Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
11-09-2012, 23:05   #1
Sparks
Moderator
 
Sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 38,091
New ISSF Rules

Spotted by It Wasn't Me, the post-London changes...
Attached Files
File Type: pdf New ISSF RULES 2012.pdf (161.9 KB, 647 views)
Sparks is offline  
Advertisement
11-09-2012, 23:28   #2
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,784
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.
dev110 is offline  
11-09-2012, 23:37   #3
Sparks
Moderator
 
Sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 38,091
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!
Sparks is offline  
11-09-2012, 23:41   #4
It wasn't me!
Moderator
 
It wasn't me!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,796
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.
It wasn't me! is offline  
11-09-2012, 23:45   #5
It wasn't me!
Moderator
 
It wasn't me!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by dev110 View Post
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.
It wasn't me! is offline  
Advertisement
11-09-2012, 23:46   #6
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,784
Ah the finals will get more drama involved where the best shooter has to keep shooting the best.
Quote:
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
Hope your working on your mental training

I don't understand the belt loops though. How would more loops give an advantage?
dev110 is offline  
11-09-2012, 23:49   #7
Sparks
Moderator
 
Sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 38,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by It wasn't me! View Post
Eliminations and duels. It's like a reality tv nightmare.
+1x10^6
If I wanted that kind of shooting, I wouldn't shoot ISSF.

Quote:
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.
.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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

Quote:
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.
Sparks is offline  
11-09-2012, 23:49   #8
It wasn't me!
Moderator
 
It wasn't me!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by dev110 View Post
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
Hope your working on your mental training

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.
It wasn't me! is offline  
Thanks from:
12-09-2012, 00:02   #9
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,784
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.
dev110 is offline  
Advertisement
12-09-2012, 00:03   #10
Sparks
Moderator
 
Sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 38,091
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)
Sparks is offline  
12-09-2012, 00:09   #11
It wasn't me!
Moderator
 
It wasn't me!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,796
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.
It wasn't me! is offline  
12-09-2012, 00:12   #12
Sparks
Moderator
 
Sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 38,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by dev110 View Post
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...
Sparks is offline  
12-09-2012, 00:17   #13
It wasn't me!
Moderator
 
It wasn't me!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,796
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.
It wasn't me! is offline  
12-09-2012, 00:25   #14
Sparks
Moderator
 
Sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 38,091
Might not get a reply, but what the hell. By email to ISSF:
Quote:
Dear Sir,
I note in your post-London Games rules changes, you state:

Quote:
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?
Sparks is offline  
12-09-2012, 00:27   #15
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,784
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 is offline  
Thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet