• 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.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Eliminations and duels. It's like a reality tv nightmare.

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.

• 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.

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.

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.

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)

Ok, so some of what I'm about to say may upset some people but it's my opinion, based on my experiences so I don't expect everyone to like it or agree with it. Say what you will but the following are my thoughts on the matter. (I'm also not going to comment on Pistol/Shotgun since I know nothing about them).

1. Range scoreboards/internet service. Awesome idea. Definitely a way of bringing the sport into the 21st century... but I think it says a lot about the people in charge that it's taken them this long to think this up.

2. Sighting time. I actually think this could be made to work and I can see the logic behind it. My only question is how they're going to make it work in 3P. I would not object to them splitting it so that you had prep/sighting time and then x amount of time to shoot each position (kind of like how the guys do it). Although I like being able to just get on with my match, I can see that the way the men's 3P is currently shot makes it easier to follow for spectators.

3. Ties. Glad they got rid of the shoot off. It was just an added complication to an already complicated sport. Although it was fun and added an extra element, they're right - it's difficult to schedule and therefore difficult to prepare for as an athlete.

4. Rifle rules. Thankfully, these are just a summary so we can't expect to understand exactly what they're on about because they're pretty much gibberish at the moment. But depending on the interpretation there could be some major (and expensive) problems in this. Vibration reduction system. At best, people will have to get rid of some accessories. At worst, almost every air rifle and a number of the stocks currently on the market are illegal. Could be very expensive. Air rifle pistol grip. Once again, the ISSF are proven to be run solely by old men. I had to ask myself if any of them have every actually looked at a woman when I read this rule. We have these things called breasts and while I'm very attached to mine, they do have a tendency to just get in the way. And I'm not that well endowed. I hate to think of the problems larger chested women are going to have if this rule comes in to play - it's not like they're detachable. Chest rests. Well, there's an easy way round this. Old wooden stocks anyone? Pathetic attempt to meddle and hasn't been thought through at all. Clothing stiffness and thickness testing (minimum area measurement). This rule is going to suck if you're really small... great for getting juniors involved. Not. Normal walking test. Define normal. Morons. Shoe sole contour. So new boots for everyone. Manufacturers will be pleased. My bank balance won't be. Shooting jacket left side panel (for right handed shooter). So that's a new jacket to add to my new boots and new air rifle... except that with my figure, there's no way on this planet that I'm going to be able to get a jacket to fit me if there isn't a seam there. Once again, proof that the ISSF bigwigs have never seen a woman. We have these things called hips. Along with breasts, they make tailoring shooting jackets for us a bit of a challenge. Take out those seams and it's going to become damn near impossible. Time limits. Personally, I think that's great but that's because I shoot fast so I fully appreciate that other people might struggle with the new time limits... which, from a selfish point of view is awesome Overall, I feel like the changes to the rifle rules are the ISSF just tinkering because they can. There's no real need for any of it and as I've pointed out, it's going to cause major issues for women in particular as well as causing massive financial issues for everyone involved. Nobody benefits - not even manufacturers or dealers because they are going to be left with a whole load of stock that they're not going to be able to shift.

5. New finals rules. Now this could take a while. Firstly, I disagree completely with their reasoning. "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". I'm wondering if any members of the ISSF were actually at the London Olympic Games (I know they were, because I saw them... maybe they walked around with their eyes closed). In case they hadn't noticed, it was sold out. The venue was full. So there's clearly the potential there. Yes, media coverage could have been better. But I don't think it's got anything to do with the format of the matches. The broadcasters just don't have the knowledge or the experience to be able to show shooting in the best way. ISSF TV is going in the right direction but it's still missing something (maybe a commentator who knows what she's actually talking about). Now, I don't normally watch ISSF TV - most of the time, I don't need to see the finals again because I was in the range watching them live in the first place. But after I made the final in Munich, I decided to watch my final back again (the whole thing was a bit of a blur to me and my boyfriend had said that the commentary was good). So I sat down to watch it and low and behold, who was commentating but my good friend Petra Zublasing. Her commentary was brilliant. There was so much personality to it - she talked about the personalities of the shooters, their strengths and weaknesses (she was quite disparaging about my standing as well, if I remember correctly), their history (or lack of in my case). And that's when I realised what was missing. Personality. Because our sport is so introverted and so self-contained, to the outsider there's no personality in it. But there is. And that's why it's fun to watch finals if you're a shooter. Because you know the history and the personalities. And if you had a commentator who could pass that knowledge on to the spectators, it would become a lot more interesting.

But I've gone a bit off topic... the new finals format is unfair. Some people may think it's a great idea because it gives more opportunity to shooters who didn't do quite so well in the qualification. And as a shooter who has been in that position, I can understand the appeal. I'd have got bronze in Munich under the new rules. Sure, there was some element of skill involved in that, but I finished 2 points behind 3rd - not the 0.2 points I would have been ahead under the new rules. The best three shooters on the day won the medals. That's what it's all about. You're not good enough to win a medal by shooting a good qualification? You don't deserve a medal. Under the new rules, Nicco wouldn't even have medalled in London - despite shooting a score 8 points better than the guy in 2nd and 12 points better than the guy in 8th. Sport is about the best person winning. There's no two ways about that. And what the ISSF haven't realised, in the obsession with trying to attract media attention, is that they're making it even harder for grassroots sports. This new format of final demands to be shot on electronic targets which many clubs (and even some countries) don't have the facilities for. Much as we may like for there to be electronics in every club/range in the world, that just isn't the case and this rule would make the sport even less accessible to new shooters. Also, at domestic level, the gap between first and eighth can but much greater than the one or two points that you see at World Cups. But is it really fair that at a national championships, someone can go in ten, twenty or even thirty points in front and that count for nothing?

http://www.petitiono...F/petition.html

I have signed this petition and I think it makes an interesting point.

"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."

This is our sport and as such we should have a say in how it's run. I encourage anyone and everyone to sign this petition - or at least, to read the rather eloquent points made my Nicco and Rajmond. Ours is one of the oldest sports in the modern Olympics... let us try and keep the essence of it in tact

Thirdfox wrote: »

Any developments on this?

RobinC wrote:

My wife and I have just returned from shooting in Germany and Austria (this morning!)and including time spent at MEC for coaching. These proposals have been about over there last week and have caused a bit of a bombshell. There is a lot of opposition, and almost no one there seems to understand the meaning or interpretation, one rule even mixes English and German language!
The drafting is poor and ambigious, the vibration reducing system is a complete mystery, it says "rifle" but does not define what type, if air they believe it will ban all recoiless rifles including the old ones such as the FWB 300 and the Original 75 and would be un enforcable with out dismantling to verify! The people I saw believed it referred to smallbore rifles, and Maik Eckhart told me that Anschutz had seen the drafts and were not concerned so they think its smallbore.
The German federation has seen the drafts and has stated that if the rules become official they will not use them for domestic events and championships for at least a year.
My personal view is that they will make no difference to the small number of elite, but will drive the club shooter further away from national championships.
Robin

KennyB wrote:

I spoke to Dave Goodfellow about the Vibration Control section and he said he was as surprised as anyone when he read about it - it hadn't been discussed in committee and seems to come straight from Willi Grill.

RobinC wrote:

for those that have not seen it, there is a communique from the ISSF to national bodies worded that these proposals have been agreed by the excecutive committee, etc, and it is being distributed to those national bodies so they may prepare how they comply with them!!!!!

So as far as the ISSF is concerned these are the new rules!!!!

I have just returned to the UK from a shooting trip in Germany and of all I met including two major gun manufacturers, a major accessory manufacturer,shooters and prominent people in German shooting none who had been consulted or knew about these proposalss until they appeared on the internet last week. All disagree with most of these proposals. I was told that the German federation has said that it will not enforce these proposals in their domestic competion next year.

If this proposal is allowed to become rules it will do nothing to improve the sport for the elite or for TV but will aid the decline in lower levels of club and national shooting.
The petition is only against the finals procedure, to protect our sport we must all object and swamp the ISSF e mails with objections, just leave the rules as they are and enforce them correctly.
Robin

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the new ISSF rule prohibiting "vibration reduction systems."

The ISSF is still working on the final wording of this rule, but the ISSF intent is to prohibit the use of any device or system that would artificially reduce, slow or control the movements or oscillations of a rifle or pistol before the shot is fired. This rule is intended to preclude the application of anti-vibration technology now used in photography, for example, to rifle or pistol shooting This rule will not affect passive means of controlling gun movements such as barrel weights and it will not affect any existing technology that stabilizes the rifle or pistol after the shot is fired. It should also be noted that ISSF Pistol and Rifle Rules already prohibit the use of compensators, muzzle brakes or other similar devices that could control how the rifle or pistol recoils during the shot.

On this basis, the compensators on air rifles and pistol are not activated until the shot is fired and would remain legal. Barrel tuning and bedding systems have nothing to do with rifle movements before the shot and would not be affected. Passive systems like barrel weights are specifically excluded. Barrel ports on rapid fire pistol have been illegal for several years and this new regulation would not change that.

With best regards,
Gary Anderson
ISSF Vice President