ScildÞoÞor / Shieldball: Northern Rules.
contributed by Martin
There are two versions of this played in The North
A) Family-friendly version: or when Girls and/or Children want to play.
A shield at each end of the field marks the goal.
Netball rules apply: no contact or running with the ball. The referee may ignore fouls committed during the taking of spectacular Australian Rules-type marks if no permanent injury is sustained by the 'underlings'
To score the ball must be placed on the shield.
B) Military Rules.
Weapons may be used. The ball must be dropped if its carrier is slain.
All legal hits kill.
Killed persons rejoin the game by touching the resurrection pole held by the referee at the line of the ball and at least 10m from the ball. Play must be rejoined in an onside position
(i.e between your side's shield and the ball)
Rules regarding the sacrosanctity of Bishops do not apply if the Bishop is actively in play.
The ball may be thrown at the shield to attempt a score.
For extra interest a spear may be substituted for the ball.
The following article from Bordweall Northerne (Harvest 1997) may illustrate the matter;
Traditionalists expressed outrage recently at reports of a senior cleric involved in a game of scildÞoÞor together with several noblemen. The incident is believed to have occurred in a remote part of the Coventry diocese.
In response, a spokesman commented that as a personage with considerable secular responsibilities, the clergyman involved had to keep himself involved in exercises of this nature. Furthermore, the Church was called to meet all people ‘where they were’ and if taking part in a ‘good hard scrap’ was the best way to gain the respect of noblemen, then so be it.
Various conservative churchmen pointed out that this kind of ‘woolly liberal thinking’ was ‘driving people away from the Church’. It was not for the Church to bend to the winds of public taste. Sources close to the command of 4 (Episcopal Guards) Divn. Allied Northern Fyrds, asked what the policy on ball-games was, expressed ‘concern’ that persons of such value to the church should not risk ‘damaging’ themselves and their offices by participating in activities where their security ‘could not be guaranteed without considerable expenditure of resources’.
This publication concurs. It could be argued, for example, that as slave-trading and the neglect of tenanted properties are also not uncommon practices in society, the Church should also be involved in them in order to ‘meet people where they are’ Of course, any allegation that Our Holy Mother is involved in such activity is to be wholly deprecated, however this serves to show that the Church in Her witness should be an example, and not a bolster to the morality of the day. It is in our view, therefore, inappropriate for prelates to engage in games of scildÞoÞor. They should restrict themselves to more fitting pursuits. Perhaps the contribution of writings of Sound Moral Import would take their mind of any needless physicality. Furthermore, we cannot condone any activity which could lead to the Princes of the Church damaging themselves, or others. ‘Bishop bites huscarl’ is not a headline, nor an occurrence, that this publication would wish to see.
