Another one for the judges

[James Park]

A few years ago in the AV State Target, an archer (Barry McArdle, I think) shot an arrow. Down at the target, he could find only five arrows, not six. The sixth was on the ground behind the target. There were no unmarked arrow holes in the target face.
It was discovered that the arrow had supposedly hit the back of an arrow already in the target, gone down the centre of that arrow, pushed the point out, and passed right through to land on the ground.
One arguement was that it had never actually touched the target butt and could not score.
What would you do here?

[Flame]

it is awarded the same value as the arrow it struck :D

[robbo]

Use fatter arrows. :D

[katzgrin]

Again the assumptions made in the rules. I feel rule 9.8.10 e) should apply an arrow hitting another arrow, and then rebounding from the target, shall score the value of the struck arrow, provided the damaged arrow can be identified

All involved in making the rules have assumed the only condition, other than a deflection, is a rebound. I would argue that the shaft on the ground behind the target, being of smaller diameter than the shaft in the target had to rebound from side to side within the larger diameter shaft before departing the target

This is fun. Bring back Geoffrey Robertson's hypotheticals. :)

[frommy]

This is fun. Bring back Geoffrey Robertson's hypotheticals. :)

I agree, and this is both fun and informative. Well done Jim and others.