TargetTalk

Was out with the TOZ today in a 35ºF wind, and got to wondering:
With all the ISSF rule changes in the several years I've been away, are the cloth mittens/muffs, such as the one Arnie Vitarbo's wife made for me years ago, still legal? It just covers the outside of the shooting hand, doesn't offer any support, and was OK five or six years ago.

Paul

Providing that it does not cover the wrist then you are OK.

Rule 8.4.5.2
Hand covers for 50 m Pistol are permitted, providing they do not cover the wrist.

Whats the problem, we were shooting in 35 degrees today in t shirts and shorts!! ( OK, so it was Centergrade.)

David did not mention the gale that we had for CF Precision...

...and David had his jeans on today (Sunday), a much more pleasant 27 C

Spencer

David Levene wrote:Providing that it does not cover the wrist then you are OK.

Rule 8.4.5.2
Hand covers for 50 m Pistol are permitted, providing they do not cover the wrist.

Thanks David, That's what sec. 4.4.2 in my 2001 ISSF rule book states, also sec. 4.1.6 in my 1991 USAS rule book.
Seems to me, except for the .22 short, most pistol changes have been in the interest of "Media Photogenics". Can't believe they've reduced the occluder size down to 30mm. Hardly enough to protect the eye should a case burst. Now pays to have a lens behind it, I guess. The side blinders, while not a safety item, were a big help to me in getting the proper mind set by eliminating distractions.

All you guys shooting at body temp (37ºC) "Down Under", will be singing a different song in six mos. :>)

pgfaini wrote:Can't believe they've reduced the occluder size down to 30mm.

Think yourself lucky. In April 2002 the ISSF issued a "mandatory requirement made within the spirit of the rules" that, as from the World Championships in Lahti in July 2002, the maximum blinder width would be 20mm.

As many photographs from those championships show, that "non-rule" was not enforced.

David,
Would the following be in compliance - a 37 or 42mm lens on the non shooting eye which has been lightly frosted? Would act as an occluder and provide some protection. What if the lens were not frosted, but actually used to see with?

Fred

As I read the rules Fred a frosted lens would really be a blinder so would need to be within the 30mm. A non-frosted lens is no problem at all.

The difficult bit would be if the non-shooting eye was fitted with an adjustable polarising filter. When fully open the filter is see-through and doesn't come withing the width limit requirement. As you adjust it, it becomes darker and eventually becomes completely opaque when it obviously does become a blinder. I have absolutely no idea how a jury would decide on that one. I would hope that they would decide in favour of the shooter "I moved the adjustment as I was taking them off".

There are several areas of the rules which are badly written. Those regarding side and non-shooting eye blinders are a farce. As it happens, once you get used to them then clearly complying with the rules is not a particular disadvantage; certainly less than the hassle of arguing with a stroppy jury member.

David Levene wrote:....less than the hassle of arguing with a stroppy jury member.

stroppy???

Even though I lived in Britain for a year, I never fully mastered your language.

BTW saw "Queen" at the cinema last night. Enjoyed it a lot. How is it being received over there?

Fred

Fred Mannis wrote:stroppy???

Stoppy = bad-tempered or awkward to deal with (according to the Oxford English Dictionary).

Fred Mannis wrote:Even though I lived in Britain for a year, I never fully mastered your language.

You know what they say, "two nations separated by a common language".

Fred Mannis wrote:BTW saw "Queen" at the cinema last night. Enjoyed it a lot. How is it being received over there?

I haven't seen it myself but it does seem to be a success. Helen Mirren's portrayal of The Queen is supposed to be extremely accurate.

in a substantially friendly and erudite forum. We learn and share. It is sport and common interest. Cheers, CraigE

In response to David's musings about the use of a polarizing filter on the non-shooting eye, I'll chime in with my personal experience. I wore one on my non-shooting eye (and a 30mm blinder over top it) during the official training session at a W.C. event. I had so many officials staring at me, and checking their rule books, and talking to each other, that I decided against wearing it during the match. I obviously then wasn't able to put the rule book to the test because it just wasn't worth the risk of having some official call this ruling into question during a match.

Mark,
Could you not have asked them ?

Rob.