Witam,
Dostałem odpowiedź od głównego sędziego EAA. Nie jest specjalnie konkretna - nie odpowiada na nasze problemy. Ale męczę dalej. Wklejam tą korespondencję tutaj, uważam bowiem, że nie jest to "prywatna poczta" i czuję się do tego upoważniony. Sukcesywnie będę uzupełniał ten wpis w miarę rozwoju sytuacji (poprzez edycję.) Wklejam chronologicznie:
1. Moje pierwsze zapytanie:
"I would like to ask you about article 8.2.3 of the rules. It describes Hunter bow specifications. Within Polish organisation we concluded,that this article seems to describe Hunter Compound bow. Although it is not stated clearly. What is more, there is no article that would describe recurve hunter bow. Was it intentional to put both Recurve hunter and compound hunter bows into one basket?
Recurve bow is normally no match to compound one so we suspect there is a mistake in published rules. Could you please check it and respond?"2. Odpowiedź:
"As Headjudge i want to try to give you the answer to your questions.
Question about article 8.2.3:
you are right, this article discripes also Hunter Compound bow categorie;
years before there were two categories: 3D and Hunter; this two were put together in " Men Hunter 3D;
Question about Recurve bow:
this shooters style ist descriped within article 8.2.6 for men and 8.2.8 for women if possible
I hope ican help you / if you have any more questions about the rules please ask!"Skoro zachęcił do dalszych pytań, oto one:
3. Moje drugie zapytanie:
"Thank you for your response. Although I still have more thoughts:
1. There is a separation between CU (compound unlimited) and CH (compound hunter). Differences are clear. In CH - no part of the bow can exceed 12 inches, sight pins are fixed etc...
2. Regarding recurve bows we have similar situation: Recurve olimpic bow setup is precisely described. But there is also (very popular in US) recurve hunter class bow. Its parameters are exactly as compound hunter... but it is still a recurve bow!!!!
EAA rules do not distinguish those classes - which we consider wrong.
There should be
CU - compound unlimited
CH - compound hunter
RO - Recurve olimpic
RH - recurve hunter
TR... - various styles of traditional bows. Already explained in rules so no adjustments are necessary.
Why do we think those classes should be separated? In short, by comparing results of last year tournaments organised in Poland:
1. CU scores better than CH
2. RO scores better than RH
3. RH is no match to CH (no chance for competition. CH is much more precise bow)
4. TR (various) are class of their own. No TR competitor even approaches to "average or poor" scores for CH, RO or RH bow. And if put together with RH - RH most likely wins having better equipment (sight, stabilisation etc.). TR does not use those accesories.
Therefore our conclusion is that only the separation of those different classes provides equal rights to competitors. Otherwise some of archers (RH especially)have small chance to win or take top 3 places.4. Dodano 3.04.2008 - druga odpowiedź:
i just can say that recurve hunter (pins....) shoot within the olympic;
for the season 2008 the rules and styles are fixed; the eaa has every year in october - november a meeting of the board of directors where changes can be discussed and can decided;
so if we want to change the style its necessary to write a proposal to the board of directors and maybe it will be changed for the next year;
so we are always happy to welcome new members with new ideas and proposals;
maybe it is possible for you to join our first EAA Cup in vorau, where most of the directors will come to;Przepraszam, że nie tłumaczę (nie chce mi się
) i uprościłem formatowanie - by wpis nie był za długi.
Na razie tyle. Proszę o komentarze - o ile nie wyczerpałem tematyki
Pozdrawiam
Maciek
