Dear friends of the shooting sport!
Dear sportsmen, coaches and who is interested in the shooting!
It is time to discuss openly the problems of the shooting community.
Changing rules of Olympic discipline in the middle of Olympic cycle reflects the trends within the ISSF, which makes decisions behind closed doors.
Below is the letter from the President of ESC to the President of ISSF as well as the link from the ESC Official web-site “Rule changes Forum” where you could see the full version of correspondence regarding the changes of Rules and you could leave or share your comments: http://www.escshooting.org/index.php/ur ... -president.
We need to hear your opinion. For sure such questions should have an open discussion. The changes are needed but they must touch not only technical aspects of shooting but also the relations inside ISSF.
To: Mr. ISSF President
Cc: All ISSF Member Federations
Since I received the circular letter regarding changes of the rules, accepted by the Administrative Council, I would like to mention that the basis of our position remains the promotion of shooting sports as a spectator sport. The European Confederation has always insisted on the necessity of changes.
I would like to draw your attention to some details of your letter which caused confusion.
You insist that the proposed changes received a positive response during their presentation at the World Cup Final in Munich. This statement is not correct. The reaction of the audience and participants of the rapid fire final was negative. At the meeting of shooters and coaches (after the final) many critical views were stated in the presence of the Executive Director Mr. W. Schreiber and the Technical Delegate Vice-President Mr. G. Anderson. Almost nobody supported the innovation. This fact was reported to you personally, Mr. President, in my letter on November the 3rd.
In addition to the many technical suggestions all the participants agreed that is not reasonable to change the rules in the middle of the Olympic cycle. Probably it is time to make relevant changes in the ISSF Statutes.
Surely the Administrative Council of ISSF has the right to approve changes without taking in to consideration the opinion of the shooting community. But is it worth it to use this right and be proud of that? We have already lost a few great Olympic disciplines!
Why did you keep preparations of such important changes in secret? If you do care at all about the future of our sport it would be better to consider the opinion of the best shooters and coaches!
It is not clear at all why it surprises you when the President of one of the Continental Confederations and ISSF Administrative Council member addresses other ISSF member Federations?
Such communication fully satisfies both - the Statutes of the Federation and democratic principals on which we should build our relationship. Before sending a letter to member federations I have addressed you personally, Mr. President, but you made no suggestions or proposals in response to my appeal.
We are deeply confident that the opinion of athletes and coaches should be heard and considered.
We strongly believe that the leaders of the federation should serve the interest of the community.
We are sure that the open exchange of opinions between member federations should be profitable for the sport and we do believe in the necessity of constructive dialog with all organizations and people who are interested in its development.
The right to have an opinion is undeniable in a democratic society and we insist on its realization!
And we regret if you don’t share these ideas.
We regret, but we won’t accept it!
With due respect,
ISSF Administrative Council Member
ESC President
V. Lisin
Urgent! ISSF rules changing!
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
-
Retired
I viewed the interviews of the medalists following the new rapid fire final format and none of them expressed anything very negative. The winner said he thought the new format created some excitement. One of the other medalists said he wasn't sure what to think That's about the extent of their thoughts. That would have been a good time to say what they feel and have it heard throughout the shooting community.
Having competed in the sport through three Olympic cycles, I thought moving away from turning targets was a mistake. The visual queues (lights vs. turning targets) are very different. The targets going to edge created some suspense (did that last shot in 4 seconds make it or not?).
Nevertheless, the change occured with the intent to provide instant results and make the event a more spectator friendly one.
This recent change seems to be made with the same intent. I think you'll find over time the results will remain the same. The same top shooters will prevail no matter what the format.
What's appealing is the fact that all finalists will have an equal chance to win any of the medals. When shooting for score and adding semi finals and finals to preliminary scores, that's not always the case.
I believe what the ISSF is banking on is that if they make this a more spectator friendly event, more shooters will shoot it, more countries will participate in it, and the event will survive. The final format change is probably step one of resurrecting the event. Step two, undoubtedly, will have to be promoting the building of ranges so people have a chance to shoot it.
If you're going to opine, this is the time. I sent my comments, thoughts and suggested improvements a couple weeks ago prior to the most recent ISSF executive committee meeting. What about you?
Retired
Having competed in the sport through three Olympic cycles, I thought moving away from turning targets was a mistake. The visual queues (lights vs. turning targets) are very different. The targets going to edge created some suspense (did that last shot in 4 seconds make it or not?).
Nevertheless, the change occured with the intent to provide instant results and make the event a more spectator friendly one.
This recent change seems to be made with the same intent. I think you'll find over time the results will remain the same. The same top shooters will prevail no matter what the format.
What's appealing is the fact that all finalists will have an equal chance to win any of the medals. When shooting for score and adding semi finals and finals to preliminary scores, that's not always the case.
I believe what the ISSF is banking on is that if they make this a more spectator friendly event, more shooters will shoot it, more countries will participate in it, and the event will survive. The final format change is probably step one of resurrecting the event. Step two, undoubtedly, will have to be promoting the building of ranges so people have a chance to shoot it.
If you're going to opine, this is the time. I sent my comments, thoughts and suggested improvements a couple weeks ago prior to the most recent ISSF executive committee meeting. What about you?
Retired
I already posted my feeling about the new RF final format, not as shooter but as a spectator and for me it was BORING !
The reasons are the following:
- at the beginning it is very slow/long as each shooter shoot his serie alone, one shooter after the other and this for four series for each shooter = 24 series to shoot one after the other with a short shooting time (normal it is RF) and a relatively long waiting time between the series because each shooter needs a minimal time to prepare himself before shooting the serie. To speed up things, they should at least let two shooters shooting simultaneously with a split screen display.
- since shooters are eliminated, the suspense dissapear very fast because eliminated shooters cannot come back anymore and the usual statement that "änything is possible" is not true for this new format. At the last stage, when 3 shooters remains, you know that all of them will win a medal -> interest drops again.
The video of the final showed the spectator attending the final and many of them were not watching what the final, they were doing other things like playing with their mobile phone waiting for the results. Christian Reitz, who was the first eliminated, was even giving an interview while the final was sitll going on !
The reasons are the following:
- at the beginning it is very slow/long as each shooter shoot his serie alone, one shooter after the other and this for four series for each shooter = 24 series to shoot one after the other with a short shooting time (normal it is RF) and a relatively long waiting time between the series because each shooter needs a minimal time to prepare himself before shooting the serie. To speed up things, they should at least let two shooters shooting simultaneously with a split screen display.
- since shooters are eliminated, the suspense dissapear very fast because eliminated shooters cannot come back anymore and the usual statement that "änything is possible" is not true for this new format. At the last stage, when 3 shooters remains, you know that all of them will win a medal -> interest drops again.
The video of the final showed the spectator attending the final and many of them were not watching what the final, they were doing other things like playing with their mobile phone waiting for the results. Christian Reitz, who was the first eliminated, was even giving an interview while the final was sitll going on !
-
Guest
I think the thread is not about the merit of the rule change but the principle that rule changes are made behind close doors with out consultation.
If the rifle clothing proposals had not been leaked which caused the uproar within the shooting comunity these also may be in the book now.
I have no real view either way on this rule change but I do object to the manner in which it has been introduced and the driving forces behind it.
If the rifle clothing proposals had not been leaked which caused the uproar within the shooting comunity these also may be in the book now.
I have no real view either way on this rule change but I do object to the manner in which it has been introduced and the driving forces behind it.
