Recently there was a big „battle” concerning new rules for ISSF shooting. Technical Committee is introducing new rules, and ... nobody takes care. Below, please find some photos from the Olympics 2004 and one – the most surprising probably – of Sonia Pfeilschifter who is simply shooting with ... two gloves (World Cup Milan)! What is your opinion?
Fot.1 and 2.: Blinders are not correct – width about 6cm instead of 3 cm.
Fot.3. Sling is touching a floor.
Fot.4. Sonia P. (left-handed shooter) using two gloves!
Wow - hey - what's with this two glove business? We occasionally get juniors who think it is "cool" to wear a glove of some sort on the trigger hand (baseball batting glove, or fingerless cycling glove) and I have to be the "heavy" and make them take it off.
I agree with Grzegorz - how are we little people supposed to mind about the rules when it looks that the big shooters can do what they wish? To think we are all measuring & cutting our blinders so carefully - the joke must be on us! Pity.
Just a random thought - did they (ISSF) size the blinders to be the same size as an Eley ammo plastic box top? That seems to be a popular type of blinder.
Anyone out there with a box top and metric scale (ruler)?
Just small correction - not Eley - these are RWS "blinders" ;-)
I agree - we do everything to be correct, and at the same time top shooters are often not OK. Tapes used to fix shoes to the floor, double gloves, and even ... weights - take a look on Walther LG300 barrel ractangular weights (anu photo you can find) - they are incorrect (out of the 30mm diameter rule) and in spite of that in common use during international competitions. Why??...
"....garments which immobilize or unduly reduce the movement of the shooter's legs, body or arms is prohibited...."
But that's another story ;^)
Out of interest, I'm a pistol shooter, but what rule stops rifle shooters from wearing one glove on each hand. Had a quick look but could not find it. I am not arguing, just interested to know.
I'm not sure but as I could look into the ISSF rules, we have any rule that say clearly: we can't have any glove at our hand...at trigger hand of course :-)
Regarding the trigger-hand glove:
I don't think they are explicitly prohibited by the rules, so whether they are allowed might be a question of interpretation (I might be wrong though). My guess was that they were implicitly forbidden under "whatever gives unfair advantage is illegal".
Regarding the sling touching the floor: it is also not explicitly forbidden by the rules; it is mentioned more than once, however, that sling may not touch the rifle.
Regarding the blinder: looks like 3cm to me. The shadow makes it looks wider than it is.
Absolutely right!!! Just have taken a look to the Rules... Sorry, but ... why I did always limit them to 30mm diameter ??? If you could see my face now ! :-((( Sorry again!
Grzegorz
once again the rules are not clear enough about this two glove point. And just because the rules don't specifically prohibit it (or allow it) juries are forced to allow it . This is the same problem that the jackets and pants got into. Manufacturers made better fitting (more panels) stiffer materials etc. and because the rules are sooooo written from the 1970s they (the juries) cannot disallow the clothing.
The key words are "immobilize" and "unduly reduce the movement". Immobilize, meaning to make unmovable, my opinion is that the clothes do not do this. Whereas a brace which holds both sides of a joint in a fixed orientation makes that joint immovable. That kind of thing is easily determined.
Unduly reduce the movement -- this is the real sticking point. One man's (or woman's) idea of unduly is anothers "duly". The rules tried to deal with stiffness but that never really got off the ground. The measuring machines are expensive and the stiffness measurements are dependent upon humidity (moisture content of the canvas) and it is only measured in one place on the jacket (usually the back).
So we (Still!!) have outdated rules for clothing and the juries are still allowed to interpret (even though admonished to strictly enforce the rules). Status Quo!
I have seen little footage of the pistol and only some rifle in the UK. From what I have seen, the blinders appear larger than that permitted.
For pistol, I would have thought 8.4.2.1.1 would include gloves albeit in the sprit of the rules but 8.4.4.2 “Hand covers for 50 m Pistol are permitted, providing they do not cover the wrist” My Mouche mit in the winter is excellent, I hope the new 2005 rules don’t impact this!
OK, I was sure it is clearly visible on the photos I posted, but to be sure I have verified on a video tape, and one blinder is about 41mm (Gonci) and second 53mm (Martynov). Of course, I did not measure it on a screen :-) I just made "the blinders" to do that :-)
Concerning a sling - this is not a case of Lusch of course (!) but I was told about a shooter who used ... a very very very stif sling, so that is an additional support, am I right?
Concernin a second glove. I see it is really difficult problem. However, it is also not written in the Rules that the use of a double-side tape to fix boots to the floor is forbidden... And as I remember during one of the World Cups a shooter (femmale) was disqualified due to this (wasn't this again our heroes Sonia P.? :-)
I would like however stress that I do not think all these "mistakes" had influence on the score! Surely not. Just a bit confused, that professionals during Olimpic Games have not money or time to prepare a correct blinders and use "hand made" stuff with boxes, targets, etc.
In fact only this second glove is really really very strange to me...
Grzegorz wrote:In fact only this second glove is really really very strange to me...
But from what I have read, not against the rules. Gloves are allowed in the rules with no mention of them only being allowed on one hand. Therefore they are allowed on both hands.
How about a custom contact lens that would give the same effect as a translucent blinder? It would not create a problem for the photographers and would cover the whole field of vision for the non shooting eye. I know people create custom contacts for filme and television. any thoughts?
Why not?
I had also "nice" application of contact lens for the aiming eye (I do not remember if I already posted it on TT, if yes sorry for that)... What about such idea:
As we know short-sighted person - as me, correction -5 diopters - who uses classic correction lens (allowed by the Rules) perceives a black bull (everything, but also black bull:) about 20% smaller than 0 correction person. Long-sighted person 20% larger. All this is true if lens is 2-3 cm from the eye. So, long-sighted people are in better situation and to enlarge the effect shooters fix the lens far to the eye (short-sighted person should fix it as close as possible). Anyway, could I use contact lens -10 diopter correction and than classic lens +5 diopter correction to get finally -5 diopter correction and the same enlargment as long-sighted shooters? :-) and ;-)
Grzegorz
The problem one would have with a contact lens on the shooting eye that changed the vision to something other than normal is you would not be able to see well in between shots without removing the lens. That would be a hassle. I have switched to normal contact lenses in both eyes and a diopter lens on my shooting frame for my shooting eye.
Jose Rossy wrote:I simply do not understand the ISSF's fetish for regulating the most insignificant details of the sport.
Can anyone explain why they seem to feel obligated to be that way?
Shooting is a technical sport so the ISSF are supposed to ensure that nobody can change the essential nature of the sport or gain an unfair advantage.
They also have a responsibility to ensure the future of the sport by trying to ensure as wide as possible a participant base in any particular event.
On top of all that they have to react to IOC demands if they want shooting to remain as an Olympic sport.
I have no problem with the ISSF changing rules, even those that seem totally irelevant, if they feel they will benefit the sport. Where I do have a problem is that the ISSF certainly give the impression that the competitors are of only minor importance and need not be consulted or kept informed (the early release of the major 2005 amendments is a pleasant change).
Jose Rossy wrote:I simply do not understand the ISSF's fetish for regulating the most insignificant details of the sport.
Can anyone explain why they seem to feel obligated to be that way?
Possibly related to some shooters' fetish for pushing the details of the sport wherever they see a loophole.
Almost all the STR rules (other than the courses of fire) are there on the basis of a response to one or more shooters going beyond the limits at some time.
Regards to all,
Spencer
(ps. No! I do not want to get into a protracted debate about everybody's individual pet gripe about the ISSF rules)
