TargetTalk

Here are the provisional rules posted on the ISSF web site today.

The 10m mixed event is a sure fire loser. It is just as bad as the old 25m Sport Pistol final. Nobody knew what was happening. I've heard shooters tell the CRO - "Just tell me when to shoot and when to stop shooting. I've got no idea what is happening." The spectators are even at more of a loss to understand the event. And the ultimate insult is to be put on a target you have not yet shot on and have to shoot the most important shots of the match. These are electronic targets. The center of the target is not always the same from one target to another.

What a complete waste of resources and time. Legend has it that this event in the last world cup took an hour and 45 minutes. People were walking out bored to death. No way is this making the sport more media friendly.

They did the right thing getting rid of this format in 25m Sport Pistol and in Trap. The 25m Sport Pistol final is now a great event to watch. This team thing is just not going to take off.

That's my opinion - Yours may differ.

From what I`ve read, it´s totally possible that the team which classified third in one semifinal group (thus being eliminated) scores more points than the one that classified first in the other group................ That's the spirit, IOC and ISSF!!!

I hope they don't forget to include a talent show for each shooter to exhibit his/her ability at such events as water-filled glass music making, bathsuit pageant, arm wrestling (those could be mixed also, times are changing fast), etc.

And for those sacks of s__t we left behind FP and PR?

Undoubtedly, age is taking its toll on the members of ISSF gerontocracy.

First reaction is... Yawn!

But if there's an Olympic medal at stake, rich countries will sink money into it and therefore it will attract shooters and the ISSF can declare it a success!

Stupid. I guess this proves how out of touch leadership has become.

Chip

Marc Orvin wrote: And the ultimate insult is to be put on a target you have not yet shot on and have to shoot the most important shots of the match. These are electronic targets. The center of the target is not always the same from one target to another.

So true!!!!
This is a point that I have to continually get into my shooters heads is that they ARE NOT shooting for the center of the black, but they are shooting for where the target thinks the zero point of the sensors are. Absolutely moving from one target to another requires a sighting adjustment. No two are the same, and for sure not even close if you are shooting for tenths.

Changing positions in the medal rounds w/o sighters essentially makes these rounds completely random. Might as well flip coins ... much faster.

These folks should know better and, for the good of the sport, should just retire.

Are they going to address some of the glaring inequities in the existing ISSF rules and non-Olympic competitions?
Like expressly adding women's FP for one.

jhmartin wrote:

Marc Orvin wrote: And the ultimate insult is to be put on a target you have not yet shot on and have to shoot the most important shots of the match. These are electronic targets. The center of the target is not always the same from one target to another.

So true!!!!
This is a point that I have to continually get into my shooters heads is that they ARE NOT shooting for the center of the black, but they are shooting for where the target thinks the zero point of the sensors are. Absolutely moving from one target to another requires a sighting adjustment. No two are the same, and for sure not even close if you are shooting for tenths.

Changing positions in the medal rounds w/o sighters essentially makes these rounds completely random. Might as well flip coins ... much faster.

These folks should know better and, for the good of the sport, should just retire.

Both,
How much variation in optical/sensor centre do you think is between any two approved EST targets?

Spencer wrote: Both,
How much variation in optical/sensor centre do you think is between any two approved EST targets?

Well I suppose some extra questions are:
A) Were the targets (Sius, ML, Meyton, ---whatever) adjusted for center before the competition?
If not then, who knows?
B) If the paper face was changed during a previous relay (hit outside the center hole), was the adjustment procedure redone?

So next, you have to look at what the adjustment procedure is. With a Megalink target you measure in mm to do the adjustment procedure. (I do not know the other procedures)
Now, on a single target, shot to shot is specifed as 1/100 of a mm.
But target to target, I'd guess no better than a mm (your measurement unit). Assuming the folks doing the measurement are up to snuff. That is certainly a significant value if you are measuring in tenths with a 5mm ring width.

If the face was changed, the difference in position is then may in the tenths of a mm, but I'm WAGing there.

My answer to your question is if there is an accumulation of error, however small between targets, as positions are changed during the event - faces changes, targets physically moved & bumped, can that accumulated error be more than 0.1 point in air? My guess is yes.

And yes, as far as I know our selection matches here in the US (at least at Benning) the targets are adjusted before the event.

From what I've been told ISSF/IOC concerns seem to be "Well, someone will win".
At least we are not a sport that is scored in a complete or partially subjective manner.

If anyone has a Sius adjustment procedure, I'd be interested ... I downloaded a few maintenance manuals and could not fin a procedure.
Marc, what is the procedure on Sius's? Do you know?

Does it really matter? ----- Someone will win <grin>