a href="http://www.lancasterarchery.com/archery-classic-register/#header">
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 59

Thread: Time for a new rule?

  1. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by SonnyThomas View Post
    Not entirely sure here. I forget exactly, but believe the RIC ruled skid-ins a zero. Bounce outs and complete pass throughs rule, the arrow is to be shot over.

    Checked once. RIC rulings are many, a book full, and not published to my knowledge or I would have had the book.
    Are you saying the NFAA rules are somewhat....oh, say, hard to read and need a re-write?

    Can you point me toward the target, please?


  2. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Fulton County, Illinois
    Posts
    12,920
    Quote Originally Posted by SonnyThomas View Post
    Not entirely sure here. I forget exactly, but believe the RIC ruled skid-ins a zero. Bounce outs and complete pass throughs rule, the arrow is to be shot over.

    Checked once. RIC rulings are many, a book full, and not published to my knowledge or I would have had the book.
    Quote Originally Posted by carlosii View Post
    Are you saying the NFAA rules are somewhat....oh, say, hard to read and need a re-write?
    Oh! I forgot, you're from across the border, Indiana

    Rules are rules and the NFAA Rules Interpretation Committee (no different than the ASA's) rules on a questionable issue. I thought some time ago...more years than what I want to remember, the RIC ruled skid-ins were to be scored zero.

    Separate; Bounce and pass through shots are in the regular NFAA rules, to be shot over.

    The above is different than the ASA. ASA has a longer reading rule for pass throughs and rebounds (bounce outs) and number of issues to wade through for pass throughs and rebounds (bounce outs), some giving the shooter 5, 8, and 10 points, but no 12 score is allowed. And then there is that "connecting" line thing (imaginary line) that gives the higher score. I don't know how or if this applies to the newer size 10 and 12 rings.
    Pearson MarXman, Limb Driver, Muddy Virtue HT3s, Bohning vanes, Sure Loc Challenger,
    Super Ball Peep, Stanislawski MagMicro Trio, Onyx, Blackjack and TRU Ball ST360, 30" Cartel.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    385
    In NFAA, if an arrow hits a leaf, limb, tree. etc. and is witnessed, the archer has the choice of marking and shooting another arrow (If the arrow hits the spot you can count it). The object that was hit must be in the line between the archer and the target. Hitting the ground first does not count. (However should be given to children for encouragement). Witnessed pass-throughs and bouce-outs must be shot again. (Again, small kids can be discouraged from archery if they have to shoot another arrow everytime they bouce out).
    PSE Supra Max 60#
    Hoyt Carbon Element 60#

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    385
    I shoot FITA legal arrows because I sometimes shoot FITA tournaments and do not wish to re-tune my bow everytime I shoot a different venue. That means using 60# and under and 23/64th or smaller arrows. So changing the rules would not bother me.

    So what happens when a 3D shooter uses a 27/64th arrow at 70#s and wants to shoot a FITA round in your area? Do the clubs not enforce the rules or do the 3D shooters in your area not shoot anything but 3D tournaments?
    PSE Supra Max 60#
    Hoyt Carbon Element 60#

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Fulton County, Illinois
    Posts
    12,920
    Quote Originally Posted by huteson2us2 View Post
    I shoot FITA legal arrows because I sometimes shoot FITA tournaments and do not wish to re-tune my bow everytime I shoot a different venue. That means using 60# and under and 23/64th or smaller arrows. So changing the rules would not bother me.

    So what happens when a 3D shooter uses a 27/64th arrow at 70#s and wants to shoot a FITA round in your area? Do the clubs not enforce the rules or do the 3D shooters in your area not shoot anything but 3D tournaments?
    What's FITA? The only FITA event I know of is in Illinois is the Indoor Championship. If 35 attend it, it's about it. We have Indoors and 3Ds. Field is far a few between and Outdoor, 900 rounds, has a practice for the IAA Championship.

    My bow is set so I am FITA legal, but only due to the combination that I've come to like.
    Pearson MarXman, Limb Driver, Muddy Virtue HT3s, Bohning vanes, Sure Loc Challenger,
    Super Ball Peep, Stanislawski MagMicro Trio, Onyx, Blackjack and TRU Ball ST360, 30" Cartel.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    1,403
    May be it's time for a bigger 12 ring.
    Twinoaks Archery Range VA
    2013 Elite Hunter
    2009 Elite GT 500
    Brewer of great Ale

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Fulton County, Illinois
    Posts
    12,920
    Quote Originally Posted by EROS View Post
    May be it's time for a bigger 12 ring.
    The issue is the ASA 12 ring. Limit is 5 shooters to a group. Legal arrow diameter is .422" and a .425" diameter point. If using .425" for diameter 10 arrows should fit easily, maybe 12 and then the number of line cutters....25 arrows?
    Pearson MarXman, Limb Driver, Muddy Virtue HT3s, Bohning vanes, Sure Loc Challenger,
    Super Ball Peep, Stanislawski MagMicro Trio, Onyx, Blackjack and TRU Ball ST360, 30" Cartel.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    1,403
    Just seems to me the 12 ring was a little larger in the years of the ASA target. They are smaller since the three ring targets we see today. Never been a fan of the change.
    Twinoaks Archery Range VA
    2013 Elite Hunter
    2009 Elite GT 500
    Brewer of great Ale

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Fulton County, Illinois
    Posts
    12,920
    The targets used on the National circuit today were changed last year or the year before. All ASA "range" targets have 5" ten rings and 1.5" 12 rings.
    Pearson MarXman, Limb Driver, Muddy Virtue HT3s, Bohning vanes, Sure Loc Challenger,
    Super Ball Peep, Stanislawski MagMicro Trio, Onyx, Blackjack and TRU Ball ST360, 30" Cartel.

  10. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by EROS View Post
    Just seems to me the 12 ring was a little larger in the years of the ASA target. They are smaller since the three ring targets we see today. Never been a fan of the change.
    everything looked bigger to me when i was a kid...
    Can you point me toward the target, please?

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Quitman, Ga
    Posts
    1,208
    We started shooting ASA in 1999, and it seems as though all the rings shrunk over the years.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Fulton County, Illinois
    Posts
    12,920
    Okay, ASA has the smaller rings for the National circuit. Just a few weeks ago I shot our ASA State Championship and here's this like new Elk with the standard point zones. That 12 ring looked huge and drilled that sucker, 35 yards.....
    Pearson MarXman, Limb Driver, Muddy Virtue HT3s, Bohning vanes, Sure Loc Challenger,
    Super Ball Peep, Stanislawski MagMicro Trio, Onyx, Blackjack and TRU Ball ST360, 30" Cartel.

  13. #38
    ...
    Hoyt/Athens

  14. #39
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    3,253
    What is accomplished by beating this arrow size dead horse again? NFAA limited arrow size to 9.3 mm only to have the Jim Easton/Bruce Cull co-dictators call a special meeting and successfully have the size changed to .422 inch.

    I was on the committee that recommended the 9.3. We thoroughly considered all aspects and concluded that it would be advantageous to have a size that would be world wide. It passed the main body with flying colors. However, I was sitting in the airport waiting to fly out when they called the famous special meeting of the sheep.

    It is not likely that NFAA, ASA, and IBO will be changing the arrow size limitation now.
    Jim Quarles

    Illegitimus non Carborundum

  15. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by FS560 View Post
    What is accomplished by beating this arrow size dead horse again? NFAA limited arrow size to 9.3 mm only to have the Jim Easton/Bruce Cull co-dictators call a special meeting and successfully have the size changed to .422 inch.

    I was on the committee that recommended the 9.3. We thoroughly considered all aspects and concluded that it would be advantageous to have a size that would be world wide. It passed the main body with flying colors. However, I was sitting in the airport waiting to fly out when they called the famous special meeting of the sheep.

    It is not likely that NFAA, ASA, and IBO will be changing the arrow size limitation now.
    The old adage, "If at first you don't succeed, try and try again", comes to mind, Jim.

    Of course, it will take someone of strong will and fortitude and a great gift of politicing and gab to get an agenda item concerning shaft size to pass muster...but it can be done. One thing that would be most important would be a "phasing in period" of from 3-5 years time and avoid even trying to force the item through by having any implications that if approved in February, the new shaft size limit will take effect in June of the same year.
    THAT would never float.

    A world-wide standard for shaft size only makes sense. Look how long it took the NFAA to finally muster up changing SENIORS to age 50! How many times over the years was it shut down...but tried and tried and tried again until it finally came to fruition.

    Never say never again...so they say.

    field14 (Tom D.)
    Just let it float and SHOOT THE SHOT! Author of: "ProActive Archery", "The Puzzled Archer", "The Puzzled Cyclist".
    -field14 (Tom D.)

  16. #41
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    3,253
    The 9.3 is the most sensible size limit, however the only screaming I seem to hear these days is the rubber deer shooters, all shooting at a single 12 ring.

    These may be the same people that embraced the 42 caliber arrows previously as line cutters and, of course, now they cry about smashing arrows and losing score. Now they also want to get the higher score if damage to another arrow can be determined. This is the same game where they take the higher score if the arrow is not just close to the line but if it is in the same county.

    What is next? Maybe shoot a 28 caliber arrow but figure the score as if it were a 42 caliber arrow and also in the same state as the 12 ring.

    Even if NFAA were to change to 9.3, that does not mean that ASA and IBO would change. With the USAA/NFAA proposed merger seemingly off the table, where is the incentive for NFAA to change to 9.3 mm? The indoor shooters are happy at this time and field shooters do not use rebar for arrows.
    Jim Quarles

    Illegitimus non Carborundum

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    8,673
    Quote Originally Posted by FS560 View Post
    What is accomplished by beating this arrow size dead horse again? NFAA limited arrow size to 9.3 mm only to have the Jim Easton/Bruce Cull co-dictators call a special meeting and successfully have the size changed to .422 inch.

    I was on the committee that recommended the 9.3. We thoroughly considered all aspects and concluded that it would be advantageous to have a size that would be world wide. It passed the main body with flying colors. However, I was sitting in the airport waiting to fly out when they called the famous special meeting of the sheep.

    It is not likely that NFAA, ASA, and IBO will be changing the arrow size limitation now.
    Just curious...and without discussing the merits of the 9.3 rule...how much notice and/or input did the general membership have in the 9.3 rule? Or, it's undoing? There's a huge problem with 15 signature items, especially when an emergency does not exist, and that problem is that the general membership is not given the opportunity to provide their input, which by definition, they should be given that opportunity before something like this issue ever goes to the floor to begin with...IMO.
    There's not much of a lesson to be learned the second time a calf kicks you in the balz.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Poplar Plains, Ky. "Foot Hills of Appalachians "
    Posts
    673
    Seems to me that, Since I shoot 3d knowing the rules and accept them, why would I try to have Fita or FAA change their rules, because I want to shoot Fat arrows, or that I don't want to tune my bow? Why can't we just man up and follow each organization's rules, and quit being so childish by wanting the rules to simply meet our satisfaction? Guess it could be that we just want to be heard?(JMO)

  19. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Dorite View Post
    Seems to me that, Since I shoot 3d knowing the rules and accept them, why would I try to have Fita or FAA change their rules, because I want to shoot Fat arrows, or that I don't want to tune my bow? Why can't we just man up and follow each organization's rules, and quit being so childish by wanting the rules to simply meet our satisfaction? Guess it could be that we just want to be heard?(JMO)
    Well, the USofA is the only country on the planet that allows FAT SHAFTS...and trust me, there are more archers world-wide that even if we count the bow hunters we wouldn't come close to being the "most shooters in the world of archery."
    Here in the USA, some organization has to start the ball rolling (again) on the FAT SHAFT issue, but right now they all are content upon not rocking the boat and basically telling the rest of the planet to go fly a kite..WE (the USA) are the bosses and we will do it OUR way.
    The excuse that R&D and "too much inventory" and "the manuf. would lose too much money if there was a new 9.3 limit on shaft size" is bunk. As long as there is a phasing in period so the inventory would be sold off, and the shooters would use up what they have. The arrow sales would NOT go "down"...they'd go UP as people changed over to the world standard 9.3mm shaft diameter.
    I strongly feel the 9.3 mm. can be done, but NOT unless the agenda item was written by a "popular" well received, vocal, diplomatic, and politically well placed "leader" to present it properly. I also said earlier that I see no chance whatsoever of making the rule in February to become effective on June 1 of the SAME year. That would never float.
    I think the first time, the lack of a phase in period was the straw that broke the camel's back. Had the committee put in a "phase in period" instead of such short notice to the manuf, things may have "stuck". Could be wrong, but if this thing had the merit to "fly" the first time; if properly brought up, worded, and given a phase in, it stands a chance.
    However, ONE of the orgs has to take the bull by the horns and just get 'r DUN. You'll never get the ASA, IBO, and NFAA to agree on the same thing at the same time.
    field14 (Tom D.)
    Just let it float and SHOOT THE SHOT! Author of: "ProActive Archery", "The Puzzled Archer", "The Puzzled Cyclist".
    -field14 (Tom D.)

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    8,673
    Why does anything have to be done? Other than some overtly vocal folks on AT (their attendance and actual shooting at events unknown), why does anything have to change? It's not like American rules are the same for all other international events. Hell, international basketball rules have huge differences from the American game, yet I'm not hearing a suggestion to change those.

    That's right...a person plays by the rules of the game that they are playing at the time...
    There's not much of a lesson to be learned the second time a calf kicks you in the balz.

  21. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Rolo View Post
    Why does anything have to be done? Other than some overtly vocal folks on AT (their attendance and actual shooting at events unknown), why does anything have to change? It's not like American rules are the same for all other international events. Hell, international basketball rules have huge differences from the American game, yet I'm not hearing a suggestion to change those.

    That's right...a person plays by the rules of the game that they are playing at the time...
    Point well taken, Rolo. However, as archery is GROWING big time here and especially internationally, some sort of STANDARDIZATION is needed. The "age" thing took years and years of hard work to get the NFAA (the LAST standout on the Senior Divisions, that is) to come around to the WORLD standard and even to join in with the "standard" of the ASA and IBO, too.
    This sport isn't a multi-million dollar affair like basketball, so it is basically apples and oranges. There are STANDARDS world-wide for match competitions for almost everything else in the shooting sports...Shotguns, small and large bore rifles, pellet guns, et cetera. ARCHERY is the only one where the USA if the ONE that is out of line with the rest of the world.
    Sure, not a lot of USA archers compete on the world scale events; but that is changing quickly to where more and more are competing on the world platforms.
    Just like the ASA and IBO and to some extent the USA Archery fought the NFAA for years over the age thing and being a "senior" everywhere else at age 50, but having to wait til age 55 in the lonely NFAA caused problems, so does the failure of the USA to come into line with the World standard (everywhere else) of the 9.3 mm max shaft diameter.
    Just sayin'.
    However, you and I can agree to disagree about the issue, since it is really highly unlikely that anyone in the USA has the fortitude to commit political hari-kari of archery and tackle shaft size again after having it basically shoved...
    Of course, attendance and the other stuff you mention don't mean crapola. All PAID UP NFAA MEMBERS have as much right to an opinion and input as any other PAID UP NFAA member! I'm going onto my 46th consecutive year of PAID UP Membership, how 'bout you? Are you even at 10 years yet? I likely have shot more sanctioned and/or unsanctioned NFAA events than you have, recently or not.
    Of course, FS560 is a former VEGAS WINNER and long standing member of the NFAA that has DONE SOMETHING within the NFAA and has taken the bull by the horns, taken the ball and run with it...Jim has forgotten more about this game than either of us will ever know! How many Vegas tournaments have you won? How many times have your been your State's NFAA director, run State or Local events as tournament chairperson, or tried to be a Sectional Councilman within the NFAA or any other org? THOSE are what count, not mere "attendance" at tournaments and local events, known or otherwise.
    Just let it float and SHOOT THE SHOT! Author of: "ProActive Archery", "The Puzzled Archer", "The Puzzled Cyclist".
    -field14 (Tom D.)

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    8,673
    Actually, I'm not opposed to a 9.3 rule...and I don't recall there ever being a 'fight' between IBO, ASA, US Archery and the NFAA over the age thing...the orgs had their various rules, people playing that game played by those rules...the NFAA changed the Senior Division to 50 (I was in favor of that) yet managed to screw things up with invention of the Silver Senior Division and further water things down...

    As to the rest of your silly questions...the answers may well surprise you...
    There's not much of a lesson to be learned the second time a calf kicks you in the balz.

  23. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Rolo View Post
    Actually, I'm not opposed to a 9.3 rule...and I don't recall there ever being a 'fight' between IBO, ASA, US Archery and the NFAA over the age thing...the orgs had their various rules, people playing that game played by those rules...the NFAA changed the Senior Division to 50 (I was in favor of that) yet managed to screw things up with invention of the Silver Senior Division and further water things down...

    As to the rest of your silly questions...the answers may well surprise you...
    Rolo, there really wasn't a "fight"...the ASA and IBO have had the age 50 for Seniors for years and years. The NFAA was the only "hold-out" concerning having Seniors at age 55. The ASA and IBO probably didn't care, since it wasn't hurting their participation one bit. However, there were quite a number of ASA/IBO seniors that just wouldn't shoot NFAA events because of that difference in age classification for Seniors.

    As far as the rest of this...it will take years and years, and years of hard work to get the 9.3 mm. implemented, and frankly, I doubt if I'll see it in this lifetime, because I don't think anyone will even try to tackle it anymore. Too bad, because world-wide standardization, IMHO is needed with regard to "bullet sizing." Just sayin'.
    Hopefully, the new guard that soon will be taking over will be able to make some of the other various "changes" that should have been taken care of years ago that haven't come to more than "table talking about them"...such as a complete revision of the rules of the game within the NFAA, for example, paring them down, and streamlining them for easy understanding and removal of the room for local interpretations.
    Just let it float and SHOOT THE SHOT! Author of: "ProActive Archery", "The Puzzled Archer", "The Puzzled Cyclist".
    -field14 (Tom D.)

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    8,673
    Quote Originally Posted by field14 View Post
    Rolo, there really wasn't a "fight"...the ASA and IBO have had the age 50 for Seniors for years and years. The NFAA was the only "hold-out" concerning having Seniors at age 55. The ASA and IBO probably didn't care, since it wasn't hurting their participation one bit. However, there were quite a number of ASA/IBO seniors that just wouldn't shoot NFAA events because of that difference in age classification for Seniors.

    As far as the rest of this...it will take years and years, and years of hard work to get the 9.3 mm. implemented, and frankly, I doubt if I'll see it in this lifetime, because I don't think anyone will even try to tackle it anymore. Too bad, because world-wide standardization, IMHO is needed with regard to "bullet sizing." Just sayin'.
    Hopefully, the new guard that soon will be taking over will be able to make some of the other various "changes" that should have been taken care of years ago that haven't come to more than "table talking about them"...such as a complete revision of the rules of the game within the NFAA, for example, paring them down, and streamlining them for easy understanding and removal of the room for local interpretations.
    Some would say that since the NFAA was the first to establish the Senior Division, perhaps all those other orgs. should have gotten on board...

    As for the rest...and yet every time there is a change, people come on AT and complain about it...oh gee, like the X counting as a +1 for the Pro division for field. Hey, wait a minute...apparently only if the change by the "new guard" is approved by the AT folks is it positive change, but how dare the "new guard" do something that is not what the ATcrowd wants them to do...
    There's not much of a lesson to be learned the second time a calf kicks you in the balz.

  25. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Rolo View Post
    Some would say that since the NFAA was the first to establish the Senior Division, perhaps all those other orgs. should have gotten on board...

    As for the rest...and yet every time there is a change, people come on AT and complain about it...oh gee, like the X counting as a +1 for the Pro division for field. Hey, wait a minute...apparently only if the change by the "new guard" is approved by the AT folks is it positive change, but how dare the "new guard" do something that is not what the ATcrowd wants them to do...
    So far, the +1 scoring for PROS for field and hunter rounds hasn't done what it was intended to do. Two years in a row, it was basically a "slaughter" for 1st, another "slaughter" for 2nd, and the rest were shooting for 3rd place. The "base scores" of 560 were a tight race indeed, but kick in the +1 for the X...and it quickly became a runaway and was over after the first round, and positively over after the 2nd one.
    Wouldn't surprise me one bit to see the +1 for the PROS fall by the way-sideand for something different to be tried. Whatever that "something different" might be? I don't have a clue. Just sayin'......
    Just let it float and SHOOT THE SHOT! Author of: "ProActive Archery", "The Puzzled Archer", "The Puzzled Cyclist".
    -field14 (Tom D.)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •