New AA Rules 1-9-07

[Bottom Dweller]

I noticed that AA have posted some new Rules dated 1-9-07.

I haven't read through them all in detail yet, but there appears to be a lot of information missing or deleted compared to the older rules, especially in Chapter 9 Outdoor Target Archery.

Are these the final versions or am I missing something here?

[Clare Barnes]

I've not read them but I know the intention was to say "Refer to FITA Rules" rather than repeat them all the time. I recall Fred021 liked that idea a lot when it was first proposed ... ;)

[Bottom Dweller]

I've not read them but I know the intention was to say "Refer to FITA Rules" rather than repeat them all the time. I recall Fred021 liked that idea a lot when it was first proposed ... ;)

Interesting.....

So does this mean that ALL FITA rules will apply by default now?

I'm sure the following rule will be strictly adhered to:

"7.1.1.5 All athletes of a division or category will be accommodated on
one range. The women

[The One]

[QUOTE=Bottom Dweller]Interesting.....

So does this mean that ALL FITA rules will apply by default now?

I'm sure the following rule will be strictly adhered to:

"7.1.1.5 All athletes of a division or category will be accommodated on
one range. The women

[Bottom Dweller]

Is that bit referring to a suggestion for normal competitions, or specifically for championships?

I'm sure it wasn't AA's intent, but given that the AA rules now refer you to the FITA rules for all the detail, I assume that it also now applies to events like QREs and club events unless the club has separate shooting rules.

I'm not too concerned about the club events, but for QREs it would be impractical for our club to separate males and females by 5m, especially when running all the Junior rounds.

[Hannah]

I'm sure it wasn't AA's intent, but given that the AA rules now refer you to the FITA rules for all the detail, I assume that it also now applies to events like QREs and club events unless the club has separate shooting rules.

I'm not too concerned about the club events, but for QREs it would be impractical for our club to separate males and females by 5m, especially when running all the Junior rounds.

As The One asked, there are generally 'suggestions' for minor comps and then regulations regarding things like nationals/worlds.

[Marcus]

When we ran the Nationals we found FITA very good in that they just want people to try their best. If something is impractical they just want people to do as best they can.

[Bottom Dweller]

If something is impractical they just want people to do as best they can.

Then they should call them "Guidelines" rather than "Rules" ;-)

So who draws the line between a mandatory requirement and a nice to have?

At a recent FITA registered 70m event we ran, we were asked by the judge to separate the men and women by 5m. Not because there was any particular reason for it other than its in the FITA rules and would invalidate the event as a FITA event if we didn't. Now that AA refers to the FITA rules for all the detail I can only assume that QRE would be invalid if we didn't separate men and women by 5m. The previous AA rules rightly did not mention this obviously sexist rule. But the new one does indirectly.

I would have thought that this new rule would be contrary to the anti-discrimination policy of AA.

[Marcus]

The judge did not use practical thinking. FITA assumes people apply common sense.

[Hannah]

Just done some searching on the FITA constitution.
[quote]4.8.1 FITA gives official recognition to tournaments for one or more of the following
purposes:

[Marcus]

Also worth noting is that the QRE's have a VERY comprehensive set of guidelines.

[Bottom Dweller]

Also worth noting is that the QRE's have a VERY comprehensive set of guidelines.

Well they are stated as QRE Guidlines not Rules ;-)

In any case here is what they say:

"6. The event must be conducted to FITA rules, and if not a FITA registered event must comply with the AA stipulations for QRE requirements below:
a) There will be a minimum of 20 minutes and a maximum of 45 minutes practice.
b) All shooting MUST commence at the same time.
c) All shooting must be timed, 4 minutes for 6 arrows and 2 minutes for 3 arrows.
d) The 2 long distance will be shot in 6 arrows ends and the 2 short distances in 3 arrow ends.
e) Scoring will take place after each end, long distances 6 arrows, short distances 3 arrows.
f) If there are 1 or 2 archers shooting on a target scoring MUST be supervised by a Judge.
g) Scoring must be double scoring. h) The break (between long and short distances) can be as long as the organisers wish."

The first sentance says "and" rather than "or", so my interpretation is that FITA rules should apply to QREs also. If you read the guidelines as "or" then there is no mention in the explicit rules of target face sizes, shooting controls, target tilts ect., so there is again an assumption that the general AA shooting rules would apply by default, which now means FITA rules as this is what is now contained in the new AA rules. So which ever way you look at it FITA rules apply.

The point I am making is that by deleting the detail in the AA shooting rules and explicitly referring to the FITA rules for these, AA is inheriting ALL the FITA rules, unless they explicitly say otherwise.

[Hannah]

The first sentance says "and" rather than "or", so my interpretation is that FITA rules should apply to QREs also. If you read the guidelines as "or" then there is no mention in the explicit rules of target face sizes, shooting controls, target tilts ect., so there is again an assumption that the general AA shooting rules would apply by default, which now means FITA rules as this is what is now contained in the new AA rules. So which ever way you look at it FITA rules apply.

Actually, it reads "and if" therefore being the same as "or", thereby negating the need for the event to comply with both.

[Bottom Dweller]

Actually, it reads "and if" therefore being the same as "or", thereby negating the need for the event to comply with both.

"And if" is not the same as "or". It is an additional condition to the one already stated if the following condition applies.

[Marcus]

So would the solution BD be that AA rules a separate set of shooting rules which are updated as FITA updates their rules. Obviously this can't be automatic because we would have to make sure we want to adopt those said rules so a 6-12 months time delay would be likely.
This could work well. Clearly though things in NSW are different to in VIC so you would also need to make sure that ANSW has their own shooting rules and AV has their own rules which would then be updated after AA makes their updates IF they are suitable to local conditions.
Because each RGB is governed by fast progressive committees who are in tune with the changes made at FITA this should work smoothly. I doubt you would get a situation where say one RGB didn't even know that compounders had been shooting Inner 10 indoors for 10 years.

That sounds like the most logical, streamlined and concise way of doing things.
It has my vote! (which of course would go through my club, then the state, then the delegate to AA then the rules committee and finally to the board in another example of streamlined and effectively administration practises)

[Hannah]

"And if" is not the same as "or". It is an additional condition to the one already stated if the following condition applies.
No, it is an additional criterion that the club needs to ascribe to the shoot because otherwise it would have a distinct lack of rules to govern it. The if introduces a selection process by giving another option. The "not" after the "and if" ascribes an exclusionary aspect to the statement.

If read how you are suggesting then the only time that it needs to be run according to AA rules is only when it is not covered by FITA rules. This means that we can completely disregard AA rulings in anything that is not covered by FITA.

Doesn't make intuitive sense, but I s'pose it makes sense on some level :silly:

[Hannah]

No, it is an additional criterion that the club needs to ascribe to the shoot because otherwise it would have a distinct lack of rules to govern it. The if introduces a selection process by giving another option. The "not" after the "and if" ascribes an exclusionary aspect to the statement.

If read how you are suggesting then the only time that it needs to be run according to AA rules is only when it is not covered by FITA rules. This means that we can completely disregard AA rulings in anything that is not covered by FITA.

Doesn't make intuitive sense, but I s'pose it makes sense on some level :silly:
This means that we can completely disregard AA rulings in anything that is not covered by FITA.
Apologies, this should read:
This means that we can completely disregard AA rulings in anything that is covered by FITA.

[Bottom Dweller]

It has my vote!

No AA just need to explicitly exclude FITA rules that are not applicable or have limited context here before changing the rules without consultation.

I'm yet to read the changes in the constitution also published on 1-9-07, but I'm sure that will be the topic of another thread ;-)

[Marcus]

So AA has to republish rules everytime FITA makes a change and remove the ones they don't like instead of simply employing common sense?
Do you work in a government department?

No AA just need to explicitly exclude FITA rules that are not applicable or have limited context here before changing the rules without consultation.

I'm yet to read the changes in the constitution also published on 1-9-07, but I'm sure that will be the topic of another thread ;-)

[Hannah]

No AA just need to explicitly exclude FITA rules that are not applicable or have limited context here before changing the rules without consultation.

I'm yet to read the changes in the constitution also published on 1-9-07, but I'm sure that will be the topic of another thread ;-)
You're right. FITA rules for all FITA events, AA rules that are not covered. Simple - now you get it through the rules committee :D

[Bottom Dweller]

Do you work in a government department?

No, but I do read a lot of contracts and deal with a lot of lawyers, and words do have specific meanings that simply can not be intepreted as one feels like they should to suit the circumstances.

I know few people actually read the rules that govern our sport but I do.

As it currently stands, men and women would need to be separated by 5m for any FITA, QRE or AA sanctioned event.

If others are happy with that, then so be it, but I'm not.

[Marcus]

And I am quite sure that if a women strays to within 5m of a Man they will make the event invalid.
It's one thing having rules, it's another enforcing them and penalizing them.

[Hannah]

Are ignoring my posts because they make too much sense? Personally, I worked in law firms for 5 years and am a qualified law clerk. The inference that you are making and suggesting from the current wording of the rules is incorrect grammatically. Not only that law (from where you are basing your assumptions) also takes into consideration the intention of an act/legislation - that is why we have hansard. I think you are (excuse the humour) being too legalistic without proper grounds on this one. I am grateful that you are so conscientious and there are others out there like you because they encourage committees to be a little more careful (hopeful), but all things need to be taken into consideration wholly and within context.

[Hannah]

Just a heads up, have you asked the Rules Committee about this? They can be contacted on rules@archery.org.au - may be worth a try :D

[Bottom Dweller]

Just a heads up, have you asked the Rules Committee about this? They can be contacted on rules@archery.org.au - may be worth a try :D

Clare suggested a similar thing. I have just sent an email to the rules committee seeking clarification. I'll let you know what they say.

[Bottom Dweller]

I just received an email from John Womersley, Chair - Constitution & Rules Committee.

According to John the reason for the separation was due to men and women usually shooting different distances.

Regarding the rules applicability to QREs he said:

"There is no requirement for clubs conducting QRE's to fully comply with Clause 7.1.1.5. .........So long as the same shooting line is maintained, the targets may be placed in a continuous line without the need for a separation."

I'm happy now :-)