String Atachments

[tropicalshot]

just a quick question on the increasing amount of people i have seen turn up with string silencers/spiders limbsavers on the string.
i cant find anything with the exception of the fita rules below to see if in fact they are allowed.as i read the rules i thnk they are not, or am i Misinterpreting the wording. ???
it was also raised in another forum at a world cup meet in dubai here
http://www.archery-interchange.com/forum/recurve-bow-discussion-q/13880-archery-world-cup-mystery.html



recurve
7.3.1.2 A bowstring of any number of strands,
7.3.1.2.1 which may be of different colours and of the material chosen for
the purpose. It may have a center serving to accommodate the
drawing fingers, a nocking point to which may be added serving(
s) to fit the arrow nock as necessary, and, to locate this
point, one or two nock locators may be positioned. At each end
of the bowstring there is a loop which is placed in the string
nocks of the bow when braced. In addition one attachment is
permitted on the string to serve as a lip or nose mark. The serving
on the string must not end within the athlete

[Ed]

[QUOTE=tropicalshot]just a quick question on the increasing amount of people i have seen turn up with string silencers/spiders limbsavers on the string.
i cant find anything with the exception of the fita rules below to see if in fact they are allowed.as i read the rules i thnk they are not, or am i Misinterpreting the wording. ???
it was also raised in another forum at a world cup meet in dubai here
http://www.archery-interchange.com/forum/recurve-bow-discussion-q/13880-archery-world-cup-mystery.html



recurve
7.3.1.2 A bowstring of any number of strands,
7.3.1.2.1 which may be of different colours and of the material chosen for
the purpose. It may have a center serving to accommodate the
drawing fingers, a nocking point to which may be added serving(
s) to fit the arrow nock as necessary, and, to locate this
point, one or two nock locators may be positioned. At each end
of the bowstring there is a loop which is placed in the string
nocks of the bow when braced. In addition one attachment is
permitted on the string to serve as a lip or nose mark. The serving
on the string must not end within the athlete

[tropicalshot]

Hard to work out just what these are. BUT if you go a bit further in the Rule book to 7.3.1.10.1 it states that "Also permitted are limb savers...."
that crossed my mind but dont limb savers fit on the limbs and then if they fitted to the string wouldn't they contradict the ONE atachment only on the recurve string,
why cant the book be more clear instead of being so ambiguous,
i have seen books from 30 yrs ago a quarter of the size they are now. whish they would cut the current book down instead of adding to it each year
:confused:

[Archangel]

that crossed my mind but dont limb savers fit on the limbs and then if they fitted to the string wouldn't they contradict the ONE atachment only on the recurve string,
It doesn't say "ONE attachment only", it says that one attachment is permitted as a nose or lip mark - ie. you're not allowed two lip marks. From what Ed says, limb savers are explicitly permitted later on. There's no contradiction there.

i have seen books from 30 yrs ago a quarter of the size they are now. whish they would cut the current book down instead of adding to it each year
:confused:
I agree with that, suspect it might be a little easier to find judges if the rules weren't as incredibly complex...

[tropicalshot]

It doesn't say "ONE attachment only", it says that one attachment is permitted as a nose or lip mark - ie. you're not allowed two lip marks. From what Ed says, limb savers are explicitly permitted later on. There's no contradiction there....

again its all in the iterpratation.

In addition one attachment is
permitted on the string to serve as a lip or nose mark.

i read this as one attachment is permited for a lip or nose mark and no other atachments allowed,
indeed limb savers are permited later on but at the time this was written i am assuming they were for limbsavers that attach to the limbs and not the string or they would have been mentioned in the recurve string section. and not the accesories section.

[Ed]

again its all in the iterpratation.



That's the problem with some rules - the 'interpretation'
In the latest AA Judges Newsletter we had a case study and I received 9 different answers from 32 judges!!

[mrlogan]

Ed,

Is it now too late to submit those questions.

I worked them out just forgot to type them up.

Only remembered when you posted.

[Ed]

Ed,

Is it now too late to submit those questions.

I worked them out just forgot to type them up.

Only remembered when you posted.

Never too late! Maybe you can give us a 10th answer to 55/5!!!!

[johnske]

again its all in the iterpratation.

In addition one attachment is
permitted on the string to serve as a lip or nose mark.

i read this as one attachment is permited for a lip or nose mark and no other atachments allowed,
indeed limb savers are permited later on but at the time this was written i am assuming they were for limbsavers that attach to the limbs and not the string or they would have been mentioned in the recurve string section. and not the accesories section.I have to agree with this, I think it's pretty clear-cut that for recurves (firstly) serving, a nocking point and nock locators are permitted, and (secondly) that "In addition one attachment is permitted on the string to serve as a lip or nose mark." - when read in context with the rest of 7.3.1.2.1, "in addition" means - as well as the previously mentioned items.

In other words, you're allowed to have serving, a nocking point and two nock locators and ONE (that means 1 only) additional attachment. It's also pretty clear that this extra attachment is permitted only so long as it's used to serve as a lip or nose mark (and not for anything else).

That seems to pretty well rule out any additional attachments to the recurve string. IMO the reference to limbsavers is meant to refer to the generally accepted meaning of "limbsavers" i.e. attachments/accessories that fit onto the limbs.

[mrlogan]

Thanks Ed, done and sent.

[whiz]

Well, if you say that these rules prevent the uses of string silencing devices by the fact that they don't mention them, then you also must admit that they don't mention the serving required to secure string peeps.

I would submit that as string devices like silencers fall within the realm of vibration and noise reduction, they're not likely to be classed as outside a "Spirit of the rule" decision to forbid them.

[johnske]

Well, if you say that these rules prevent the uses of string silencing devices by the fact that they don't mention them, then you also must admit that they don't mention the serving required to secure string peeps...But (as string peeps are only used for compounds) they do mention it (albeit indirectly). Viz: "In addition attachments are permitted on the string such as a lip or nose mark, a peep-hole, a peep-hole

[whiz]

So are you arguing for or against?

[tropicalshot]

So are you arguing for or against?

i dont think there is an argument for or against. its just a clarification should someone turn up to a FITA shoot with extra atachments on their string that are not listed in the above rules.

[johnske]

Neither for nor against - just that a clarification is needed.

That recurve rule has been like that like - forever - so what is wrong with the current recurves that they are suddenly found to require 'noise' or 'shock' suppressors to be able to shoot them properly? :o

[whiz]

Sorry. I should have clarified, johnske
Do you interpret the rules to be endorsing or forbidding by your statement.

Even though you've answered it and just requested clarification...

I personally (as a wannabe judge) would say that as I can see no possible competitive edge, I would interpret the current applicable rules to say, hey, help yourself unless they can be used as location markers.

[johnske]

Well, without clarification I'd say "against". The point I was trying to make with my previous post is that for many years recurvers have had to compete and set their records despite the lack of such 'noise' or 'shock' suppressors, so, while I personally can see no unfair physical advantage in using them, if someone using them then sets a new record you have ask "did this so-called 'noise' or 'shock' suppressors assist with this record?" and "Is that really ALL it does?"

[huffy66]

Based on the comments on this thread what would you say about the extra items on the bow strings shown in the pictures in this thread.

http://www.archery-interchange.com/forum/recurve-bow-discussion-q/13880-archery-world-cup-mystery.html

Best wishes, Mark

[reversehaven]

well, as to how much competitive edge the noise suppressants give... i don't think it's enough to be illegal. They basically add comfort to the bow for shooting. if you'd say they shouldn't be allowed, i'd think stuff like modified grips should not be allowed either, since they add comfort to shooting.

there again, if we bank on performance advantage to determine if we should ban it or not, then we might as well remove all stabilisers and everyone should use woodcore limbs. Of course, i'm dragging the argument to one extreme. I think what's most important is that if a rule is made, it's enforced and fair to everyone.

[reversehaven]

well, as to how much competitive edge the noise suppressants give... i don't think it's enough to be illegal. They basically add comfort to the bow for shooting. if you'd say they shouldn't be allowed, i'd think stuff like modified grips should not be allowed either, since they add comfort to shooting.

there again, if we bank on performance advantage to determine if we should ban it or not, then we might as well remove all stabilisers and everyone should use woodcore limbs. Of course, i'm dragging the argument to one extreme. I think what's most important is that if a rule is made, it's enforced and fair to everyone.

[whiz]

Based on the comments on this thread what would you say about the extra items on the bow strings shown in the pictures in this thread.

http://www.archery-interchange.com/forum/recurve-bow-discussion-q/13880-archery-world-cup-mystery.html

Best wishes, Mark


I think that it is a large collection of absolute rubbish conjecture for the most part.

[GrahameA]

IMHO

Do string silencers make your bow "more accurate" - methinks not but that is only my opinion.

If the person I was shooting against in a matchplay turned up with string silencers on would I complain? "Heck no!" If anything I would suggest that if they made them bigger they would work better.

Do I have any? Well strangely, "Yes". One of my bows has a very nice set set make from Mink (as in fur). Do they work - well they make the bow quieter and have slowed the arrow speed down a bit and they do look extremely "flash and up-market".

Would I put a set on a bow I was going to use for serious target work - "Not on your Nellie".