2014 USA FB WC AR DSQ Junghaenel & Raghunath

conradin · Post by **conradin** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:22 pm

Anyone know exactly why they were DSQ? 6.7.9.3 means they failed the post competition inspection. The report did not say which rule was violated.

redschietti · Post by **redschietti** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:46 am

Henri was boot flex I heard

FrankD · Post by **FrankD** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 10:15 am

redschietti wrote:Henri was boot flex I heard

Was it this duck walk thing?

For me rule ISSF 7.5.3.3 in this form is crap. Not to understand me wrong, I have no problem with objective measurement and testing. But giving a disqualification for not 'normal' walking is not really serious. Such a deciding is ever subjective.

As ever only my two cents.

Regards from Germany

Frank

redschietti · Post by **redschietti** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:06 pm

My daughter there said boot flex. Assumed it was with the torque wrench

conradin · Post by **conradin** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:50 pm

redschietti wrote:My daughter there said boot flex. Assumed it was with the torque wrench

Can you please explain that...torque wrench?

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:10 pm

conradin wrote:
redschietti wrote:My daughter there said boot flex. Assumed it was with the torque wrench
Can you please explain that...torque wrench?

Rules 6.5.3 & 7.5.2.3

jhmartin · Post by **jhmartin** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:15 pm

conradin wrote:Can you please explain that...torque wrench?

See Page 3
http://www.issf-sports.org/getfile.aspx ... n_2014.pdf

And Page 15
http://www.issf-sports.org/getfile.aspx ... n_2014.pdf

Jordan1s · Post by **Jordan1s** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 8:52 pm

Was he DSQ'd for the way he walked, or for the boot failing to bend at the required 22.5 degree angle? Also, did anyone see what boot he used for competition?

WesternGrizzly · Post by **WesternGrizzly** » Sun Mar 30, 2014 2:24 pm

His boots failed the flex test. Rule 7.5.2.3

bpscCheney · Post by **bpscCheney** » Sun Mar 30, 2014 7:17 pm

Did he get new boots? He shot 3P today without being disqualified.

rmarsh · Post by **rmarsh** » Sun Mar 30, 2014 8:04 pm

There were a lot of shooters having issues with boot flex at this WC. We had to make major cuts in the soles of my daughter's boots to get them to pass. The same boots easily passed at Bavarian Airgun in Munich just a couple months ago. I saw several other shooters with the same issue..... Boots not passing that had passed in many other international matches.

The fixture looked to be set up properly and the torque wrench setting was correct. That is why you should always do equipment check even if it is voluntary. If you don't pass, you can fix the issue and go back through. When you get pulled off the line for a random check there are no second chances. Pass or be disqualified.

RobStubbs · Post by **RobStubbs** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 2:12 am

rmarsh wrote:There were a lot of shooters having issues with boot flex at this WC. We had to make major cuts in the soles of my daughter's boots to get them to pass. The same boots easily passed at Bavarian Airgun in Munich just a couple months ago. I saw several other shooters with the same issue..... Boots not passing that had passed in many other international matches.

The fixture looked to be set up properly and the torque wrench setting was correct. That is why you should always do equipment check even if it is voluntary. If you don't pass, you can fix the issue and go back through. When you get pulled off the line for a random check there are no second chances. Pass or be disqualified.

At these major international matches the EC will be fully tested, certified and checked by qualified jury members. Since it's the first major meeting of the year, it makes sense to put things such as boots and clothing through the testing procedure just to check them properly (and it goes without saying, all new kit !).

As Rmarsh says you can put them through to check and make alterations if required, after a random check you have no such luxury.

Rob.

redschietti · Post by **redschietti** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 1:57 pm

The rub though, hasn't changed. Just because it passed before the match doesn't mean it will pass after. And just because it passed prematch has no bearing on post match pass/fail. I think it is expected that we will have athletes fail that had no intent of cheating.

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 2:07 pm

redschietti wrote:I think it is expected that we will have athletes fail that had no intent of cheating.

Maybe that will happen, but they will be shooting against others who have gone out of their way to ensure their equipment will ALWAYS pass.

BigAl · Post by **BigAl** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 5:44 pm

David Levene wrote:
redschietti wrote:I think it is expected that we will have athletes fail that had no intent of cheating.
Maybe that will happen, but they will be shooting against others who have gone out of their way to ensure their equipment will ALWAYS pass.

But sometimes for no apparent reason kit that has passed EC many times just seems to up and fail. On one occasion one EC Judge wanted to fail my daughters glove because it had no makers name on the label and my daughter did not know the name. There was nothing else wrong with the glove. Another shooter fortunately suggest what the makers name was and inked it on the glove, problem solved. This was on a glove that had passed EC two or three times before. This was by the same team of judges, most who had run the EC at the London Olympics.

Alan

Metookevin · Post by **Metookevin** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:55 pm

Another shooter disqualified on rule 6.7.9.3 re-inspection in the women's 3x20.

The best thing the ISSF could do for the sport is to go through its rule book & strike out every item except that which clearly & measurably eliminates the unfair advantage. The current rule book fails on delivering simplicity, clarity and providing a framework that can applied to all levels of ISSF style shooting within the existing population of participation. Shooting Associations ought to strip out the complexity to keep their sport viable - that is the ultimate verdict on the ISSF's effort.

Cheers.

RobStubbs · Post by **RobStubbs** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:07 am

Metookevin wrote:Another shooter disqualified on rule 6.7.9.3 re-inspection in the women's 3x20.

The best thing the ISSF could do for the sport is to go through its rule book & strike out every item except that which clearly & measurably eliminates the unfair advantage. The current rule book fails on delivering simplicity, clarity and providing a framework that can applied to all levels of ISSF style shooting within the existing population of participation. Shooting Associations ought to strip out the complexity to keep their sport viable - that is the ultimate verdict on the ISSF's effort.

Cheers.

The only way to do that would be to eliminate all kit / clothing. At other levels of shooting you don't have to follow the ISSF's stringent rules, each nation is at liberty to simplify them or use what they want. They can choose for example to only use ISSF rules for national championships.

Rob.

Metookevin · Post by **Metookevin** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 6:58 am

[/quote]

The only way to do that would be to eliminate all kit / clothing. At other levels of shooting you don't have to follow the ISSF's stringent rules, each nation is at liberty to simplify them or use what they want. They can choose for example to only use ISSF rules for national championships.

Rob.[quote]

Even at Nationals level I think the clothing requirements should be ignored, you only penalise those shooters who acquired gear that subsequently fail if they don't upgrade to comply. If I buy a coat that was legal in 2002 but does not pass in 2012 then why should I be penalised. And what rule changes actually eliminated a significant performance advantage? All they have achieved is make the sport more complicated and attempted to control innovation which is bound to result in more changes in rules, testing equipment needed and variations in humans/materials/environment affecting the tests.

A 1980 ISU rule book is a fraction of the current 700 page ISSF rule book. While there is justification for the increase in areas I am sure it could be simplified. I think they could do a lot worse than eliminating all clothing/equipment rules except those where a significant performance advantage could be demonstrated.

Cheers