Official interpretation on electronic earmuffs

Philip · Post by **Philip** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:01 am

This topic has generated a lot of interest in the past little while, so I took it to ISSF directly to ask for help.

As a Peltor dealer I rather err on the safe side then to make a sale then put the customer in hot water, so I advise re-consideration if ISSF is what the customer wants.

Following is a direct cut-and-paste from the e-mail I got from ISSF. So, print a copy if you wish, and bring it along with you for the next match if you are using electronic earmuffs:

==========================================

Dear Sir,

The mentioned earmuffs made by Peltor are allow3d in ISSF competitions

with best regards

Franz Schreiber
ISSF Headquarters
www.issf-shooting.org
munich@issf-shooting.org

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Precision Sports [mailto:info@precision-sports.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. März 2004 16:06
An: admin@issf-shooting.org
Betreff: electronic earmuffs

Dear Sir/Madam:

RE: Rule 6.2.3 Ear Protection

I am writing to seek clarification on the use of electronic earmuffs in ISSF
competitions.

Electronic earmuffs such as those made by Peltor has microphones picking up ambient sound and then amplifying it to a desired level by the user. They do not transmit any signals, nor do they receive radio frequencies, but they electronically process ambient sound such as talking.

Would they be considered as "receiving devices" as outlined in Rule 6.2.3?
And subsequently, would these earmuffs be allowed in ISSF competitions?

I appreciate your assistance in giving an official interpretation of this rule.

Best Regards,
Philip Lee
Precision Sports, Canada
www.precision-sports.com

==============================================

Mark Briggs · Post by **Mark Briggs** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 3:51 pm

Hi Philip,

Thanks for going to the ISSF to obtain this clarification. I will indeed print a copy to take to the nationals this summer. It was at the nationals last summer that I first saw the "hand the range officer the batteries" interpretation enforced. This news from the ISSF should be a big help!

Cheers,
Mark.

TomF · Post by **TomF** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:34 pm

The silence is deafening.

I guess I can keep my batteries.

LOL!

RML · Post by **RML** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:44 pm

The strange thing is that on an official ISSF judges course for international judges held by the ISSF judging comitte, the instructor from ISSF said that all airmuffs with microphones and amplifiers were not allowed.
The reason was that it had been seen and heard that a coach was sitting behind the shooter in the spectators area, "whispering" information to the shooter. The shooter was wearing earmuffs with microphones backwards (mics towards his coach), and full volume on the amplifiers. The judge notised because he was wearing the same kind of earmuffs himself, and could hear the same thing as the competitor. Therefore these airmuffs were seen as electronic receiving devices.
It seems that ISSF does not know what ISSF allowes or not in this case.

RML

TomF · Post by **TomF** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 7:13 pm

ISSF seems to have made a decision but the judges dont know how to enforce it.

Would they make a hearing impaired person remove their hearing aid?

You are right, the ISSF is screwed up big time, in many ways.

mikeschroeder · Post by **mikeschroeder** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:13 am

RML wrote:The strange thing is that on an official ISSF judges course for international judges held by the ISSF judging comitte, the instructor from ISSF said that all airmuffs with microphones and amplifiers were not allowed.
The reason was that it had been seen and heard that a coach was sitting behind the shooter in the spectators area, "whispering" information to the shooter. The shooter was wearing earmuffs with microphones backwards (mics towards his coach), and full volume on the amplifiers. The judge notised because he was wearing the same kind of earmuffs himself, and could hear the same thing as the competitor. Therefore these airmuffs were seen as electronic receiving devices.
It seems that ISSF does not know what ISSF allowes or not in this case.

RML

Hi

Isn't the restriction on coaching, not ear protection. Just disqualify the shooter for cheating. It's not an earmuff problem, it's a coaching problem. In CMP matches anyway, you're not allowed to coach after the first shot for record is made.

Mike
Wichita KS

TomF · Post by **TomF** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:39 am

Very Good mikeschroeder!

Thanks for bringing the focus to the problem.

Spencer C · Post by **Spencer C** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 7:52 am

Which course? Which instructor?

Spencer

RML wrote:The strange thing is that on an official ISSF judges course for international judges held by the ISSF judging comitte, the instructor from ISSF said that all airmuffs with microphones and amplifiers were not allowed.
The reason was that it had been seen and heard that a coach was sitting behind the shooter in the spectators area, "whispering" information to the shooter. The shooter was wearing earmuffs with microphones backwards (mics towards his coach), and full volume on the amplifiers. The judge notised because he was wearing the same kind of earmuffs himself, and could hear the same thing as the competitor. Therefore these airmuffs were seen as electronic receiving devices.
It seems that ISSF does not know what ISSF allowes or not in this case.

RML

TargetTalk