TargetTalk

Jay V wrote:Isn't it illegal under ISSF rules to have a blinder attached to the rifle?

Most definitely NOT. See Rule 7.4.2.3.3

Jay V, my guess is that the recordings of each shot in the finals are not necessarily sequential. I.E. they show shooter X, which finished right before the STOP command, and then they show shooter Y staring ## seconds ago.


And regarding to what advatage the hand glove might provide, one could argue that it restricts the free movement of the wrist and provides increased grip (especially for extra-sweaty palm), although in my opinion the advantage, if any, is minimal.

David Levene wrote:

Jay V wrote:Isn't it illegal under ISSF rules to have a blinder attached to the rifle?

Most definitely NOT. See Rule 7.4.2.3.3

Thanks David - I was mistaken.


Jay

Jay V wrote:Thanks David - I was mistaken.

Glad to have helped.

Val wrote:And regarding to what advatage the hand glove might provide, one could argue that it restricts the free movement of the wrist and provides increased grip (especially for extra-sweaty palm), although in my opinion the advantage, if any, is minimal.

It's going to have to be one hell of a glove to restrict the wrist's free motion.

As for the grip, geez, if it's that much of an issue, buy yourself a $10 pair of thin leather golf gloves and achieve parity.

This is what I call drowning in a glass of water:

1) The rules do not prohibit the wearing of a glove on the trigger hand

2) the glove in question obviously does not provide artificial support

3) The same, or a substantially similar, glove can be bought at any sporting goods store for a nominal cost

4) Instead of saying "Hey, why didn't I think of that! I'll go get one tomorrow", people get bent out of shape about cheating, filing protests, and God knows what else.

Just shoot the damn rifle.

1) The rules do not prohibit the wearing of a glove on the trigger hand
But they prohibit any equipment that provides unfair advantage and is contrary to the spirit of the game.

2) the glove in question obviously does not provide artificial support
But it can potentially provide an increased grip.

3) The same, or a substantially similar, glove can be bought at any sporting goods store for a nominal cost
That is irrelevant. Using the glove is illegal simply because:
a) it can provide some advantage
b) nobody else is doing that
Ergo, using it is contrary to the spirit of the game.

4) Instead of saying "Hey, why didn't I think of that! I'll go get one tomorrow", people get bent out of shape about cheating, filing protests, and God knows what else.
People like that is the foundation of the fair play, as if everyone was only busy searching for ways to gain advantage over others, who would give a crap about the skill?

Just shoot the damn rifle.

Exactly! Instead of taping your boots to the floor, bending the rules to the very threshold of compliance, exploiting every possible loophole and then saying "its not my problem you didn't think of that first".

Val wrote: 3) The same, or a substantially similar, glove can be bought at any sporting goods store for a nominal cost
That is irrelevant. Using the glove is illegal simply because:
a) it can provide some advantage
b) nobody else is doing that
Ergo, using it is contrary to the spirit of the game.

By your own wording that is illogical. A glove 'can' provide advantage, ergo by deffinition it also may not. I would argue that it may provide a dissadvantage - less feel, possible interference with trigger control. Also by that deffinition any technical gun developments would be illegal for the same reason.

Nobody else is doing that, what twaddle, nobody else may be doing numerous other things that an individual shooter is doing, that doesn't constitute anything contrary to the rules, it's called individuality.

So in no way is the glove contrary to the spirit, some people just don't like it. More importantly it seems, the ISSF don't think there's a problem with and that's what ultimately matters.

Rob.

Val wrote:3) The same, or a substantially similar, glove can be bought at any sporting goods store for a nominal cost
That is irrelevant. Using the glove is illegal simply because:
a) it can provide some advantage
b) nobody else is doing that
Ergo, using it is contrary to the spirit of the game.

I cannot believe you actually think that Val.

Using you principle nobody would have been allowed to use:-
Electronic triggers
Pre-charged air guns
Bloop tubes
Tenex Ultimate
etc

Equipment changes, that is the nature of the sport. Just because nobody else (is that actually true) is doing it just makes it unusual, not illegal.

Providing that there is nothing covert then the ISSF are free to make a ruling on it.

Val, your circular logic is amazing. Like others who have responded to you, I am sitting here wondering how you can be so petty to try to twist the rules so that everyone conforms to your idea of what is legal.

If it's not specifically stated as prohibited by the rules, then it IS legal until ruled otherwise by the Technical Committee or whoever is in charge.

If I were the subject of this tempest in a teapot, I would keep on wearing the stupid glove. You can certainly file a protest, but don't complain when it goes against you.

What next, protest another competitor because he's the first to try a new brand of ammo and it shoots better than yours? Most normal people would rush to buy at least a box to see what it does for them.

This is about as lame as it gets.

Electronic triggers - these are explicitly allowed by the rules
Pre-charged air guns - improvement of the existing technology (single strokes)
Bloop tubes - explicitly allowed (thats why the rules use the term apparent muzzle - to take into account the possible use of extension tubes)
Tenex Ultimate - there is no limit on how accurate you can fine tune your rifle / ammo.

There is a difference between fine-tuninng the equipment and improving / optimizing the existing technology and introducing elements that would be contrary to the spirit of the game. How to differentiate between them? Consider an element that increases the POTENTIAL of the system, which would otherwise limit the skill of the shooter. For example, a beginner would not benefit much from switching from Izh to Morini, as he would not be able to take full advatage of much improved balance and trigger consistency. But as his skill improves and he reaches the potential of the system, then the improved equipment becomes increasingly important, as it otherwise limits his skill. Same goes for other elements, such as bloop tubes / more accurate ammo, etc - they extend the potential of the system and a shooter of low skill would have limited benefit of using those. The bottom line is - you need even more skill to benefit from the improved equipment.

Consider, on the other hand, the use of a magnification system, or (potentially) a system of stabilizing gyroscopes mounted in the stock, or a computerized system that would automatically release the trigger as soon as sights are properly on target - these sorts of things provide immediate advantage that would be of significant benefit even for a newbie. They not only extend the potential but have a performance payload in themselves. As such, they are contrary to the spirit of the game.

Of course, the line between these two classes of technological improvements that differentiate between what constitues fair and unfair advantage is blurred and deciding any particular issue is subject to judgement (and disagreement does not make the arguments of the opposing side twaddle, RobStubbs). I classify the use of a trigger-hand glove as providing immediate (although minimal) advantage. WHY do I classify it as such? I simply would not be comfortable using it if none of the other competitors around me did not. And my intuition does not provide any reasons or arguments.

This discussion appears to be heading nowhere, so at this point I respectfully withdraw. My gratitudes to the opposing sides for preserving civility.

P.S. The gratitudes exclude Jose Rossy : )

Val wrote:Electronic triggers - these are explicitly allowed by the rules
.....
Bloop tubes - explicitly allowed ......

Gloves - explicitly allowed by the rules, which do not differentiate between support or trigger hand.

Val wrote:P.S. The gratitudes exclude Jose Rossy : )

You're welcome. It's a good thing that those who think like you are in a minority in this sport.

Sparks wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure she could wax all of us on a standing match wearing nothing more supportive than flip flops, a pair of shorts, and a t-shirt.

No fair trying to distract us in such a pleasant manner! :D

I was first going to describe her wearing a one piece spandex body suit. :^)

Sonja is not the only one using the glove(s). Monica Haselsberger (AUT) also uses the two glove system. They are made for Anschuetz. Don't see any jury members up there during the taking of that picture. must have been allowed by equipment control. They both wore them at the European Airgun Championships in Györ, HUN

Marcus wrote:Sonja is not the only one using the glove(s). Monica Haselsberger (AUT) also uses the two glove system. They are made for Anschuetz. Don't see any jury members up there during the taking of that picture. must have been allowed by equipment control. They both wore them at the European Airgun Championships in Györ, HUN

Looks like our "bring 'em down to my level" sea lawyer was wrong after all.

Still a surprise to me. But I'm sure that we'll see the twoglove system all over the colleges this season, which means we'd better get on the ball here in the USA and start slapping a trigger hand glove on every one of our juniors too, so they can catch up.

Is this just an ISSf thing or also valid with USAS and NRA?

Heck - I can't wait to get to my next air rifle match and see the stares. A Mechanix style glove will be just the thing to stop my sweaty hand from slipping off the grip. To think all these years I haven't taken advantage of the rules to their fullest.

WRC177 wrote:Is this just an ISSf thing or also valid with USAS and NRA?

This is obviously an ISSF/USAS thing. Shooters in NRA competition are not, by and large, obssessed with the minutiae that seems to get the ISSF types in a tizzy.

I was just watching the video of the World Cup in Milan from June 2004 on the ISSF website. Sonia was wearing the infamous glove then as well. If there was a problem with the rules, other shooters had two months before the Olympics to challenge her. JMHO.

Rob

Hi

One of my experienced shooters (15) asked if her cartoon bandaid on her trigger figure constituded illegal support. Based on this thread, I said yes and kicked her off the team for the year.










Kidding..


Mike