Jacket Jeopardy - Which jacket is legal?

[jhmartin]

Regarding the "new" rules summary, which of these jackets is legal?

Shooting Jacket Left Side Panel (right handed shooter). The construction of the side panel of the jacket may not have any seam that lies under the support arm in the standing position.

============================================
Jacket #1 - Gehmann off the rack ladies jacket ... fit is described "like a potato sack". Nice and inexpensive for juniors.


============================================
Jacket #2 - Custom Kurt Thune - pre-Xpert I think. We got this used.
Very nice women's fit


============================================
Jacket #3 - Brand new Kurt Thune Adventure. Not as nice as an Xpert jacket, but also 1/2 the price. Very good women's fit


============================================
Jacket #4 - Are the armpit seams legal?


============================================
Jacket #5 - Are the armpit seams legal?


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

My Guess ... only #1, #4 & #5 are legal under the summary rules. Is this really what ISSF means???

[dpg4]

I just hope the NCAA doesn't adopt any rule changes for two more seasons!!

[jhmartin]

This year has already started for NCAA. They will keep the rules they began with.

Same for the Junior Olympics ... They are to be fired under the current (2011) rules.

[SmallBoreRifleGuide]

Hi,

There is no issue with any of the jackets you have shown in your post. There is no issue with seams or panel size for those jackets. Whether they will pass stiffness testing in general depends on the jacket (although only brand new jackets tend to be too stiff) and the wearer. If the jacket is too large or too small for the wearer it can fail regarless of material or seams etc.

For the seams question here is a fuller summary:

The rules under ISSF state:

Clothing Stiffness and Thickness Testing. Every part of the jacket or trousers must be capable of being measured with the 60 mm or 30 mm measuring cylinders. If a clothing part is too small for normal testing (no flat area 60 mm or larger for stiffness or 30 mm or larger for thickness), measuring must be done over the seams.

The stiffness is measured on all panels of the jacket. Under the arms is not usually considered a panel. When the tester assesses the jacket they will check armpits and elbows for general stiffness but I have never seen a full test done on these areas (and I have been through a number of international test and witnessed some of the Olympic testing) because of the very supple nature of the material in these areas.

The issue with seams would only impact jackets where panels on the front, side or back of the jacket are less than 60mm across which would require the jacket to be made of thin strips of canvas and leather. If this were the case then the measuring tool will have to test the material over the seam so that a test can be completed.

What this really means is there is a limit to the size of panels on jackets because both thickness and stiffness will fail if the test is done over a seam. Therefore jacket panels must be over 60mm wide.

Hope this helps
SBRG

[jhmartin]

Really? Have you read the summary?

Your description above is how you interpret this new rule?

Shooting Jacket Left Side Panel (right handed shooter). The construction of the side panel of the jacket may not have any seam that lies under the support arm in the standing position.

What has happened in the past at an equipment control is not really relevant.
This new rule has nothing to do with stiffness or the size of a panel.

If you have a recent interpretation from ISSF that supports your view, I'd sure love to see the text ... would save a lot of folks a lot of money in the next year or so (myself and my club included).

And I'm not trying to be a PITA, but "not have any seam that lies under the support arm" clearly takes out the KT jackets shown above.

To be more clear, I'll amend my original post with the new rule quote.

[SmallBoreRifleGuide]

I am very sorry - I missunderstood the initial question...not the best thing to do when new to a forum :o(

You are certainly right in that it is a rule that will cause some people some issues. The rule it will affect many older jackets and almost all Prone only jackets if they are used for 3P, but not only that it will also potentially affect some new 3P jackets too. For example the new Kurt Thune Xpert jacket (cost is over $800) has an off centre seam under the supporting arm, it is not directly in the centre of the supoprting position but could still technically be said to be 'under the arm'.

The ISSF rule doesn't state where under the arm the seam is or is not allowed to be and bizarrely it doesn't give measurements or direction. Even more odd is the lack of clarity in their definition. It states "...may not have any seam that lies under the support arm in the standing position." There is a debate as to whether this means there can be a seam in the middle of the left side of the jacket which is OK if the shooter's position is such that the arm does not cover or lie over/against the seam, or whether the seam is not allowed to be within the vicinity of the supporting arm. And for horizontal seams the seam could be low on the side if the shooter has short arms and therefore not be ‘under’ the supporting arm despite being on the side panel. If the rule means horizontal seam then your evaluation of the jackets is correct. However if you interpret the rule as no vertical seam you must also rule out the Gehmann ladies jacket.

Hopefully this ambiguity will be resolved when the full rules are published instead of the summary that is currently available. Until that ambiguity is removed there will continue to be confusion and debate over the issue.

A different question to ask is what will the impact of this rule change be?
Firstly the impact is for 3P shooters only, prone shooters are not impacted by this rule.

For most club and regional 3P shooters this will not have any impact at all. Club events, postal matches and even most shoulder to shoulder open matches follow ISSF match rules but do not have full equipment control. People who shoot will only be affected if they attend official ISSF events with equipment control as part of the event. And except for the highest level events failed equipment testing usually does not result in disqualification from the event. In many cases it just means the scores cannot be used for qualification, national/international ranking and team selections.

So for club shooters wearing older kit they can continue to shoot without any impact until they get to international (or perhaps inter-state?) level events.

I must confess that this is my own opinion and is not that of the ISSF but it has been formed after discussion with a number of equipment manufacturers and some international level shooters and coaches.

I hope this is a more helpful response than my last post :)

[jhmartin]

I am very sorry - I misunderstood the initial question...

No, my bad too for not putting the relevant rule in initially. It was in the context of the new Rules Summary that came out and over the last few weeks that assumption of context has been lost.

Here in the US, we try and get the juniors to get up to the National level events which are pretty much open for entry.
In that case USA Shooting rules apply (they follow ISSF rules very closely, with some exceptions and rational exemptions). Usually by the end of the quad they are pretty much in tune with the ISSF rules.

We are running the International JOs this year under the current (2011) rules, but there are few more national matches that we will need to get clarification on.
Specifically Spring Airgun, Rocky Mountain, and Selections and Nationals.
I think that with ISSF not coming out with the new rulebook until end of Nov, the early-Dec Winter Airgun match will be under 2011 rules (but that's a wild guess on my part).
Under this new rule, a brand new KT jacket I purchased in December will either need a major "repair" or become an expensive beginner club jacket.

Also concerned for the few vendors we have in the U.S. that stock clothing as there could be an issue of some of the items they have in stock now turning out to be illegal. Nice way to drive them out of business or make them rethink stocking some jackets.

Another example of the ISSF executive committee thoughtlessly lobbing ill conceived rules into play without considering the input of shooters, (parents ... the $$$ behind the juniors), coaches, and vendors.

[James Storm]

As a tall shooter, I have become aware that the rules promulgated by the ISSF make a "rule legal" rifle very awkward for a tall shooter to use. The equipment should fit the shooter, tall, short, thick, or thin. This is not a service rifle game. Many of the rifle rules make about as much sense as requiring everyone to wear size 5 shoes or 24 x 27 pants. Who is on the committee that makes these rules and who appoints them?

[RobinC]

As a tall shooter, I have become aware that the rules promulgated by the ISSF make a "rule legal" rifle very awkward for a tall shooter to use. The equipment should fit the shooter, tall, short, thick, or thin. This is not a service rifle game. Many of the rifle rules make about as much sense as requiring everyone to wear size 5 shoes or 24 x 27 pants. Who is on the committee that makes these rules and who appoints them?

You got it in one James!
Most of the new rules are un neccessary, made to solve problems that only exist in the heads of old men or inveterate rule makers to whom the making and enforcement of the rules has become more important than the sport it self. And yes the more changes they make the more they discriminate against tall people, and small people as the stiffness rules mean that small people end up with checks being done on seams as the panels are too small, small boots don't bend like big ones, and any change effects all lower level shooters, and the end result is that these stupid people are wrecking our sport, as more and more shooters either pack up or withdrawl into domestic competition.
Its been long over due to clean out the ISSF but its become a self perpeptuating monolith.
Any one with the view of real shooters who joins the committees soon leaves in desparation (Rajmond Debevec), the top are too stupid to see what they are doing to the grass roots of our sport with these continual changes.
Robin

[Marcus]

These fall into the category of arbitrary rules which enforce a different standard on everyone.

[James Storm]

What can I do, realistically, to change this mess. I am old, and very definitely a lower level shooter at present. I am thus more or less immune to retaliation from an entrenched bureaucracy. If all competitors got together and spoke with one voice, could things be changed? If they could, how do we proceed. Jim.

[Jordan1s]

Hello,

Tec-Hro shared this link yesterday via facebook and I thought it would be relevant to this discussion....

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-int ... on_ref_map

[jhmartin]

Jordan1s .... I signed the petition.
Please create a new topic for this as I think you will have more response.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Joel

[mtncwru]

Created a new topic in Shooters Lounge, Rifle, and Youth forums with the link, minus the Facebook-stalking code. Oh, and I signed the petition :-)

[Jordan1s]

Created a new topic in Shooters Lounge, Rifle, and Youth forums with the link, minus the Facebook-stalking code. Oh, and I signed the petition :-)

aww, beat me to it; but yes, I think we should get as much people to sign this petition as possible.

[RobinC]

What can I do, realistically, to change this mess. I am old, and very definitely a lower level shooter at present. I am thus more or less immune to retaliation from an entrenched bureaucracy. If all competitors got together and spoke with one voice, could things be changed? If they could, how do we proceed. Jim.

I have just noticed that there is a petition on the clothing rules on this forum, I've signed , best all you guys get on it now.

Jim
You could contact Gary Anderson and urge others on your side of the pond to do so, but I suspect you'll have the same problem we have here in that the people we need to complain to are the ones behind many of these changes. I have emailed every one I can.
The real problem is the ISSF is only interested in the elite few who shoot in World Cups, big Internationals and the Olympics, they simply do not care that miliions of grass roots shooters worldwide shoot to their rules as do most domestic national bodies, and that if we continue it will cost us and our clubs a fortune, the result will be that many will drop away from shooting to an international standard, or worse pack up, or never start.
Robin

[James Storm]

Anderson has not responded to my e-mails and letters and I have heard that he rarely does for others unless they are important in the competitive shooting world.

[RobinC]

Anderson has not responded to my e-mails and letters and I have heard that he rarely does for others unless they are important in the competitive shooting world.

Or he only replies to the ones he agrees with!
Hopefully its because his mail is being delivered in sacks and they are all complaints! Yets make it our duty to see he gets a few more!
Robin

[gwsb]

I had a long discussion with a vendor about this. I was told that it is more likely that pant rules will be changed than coat. Even to the extent of out lawing shooting pants.

I hope this is the case or we get back to the old days of light coat vs heavy coat that was an issue in the 60's and 70's in the US after the UIT outlawed the heavy coat.

While most matches are not done under strict ISSF testing and the NCAA could say what ever it wanted about the rules it uses most good but not necessarly elite shooters want to be able to go to matches like the National Chamionships and team tryouts that would have to be done under strict ISSF rules.