Rule book interpretation. An appeal to logic.

Hello,

I need some help interpreting the meaning of several sentences within an archery rule book. I have recently been in contoversy over some of its rules.

My friend and I are avid archers. Both of us spend many hours per week in target practice and in actual shooting competition. A couple of weeks ago there was a situation in which one of the arrow shafts embedded into the target was so close to a higher scoring ring that we were in disagreement if it was touching the line or not. Because of the foam targets surface texture the line itself was not well defined in that particular area. This increased the difficulty of calling the shot. The distance may have been only a couple thousandths of an inch at the most.

The arrow in question belonged to me and attempt for closure I mentioned that the particular field points that I use are about an eighth of and inch wider in radius than the shaft of the arrow itself. Based on this fact; it was obvious that the field point of the arrow must have intersected the higher scoring ring upon penetration of the target. However, the only way to determine this absolutely, would be to pull back on the arrow shaft until the widest portion of the field point was exposed enough to make a physical confirmation. I proceeded to slowly back the arrow away from the target until the widest section of the field point was exposed enough to help facilitate that determination. As I had suspected, my action confirmed the tip had intersected the line by approximately one eighth of an inch.

I claimed that I should be allowed the higher score but would only argue its inclusion in a sudden death situation. In the end I won the game by one point. Since the score was not a tie, We did not need to include the shot in question to determine the winner. Now we have this on going argument that is essentially testing the future validity of this particular scoring premise.

Since that day, my friend has started a blog on a popular archery forum that presents this argument in a forum which has garnered hundreds of views and many opinions. Many of which are thoughtful and others not so. The tide of opinion is against my view of the matter. However, I believe that logic may be on my side and the rules governing our competition may, when correctly interpreted, stop the conjecture and solidify a logical consensus in favor of my argument.

The official rules provided by the governing body (International Bow Hunters Organization) that pertain to scoring are somewhat vague and as such open to interpretation. It is my hope that key words and phrases can be identified that will ultimately provide a clearer, if not absolute, meaning to each rule that may pertain to any similar situations in the future.

My argument is based on two sentences within section IV. SHOOTING RULES AND ETIQUETTE of the IBO rule book.

In section IV. B. (2) (f)

The following paragraph explains three of the five different ways that an arrow may be scored. The crux of my argument lies in sentence one:

f. All whole arrows, or partial arrows that include the point, that are sticking in the

target shall be scored where they penetrate the target. An arrow embedded into the

nock end of an arrow embedded in the target shall be scored the same as the arrow

embedded into the target. An arrow that hits another arrow—with the arrow being

struck showing visible damage—that does not stick in the target shall be given the

score of the arrow that was struck. The majority of the group must agree that 1) a

particular arrow was struck, and 2) that striking the arrow prevented the arrow from

sticking in the target, or the arrow shall be scored as a miss.

In my situation the sentence could be read as:

All whole arrows that are sticking in the target shall be scored where they penetrate the target.

My argument:

The important words to consider here are shall and penetrate. First one must determine what is penetration. For the sake of clarity; I submit that when one object penetrates another and that the object that penetrates is cylindrical in form; the boundaries of the penetration must include the outermost perimeter (widest section) of the penetrating objects circumference. Furthermore, the initial act of penetration is done solely by the arrow point itself. The shaft merely follows the point while providing additional momentum for penetration. Since an arrow is inclusive of its parts, IE field point or broad head, insert, shaft, fletching and nock hardware, the portion of the arrow that is widest must be considered the outermost boundary of the penetration.

Now we must consider the word shall. Shall is that draconian word that we love to hate. We love it when it works in our favor and we hate it when it doesn't. The word shall is absolute. It leaves no room for argument so long as the conditions in the sentence are met.

Now lies the problem of how to determine if the point that is wider than the shaft was actually touching the higher scoring ring upon penetration. Practically, I see only two ways.

1. If the shaft of the arrow is too close to call then one could reasonably assume a field point that is an eighth of an in wider in radius than the shaft it is attached to would certainly have been touching the higher scoring ring during penetration.

2. Slowly and carefully back up the arrow until the widest portion of the field point is exposed enough to visually make that confirmation.

Number two is where my argument lives or dies.

In section IV. B. (1) (b)

It states:

Scorecards must be split between two scorekeepers so that each scorekeeper has one

card for each archer. Both scorekeepers must agree on a score, compare and punch the

scorecards before the arrows are pulled from the target. Scorecards will be marked by

a punched hole in the correct scoring box for each target.

In sentence two of this paragraph:

Both scorekeepers must agree on a score, compare and punch the

scorecards before the arrows are pulled from the target.

The consensus in the blogosphere over sentence number two is that it restricts the act of pulling or moving an arrow before it is scored; regardless of the distance it is pulled or moved. The sanction for committing such an act is described in IV. B.(1) (c ) :

And it states:

Arrows pulled early will receive a zero. Repeated violations of this rule will result in

the offending archer being disqualified.

However, I strongly disagree with this consensus as I interpret the sentence as not precluding the act of pulling but only the act of removal. When reading the phrase “pulled from” I interpret this as pulled out, removed from, taken from or taken out. In target archery it is often necessary for close inspection to determine a true score. And from time to time it is necessary to move an arrow to expose it when it is embedded within a target making it invisible from the scoring side.

In example:

The movie was so controversial that it was pulled from theaters in all fifty states while critics gave it poor reviews and 0 out of 5 stars.

To me, the archery rule is as clear to me as the above sentence is clear in describing that the condemned movie was removed from theaters completely.

In closing I believe some wording of the rules are ambiguous and in some places poorly written. I would agree that some parts need to be redone. With more emphasis put on definitions. I believe as the rules are currently written; they include for point contact to be scored. I also believe the rules do not preclude the pulling of arrows in order to examine the points impact area as long as the arrow does not fully exit the target upon inspection.

I would greatly appreciate any expert opinions on this matter

Sincerely,

Dox.