TargetTalk

I have a bit funny problem! One of judges during an important national competition stated that a soft cap (MEC) used by a rifle shooter cannot touch the rear sight as this would be unfair additional support against ISSF rules. :-)

Greg wrote:I have a bit funny problem! One of judges during an important national competition stated that a soft cap (MEC) used by a rifle shooter cannot touch the rear sight as this would be unfair additional support against ISSF rules. :-)

The judge was right, rule 7.6.1.1.8:-
"The rifle must not touch, or rest against, any other point or object."

You need to read the rest of 7.6.1.1 to see the points or objects that the rifle is allowed to touch in the Prone position.

Sections 7.6.1.2 and 7.6.1.3 refer to Standing and Kneeling respectively, but touching a cap is forbidden in those positions as well.

Great David, I was always full of respect to your opinion therefore I suppose you plan to submit any info to ISSF that ALL ISSF World Cups, Championships as well as Olimpic Games (rifle events) should be considered as no valid as ALL shooters using MEC caps touch a rear sights.

Just to prove...



*All pictures from the official ISSF web page ;-)

Excellent pics and an I think you have a case.

regards
SP

Greg wrote:Great David, I was always full of respect to your opinion therefore I suppose you plan to submit any info to ISSF that ALL ISSF World Cups, Championships as well as Olimpic Games (rifle events) should be considered as no valid as ALL shooters using MEC caps touch a rear sights.

Thanks for the comment Greg. I am sure you appreciate that once official results are published the chances of getting them changed, other than because of the results of a drugs test or obvious clerical errors, lie somewhere between nought and zero.

The responsibility for ensuring that position and equipment rules are applied lies fairly and squarely with the Range Officer and the Jury. If any shooter or team official feels that they are not correctly enforcing the rules then they are free to protest under rule 7.13.2.1

Whilst there are a great many extremely good judges on the world circuit, there are times when I think that some of them are intimidated by the occassion.

Having made several complaints to the ISSF over the years I am firmly convinced that the answer lies with team officials; they must be prepared to point out rule deviations to the Jury at the time that they occur. That does rely however on those team officials actually knowing the rules in the first place.

If people feel strongly that the rules have been broken then can I suggest either emailing the ISSF or posting on one of the ISSF News forums. I am pretty sure they are read by the ISSF, even if they don't respond. One voice in the wilderness will be ignored, but if there are a hundred voices........... (just look at the reversal on rifle clothing a few years ago).

One has to wonder, does the ISSF make rules just for the sake of it?

While I understand the reasoning behind rule 7.6.1.1.8, its application in this case borders on the idiotic. Maybe some qualifiers are necessary for this rule.

There is no possible way that a soft foam visor can add ANY support or otherwise constitute an unfair advantage. But common sense is not so common these days.

As I am not a rifle shooter I suspected that there may have been an ISSF ruling allowing these visors which I wasn't aware of. I cannot find any record of such a ruling, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one.

It is interesting that the picture on the MEC web site shows the visor being worn clear of the rifle sight.

If I am right and there is no such ruling then there are 2 questions I would ask (without questioning whether the rule itself is justified):-

1) Why haven't the transgressions been picked up and resolved by match officials.

2) Why are the shooters and their team officials seemingly ignoring the rules. Those rules are not exactly hard to find, I think it took me less than 2 minutes and I normally don't have anything to do with rifle shooting.

David Levene wrote: 2) Why are the shooters and their team officials seemingly ignoring the rules. Those rules are not exactly hard to find, I think it took me less than 2 minutes and I normally don't have anything to do with rifle shooting.

That's simple. The shooters and team officials feel its a stupid rule and/or that bringing it to the attention of an official would mean that they would have to alter their own shooting style ie no visor or visor pushed way back.

If the ISSF really believed that a visor in contact can provide significant additional support, then they ought to ban all head gear.

Fred Mannis wrote:If the ISSF really believed that a visor in contact can provide significant additional support, then they ought to ban all head gear.

I don't see what that would achieve Fred when there is already a perfectly adequate rule already in place. If shooters are already breaking, and being allowed to break, the existing rule then what good would come from introducing a new one.

They allow those stiff pants and jackets, and then diddle over a soft visor???

Sheesh!

I'll stick to pistol.

jackh wrote:They allow those stiff pants and jackets, and then diddle over a soft visor???

That's the point Jack, they don't seem to be enforcing the rule too rigidly.

I believe they should either enforce the rule or change it.

It could very well be that they have agreed not to enforce it but unless they let everyone know then judges like the one Greg first mentioned will, unjustifiably in my opinion, look like the bad guys. They are just doing their best to give all competitors a level playing field by applying the rules and nobody should complain if they are pinged for breaking them. Nobody is forced to enter a match being held under ISSF rules but if they do then they should expect the rules to be enforced.

Just pondering. So if it was the Olympics and just before the start of qualifying all competitors were told the rule was to be enforced 'stringently' - I wonder what sort of psychological effect it would have on the competitors. Having trained and competed for the last 4 years like that - I'd expect this would shatter the calm!!!
I'm not familiar with rifle - is the reason for the cap 'smothering' the sight because compliments the eye/amount of light/glare interference?

jackh wrote:They allow those stiff pants and jackets, and then diddle over a soft visor???

Sheesh!

I'll stick to pistol.

If pistol shooters are no longer allowed to cover their face with blinders (smile for the camera), then the same should apply to rifle shooters.

David - lighten up :-)

John Ariani wrote: I'm not familiar with rifle - is the reason for the cap 'smothering' the sight because compliments the eye/amount of light/glare interference?

Most rifle shooters wear some sort of soft visored hat to prevent glare on their eyes/glasses/rear sight aperture.

I prefer a military boonie hat because its brim is very flexible and it covers the back of my neck, important when shooting without man-made cover as is the rule in NRA Highpower.

Fred Mannis wrote:If pistol shooters are no longer allowed to cover their face with blinders (smile for the camera), then the same should apply to rifle shooters.

It does. Rule 7.4.7.6 for Rifle is identical to rule 8.4.7.7 for Pistol.

Fred Mannis wrote:David - lighten up :-)

In my opinion the beauty of ISSF shooting is that it doesn't matter where you go in the world you know what rules you SHOULD be shooting under. What is the point of having rules if you don't apply them or tell everyone that they are not being applied at a particular competition.

I am not saying that the rules are right but if you are going to allow people to break (what some consider to be) "minor" rules then how far does it go.

If you have the rules then you should enforce them. If you don't want to enforce them then get rid of them.

I have said before, nobody is forced to shoot in a competition run under ISSF rules. If they do however then they should expect the rules to be enforced and be entitled to know that their competitors are also shooting under the same rules.

I have absolutely nothing against informal competitions run under a very basic set of local rules, most of us started there and long may they continue. They are at the very root of our sport. Some shooters will be perfectly happy to shoot in them for all of their shooting career. They may find however that different rules are being used at the next club, let alone the next continent.

David. I echo your comments completely. I'd be surpised if many would disagree. The photo's really proven how badly the rule is being broken. In fact, it makes a complete mockery of the rule. (of the sport???)
As a television sports broadcaster, given I was commentating this event live at the 2008 Olympics, and knowing the "rules", I'm not sure how the ISSF or the public would 'take' my comments, being:(over the top I know - but trust me - it would go like this)
"This final of eight of the World's finest athletes will decide who will be the 2008 Olympic Champion. Eight athletes, representing 6 different countries and only one point seperating first to eighth after the 60 shot qualifying event. As they are given the command to take their first of ten shots, it's interesting to see that all bar one of the atheletes - are clearly breaking rule 7.6.1.1.8. This rule does not allow the athletes cap or visor to touch the rear sight in any way. These pictures are worth a thousand words - probably later from the non offending nation to the judges - certainly grounds for protest. What we could see here is a disqualification of 7 of the finalists - now that will make Olympic history"

Now I understand why these "head gaskets" have become all the rage, as opposed to simply wearing caps. An unspoken, but encouraged, subvertion of the rules!

Now if the rule gets changed to allow such "soft" headgear, then we will need to see a machine for measuring softness, AND stiffness when pushed against an object such as the sight. There IS an inherant stiffness even in a soft material, depending on how it is manipulated.

IMHO, this pushing of the envelope and fluanting of the rules is uncalled for. This makes further mockery of the blinder size rule also, as a soft visor draped over a rear sight is certainly also acting as an illegal blinder.

David Levene wrote:

Fred Mannis wrote:If pistol shooters are no longer allowed to cover their face with blinders (smile for the camera), then the same should apply to rifle shooters.

It does. Rule 7.4.7.6 for Rifle is identical to rule 8.4.7.7 for Pistol.

Fred Mannis wrote:David - lighten up :-)

In my opinion the beauty of ISSF shooting is that it doesn't matter where you go in the world you know what rules you SHOULD be shooting under. What is the point of having rules if you don't apply them or tell everyone that they are not being applied at a particular competition.

I am not saying that the rules are right but if you are going to allow people to break (what some consider to be) "minor" rules then how far does it go.

If you have the rules then you should enforce them. If you don't want to enforce them then get rid of them.

I have said before, nobody is forced to shoot in a competition run under ISSF rules. If they do however then they should expect the rules to be enforced and be entitled to know that their competitors are also shooting under the same rules.

I have absolutely nothing against informal competitions run under a very basic set of local rules, most of us started there and long may they continue. They are at the very root of our sport. Some shooters will be perfectly happy to shoot in them for all of their shooting career. They may find however that different rules are being used at the next club, let alone the next continent.

Just give it a break David. Soft caps touching sights are FULLY allowed.

Anonymous wrote:Just give it a break David. Soft caps touching sights are FULLY allowed.

Oh good. I presume then that you can tell us when the ISSF removed or suspended rules 7.6.1.1.8, 7.6.1.2 and 7.6.1.3.

As I previously said, I have looked but can find no record of such a change. I am keen to learn, but would want something a bit more convincing than an anonymous posting just telling me I'm wrong.