Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The latest rules in the rule book..

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Marcus View Post
    At the World Indoor these two colours were considered "not camo"
    Interesting that the camo rule is suppose to be "anti-military" yet the desert tactical is based on a military assault rifle colour.
    I would categorise the rule as NON-military rather than ANTI-military. This would be an important difference to consider.
    Camouflage for the terms of the rule refers to military patterns which are always be a combination of colours or shades of a colour. Thus one colour isn't camouflage.
    Otherwise things would get ludicrous pretty quickly. Pink has been used as military camo before.

    Common sense considerations for the judging if something is camo or not would be along the lines of:

    1. Any pattern which is identifiable in colour and overall design as being or resembling that which has been issued to any military force of the world.
    2. Any pattern which is identifiable in colour and pattern as being or resembling any registered or copyright covered camouflage pattern.
    3. Any pattern which by choice of colour range and pattern would intentionally seek to reduce visibility or outline of the wearer in a natural landscape or urban environment.

    That covers
    actual camo patterns,
    reproduction patterns,
    accidental colour combinations as well as
    sport designed random colour stuff called "camo" but would largely get you spotted and shot in an actual environment.
    It also neatly defines flame camo as being okay because no military unit would be seen dead in it, unless they wanted to be dead in it.
    And the shorts above would fall neatly through the gaps left for that purpose.

    Of course, there should be the last rule of
    4. Any pattern that could be considered by the majority of judges as not covered in the above rules, but trying to make a decision difficult.
    Status is not defined by the amount of gear in your signature.
    Performance cannot be purchased.

    "The Internet offers everything - except quality control" - K. Anders Ericsson.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Ed View Post
      Isn't the point of camouflage intended to make it somewhat difficult to see you amongst the surroundings? I contend that if you can see a person then that person is not camouflaged.
      I make a point of walking into people wearing camo, just so they know it's working. for some reason, they're not as pleased as I think they should be?
      sigpic
      Viper Strings

      Comment


      • #33
        I wear my check flannel shirt and tracky daks when I hit the western suburbs so I don't stand out and blend in with the locals. Is that considered as camo?
        What if I dipped my bow in a heavy wood grain finish? Would that be camo? Would be if I were field shooting. Hate to put it down and loose it.
        This rule seem to be a typical action taken by the very few and inflicted on the rest of us.

        Comment


        • #34
          Are you shooting at a World Archery event? That automatically applies this rule to the very few.

          Almost everyone going off about this rule is never in any danger of infringing against it.
          There is also proof that a can of spray paint is 100 percent effective at solving the problem with no issues.
          Status is not defined by the amount of gear in your signature.
          Performance cannot be purchased.

          "The Internet offers everything - except quality control" - K. Anders Ericsson.

          Comment

          Working...
          X