Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

New ISSF Rules

«1

Comments



  • I think the changes to the finals will make things interesting. Everyone has an equal chance of winning instead of the 8th placed shooter having to make up more points than the 3rd or 4th placed shooter.




  • Hate that finals format with a passion. Reset qualification scores to zero? FFS. It was ****e in the London Games for the 25m rapid-fire pistol.

    And now everyone has to buy new shooting shoes too.

    Mostly the changes are okay. Some are even common sense like internet access being a requirement for ranges running major matches and medical taping being banned. Some changes are just hiking the fees for some things like retesting kit that failed the first time in Equipment Control.

    The Air Rifle matches and 50m matches took a kicking though - prep time and unlimited sighters are gone, replaced by 15mins of prep and sighters and then the competition is scoring shots only. Plus the times are all cut:
    • Men's 60 shot air rifle is down from 105 minutes to 75 minutes;
    • Women's 40-shot is down from 75 minutes to 50 minutes;
    • Mens 3x40 50m rifle is down to 2 hours 45 for all three positions with people changing positions on the fly instead of everyone changing simultaenously;
    • Women's 3x20 is down from 135 to 105 minutes;
    • 50m Prone rifle is down from 75 to 50 minutes;
    • 300m rifle times are all down by 15 minutes in each event.
    Ironic, given that the Mens Air Rifle gold medal in London went to the slowest shooter I have *ever* seen on an international firing line, and his shooting slow drove the crowd wild with every shot in the finals... which is exactly what they want to have happen and they're banning what made it happen!




  • Charming, ain't they?

    Set sighting time, then a block of match time. Hmm, doesn't really seem to acknowledge the fact that there are sighters to be taken between positions, does it? I mean, you get fifteen minutes of sighting time before the prone section in a three-positions match, which is more than enough, but then what about standing and kneeling? If you try and get in fifteen minutes of sighters there, you use up half an hour of your new 165 minute time period. Call it another ten minutes for each changeover (as beforehand) and you're down to 115 to get 120 shots off, including your settling in time and so forth. It's even worse for the women. 105 minutes for three positions, two changeover and two extra sets of sighters is a big ask. Even in the prone, fifty minutes to get off sixty shots and somehow fit at least one break in is a significant ask.

    Then the finals. What tacky shíte. I'm sorry, but not all sports start final rounds from scratch. Where's the IOC's attack on sailing? Then there's the format. Ugh. Just awful. Eliminations and duels. It's like a reality tv nightmare. They can say the extra round count makes it a true test of skill all they like, but that's not realistic. Especially in smallbore events, the number of rounds fired and the fact that elimination decisions are made on the total of two shots does not mean a fair test. Two shooters hold on a perfect 10.9. One gets it, the other gets a 10.5, because that's how the guns shoot. At least as things stand, the ten-shot string is a much better representation of ability to group tightly under pressure. Two shots is not.

    No shooting trousers or boots in prone-only matches, but you can wear them in the prone section of the three-positions matches? Eh, why? So people have to get used to two completely different feels between their prone and three-positions events?

    Oh, here's a sneaky one. No vibration-reducing systems of any kind. So... All those air rifles and pistols with compensators? All those smallbore rifles with tuners or (uh oh...) bedding systems? (Yes, that would be *all* of them, in one way or another) Illegal, by that line. Now, maybe they clarify what counts as a vibration-reducing system down the line, but that line as it stands renders just about every rifle and pistol out there illegal.

    Oh, and in the general technical rules, no more shoot-offs for finals? Inner ten count now decides. That's a disgrace, frankly. The shoot-offs were a proper test. This is just laziness. "It made things difficult to schedule." Boo hoo. There was time allotted for it, so that excuse does not swing.

    Oh, and a €20 fee for having to retest equipment if it doesn't pass on the first test? Hmm, that seems a rather grim way to collect money based on their failure to address the gaping flaws in their own testing protocols and the inconsistency in their application at various events.

    There are more, so many more, but what a pile of dog muck. But of course, this is all to make it more "dynamic" and tv-friendly, right? To encourage the public and the "youth" in particular to watch and take part? My hole it will.




  • dev110 wrote: »
    I think the changes to the finals will make things interesting. Everyone has an equal chance of winning instead of the 8th placed shooter having to make up more points than the 3rd or 4th placed shooter.

    Yeah, but realistically, that shouldn't be the case, dev. Nobody can tell me with any realism that Campriani or one of the other guys who came into the prone final in London on 595 should have started off on the same score as Martynov with his 600. There's no drama in that. The whole buzz comes from seeing people close gaps. Watching Debevec eat away at Cox's lead in the final was brilliant. Also, finals are indoors. You could maybe argue that they're a representative test if they were shot on outdoor ranges, but the fact that Lionel Cox had a 599 in those conditions means in my mind that he *should* have an advantage going into the final, and even though he shot weakly in that, his cumulative performance plenty justified the silver he got.




  • Ah the finals will get more drama involved where the best shooter has to keep shooting the best.
    All Olympic sports today must become more dynamic, attract more fans, engage the public with more drama and provide great shows for youth, spectators, television and the media.
    Its easy for me to say I will enjoy the finals more cause I won't be shooting in them :D
    Hope your working on your mental training :p

    I don't understand the belt loops though. How would more loops give an advantage?


  • Advertisement


  • Eliminations and duels. It's like a reality tv nightmare.
    +1x10^6
    If I wanted that kind of shooting, I wouldn't shoot ISSF.
    No shooting trousers or boots in prone-only matches, but you can wear them in the prone section of the three-positions matches? Eh, why? So people have to get used to two completely different feels between their prone and three-positions events?
    That's one of the few things that makes sense - you probably couldn't do 3x40 or 3x20 if you weren't in all the kit already. But if you want to, you don't have to use the trousers for the prone in the 3x40 match.
    .
    Oh, here's a sneaky one. No vibration-reducing systems of any kind. So... All those air rifles and pistols with compensators? All those smallbore rifles with tuners or (uh oh...) bedding systems? (Yes, that would be *all* of them, in one way or another) Illegal, by that line. Now, maybe they clarify what counts as a vibration-reducing system down the line, but that line as it stands renders just about every rifle and pistol out there illegal.
    Not just about every - actually every. Got a weight anywhere on the rifle? That's a vibration reducing system (and one the rules allows elsewhere even though it's banned here? FFS, who wrote this, Dermot Ahern?)

    But yeah, that's every air rifle from the Feinwerkbau 602 or 603 onwards, rendered illegal by the compensator; every Rapid Fire pistol rendered illegal by the porting on the barrel and the barrel weights; and so forth.

    Some serious rework needed there methinks.
    Oh, and in the general technical rules, no more shoot-offs for finals? Inner ten count now decides. That's a disgrace, frankly. The shoot-offs were a proper test. This is just laziness. "It made things difficult to schedule." Boo hoo. There was time allotted for it, so that excuse does not swing.
    Oh, and a €20 fee for having to retest equipment if it doesn't pass on the first test? Hmm, that seems a rather grim way to collect money based on their failure to address the gaping flaws in their own testing protocols and the inconsistency in their application at various events.
    Yeah, but it wasn't the nastiest thing in there and after a weekend with the pentathlon pistol equipment control there a while back I'd have happily charged it for every one of the french shooters who insisted on setting their pistols 1 gram over the limit and then getting six or seven retests to pass :D
    There are more, so many more, but what a pile of dog muck. But of course, this is all to make it more "dynamic" and tv-friendly, right? To encourage the public and the "youth" in particular to watch and take part? My hole it will.
    Yup.
    Could have been worse (at least no ban on synthetics in the clothing or banning trousers for standing or other such daft ideas); will be worse if that vibration reduction stuff isn't sorted sharpish; and it's killed the finals off as a contest of skill.




  • dev110 wrote: »
    Ah the finals will get more drama involved where the best shooter has to keep shooting the best.

    Its easy for me to say I will enjoy the finals more cause I won't be shooting in them :D
    Hope your working on your mental training :p

    I don't understand the belt loops though. How would more loops give an advantage?

    That might be fair if it weren't based on two-shot series. Martynov had a 10.2 and a 10.3 in that final in London, but it was a 105.5, which is an absolute gem of a final in anyone's books. What happens when he's eliminated for one of those shots? The best person has then not won. The objective of the competition has been failed.

    Belt loops are like everything else the ISSF is looking at changing. It's meaningless. Tacky window-dressing, to be seen to be doing something, while ignoring the very real issues they should be confronting in things like their equipment testing protocols.




  • All I'm saying is for an outsider looking in I think it will make things more exciting.

    From what ye'r saying about the vibration reducers does seem like a farce though.




  • I notice that the shoe flexibility testing is in as expected, and I still haven't seen a documented protocol that addresses some basic things like where on the shoe it's clamped for the testing machine to raise the heel, or how they account for different shoe sizes - takes a lot more oomph to bend a size 6 shoe to the same angle as a size 13 shoe, even if they're made of the same material; so people with big feet can wear stiffer shoes...

    (also, we all have to cut our boots because the square toe extensions are now gone)




  • Dev, if it makes the finals more interesting for spectators, then brilliant, but I'm not convinced it does. The other factor is that you can't use two shots to assess someone's skill level. It's just not representative. I've had plenty of two-shot groups that would get me through those rounds, but I've also had some plonker ones. When you have a format like that that doesn't allow the best person to actually be the winner and could eliminate them for an instantaneous performance dip, especially when the guns just don't shoot like lasers (two shooters hold on 10.9. One gets a 10.7. The other gets a 10.5. Equal performance, different on-target result) then ultimately, assuming the primary objective of the final is actually to decide the best shooter, rather than to provide a spectacle for the crowd, that objective has been failed.


  • Advertisement


  • dev110 wrote: »
    All I'm saying is for an outsider looking in I think it will make things more exciting.
    'fraid not dev :(

    What made the London finals was two things: Electronic Targets with displays the crowd could read; and a good commentator who knew the sport.

    See, here's the thing. You watch GAA in the all-irelands and you know what's going on, you can see the play progress, you can get into the game because it's all out there for you to look at thanks to the scale of the game. But with shooting in the Olympics, it's all internal - you can't see from more than a few meters away who's wobbling and who's inhumanly settled and controlled, and even at close range you have to know what you're looking for to see it.

    But stick an electronic target down the range and a big scoreboard and cameras zoomed into the shooter's face and have someone who knows the sport explain it for those who don't and you get seven hundred people screaming their lungs out for the last shot of the Mens Air Rifle Finals.

    And if you stuck a noptel on there, you'd see even more of what's going on, and they'd get even more involved.

    Instead, we're counting belt loops and drafting confusing rules that might require us all to buy new guns in the middle of an economic depression if they're not fixed sharpish...




  • It ain't just airguns either. I don't know how you make a gun without vibration reducing systems. We call them bedding bolts, in their simplest form. Or there can be pads of rubber or other material which prevent hard contact between barrelled actions and stocks (such as in my Anschutz Precise). And what about glass and pillars? Now, I suspect what they're looking at are things like tuners (not that that's any way reasonable either) but their phrasing actually more accurately attacks things like the bolts holding your gun in your stock.




  • Might not get a reply, but what the hell. By email to ISSF:
    Dear Sir,
    I note in your post-London Games rules changes, you state:
    Vibration Reduction Systems. The installation of any type of vibration reduction system in or on the rifle is prohibited.

    What is a Vibration Reduction System in this context? Does this cover compensators, as fitted to air rifles and air pistols for the past two decades or so? Does it cover barrel tuning systems and bedding on smallbore rifles? Does it cover barrel weights on any rifle or pistol? Does it cover barrel ports in rapid-fire pistols?




  • Ah ok I think I'm starting to get the picture.

    Because I'm not in the sport I think the finals are a good way to go but really what is happening is they are taking the shooting out of shooting so to speak.

    The ISSF are trying to make it into to much of a spectator sport instead of what it really is, a test of skill and mental ability.

    If I change things to FTR and after shooting a full comp from 800-1000 and for talk sake I have the most points so I should win but then we go into a final with 5 shots at 1000 yards with the top 5 shooters for the top place. All of my good wind calls and keeping my verticals down has gone out the window and maybe because of a vertical I loose a point or two then I come 5th. I would be pissed!




  • dev110 wrote: »
    Ah ok I think I'm starting to get the picture.

    Because I'm not in the sport I think the finals are a good way to go but really what is happening is they are taking the shooting out of shooting so to speak.

    The ISSF are trying to make it into to much of a spectator sport instead of what it really is, a test of skill and mental ability.

    If I change things to FTR and after shooting a full comp from 800-1000 and for talk sake I have the most points so I should win but then we go into a final with 5 shots at 1000 yards with the top 5 shooters for the top place. All of my good wind calls and keeping my verticals down has gone out the window and maybe because of a vertical I loose a point or two then I come 5th. I would be pissed!

    Yeah, imagine you shot a massive competition, over a weekend, say a hundred and twenty shots to score, and after that you were a good ten points clear of everyone else. However, now, you go into a five-way shoot-off at 1000 yards, as you say, for the medals. When you've been so much better over such a large number of shots, how is it remotely fair that a guy ten or twelve points behind you has the same shot at gold in this little five-shot shoot-off?




  • Ye the more I think about the more I realise its not a good idea.
    Could this end up putting people out of the sport instead of joining it?




  • dev110 wrote: »
    Ye the more I think about the more I realise its not a good idea.
    Could this end up putting people out of the sport instead of joining it?

    I think it's more likely to put those currently in it out of it than to discourage joining, but it's certainly not going to help. I mean, they've killed the purpose of the finals dead in its tracks. Medals are no longer won by the best, but by fluke, in a lot of cases. People who should win are eliminated prematurely for the sake of having something visible happen and you lose the dramatic effect of climbing scoreboards based on tenths of points. If it's a tv spectacle they want, then great, just let us shoot a final that actually rewards skill and consistency throughout the whole match and award the medals based on that, rather than some glorified reality tv obstacle course.




  • dev110 wrote: »
    Ye the more I think about the more I realise its not a good idea.
    Could this end up putting people out of the sport instead of joining it?

    I think it's more likely to put those currently in it out of it than to discourage joining, but it's certainly not going to help. I mean, they've killed the purpose of the finals dead in its tracks. Medals are no longer won by the best, but by fluke, in a lot of cases. People who should win are eliminated prematurely for the sake of having something visible happen and you lose the dramatic effect of climbing scoreboards based on tenths of points. If it's a tv spectacle they want, then great, just let us shoot a final that actually rewards skill and consistency throughout the whole match and award the medals based on that, rather than some glorified reality tv obstacle course.

    The vibration system installation ban can be adjusted/interpreted to mean that third party non original "extra" systems cannot be used. Since you do not install the stabiliser, it is pre-installed at the factory. Weights and so on are not installed but held in placeholders?

    That's about as liberal an interpretation I cam give it. It wasn't drafted the best - a nice "interpretation section" at the start would have helped a lot.

    I like the time reduction (speaking as a pcp shooter - the hand pump guys are at a distinct disadvantage I think). The mental game has to be that little bit sharper now.

    Equally the finals format might prove to be interesting. The scores are cumulative from my reading (after the initial reset to zero) so you do get 6+2 shots to build a lead, after which elimination begins. Hopefully that reduces the possibility that 0.2 of a difference in score eliminates the would be champion. It's about increased pressure on the mental game again I think... Matt Emmons is probably going to retire ;) Chinese Vulcan robots get to prove just how emotionless they are.

    Can anyone explain to me in layman terms what the clothimg changes for 10m standing air rifle are? Do we need new jackets, trousers, shoes etc? I see seat padding on pants are out - so my standing trousers need to be changed?




  • If that's the case, Thirdfox, then it's completely meaningless, as factories will just start releasing rifles with tuners and so on as well. ISSF would be offering them a commercial niche on a plate there. Unfortunately, it's easy to say it's open to interpretation, but there's no substance beyond conjecture for your effort at a more reasonable interpretation. Certainly the rules released give no basis for such, and we're forced to rely on the (unsafe) assumption that they wouldn't do anything so crazy.




  • The new chapters of the technical rules and the pistol rules got posted up on the net earlier, but I don't know the provenance of these...


  • Advertisement


  • If that's the case, Thirdfox, then it's completely meaningless, as factories will just start releasing rifles with tuners and so on as well. ISSF would be offering them a commercial niche on a plate there. Unfortunately, it's easy to say it's open to interpretation, but there's no substance beyond conjecture for your effort at a more reasonable interpretation. Certainly the rules released give no basis for such, and we're forced to rely on the (unsafe) assumption that they wouldn't do anything so crazy.

    I guess because the alternative is a bit too horrifying to contemplate (buying all new equipment - head to toe to gun) for non-professionals who actually have to spend their own money to participate in this sport.

    I reserve judgement on the final structure though. But I sure like my steyr stabilizer. I wonder did equipment manufacturers get any lobbying in to get people to "upgrade" to new sports equipment.

    From what little I know of the history/rules of the sport - this set of changes appear to be revolutionary rather than evolutionary.

    I hear National councils will be asked to opine on this and nothing is set until December/November? Or am I mistaken?




  • Yeah, it's been released to national federations now and there's room for comment and response until November, but my guess is that what we have here is materially what we'll have with the publication of the new book in January. The more I read it all, the more I think I could deal with most of it if it weren't for that insanely stupid finals system. Just need someone to bankroll me for 300m now to get away from that nonsense.




  • I guess it's not our opinions that count but what the Chinese/Germans/Italians/US/Russians think of it that matters.




  • There are supposed to be more changes en route for November (see the bits in the summary where it says there's no decision made yet), but they should be minor.

    If the national federations were to lobby the ISSF to actually do things that helped the sport rather than makework, that'd be handy though. Like, for example:
    • Making it mandatory for World Cup level events and above to have wireless noptel/scatt/rika setups attached to barrels for finals and presented on screens above the shooter.
    • Making it a contractual obligation with Suis Ascor and Megalink and any other ISSF-approved electronic target manufacturer to produce software that lets you share scores live on the web (and by software, I mean software that works well, is robust and easy to use, not the poke-your-own-eyes-out-with-a-butternut-squash nightmare they currently have). Every shot, as it's fired, should be up on the web. It isn't rocket science, it's a fairly simple task, using standard well-understood tools. Hell, as IRLConor could tell you, boards.ie does more heavy lifting than this.
    • Hiring the commentator from the London Games to be the official ISSF commentator on their youtube channel and for all ISSF major events in the future.
    • Make it mandatory to use twitter and facebook duing ISSF major events and to up the amount of interaction we see. One single press release with an image from an event was a good step forward, twenty years ago; today it's just not cutting it. More than half the international circuit are on facebook, and lots are on twitter as well. If you can access both from a mobile phone, and you have professionally paid PROs at these events, then you can tweet/facebook from them too. Hell, if we can do it from Intershoot and RIAC in our spare time...
    • Drop this stupid idea of resetting scores to zero for finals. If you have to do this daft duelling crap, you can do it without doing the resetting of scores - archery's been doing that for twenty years now. But frankly, the finals themselves were bad enough as steps away from pure target shooting went. The road we're on leads to a place that archery is now in; where the actual sport happens in qualification and then the public is shown some mockery of the sport for a few shots in a finals. That's not a good place to be in.




  • Thirdfox wrote: »
    I guess it's not our opinions that count but what NBC's advertisers think of it that matters.
    Fixed your post...




  • Sparks wrote: »
    • Making it mandatory for World Cup level events and above to have wireless noptel/scatt/rika setups attached to barrels for finals and presented on screens above the shooter.
    • Making it a contractual obligation with Suis Ascor and Megalink and any other ISSF-approved electronic target manufacturer to produce software that lets you share scores live on the web (and by software, I mean software that works well, is robust and easy to use, not the poke-your-own-eyes-out-with-a-butternut-squash nightmare they currently have). Every shot, as it's fired, should be up on the web. It isn't rocket science, it's a fairly simple task, using standard well-understood tools. Hell, as IRLConor could tell you, boards.ie does more heavy lifting than this.
    • Hiring the commentator from the London Games to be the official ISSF commentator on their youtube channel and for all ISSF major events in the future.
    • Make it mandatory to use twitter and facebook duing ISSF major events and to up the amount of interaction we see. One single press release with an image from an event was a good step forward, twenty years ago; today it's just not cutting it. More than half the international circuit are on facebook, and lots are on twitter as well. If you can access both from a mobile phone, and you have professionally paid PROs at these events, then you can tweet/facebook from them too. Hell, if we can do it from Intershoot and RIAC in our spare time...
    • Drop this stupid idea of resetting scores to zero for finals. If you have to do this daft duelling crap, you can do it without doing the resetting of scores - archery's been doing that for twenty years now. But frankly, the finals themselves were bad enough as steps away from pure target shooting went. The road we're on leads to a place that archery is now in; where the actual sport happens in qualification and then the public is shown some mockery of the sport for a few shots in a finals. That's not a good place to be in.

    I like the scatt/rika ideas and most of what you say.

    However, the mockery of the finals as you say - may be necessary to attract the public - they want to see people screw up, to see underdogs win, to create as much tension as possible. Right now sometimes in a final it can come down to the last shot to determine who wins - lots of tension and audience excitement. With an elimination system you can create tension at each instance the elimination happens... arguably more exciting for the audience.

    As participants it may not be the most fair or sporting way to do things... but the gladiators in the Colosseum weren't there to purely engage in sport. We need to entertain the masses and this might be a way to do that (even if it is a mockery sport - and I'm not entirely convinced it is).

    Right now - I get excited watching the final, so does my other half - but we both shoot and know what it's like and what to look out for. For the general public - I imagine it looks like 8 people standing still shooting and pulling the trigger (hence I like the scatt idea). The elimination might be another way to spice things up for someone who knows nothing about the sport.

    Like in the cycling - I don't know much about the rules but in the chase when the guys are about to be eliminated it looks exciting (even though they're just going around in giant circles). I can't tell the difference between the various aerodynamic body positions of the cyclists but I certainly understand the guy who is last over the line is out...

    Equally an elimination system doesn't require much understanding of the sport of air rifle and its finesse/training/technique behind the shot - people can get excited about "oooh he shot 10.2...and the other guy shot 10.4! 10.2 guy is out..."




  • Thirdfox wrote: »
    With an elimination system you can create tension at each instance the elimination happens... arguably more exciting for the audience.
    I don't agree. I think the tension is because with the last shot he's going to win the medal, not because he might lose it - he can lose the medal on any of the 69 previous shots as well :D
    We need to entertain the masses
    Says who?
    I don't do this sport to entertain others, I do it because I want the challange, because I enjoy it. Lots of I's, not many NBC Advertisers.

    The ISSF thinks they need to entertain because that's what the IOC want them to do; and the IOC want it because NBC won't pay several billion dollars for the TV rights to the Games unless they're entertaining enough to sell advertising space; and the advertisers want T&A for the men (hence beach volleyball) and B&P for the women (hence the huge coverage of swimming). (And yes, T&A&B&P, these are american advertisers, they're not exactly paragons of enlightened feminism. If they could get the IOC to ban clothing for all events, they'd do it).

    Besides, if we want to entertain the masses, that's easy and requires only a tiny change :





  • From Don Macintosh (the head rifle coach for British Shooting, former head rifle coach for Scotland and currently their Programme Manager) on his website:
    2013-16 Rules Changes

    A few days ago a document appeared in a number of different locations, including Facebook and Stirton.com, which appears to be a summary of rule changes already approved by the ISSF for the four year cycle 2013-2016. I am told that this has been circulated to National Federations, but as of last night British Shooting have not received a copy, and the ISSF are not replying to queries about it. [Edit] Got a copy via British Shooting this morning!

    There are some of the most significant changes ever made to our sport within this document, and as you can imagine they are extremely controversial. Click here for the document.

    This morning I received an email from two of the most successful rifle shooters of modern times: Niccolo Campriani of Italy, Olympic Champion in London in the Men's 3P event, Silver Medalist in London & World Champion in Men's Air Rifle and Rajmond Debevec, surely the most successful rifle shooter ever - Olympic Champion in Men's 3P in Sydney, Olympic medalist in Beijing and London. Click on their names to read more about them, and read on to see what they sent me:
    Dear Shooting Friends,

    ISSF PETITION

    Starting at zero rule.

    In recent months within the shooting world there have been many rumors regarding an imminent and drastic change in the ISSF rules for the 2013-2016 cycle.

    Now these rumors have become official and the main change, the one that we are petitioning, would bring the scores between qualification and final back to zero. This “start at zero” rule, deleting the qualification scores, would represent the "death" of events such as the three-position rifle or the free pistol, that for their nature reward the ability to maintain concentration and technical skills for a long period of time.

    It would be like trying to make a marathon more spectacular and in order to do that we decide to stop the first 8 runners after 41,900 meters, erasing the gaps, then let them do the sprint for the last 100 meters all together.

    Obviously it would be another sport.

    We as the shooters and coaches around the world, appreciate the effort of the ISSF in order to make shooting a better sport but at the same time we believe that such important decisions should not be taken without the agreement of the majority of shooters and coaches.

    For this reason we ask the ISSF to be clear and transparent in order to participate in this discussion and improve together this sport without deleting the meritocracy at the expense of the entertainment.

    This is still a sport, not just a show.

    We also believe that the London Olympic Games have demonstrated that the finals, as structured now, are very exciting and they are able to transmit to the public the excitement and the suspense needed to create a great show, especially if there are professional speakers, which do not block the action of shooters with their comments but follow it.

    Why then decide to change a formula that has proven to work? Why we do not think to increase the involvement of the public at home with greater use of technology, such as heart rate monitors or devices able to track the aiming of the shooter on the target?

    Solutions of this kind would not undermine meritocracy but at the same time would make shooting a sport suitable for broadcast video.

    If you agree then sign here: http://www.petitiononline.com/ruleISSF/petition.html

    Thanks!

    Nicco and Rajmond

    I fully support all that Nicco and Rajmond have said, and have nothing significant to add - they are superb champions and wonderful ambassadors for our sport. They, more than most, understand what our sport is all about, and that the existing formats provide an exciting and entertaining experience for spectators, provided that good commentary is provided and in real time.

    Many of the other changes documented are intended to address concerns about how the sport appears to the uninitiated, only time will tell if they will have the desired effect, although there is more than a hint of desperation about some of them, and it is unclear how separating the sighting period from the substantially reduced match times contributes anything!

    I have specific concerns about a few:
    • Vibration Reduction Systems. The installation of any type of vibration reduction system in or on the rifle is prohibited.

      Further explanation will be required here, but it has the potential to make pretty much every Air Rifle in use across the world illegal as they all have compensators/absorbers built into their mechanisms. Will it include extension tubes on barrels? Barrel tuners? Adding any weights to a rifle has the potential to reduce the vibration in the system - simple physics.
    • Chest Rests. Any attachments (Brustanlagen) projecting forward from the lower portion of the butt plate are prohibited.

      Why? With modern alu stocks many of these replace the lower part of a wooden stock, and as long as they are within the confines of the permitted dimensions of the rifle then how can this be implemented. They help with some shooters to keep the rifle from illegal contact with the left side of the chest - something that can be problematic, particularly with female athletes. I guess it will be simple enough to attach pieces to the stock below the cheekpiece that contact the shooter in the same location and circumvent this daft rule.
    • Shoe Sole Contour. The sole must follow the external curvature of the shoe and may not extend more than 5.0 mm beyond the external dimensions of the shoe at any point. Toe extensions or heels that are cut square or flat are not permitted.

      Why? This cannot possibly make any difference. You can't see this level of detail from the spectator stands. Pretty much every pair of boots in the world will require the toe extensions - which exist for the kneeling position - to be cut off. What a pain. More importantly, some brands of boots which are in extensive use world wide will have to be replaced as the heels have a small flat section. I can't see how that makes any substantive difference.
    • Shooting Jacket Left Side Panel (right handed shooter). The construction of the side panel of the jacket may not have any seam that lies under the support arm in the standing position.

      This has the potential to make pretty much every shooting jacket in use internationally illegal. It may be possible for some to be adjusted, but many will have to be replaced. Going forward, for male athletes it may not be a significant change to the design of jackets, but I cannot see how a jacket can be fitted to female athletes without the ability to tailor a waist into the jacket. How does this make the slightest difference? Not something that exercises my mind in worrying about what the opposition are up to.
      I get the impression that the main impact of these changes will be substantial financial costs imposed on our athletes as they may have to replace air rifles and other components of their competition firearms, replacement of certain brands of shooting boots, and replacement or major adjustments to their shooting jackets, while female athletes are targeted for specific discrimination in terms of fitting shooting jackets to their physiques.

    All of these costs would be bad enough in a healthy economic climate, and for countries where the athletes and/or international teams are well funded they may not be that significant, but those are few and far between. For the vast majority, self-funding is the reality and to tell all these shooters worldwide, particularly the juniors, that much of their existing equipment needs to be replaced for questionable gain is potentially disastrous.


    The petition is up to 227 signatures this morning since yesterday with shooters at every level from collegiate to national to international to olmypians all signing up.




  • Was that you forging Nicco email address there Sparks? ;) The marathon comparison is a nice one and is quite a convincing argument instinctively. On deeper reflection the budding lawyer in me might point out that if we follow his example too carefully though we'd allow everyone to shoot in the final and not just the top 8. And the ISSF could equally come back and say that we should compare to the 100m - people qualify with different times in heats but it's reset to zero for the final (no eliminations though...) - and only a limited number of the initial competitors gets to run in the 100m finals either (arguably more like what we have now in AR) :p

    I still think that AR shooting can/should be made more exciting for lay spectators whether it be through technology (monitors and trackers) or rule changes (hopefully that are not a detriment to the sport).

    The champions have spoken - let's see how the ISSF respond (if at all).


  • Advertisement


  • Thirdfox wrote: »
    On deeper reflection the budding lawyer in me might point out that if we follow his example too carefully though we'd allow everyone to shoot in the final and not just the top 8.
    That's how we used to do it. Archery too. One match, top shooter wins. No finals.
    I've not yet seen an argument I buy that says the finals pick a better choice for "best shooter" in a match.
    And the ISSF could equally come back and say that we should compare to the 100m - people qualify with different times in heats but it's reset to zero for the final (no eliminations though...) - and only a limited number of the initial competitors gets to run in the 100m finals either (arguably more like what we have now in AR) :p
    It'd be a rubbish argument; the finals are 10 shots, not 60. The finals in 100m are 100m, not 7m with elbowing allowed!


Advertisement