ISSF rule change from 1st January 2013

[Sparks]

Sparks what changes would you think are fair, as much as I'm fatigued with ISSF incrementally changing stupid things, I'm becoming equally tired of those that think everything is great and nothing should be changed. I'd like to hear what changes you think would be "fair" in your definition of fair. Or is it you would prefer that everything just stays the same until the IOC kicks our butts out and replaces us with some x-games skateboarding event or ballroom dancing?

I've written up some suggestions and posted them here already (and sent them directly and indirectly to ISSF as well):
http://10point9.ie/2012/09/12/some-sugg ... -the-issf/

[Richard H]

I read the blog piece there's not one change to the actual sport contained it, it's all about adding things at the periphery, scatts, twitter, facebook and commentating. I agree that some of those might be good they just aren't enough. It seems like many will not step outside and look at these events from a non shooters position.

Not sure what your talking about with regards to archery, because they have changed it, they now have set points rather than scoring actual shot values, and it's is a competitor vs competitor format with a seeding round and then other rounds after that upon which they all start at zero at every round.

Maybe that would be a better solution twenty shot matches shot shooter against shooter until you have 4 shooters shooting for medals and fourth place.

The fact seems lost that keeping it the same is not an option. Those that think shootings position is safe inside the Olympics are delusional. There are other sorters that are more popular, would likely have higher viewership and have way more money than shooting. That's just a plain and simple fact. The IOC would like to add sports but they can really only do it now by cutting others as the games are becoming unmanageable.

I do understand the frustration for those that have been shooting under the existing format, this is a big change. It's basically a different sport, some will have to consider if they want to continue in it. I suggest they at least give it a try, before they write it off.

[Sparks]

I read the blog piece there's not one change to the actual sport containing it, it's all about adding things at the periphery, scatts, twitter, facebook and commentating. I agree that some of those might be good they just aren't enough. It seems like many will not step outside and look at these events from a non shooters position.

I think you have misread it.
The problem is not the sport; the problem is that nonshooters can't see the sport. You call things like commentary and scatts and so forth periheperal; they are not perhiperal except to the shooter. To the spectator, they are central and critical.

I've said it before many time; look at something like football. The spectator can see everything because the scale of the game is large and the pace slow; shooting is the opposite and the spectator can't see it unaided. Therefore those aids become central.

You change the sport and all you'll do is change the thing the spectator cannot see at present.

Change how much the spectator can see, and you don't have to change anything else; and London proved that.

The fact seems lost that keeping it the same is not an option. Those that think shootings position is safe inside the Olympics are delusional.

And what is lost on those who'd change our sport to curry favor with the IOC is this: the IOC don't shoot. We do. It's our sport. And if you'd take it from us to give to someone else without asking, you should expect that we'd be pissed off.

[David Levene]

The fact seems lost that keeping it the same is not an option. Those that think shootings position is safe inside the Olympics are delusional.

And what is lost on those who'd change our sport to curry favor with the IOC is this: the IOC don't shoot. We do. It's our sport.

If shooting was replaced in the Olympics, whether it be because of (a lack of) TV appeal, a perception from those outside of the sport of an over-reliance on equipment instead of athletic ability, or for any other reason, then how long do you think shooting would survive as a major international sport. 10 years? 20 years?

Also, if it lost its status as an Olympic sport then how many countries would lose it at national level.

The priority for the ISSF must be to keep shooting in the Olympics, and that must entail keeping the IOC on-side.

[jhmartin]

If shooting was replaced in the Olympics, whether it be because of (a lack of) TV appeal, a perception from those outside of the sport of an over-reliance on equipment instead of athletic ability, or for any other reason, then how long do you think shooting would survive as a major international sport. 10 years? 20 years?

Also, if it lost its status as an Olympic sport then how many countries would lose it at national level.

The priority for the ISSF must be to keep shooting in the Olympics, and that must entail keeping the IOC on-side.

Excellent point David.

Here in the US, I think we overlook this aspect as we have all sorts of governing bodies for the sport of shooting, we would not envision the sport going away at all if it was not in the Olympics. (probably 98% of the shooters here in the US don't give a rip about "Olympic Shooting" anyway)

However, as you state, if it goes away in the Olympics, probably in quite a few countries, especially those with strict gun control laws, the sport might just vanish.

[Richard H]

Sparks I didn't misread it, but I disagree that there is NO problem with the sport, it seems like those that actually make decisions (ISSF & IOC) think there are problems too.

David is right, many probably including Ireland wouldn't have Any shooting if they can't tie it to the Olympics. So blowing off the IOC's suggestion, ideas, demands what ever they are might want to be done with a little caution. This idea that shooting has always been in the Olympics so it can't be dropped is a stupid idea.

I do wish the ISSF would makes their rational for the changes public, that said they probably are being gagged by the IOC cause they don't want to look like the bad guy either.

[Sparks]

If shooting was replaced in the Olympics, whether it be because of (a lack of) TV appeal, a perception from those outside of the sport of an over-reliance on equipment instead of athletic ability, or for any other reason, then how long do you think shooting would survive as a major international sport.

I understand your point David; I even agree with it.
What I'm saying is that the changes they're proposing (a) won't do the job they want them to do, and (b) will kick our sport out of the Olympics anyway because they will change our sport into something else. Yes, there'll be a sport called ISSF shooting in the Games; but just because you call it something doesn't make it that thing.

And it's doubly hard to take when it's presented like this, as a fait accompli, and damn the actual shooters. Triply hard when you can see ideas that address the *actual* problem with spectating in our sport that are just not being tried even though they'd mean minimal disruption to our sport.

[Marcus]

Richard,

I asked the question of two high ups in ISSF directly about IOC influence and they said IOC is not demanding any changes. I believe this is all internal. Now they may have tried to be coy and not admit to me that there is pressure, but it seemed pretty clear to me that this is all from within ISSF and not from any outside organization.

They may perceive as you said, that shooting could go away if it is not somehow "improved," but they claim no outside pressure to do anything. It is unclear to me however how some of these changes will be the panecea. When will it end, if ever. That is why I mentioned on the other thread of the same topic concerning the 3 position final becoming a 3x10 speed event that perhaps it should become 3x10 heats. Someone on this thread thought I was joking. He was only half right.

My question to you and everyone is where will it end? When will it be good enough to "satisfy" ISSF and IOC(?)? How many more quads will we go through this? Is this the end of the tinkering? Or will there be a continuous stream this quad as the ISSF realized they didn't think this through well enough? Think RFP finals changed in the middle of the quad. They have now backtracked on the qualification shootoffs "because it caused scheduling problems for organizers." Geewiz, couldn't they see that coming?

If we are going somewhere it would be nice to know that. If we are there with these new rules it would be nice to know that too. My guess is that we are not there and we are being driven around by the three blind mice.

[jhmartin]

1) My question to you and everyone is where will it end?
2) When will it be good enough to "satisfy" ISSF and IOC(?)?
3) How many more quads will we go through this?
4) Is this the end of the tinkering?
5) Or will there be a continuous stream this quad as the ISSF realized they didn't think this through well enough? Think RFP finals changed in the middle of the quad. They have now backtracked on the qualification shootoffs "because it caused scheduling problems for organizers."
6) Geewiz, couldn't they see that coming?

Easy answers Marcus.
1) End?
2) Never.
3) How many more quads will shooting be in the Olympics?
4) Nope: They feel their job is to tinker.
5) Yes, Continuous.
6) Did it even matter to them? The more problems they create, the more they are justified in tinkering.

Bonus: Am I Cynical ... yes.

[Richard H]

Marcus I agree, and the incremental changes have been infuriating, I do know the IOC basically has made public statements about the viability of some sports in general. I do find it suspicious that many sports are making drastic changes to their sports and that this is being done with no outside influence, seems a little too coincidental for me. I doubt the IOC is driving specifics and definitely not any of these silly technical changes, I do believe those are the invention of the ISSF all on their very own. I think when the IOC says we want to add new sports without expanding the number of sports the message is pretty clear and if my sport isn't on TV and people aren't beating down the door to watch it, I too would be worried and get the gist of their threat.

I really think they do need to find something and stick with it for awhile no matter what it and give some stability to the sport for some period of time.

[Marcus]

Richard et. al.,

Is it really a threat? Or is it a perception of threat that is driving this?

And one more thought: isn't the SFZ (start from zero) in the final the ultimate incarnation of socialism in sport? He/she has too many points and he/she has too few, so to be fair, we make them all equal at zero?
I believe this is antithetical to sport. The athletes know who is the better of them regardless of the ultimate result. I can foresee farcical results and indeed, shameful examples in the future. But, as I said on the other thread before I was sucked into this one, "Someone will win." ISSF does not care who it is as long as it is a good show for the media.

For the record, I am not afraid of change that is well reasoned and thoughtful. And I want a good show too. In fact, I embrace the challenges posed by shooting and coaching regardless of their context, but when the rules are changed by those currently in the position to do so because they have a pet project or pet peeve or seek retribution for some slight that happened to them in their personal shooting history or they want us to go "back to the good old days" when they wore flimsy clothing and sneakers, I become concerned for the sport as a whole.

When a sport organization becomes something more for the administators rather than for the athletes, it has failed in its duties and responsibilities. It loses its moral authority. Of course the sport still exists, competitions still happen, but the athletes who choose to participate become nothing but pawns, moved about, doing the bidding of the masters who control the rules and the sport. We need a sport organization that values athlete input, and not just lip service! If you look up the history of the AAU (Amateur Athletic Union) which was mainly the track and field NGB in the middle part of the last century in the US, you will see what I mean.

And speaking of lip service, ISSF put out that letter to the member federations and finally posted it on their web site inviting comment and questions. So far not a peep out of them regarding anything, to wit, the vibration reduction systems. What defines this? It is completely unprofessional for an organization to put out a document with language like that without some sort of definition of what they are referring to! Someone must have an idea what they meant, but apparently ISSF does not deign to tell us lowly shooters and coaches. All week we have been banging our heads against the wall trying to resolve what it means. What is allowed. What is not allowed. Customers of ours have very valid concerns and we cannot answer them definitively. All because of the lack of professionalism of the ISSF. It truly is unacceptable.

I don't mean to imply that anyone who likes or dislikes the new finals procedures, or approves or disapproves of any of the dozens of of new discipline rules is wrongheaded. I can find both good and bad rules among them all, but I want clarity not obfuscation. I want reasoning not "you must do as I say!" So far as I can see there has been no clarity and no reasoning.

In January 2004 Gary Anderson wrote an article in the ISSF News floating the idea that rifle shooter clothing should be drastically changed. Different thickness, perhaps do away with pants altogether, etc. You can have your own opinion as to whether it was a good idea or not but there is no doubt it severely hurt the shooting accessories business. Additionally it would have made a huge impact on many countries (think junior programs) around the world when all their jackets and pants no longer comply with the rules. From personal experience, customers were cancelling orders that were already made and demanding new jackets at no cost, made to the "new" rules that did not exist. Manufacturers had been blindsided. Sales of clothing went to near zero for the remainder of 2004 and only started to rebound in the middle of 2005 when customers realized that essentally nothing had changed. It is the same modus operandi. And that is a perfect example of ISSF not thinking clearly about the unintended consequences of its actions. When I spoke to Gary about it a few months later at a coach conference, about how it had hurt business, he shrugged it off and walked away. Does that sound like a sport organization that is concerned with athletes and industry/suppliers?

[Richard H]

I'm really ambivalent to the changes, change is gonna come, it can be welcomed or brought in screaming and kicking but it's gonna come. Over the years I seen the the ISSF institute changes, everyone screams the changes will ruin the sport, the changes come, and the sport continues unabated or performances even rise.

Sportsmanship in general is very socialistic in nature, I know very few athletes that want to capitalize on someones misfortune, athletes lend equipment to shooters with malfunctioning or damaged equipment. (I'm sure there are some that are all too happy to beat someone any way they can, but I really hope they are few).

What I can see happening which is a bad thing is a divergence or splintering of the sport. The changes become so onerous that people move away from the ISSF rules at the lower levels and then all that is left is the elite under the ISSF umbrella. An example of the fragmentation is Bullseye in the states, the sport is huge, it could be a great pool of talent for International Pistol but it's not, many have absolutely no interest in International Pistol. I think you might see this magnified on a global scale.

Seeing how the ISSF has exclusive rights to what the shooters deem important, access to the Olympics, it makes it hard for any organized rejection of the ISSF and their demands. Athletes are already held hostage, and to go against it would mean a great personal loss with no guarantee of success. Then again we are talking socialism, those making sacrifices for the the greater good of others.

It would have been nice if the ISSF at least allowed participants a say in rule making. When we make laws and regulations we usually have them drafted then give stakeholders a period to make comment on them. You get feedback and you can either adopt all, portions, or make changes as required. This will not make everyone happy but it at least gives them a feeling that they were involved in the process.

[Chris]

I agree change is good and should be welcomed.

What I do not like is when it looks like a group of people brainstorm some ideas how to make our sport better come up with a list that looks like they took every idea from the brainstorm session and made it a new rule.

How on earth is the number of belt loops going to have any impact on the performance of a shooter.

One problem I have with the idea of using Rika or similar is this has the potential of leading to just using laser pistols. I do not think we want this.

[Joakim]

I've written up some suggestions and posted them here already (and sent them directly and indirectly to ISSF as well):
http://10point9.ie/2012/09/12/some-sugg ... -the-issf/

As you have noticed, we don't agree on many things, but there's at least one thing we do agree on: the first point on your list, about Scatt-type equipment, is essential, much more essential than any of the changes that are now proposed, whether you like them or not.

I have said it before and I say it again: people will need to see what we actually do. That's why systems attempting to hide the position of the hit are the worst. I'm not saying hit-or-miss scoring is necessarily a bad idea, but if it leads to not showing the hits or misses, that's absurd. In London, both the RFP final and the pentathlon combined event were televised in such a way. Why do the producers think that in other sports with binary scoring (such as high jumping or biathlon), people will want to know how it happened (slow-motion close-up replays of the jumper pulling the bar down with his ankles, or slow-motion close-up replays of the bullet hitting the edge of the falling plate), but in shooting and pentathlon, they don't care...?

My list of essential changes would be:
* Show the audience as much information as possible (where the hits land but also Scatt-like information, heart rates, time remaining etc).
* Have at most two shooters shooting at a time. (I know I have said one in the past, but I think the Olympics showed that you can cover two quite well except in RFP.)
* Create rules that avoid anticlimactic situations. (If you're going to do hit-or-miss, this takes a little creativity. Certainly the current RFP system is problematic: when Kumar went up to shoot his eighth series after Pupo had already won the gold medal, that's nothing but a flaw in the rules. It's like if a football team that's down 4-2 with one penalty kick remaining of a shootout would actually go up and take that kick.)
* In the Olympics at least, have such stages for way more than eight shooters per event.

There's the time aspect of course, but competitions taking longer times is something we're just going to have to deal with. And by the way, sports are certainly not required to be over in a couple of minutes to be worth TV spots. People watch marathons, golf, Formula 1, etc. Personally I enjoy watching snooker, where in the major tournaments a single match can last for three or even four multi-hour sessions. If it's interesting, people will watch.

No, the final will be a certain number of shots depending on where you place. If everyone got to shoot 20, you could argue fairness, but when people are eliminated on the basis of the results of two shot groups, which aren't at all representative of the capabilities of the shooter/gun/ammo system, being far too small to be significant, then no, it's not fair.

Nobody is eliminated on the basis of less than eight shots. You might think that's too few and I won't blame you, but it seems like there's some misconception about how the proposed system works. It's not like the stupid "Top Gun" system which had single-shot eliminations (and, I might add, where you never got to see the position of the hits).

It would have been nice if the ISSF at least allowed participants a say in rule making. When we make laws and regulations we usually have them drafted then give stakeholders a period to make comment on them. You get feedback and you can either adopt all, portions, or make changes as required. This will not make everyone happy but it at least gives them a feeling that they were involved in the process.

Well, nothing is final until November, and to be fair, when they sent this out they apparently asked the member federations to ask shooters and coaches for suggestions. So I think it's not so much their not wanting input as their not realizing how to ask for it in this day and age. Only two days ago, after a lot of pressure it seems, did they publish this on their own website.

[David Levene]

Only two days ago, after a lot of pressure it seems, did they publish this on their own website.

Not true.

They always intended putting the summary on the web after it had been circulated to the Member Federations.

[Richard H]

If we need an electronic tracking system to make the sport palatable to the masses, why wouldn't we just eliminate the actual projectile? Then we don't need any special venues. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

If the sports lack of appeal was simply the inability to see what's happening, then why aren't the shotgun sports popular, they are easy to see and follow, have reaction targets?

I'm sure there's sports that you don't like, why don't you like them? Would it be possible to get you to like them by making small technical tweaks? I hazard to guess you don't like them because very little in that sport appeals to you and the only way to get you to be interested would be to change it into something completely different or you need to get them involved in the sport. There were sports that I didn't like and wasn't interested in until I tried them. When you do the sport you get a better understanding of it. If the ISSF wants to actually grow the sport both in viewership and participation they should focus on getting more people to try it.

[Sparks]

If we need an electronic tracking system to make the sport palatable to the masses, why wouldn't we just eliminate the actual projectile? Then we don't need any special venues. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

Because in wind, you get to see people aiming off.
Seriously, we've already done this experiment. Eurosport televised a novelty match a while back - both genders shooting shoulder-to-shoulder, and with the noptel/rika trainers attached.
It works.
Why we're insisting that everyone other than the international-level ranges has to go and spend money, I don't know, but I'm not impressed by it.

If the sports lack of appeal was simply the inability to see what's happening, then why aren't the shotgun sports popular, they are easy to see and follow, have reaction targets?

They're not that easy to see and follow. You have reactive targets yes, and that's a good thing, but that's the only difference. You can't see the target very well (it's like watching the ball in golf), you can't see where the shooter aims, and you can't tell how stressed the shooter is. If anything, shotgun has it harder than us; we have far more tools to show spectators what the shooter is doing than they do.

I'm sure there's sports that you don't like, why don't you like them?

Pick a sport and I'll tell you. :)

Would it be possible to get you to like them by making small technical tweaks?

I doubt it. I'm not going to develop a love for curling because they change the shape of the brushes. I'm not going to go ape for football because they change the size of the faceguards on the helmets.

Now, you stick a camera in the middle of an archery target and let me see the arrow coming in and hit it, I'll go "wow, that's nifty" and watch for a little bit - that was how I got interested in it myself, came across a clip on youtube where someone hit the target camera in a world cup; followed that to the FITA channel which has great commentary; then found that my airgun club used to do archery before I joined it and they still had some of the kit; and then spent a summer happily whacking arrows into targets.

All from one innovation in how the sport was shown to spectators.
I think that that is what I'm suggesting we should be doing.

[Richard H]

I think they might be rethinking that camera in the middle of the target in archery. I watched most of the rounds and stopped counting how many were hit and smashed. I think thats going to get expensive, plus it did slow down play when they had to change the ripped target.

Now you brought up golf, now theres a sport that has just about every bad thing going for it wit regards to spectator appeal, play is slow, the ball is small, it played on a giant course, yet they don't seem to have a spectator viewership issue.

As for your euro sport experiment, what are you considering that made it successful? Hundreds or thousands of non shooters tuned in to watch it?

There was a very big experiment here with regards to the same thing, the NHL thought that Americans particularly those in the southern states didn't watch hockey because they couldn't follow the puck and the action. Their idea was to make the puck a giant blue thing on the tv. Guess what those that didn't watch hockey still didn't watch hockey and those that did were pissed off with this stupid animated puck that interfered with the enjoyment of the game.

I found archery the same way, but they have drastically changed their competition format. I have heard archers complaining that it sucks and isn't fair now that they've gone to set points.

The

[Reinhamre]

Do we need "the actual projectile"??? The "bang" I can do without and what is then left if a laser can do the math? If you ask the man on the street if weapons should be allowed in private hands you will find that a waste majority wotes no. This is the reality political of any party can not afford to neglect. Pistol shooting will be more popular then ever when "the actual projectile" has gone.

[Sparks]

Do we need "the actual projectile"?

Yes, because the point of impact and the projected point of impact is down to the wind and the shooter, and that gives more information to the spectator.
Think of maximising the information shown to the spectator, and you're thinking of the right approach.