under clothing rules

A place to discuss non-discipline specific items, such as mental training, ammo needs, and issues regarding ISSF, USAS, and NRA

If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true

Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H

Post Reply
dmf
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:59 am

under clothing rules

Post by dmf »

I would be interested in finding out whether "spandex like" under clothing is still permitted by the latest ISSF rules, in particular the Sauer Technical Top.
Thanks

D
Guest

Post by Guest »

Is there a particular rule you are referring to that you could cite?

I would think that Spandex is the opposite of the concerns in many rulebooks, as it is stretchy and not constricting or by any means providing artificial support. It's also very thin so fabric thickness is not an issue.
dmf
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:59 am

Post by dmf »

The rule in question is:
Rule 6.4.2.1.1: "The use of any special devices, means or garments which immobilize or unduly reduce the movement of the shooter's legs, body or arms is prohibited in order to ensure that the performance skills of the shooters are not artificially improved by special clothing."
I'm mostly wondering about the Sauer Technical under clothing, as this is what I own. Also, would Under Armour type clothing fail this rule?
jhmartin
Posts: 2620
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Valencia County, NM USA

Post by jhmartin »

I think the only rulebook which mentions this is the CMP 3-P Air ... prohibited in sporter.

I think it's a silly rule and that they were looking at too many of the "muscled" adds which seems to imply support. (Note: $0.02)
Guest

Post by Guest »

I would not think Spandex fails this rule. Spandex is stretchy, it does not immobilize or reduce movement, you have full mobility of all of your joints and muscles. "compression fit" is just marketing, if it reduced movement, it wouldn't be marketed toward athletes that move a lot (football, running).

I would say that such under garments as a women's corset would definitely fail though ;-)
User avatar
RandomShotz
Posts: 553
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:24 pm
Location: Lexington, KY

Post by RandomShotz »

Guest wrote:I would say that such under garments as a women's corset would definitely fail though ;-)
NOW you tell me. Dang.

Roger
RobinC
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 8:34 am
Location: Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, England

Post by RobinC »

The way the old farts at the ISSF are moving spandex will be the only thing you'l be able to wear soon!
Good shooting
Robin
Christopherie
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 6:05 am
Contact:

Post by Christopherie »

Love that the warmer weather is here. Tee shirts and baggy gym shorts are the norm for me.
User avatar
ghostrip
Posts: 418
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:07 pm
Location: Athens, Greece

Post by ghostrip »

just for laughs.
perhaps issf should make a lingerie division. only clothing rule is you have to buy your clothes from victoria secret etc ... it will certainly boost tv numbers.
jhmartin
Posts: 2620
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Valencia County, NM USA

Post by jhmartin »

ghostrip wrote:perhaps issf should make a lingerie division. only clothing rule is you have to buy your clothes from victoria secret etc ... it will certainly boost tv numbers.
Ummmmm ... maybe not
Post Reply