to do it system wide. I think you also are making things more complicated than is required.
> 
> My previous statement stands for good reason.
> 
> ...


Caveat to that is "The problem is rarely that simple, and the people involved are not stupid".


----------



## comp1 (Dec 18, 2007)

all problems are simple. people are complicated.

The skunk works was a ultra secret plane development program and the founder made that statement to some of the most intelligent people in the world. 

the point being "take care not to outwit yourself"


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

comp1 said:


> all problems are simple. people are complicated.
> 
> The skunk works was a ultra secret plane development program and the founder made that statement to some of the most intelligent people in the world.
> 
> the point being "take care not to outwit yourself"


 I am well aware of who Kelly Johnson was, and as for how simple problems are, look up the grief they had attempting to work with Titanium on the original RS-71 project. Or better yet Compressibility and the P-38.


----------



## watch_man (Mar 29, 2007)

Oswyn Ferret said:


> b) Would it alter the flavor of this discussion if one of the most active participants had a family member sponsored by Nano?:wink:


No more than others coming in to a discussion defending Easton. My wife is a Factory pro Shooter for Carbon Express and of course this is why I have an interest in fighting this. 

However if you even mention Easton in negative terms you will be jumped on by Eastons pro shooters who will tell you how much Easton put into the sport financially...... I don't have any issue with this and if a company puts money into the sport then they should have every right to advertise on billboards, programs etc etc but *NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY* a company puts into the sport they should *NEVER EVER* be allowed to influence how rules are applied to favour their shooters. If Easton were interested in ensuring a fair and level playing field then they would come out in support of ensuring all legal arrows are allowed. they should stand or fall on the quality of their product and not by backdoor means of ensuring other manufacturers arrows are banned at WRS events.

FITA Rule 7.3.1.7 "Arrows of any type may be used ...." is the rule that we are talking about. It tells us as archers what arrows we may or may not shoot and Nano's are very definitely allowed within those rules. Absolutely no where does it say in these rules that 'arrows must be detectable along their whole length' 

Sean manages a group representing judges including Continental level ones and he has clearly stated in his posts that what is happening in the UK is wrong. It is unfortunate that judges in the UK do not seem to want to take up this issue. Perhaps communication between judges overseas with ones in the UK would be the first step to ensuring that FITA rules were applied.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

for whatever its worth our korean coach (who has many strong connections in the korean archery community being a past olympian himself) has confirmed my suspicion that it will not be very long before their national archers will be using nano arrows exclusively....when that happens i doubt if this rule will ever be practiced in korea....


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

We can find all carbon arrows in the UK just as well as everywhere else. 
As I said it's just a bit of hysteria generating a knee-jerk response.

If lost arrows of any type are reported to the tournament organisers they get found as part of the clean up. Where there is a problem is archers who don't report lost arrows which by definition aren't found until they turn up in the lawn mower. On multi-use fields this can be a problem. Reminding archers to report lost arrows in the entry documentation and the pre shoot chat would be a good idea especially on multi-use fields. I can't recall an instance of this ever being done.

It may be the case that at a specific location a risk assessment indicates that carbon fibres in the ground presents an unacceptable hazard and the location bans the use of arrows containing carbon fibres. Don't have a problem with this. The idea of banning only all carbon arrows and not al/c arrows based on "ease of findability" I find dubious as from experience all kinds of arrows end up in the mower. The issue again is the archer not reporting a lost arrow not what the arrow is made of.

As I said above if a location extends the Fita regulations regarding equipment usage then then to be fair to the competitors the tournament organisers should have the common sense not to apply for world record status.

Bit of unfair UK Judge bashing in some of the comments above. UK Judges a good lot. As regards WRS status the judges only come into it as regards reporting on whether the tournament complied with Fita regs after the event. (And I hope in this case they will declare the tournament does not qualify). The have no control over who applies for world record status.


----------



## Oswyn Ferret (Oct 10, 2007)

Joe T said:


> ...
> If lost arrows of any type are reported to the tournament organisers they get found as part of the clean up. Where there is a problem is archers who don't report lost arrows which by definition aren't found until they turn up in the lawn mower. On multi-use fields this can be a problem. Reminding archers to report lost arrows in the entry documentation and the pre shoot chat would be a good idea especially on multi-use fields. I can't recall an instance of this ever being done.
> 
> ....


Exactly. All arrows are detectable, with enough work. BUT I have known archers who can't be bothered to report lost arrows, even when reminded (and it does happen here). And archers who report lost arrows, vaguely saying "It came of the launcher so it could be anywhere" then leaving it up to the field party to find it and going home. (also happens here). One good suggestion I have seen is for all arrows to be counted in and out at each end, and, if one goes missing, the next end does not start till it is found. That would help with the search!

I have yet to see the FITA rule that says all permissible equipment MUST be allowed at any given tournament. The suggestion for banning stabs would fall foul not of FITA rules but market forces as the tourny would not attract entries.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

> I have yet to see the FITA rule that says all permissible equipment MUST be allowed at any given tournament. The suggestion for banning stabs would fall foul not of FITA rules but market forces as the tourny would not attract entries.


That this an issue on which there are clearly different opinions is why I suggest a Fita rule interpretation is required. Can a tournament organiser ban the use of stabilisers, Hoyt bows or Sureloc sights and any other legal equipment and still retain WR status?

What's the difference between banning legal equipment and allowing the use of illegal equipment - both are ignoring the actual written rules IMO.

It's the precedent being set here that's the problem. Nothing to do with equipment manufacturers or market forces - not relevant to the rules.


----------



## Guest (Dec 26, 2007)

and banning specific arrows does?????????. rule 7.3.1.7 indicates arrows of any type may be used, what your club is doing is saying no that only a specific type(s) of arrows maybe used, if you can't see that you are clearly violating the above rule, then you can't be helped.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

On a side note, NANOs have pretty long tips as well (and + there are pins) - would it be that hard to detect them with metal detectors.

And another thing, nobody is that stupid not to know he/she lost their arrow. I wouldn't leave the place until it was found. And we're not talking wild grounds here, rather mellow and grass cut short for football or whatever other sports were played there.

If I was the organizer I'd rather have a strong appeal towards the contestents than to simply ban arrows...


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

Wow! To say that the biggest fear a rugby or soccer player has of getting hurt is that they might (against astronomical odds) hit a broken, lost carbon arrow and get carbon in their bloodstream . . . well that is a stretch. First I thought the whole carbon in the bloodstream myth was put to bed a long time ago. At least it was in the US. I can remember when Easton touted that line in their fight against Beeman (whom they now own). 

Additionally, last I checked thing like Nanos are pretty expensive. I can't imagine an archer losing $30.00 worth of arrow and just saying "Oh well . . I'm not looking for it". 

I would agree with those that say you can have a shoot but it won't have WRS status. I doubt cow-towing to irrational fears grows archery in any way, shape, or form. I wonder how many people won't attend an event where they are required to buy new arrows, and re-tune them?


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Oh and by the way - what ever happened to safety netting?


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Why don't they just pony up and say Easton arrows only at FITA/NAA events that's where this is headed...:wink:


----------



## Bob_Looney (Nov 17, 2003)

instead of whining about advantages and disadvantages you probably ought to look at it from the field owners perspective.
If it were my field I wouldn't let you on it with all carbon arrows until you could demonstrate the ability to detect the arrow 100% of the time. And in addition, no awards till every arrow is found.

When little Johnny goes out on Saturday morning to play soccer and gets a 6" carbon shard jammed into his thigh, who do you think mom is going to sue??? It certainly won't be the schmuck that lost the arrow. It's going to be the field owner.
Instead of his thigh, how bout his foot and he looses the ability to run or walk normally because of nerve and tendon damage?
When you have nothing to lose it's pretty easy to see past the reality of the situation.
Yes the odds of little Johnny getting hurt are remote but are you going to risk everything you have so some people you don't know can shoot their bows?
Not me and evidently, not this field owner.


----------



## arc2x4 (Jun 4, 2007)

> When little Johnny goes out on Saturday morning to play soccer and gets a 6" carbon shard jammed into his thigh, who do you think mom is going to sue??? It certainly won't be the schmuck that lost the arrow. It's going to be the field owner.


Just curious but I never noticed that carbon arrows were dangeous splintering deathsticks, in fact they are pretty darn hard to break. I have also never seen a carbon arrow attack anyone or spring from a hidding place beneath the ground.

Little Johnny could also trip over a dirt clod or his own feet and break his leg playing soccer, Rugby is a damn dangerous sport where folks get broken bones and knocked out teeth all the time, part of the fun I hear from its devotees.

Wooden arrows must be banned as well since they could splinter and impale little Johnny. Then there is that pesky lightning.

I think wittle Jonny should just stay inside and play video games or watch the telly much safer that way.

BTW in England they don't have a tort lawyer every 8" like we do here in the US, and many public places like playing fields are exempt from liability, sovereign immunity its called. Medical care is socialized so the state doctor will be removing the shard or setting the broken leg, or knocked out tooth.

My guess is that the carbon arrow has been associated with evil assault compound HUNTING bows that NO HONEST MAN NEEDS SINCE THEY ARE DESIGNED TO DEAL DEATH TO INNOCENT FURRY CREATURES, and have high capacity magazine quivers. Oh and they can be spray fired from the hip, and can go through the metal detectors at Heathrow and be used to hijack planes.

The UK has banned gun ownership (except rare cases and royal shotguns). They have banned self defense, and they are looking to ban pointy things like arrows and knives. The strategy is to get the camels nose under the tent so carbon arrows are first, and aluminium and pointy sticks will follow.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

I understand the perspective of the field owner not allowing all carbon arrows on a multi-use field. But the main issue here is that the tournament cannot have FITA WRS if the tourney organizers are going to ban FITA legal equipment. The organizers either need to find a new field, or else FITA should deny WRS status. I think most of us are pretty clear about this, those who are not clear should just re-read Sean McKenty's posts.

I am wondering if any British archers are doing anything to rectify the situation? Are any of the potential participants protesting to the tourney organizers or notifying FITA? Because if this competition quietly happens, it sets the precedent that tourneys can have FITA Star/WRS without following basic FITA rules.


----------



## watch_man (Mar 29, 2007)

TER said:


> I understand the perspective of the field owner not allowing all carbon arrows on a multi-use field. But the main issue here is that the tournament cannot have FITA WRS if the tourney organizers are going to ban FITA legal equipment. The organizers either need to find a new field, or else FITA should deny WRS status. I think most of us are pretty clear about this, those who are not clear should just re-read Sean McKenty's posts.
> 
> I am wondering if any British archers are doing anything to rectify the situation? Are any of the potential participants protesting to the tourney organizers or notifying FITA? Because if this competition quietly happens, it sets the precedent that tourneys can have FITA Star/WRS without following basic FITA rules.



Here is a post made on a UK Archery forum today by someone else who has tried to address this issue with FITA and GNAS :



> I wondered when this might come up again ……
> 
> The last time this issue was raised, I was intrigued by the apparent dichotomy between the FITA Rules governing the types of arrows that could be used at shoots run according to their Regulations, and the apparent willingness of GNAS to allow clubs running these shoots to ignore the rules as it suited. Bearing in mind the many column inches expended discussing the rules governing the Green or White clothing issue, it just struck me as most unlike GNAS not to insist that the rules are adhered to.
> 
> ...


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Watchman,

It's just frustrating to read that. The gist of it seems to be, "Yeah, there are rules and stuff, but we only follow the ones we want to follow." It would be nice if FITA would step in and stop GNAS and the tourney organizers from over-stepping their authority.


----------



## archery ham (Jul 26, 2007)

Would it matter to "them" that a small strand of copper wire (or aluminum foil) was inside the arrow so that it could be found "detected full length" via Whites/Garrett/Minelab/Tesoro ?

Just how bad are the metal detectors and its operators over there?


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

*Chairman Pointon's response was perfect.*



watch_man said:


> Here is a post made on a UK Archery forum today by someone else who has tried to address this issue with FITA and GNAS :



Thanks for posting that letter. I am pleased to see that Mr. Pointon has responded to this issue in the only way he should.


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

arc2x4 said:


> Just curious but I never noticed that carbon arrows were dangeous splintering deathsticks, in fact they are pretty darn hard to break. I have also never seen a carbon arrow attack anyone or spring from a hidding place beneath the ground.
> 
> Little Johnny could also trip over a dirt clod or his own feet and break his leg playing soccer, Rugby is a damn dangerous sport where folks get broken bones and knocked out teeth all the time, part of the fun I hear from its devotees.
> 
> ...


Exactly . . . little Johnny is probably much more likely to get hurt by a cheap shot, hook, or . . . if it's Rugby . . any number of possibilities. In 30 years of archery I have been far more seriously hurt by broken aluminum then "splintering death sticks" (LOL!). 

But again, the point is not a useless debate over stuff left on a soccer field but rather the granting of a WRS event to a venue where standard equipment can not be used.


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

Mr. October said:


> Exactly . . . little Johnny is probably much more likely to get hurt by a cheap shot, hook, or . . . if it's Rugby . . any number of possibilities. In 30 years of archery I have been far more seriously hurt by broken aluminum then "splintering death sticks" (LOL!).
> 
> But again, the point is not a useless debate over stuff left on a soccer field but rather the granting of a WRS event to a venue where standard equipment can not be used.


I've played soccer for 26 years. I'd never want to put 22 people onto a field with even one arrow buried somewhere in it. The force of sliding into an arrow would create one heck of a nasty injury, I shudder just thinking about it. Much worse than you would get from normal play. This would be dangerous for either aluminium or carbon arrows. The point is that they are afraid the all carbons won't be found.

I think they should be able to make this restriction, and with the lack of fields and dedicated space for archery it makes sense in this case. However it should not be allowed to be a STAR FITA event for most of the reasons listed by others above.

As for one of the suggestions listed above, ground-penetrating radar wouldn't be an option. Not only is it cost prohibitive, but I don't think it would detect carbon arrows well at all.

-Andrew


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

spangler said:


> I've played soccer for 26 years. I'd never want to put 22 people onto a field with even one arrow buried somewhere in it. The force of sliding into an arrow would create one heck of a nasty injury, I shudder just thinking about it. Much worse than you would get from normal play. This would be dangerous for either aluminium or carbon arrows. The point is that they are afraid the all carbons won't be found.
> 
> I think they should be able to make this restriction, and with the lack of fields and dedicated space for archery it makes sense in this case. However it should not be allowed to be a STAR FITA event for most of the reasons listed by others above.
> 
> ...


Agreed. I wouldn't want to slide into an arrow either whether it be aluminum or carbon though if you slide into anything but the end at just the right angle it would be like sliding over a stick. The risk of getting hurt is probably fairly astronomical. Additionally, the success of a metal detector to find a buried aluminum arrow is not great depending on the thoroughness of the search and the ability of the user. 

The point remains, if the venue is unacceptable to host a competition then it is unacceptable no matter the arrow.


----------



## watch_man (Mar 29, 2007)

TER said:


> Watchman,
> 
> It's just frustrating to read that. The gist of it seems to be, "Yeah, there are rules and stuff, but we only follow the ones we want to follow." It would be nice if FITA would step in and stop GNAS and the tourney organizers from over-stepping their authority.


Unfortunately that seems to be how everyone else reads it too.... clear as mud.

With reference to some of the other posts. I agree of course that it is unacceptable to cause injury to anyone so until the issue can be resolved. WRS should only take place on fields that meet FITA requirements.

Any other kind of shoot below WRS in the UK should be allowed to impose the ban if they feel it necessary.

No single manufacturer should be in the position to control the type of arrow used. Did the price of Easton arrows not fall considerably when Beman first introduced all carbon arrows all those years ago? - this shows the bennefit of competion to us all. If X10's were the only available choice to top competitors how long would it be before we saw the price creeping up?

At least with the nano and McKiney II there are viable alternatives.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

JAVI said:


> Why don't they just pony up and say Easton arrows only at FITA/NAA events that's where this is headed...:wink:


Or, better yet, have Easton provide free arrows to all competitors in advance so they can tune them.

However, I sympathize with the field owner. Having sharp stuff stuck in the field is a bad thing. As it becomes harder and harder to find fields to shoot FITA competition's in it becomes even more important for archer's to be good partners. It is fairly reasonable for the field owners to want to be able to detect all of the arrow as opposed to just the tip.

Now, as to records. Well, then nothing is preventing you from going to competitions where all carbons are allowed. If enough people skip this one that doesn't then the organizers will be encouraged to find a different venue, if possible. But it is also possible that the event may fold entirely if other fields insist on the same "no all carbon" rule. Just as shotgun shooters have had to switch to lead free shot in some areas archers may have to switch from all carbon arrows in some areas.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

*Wow, approaching 70 posts.*

Thanks to the USAA leadership, Star FITAs in the USA can be conducted by anyone that is willing to host a FITA rules intent compliant tourney and pay fees to sustain the overseeing organizations. In the USA, there are many tournaments that choose to restrict participation.

Examples are:
Tourneys that only allow youths or masters or seniors or Collegiate. (JOAD Nationals Championship and US Intercollegiate Archery Championship)
Tourneys that only allow Olympic bow. (Olympic Trials)
Tourneys that only allow association’s or club’s or citizen’s (residence) participation. (USA World Team Trials)
Tourneys where a certain point achievement level is required to participate. (USA 2nd and 3rd Olympic Trails Nomination)

Yet all are registered Star FITAs.
These tourneys follow the rules that apply.
Being open to all is not a requisite to have world records set or star pin achievements.

Often a lack of volunteers or equipment and range size regrettably force us to limit participation.
I appreciate being given the freedom to host a rules compliant tourney so that at least some archers can be served.

What I don’t know is if other country associations give their membership the freedom of hosting as many Star FITAs as they wish.
So long as all have the opportunity to conduct a Star FITA, I would see no problem with a tournaments “right” to host a restricted tourney.

Note that I would have a problem if a National World Championship Team Trials prohibited the use of an archers FITA and World Championship compliant arrows.

“All carbon arrow” archers are invited to take part in the AAE Arizona Cup at the Ben Avery Shooting Facility FITA range. 
Arrow misses just skid on top of the gravel covered field. Come join us to take part in a metal detector free tourney.

I personally think that we should do what we can to welcome all archers to target archery. If we restrict target archery, fewer and fewer people will take part until there is not one left to compete. We owe the sport to do what we can to grow target archery.


----------



## ecc (Nov 20, 2002)

so what is the basis for the Easton slander? is it because they make aluminium cored arrows or the main poster is sponsored by Nano hmm. why not show some direct link to Easton before mouthing off otherwise it's quite clear what you are...


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2007)

What you failed to tell everyone is at none of those event listed are any specific legal equipment banned, those shoots are saying only specific archers are eligable, I am waiting on a reply from Fita on this matter,( it appears they have no knowledge of it either). If endorsed by Fita then you could easily have an Oylmpic trials were a specific piece of legal equipment is banned....


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Sean McKenty said:


> What you failed to tell everyone is at none of those event listed are any specific legal equipment banned, those shoots are saying only specific archers are eligable, I am waiting on a reply from Fita on this matter,( it appears they have no knowledge of it either). If endorsed by Fita then you could easily have an Oylmpic trials were a specific piece of legal equipment is banned....


Hypothetical’s are difficult but let me try one.
Let’s say a Star FITA tournament restricted an arrow type, bow type and string material with all FITA compliant.
Do I think it okay for the tourney to be registered as a Star FITA tournament?
Yes.
The example would be a traditional recurve bow type tourney with wooden arrows and dacron string material.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Sean McKenty said:


> What you failed to tell everyone is at none of those event listed are any specific legal equipment banned, those shoots are saying only specific archers are eligable, I am waiting on a reply from Fita on this matter,( it appears they have no knowledge of it either). If endorsed by Fita then you could easily have an Oylmpic trials were a specific piece of legal equipment is banned....


Absolutely. That is an enormous door to potentially be left open. Particularly when a rule is couched under a trumped up safety concern.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Sean McKenty said:


> What you failed to tell everyone is at none of those event listed are any specific legal equipment banned, those shoots are saying only specific archers are eligable, I am waiting on a reply from Fita on this matter,( it appears they have no knowledge of it either). If endorsed by Fita then you could easily have an Oylmpic trials were a specific piece of legal equipment is banned....


I sounds like they do have knowledge of the issue, if not this particular event. FITA responded to the exact same issue (see Watch-man's post above) by referring it to the UK governing body (GNAS) who responded to the inquiry. 

Are you anticipating a direct response from FITA (because you are a judge) or do you think they will refer you to the Canadian (version of GNAS)? 

Do you think the answer you get will contradict the UK GNAS response? Since all governing bodies are equally bound by the FITA rules, I would be shocked if that happened.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

ecc said:


> so what is the basis for the Easton slander? is it because they make aluminium cored arrows or the main poster is sponsored by Nano hmm. why not show some direct link to Easton before mouthing off otherwise it's quite clear what you are...


No I’m not sponsored by Nano… and I don’t shoot them either. Although many top shooters do and this move clearly prohibits their participation without permission of their sponsors and changing arrows for the duration. 

The point is that if you ban or make all other arrows illegal then there is only one choice… And since that has actually happened in one minor venue in the USA which is now Easton Arrows only (despite shooter sponsorship by another company). 

Given Jim Easton’s involvement in both FITA and the NAA / USArchery I can only speculate that this is headed in that direction as well. 

I could well be wrong, maybe if carbon arrows are banned from FITA competitions everyone will start making composition arrows…. Ya’ think?

Direct link... never... 

But connect the dots and see where they lead...


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2007)

Seattlepop said:


> I sounds like they do have knowledge of the issue, if not this particular event. FITA responded to the exact same issue (see Watch-man's post above) by referring it to the UK governing body (GNAS) who responded to the inquiry.
> 
> Are you anticipating a direct response from FITA (because you are a judge) or do you think they will refer you to the Canadian (version of GNAS)?
> 
> Do you think the answer you get will contradict the UK GNAS response? Since all governing bodies are equally bound by the FITA rules, I would be shocked if that happened.


I sent a request for clarification to both so I expect it to come through the FCA National chair from Fita if they respond to it. We made a request for clairification reguarding shooting under shelters last year. It was slow comming but it came.

Yuo should also note that nothing came from Fita in this reguard, this is were my interest lies, when I get a response I will post it here.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Easton makes both aluminum-cored arrows and all-carbon arrows. It does so of its own free will in hopes of capturing various segments of the archery market.

Carbon Tech does not make aluminum-cored arrows, it only makes all-carbon arrows. It does so of its own free will in hopes of capturing various segments of the archery market.

It has been claimed by an archery venue that all-carbon arrows are too difficult to find and may pose a health hazard. 

One can only conclude that this is a conspiracy by Easton to eliminate the competition.

Huh?


"At a news conference this afternoon, GNAS representatives were asked about the apparent canoodling between the GNAS and Easton, a prominent arrow manufacturer. GNAS issued the following statement: 

'Is it ahr foolt the doomb bahstards couldn't poot a wire inna shahft so we cood find the li'l boogers?!'" 

"Easton had no official comment, but the snickering was audible."

"FITA, the international body responsible for establishing the rules of conduct for the world archery community, when asked to comment issued the following statement:

'Huh?'". 

"That's all from Conspiracy Central. Good night, and good luck."


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

At the 1995 World Indoor a few archers brought in special very large diameter arrows. After a few practice rounds they were banned by the tournament committee. The arrows were destroying the target mats.
In the middle 90's I brought a metal detector to a couple of archery fields between shoots. I was surprised on how many arrows I found buried. The aluminum ones were easy to find. The all carbon type were harder to find. I found plenty of them in about four hours with lots of digging. The digging does leave the field messy. Also they like all small light shafts seem to bury deeper than aluminum. I suggest all that are complaining should do the same as I did and see how long it takes. 
BTW the main archery field I was looking in is located close to Carbon Tech but the arrows those days were Bemans' and AFCs'.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2007)

I recieved and private e-mail from a friend in England and she said that what they do is simply run a thatcher across the field and claimed it picks up eveything and the "softer shooters" they put together and "net" them, solution seems simple enough.


----------



## mwarddoc (Aug 12, 2007)

*Root Issues*

Quite a contentious issue, as are many topics on Archery Talk.

However, does anyone know, for certain, what the concern is based on? I can't tell from this discussion or another I came across somewhere. Sure, arrows can get lost, people can get hurt, but people could get hurt without arrows getting lost, as 

For instance, my homeowners insurance dropped me last January, after 19 years of steady business on the home and autos and no claims, because I have 4 dogs. 3 are mongrels but have sheperd or collie in them, I got them from mixed litters. Nice, friendly dogs. Never had a bite. Flat rule, no coverage for any home with these dogs. I can have them put down, keep insurance, or go elsewhere. Now, my current homeowners insurance is giving me no coverage, none at all, if my largest dog bites anyone....well, he's a sheperd/border collie mix, and they nip sheep, and sooner or later he will bite someone....

So, perhaps one of the root issues is that the field owners have no coverage, at all, for any injuries arising out of the archery aspect for that type of injury, say to a soccer player or rugby player. They might have coverage is a soccer player gets hurt from playing soccer, but not if it is any type of arrow, old plow, WWII artillery shell, razor blades, dirty syringes, etc....dog bites, cat attacks...

Even if it is England, and you don't have solicitors following you around waiting to sue you, like we do here, you still have insurance companies...and they are the same in every country....


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2007)

Not sure it applys because if the Rugby/soccer club owns the property they can decide what ever they want insurance or not. Not saying this the case but very well maybe.

Here in Canada loser pays in a suit so frivalouse suits are few. I did a google search and couldn't find any report of any incident in the UK reguarding injury from arrows left on the field, I found one death from a bow press apperantly.

I am going to hold off until I get a response from Fita directly, the thought of an Olympic trials being able to ban a specific arrow seems far fetched but if endorsed is very possible


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Seattlepop said:


> Easton makes both aluminum-cored arrows and all-carbon arrows. It does so of its own free will in hopes of capturing various segments of the archery market.
> 
> Carbon Tech does not make aluminum-cored arrows, it only makes all-carbon arrows. It does so of its own free will in hopes of capturing various segments of the archery market.
> 
> ...


I didn’t say it was a conspiracy, nor do I believe it is a matter of conspiracy but rather a general trend or push in that direction. As I’ve said one competitive venue here in the states has already made it official that only Easton arrows may be used by the competitors; is in inconceivable that others will follow. The Easton companies et la are huge sponsors of archery and archery events, so is it that far fetched that organizations and event organizers would seek to curry favor. 

And if such is the case, do you really think their response would be… 

"dang straight what you gonna do about it"….


----------



## watch_man (Mar 29, 2007)

Things have moved on a little in the UK and through AIUK there is now big support for pushing GNAS to making a decision and most seem to support the use of all carbon arrows.

I think the majority have now realised the implications and even though it doesn't affect them directly they fear it could do in the future if this was allowed to stand.

I have even been contacted by the owners of a major UK archery shop who want to sell CX Nano's but cannot do so until a decision is made.

I would especially like to thank Sean as I believe his support has been key to moving this issue forward.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Hmmm. And hear I rather thought it was Marcus' rather brilliant summation that lit the fire.


----------



## iceman77_7 (May 5, 2005)

I remember hearing something a while ago about Easton holding a patent on aluminum/carbon technology, which is why pretty much all the other arrow companies make all-carbon arrows. Can anyone definitively support or refute this? I think this fact would make a difference in this argument.


----------



## watch_man (Mar 29, 2007)

iceman77_7 said:


> I remember hearing something a while ago about Easton holding a patent on aluminum/carbon technology, which is why pretty much all the other arrow companies make all-carbon arrows. Can anyone definitively support or refute this? I think this fact would make a difference in this argument.


Cartel make the triple which is a very good equivalent of the Navigator so I doubt if it is true.


----------



## watch_man (Mar 29, 2007)

Hutnicks said:


> Hmmm. And hear I rather thought it was Marcus' rather brilliant summation that lit the fire.


Hi did sum it up rather well


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

iceman77_7 said:


> I remember hearing something a while ago about Easton holding a patent on aluminum/carbon technology, which is why pretty much all the other arrow companies make all-carbon arrows. Can anyone definitively support or refute this? I think this fact would make a difference in this argument.


This link would seem to indicate that Mr. Easton does not own such a patent.

-Andrew


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

I would think that patent would have been held by a golf equipment manufacturer long ago for a golf club shaft. They tried everything to sell/promote more clubs.


----------



## iceman77_7 (May 5, 2005)

spangler said:


> This link would seem to indicate that Mr. Easton does not own such a patent.
> 
> -Andrew


Great link. If that is indeed the case, why doesn't any other arrow manufacturer with the recent exception of Cartel make aluminum-carbon composite arrows? There seems to be some large barrier to entry in this market that I'm missing here.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Archerone said:


> I would think that patent would have been held by a golf equipment manufacturer long ago for a golf club shaft. They tried everything to sell/promote more clubs.


 If I am not mistaken (and Quite possibly I am) It was the tennis racquet manufacturers that used it first in sport equipment. The Pro Kennex and before they sold under their own name Wilson/ (Head)?? racquets were carbon over aluminum. This was some years ago. Actual patents range from Union Carbide for al coated carbon electrodes to the US Navy for a bonding solution which allowed al to to be bonded to Carbon. I think Easton was a latecomer in this one


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2007)

My Badminton racket I used in competition was a carbon wraped shaft and that was 1981, easton AC shafts came in the early 80's as well


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

iceman77_7 said:


> Great link. If that is indeed the case, why doesn't any other arrow manufacturer with the recent exception of Cartel make aluminum-carbon composite arrows? There seems to be some large barrier to entry in this market that I'm missing here.


I'm guessing that it is simply because it is both expensive, and really hard to do. A company would have to make a large investment in equipment and expertise in order to even try and compete with a company who has a pretty decent stranglehold on a pretty small market.

-Andrew


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

There is simply no NEED for an aluminum/carbon arrow these days. Filament wound and woven arrows need no reinforcement. The carbon used is of a much higher quality and getting better every day. The aluminum composite arrow is obsolete.


----------



## wis_archer (Jul 27, 2007)

I can find carbon arrows with a metal detector, I don't know what their problem is


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

BTW, besides Cartel, GoldTip and Blackhawk also have carbon/aluminum.


----------



## watch_man (Mar 29, 2007)

GNAS today issued the following statement on their website at www.gnas.org

"Carbon Arrows

In response to queries raised concerning the banning of all carbon arrows at some World Record Status events, GNAS Operations Committee have sought clarification from FITA and their response means that our previous advice (that carbon arrows can be banned if that is explicit on the entry form) has to be withdrawn. The Operations Committee are currently liaising with the organisers of all WRS events to inform them of this decision and requesting their compliance. If the organisers are unable to comply then, unfortunately, WRS must be withdrawn in accordance with the FITA ruling. However, it must be stressed that British Record Status will not be affected. A notice will be placed on the GNAS website clarifying which tournament are still continuing to have World Record Status as soon as possible

Tournament Organisers will be receiving a letter asking them to contact either Linda or Karen at the GNAS office by phone or email if they cannot comply with the ruling so any appropriate refund can be sorted out"


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

watch_man said:


> GNAS today issued the following statement on their website at www.gnas.org
> 
> "Carbon Arrows
> 
> ...


And that indeed is the right thing to do. :thumbs_up


----------



## hammerheadpc (Mar 15, 2006)

WOW!!

Kudos to FITA!

The membership's voices were heard AND responded to. In a world where that is so rare these days, they are to be heartily commended for this bold shift of policy.
Bravo.

Additionally, imagine if you will a GNAS ruling that claimed all bows that weren't of the Hoyt Tec riser design were unsafe. Bows without a "Back Loop" to "prevent riser snappage" are unsafe and therefore banned.

Would anyone doubt that GNAS would have just handed Hoyt a near monopoly on competitive bows?

It really wasn't any different, for the arrow argument, when there are no direct competitors to Easton's A/C/E and X10.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

watch_man said:


> GNAS today issued the following statement on their website at www.gnas.org
> 
> "Carbon Arrows
> 
> ...


This is a very good ruling.:thumbs_up


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2008)

I can tell you that Fita had no idea what the real intent of the GNAS was with reguards to the clubs proposed ban. My inquiery told me just that. I was more disapointed that the host club would even try to ban a legal piece of equipment but still want a Fita star ranking.


----------



## Miss Pink (Nov 5, 2007)

Great Job guys. It's good to know that everything is back on track. :cocktail:


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

great news watch_man!!


----------

