TargetTalk

LukeP wrote:There is another change:

There are MANY changes in those drafts. I have little doubt that some of them will change again before the final rules are published.

Detailed discussion here before we know exactly what the final rules say is pointless.

David Levene wrote:

LukeP wrote:There is another change:

There are MANY changes in those drafts. I have little doubt that some of them will change again before the final rules are published.

Detailed discussion here before we know exactly what the final rules say is pointless.

But then when the rules are final it's too late. And issf rules are badly structured/worded enough already. For instance every rifle is illegal already by the grip rules they have in place on air rifle (no anatomical grips or protrusions from the front of grip, neither which is defined at all)

David Levene wrote:Detailed discussion here before we know exactly what the final rules say is pointless.

Detailed discussion here before publication will certainly be based on inaccurate data.
However, any discussion at all after publication will be utterly pointless.

This is the problem with the process ISSF is using - making enormous changes to the sport behind closed doors and without discussion with those in the sport; but apparently with discussion with those in the media industry, to the point (if what has been said is correct) of ignoring the athlete's committee and the coaches committee.

I can understand why they're doing it that way; I just don't happen to think that that's any honest way to run a sport.

David, Sparks has a good point unfortunately the ISSF seems to want to play this way without any input from those that are actually effected by any changes. The upfront thing to do would be to release the proposed changes,Mohave a comment period on the purposes changes,mthen go from there. So everyone is left with only two choices, sit around and wait till the actual rules are release, then they'll say oh sorry it's to late or react to purposes changes. I suspect the second solution better.

LukeP wrote:There is another change:

Athletes may use pistol transport boxes to take pistols and equipment to the shooting ranges, but pistol boxes or other stands or supports, except telescope stands, may not be placed on the bench or table, provided the bench or table complies with Rule 4.4.11.10 (0.70 m to 1.00 m high). During Finals, pistol transport boxes or equipment bags must not remain on the field of play.
Pistol Support Stands
Athletes may place pistol support stands on the bench or table use them to rest their pistols. The total height of the bench or table with the support stand on it may not exceed 1.00 m.

It's allowed to raise not over 1.00m, pistol boxes placed over the table are not allowed (like populars stormcase), i think only dedicated pistol stand.

But it's apparently contrary of this paragraph in general rules:

No one may change or modify any range structure or equipment (e.g. bench size, cutting mats, adding gun cases or boxes to the bench, etc.).

Wow this is going to suck if you are tall. If you fly you will have to take your cloths plus a gun box and some sort of adjustable box to put on the bench. 1m isn't really high enough for tall people so they will have to have something to be able to bring every bench to the max height

I'm 1,93m tall and currently i'm using a stand over the bench, because my range choose to stay below the top limit (below 1m), next time i'll go to the range i'll check if the stand remain under 1m.

The best way to go would be to directly address the ISSF. Here is a copy of what we (shooters from South America) have sent to the ISSF. We thought it would be important to make it public as well.

To the ISSF Administrative Council

We are national and international rifle shooters from Colombia, South America. We have read the proposed new rules changes for rifle and pistol shooting for the coming year.
After reviewing all this information, although we can appreciate the good intention of the ISSF, we feel that implementing all these modifications might hurt more than help our beloved sport especially.
We will not comment about the new format for finals, since we am sure you have received extensive correspondence on this topic, and a widely diffused petition letter which we have already signed in complete agreement (http://www.petitiono...F/petition.html).
The changes to the format of the competitions, for the new shortened times of competition and the new formats for the preparation time are appropriate and novel in our opinion and will bring more emotion to the matches.
However we feel all the changes to the shooting equipment, including rifles, shoes, jackets, pants etc... Will impose an unnecessary burden on shooters and on national federations without unlimited resources. Most of us in countries like ours pay for ourselves or for our equipment and gear, and all these changes in the rules ultimately will mean that a lot of the equipment will have to be changed, shipped back to manufacturers for alterations, or damaged during self-attempts to make required corrections. This will come at a very high price and expense, which can deter shooters from pursuing their athletic interest. In addition, this entire situation makes it very uncertain and difficult to make a decision to acquire new expensive equipment, since the rules seems to be changing very frequently over the last few years. This of course will heavily tax especially shooters like us who are mostly self-supported from a financial standpoint, and might ultimately lead to people quitting shooting altogether.
We would propose to implement the new format for competitions with reduced times/preparation time, and enforce the rules that we already have instead of setting these new rules that will become confusing and sometimes will not really affect shooting or are truly technically supported (for example not using shooting pants or boots for the 60 shots prone match or taking off the already modified seat pad in pants, or making jackets with seams in the left panel illegal).
Ultimately, we think we are all concerned about the future of our sport and we am confident that the athletes' concerns (also from “average” shooters, who are the majority) and opinions will be taken into account by the ISSF Administrative Council before these final rules are implemented. We are sure we are not alone, and our concerns are shared by many others in the shooting community worldwide.
Thank you very much for you attention.

Guido Lastra, shooter Colombian shooting Federation
Cesar Tobon, shooter Colombian shooting Federation
Roger Araque, shooter Colombian shooting Federation
Ivan Camilo Lopez, shooter Colombian shooting Federation
Jorge Mario Arango, shooter Colombian shooting Federation

LukeP wrote:I'm 1,93m tall and currently i'm using a stand over the bench, because my range choose to stay below the top limit (below 1m), next time i'll go to the range i'll check if the stand remain under 1m.

Remember that under the current rules the maximum bench height is 0.8m

I am relatively new to this and would be interested in the views of some of our veterans like Justadude, but I am of the opinion that all attempts to make shooting a spectator sport are wrong headed.

In reality, there are not that many true spectator sports. You can view empty venues all throughout the Olympics. . Sports like baseball and golf only have fans because so many people play or have played the sports and are interested in it. And even with that, you can sometimes see MLB baseball stadiums with only 7000 fans. If you want more fans, you will need to get more shooters. And from I can tell, international style shooting participation is shrinking here in the US.

I think the rules should be there for the shooters. And with or without the fans, the Olympics be damned. If you keep acquiescing to the Olympics, they will destroy your sport and and they will destroy your culture. It happened with 300M shooting and now see at what they did to the Modern Pentathalon. They now shoot a joke of a laser pistol. It is truly pathetic.

Run the sport the way it should be run - for the shooters while respecting decades of tradition. Hell, I would even get rid of the finals format. And I have no trouble going back to counting X's to break ties.

The ISSF needs replacing with a new democratic body, where the shooters concerns are listened to. In fact, start a breakaway movement.

The ISSF needs to be told that the days of dictatorship died last century.

Form a new democratic and transparent governing body, when its big enough the IOC will have to listen. All ex ISSF members should be barred from joining.
It needs to be established somewhere other than Germany.

JSB

I would agree with your one point that we need more shooters and thereby become more popular. The ISSF efforts to become to make the sport more spectator friendly is actually hurting the sport then helping. Then there are probably people on the ISSF committee that would like to take the sport back 40 years in the days before the new technology. However, if they didn't want all this new technology they should have stopped it a long time ago. In there attempt to turn back the clock now would be like pulling out a patients new pacemaker in favor of an older model. I guess from one perspective they both will keep the patient alive.

If large amounts of present coats and other equipment are declared illegal. I would hope that USAS will take into consideration the economic impact that some of these rules will have on the small clubs and organizations that feed into their program before incorporating them into their rules. They have said they will selectively implement those types of changes overtime, which is fine if your starting from the premise that the clubs can survive this type of an economic impact.

The Olympics, regrettably, have become more about money then about the athletes or the sports. The Olympic committees are looking events that are more appealing on television. For example, when "Dancing with the Stars" became popular the committee looked at ballroom dancing to replace some of the more traditional sports. It is hard for me to imagine that the cities that host the Olympics are making money after spending a ton of money in building the Olympic venues and literally employing an army of security to protect the events. However, this isn't an issue for the cities where the government builds it for them.

I know these rules are still not official yet, but if people don't voice their opinions now before they become official then the committee will just rubber stamp the changes and then we all will have to suffer the consequences.

Anonymous wrote:I am relatively new to this and would be interested in the views of some of our veterans like Justadude, but I am of the opinion that all attempts to make shooting a spectator sport are wrong headed.

In reality, there are not that many true spectator sports. You can view empty venues all throughout the Olympics. . Sports like baseball and golf only have fans because so many people play or have played the sports and are interested in it. And even with that, you can sometimes see MLB baseball stadiums with only 7000 fans. If you want more fans, you will need to get more shooters. And from I can tell, international style shooting participation is shrinking here in the US.

I think the rules should be there for the shooters. And with or without the fans, the Olympics be damned. If you keep acquiescing to the Olympics, they will destroy your sport and and they will destroy your culture. It happened with 300M shooting and now see at what they did to the Modern Pentathalon. They now shoot a joke of a laser pistol. It is truly pathetic.

Run the sport the way it should be run - for the shooters while respecting decades of tradition. Hell, I would even get rid of the finals format. And I have no trouble going back to counting X's to break ties.

Anonymous wrote:I am relatively new to this and would be interested in the views of some of our veterans like Justadude, but I am of the opinion that all attempts to make shooting a spectator sport are wrong headed.

In reality, there are not that many true spectator sports. You can view empty venues all throughout the Olympics. . Sports like baseball and golf only have fans because so many people play or have played the sports and are interested in it. And even with that, you can sometimes see MLB baseball stadiums with only 7000 fans. If you want more fans, you will need to get more shooters. And from I can tell, international style shooting participation is shrinking here in the US.

I think the rules should be there for the shooters. And with or without the fans, the Olympics be damned. If you keep acquiescing to the Olympics, they will destroy your sport and and they will destroy your culture. It happened with 300M shooting and now see at what they did to the Modern Pentathalon. They now shoot a joke of a laser pistol. It is truly pathetic.

Run the sport the way it should be run - for the shooters while respecting decades of tradition. Hell, I would even get rid of the finals format. And I have no trouble going back to counting X's to break ties.

I think the Olympics are critical to our forms of shooting. I for one would probably not carry on or would change to full bore TR if Olympic status was lost. So as sad as it is I am afraid ISSF need to play along with the IOC to some degree.
I am all for the zeroing of the scores in the Olympic finals these are world class competitors and they would learn to adjust to new rules very quickly.
As for the equipment rules changes they just look like a pointless waste of paper and will cost shooters a lot of money for no good reason.

Sparks wrote:

David Levene wrote:Detailed discussion here before we know exactly what the final rules say is pointless.

Detailed discussion here before publication will certainly be based on inaccurate data.
However, any discussion at all after publication will be utterly pointless.

This is the problem with the process ISSF is using - making enormous changes to the sport behind closed doors and without discussion with those in the sport; but apparently with discussion with those in the media industry, to the point (if what has been said is correct) of ignoring the athlete's committee and the coaches committee.

I can understand why they're doing it that way; I just don't happen to think that that's any honest way to run a sport.

Sparks is spot on, for those that have not seen it, there is a communique from the ISSF to national bodies worded that these proposals have been agreed by the excecutive committee, etc, and it is being distributed to those national bodies so they may prepare how they comply with them!!!!!

So as far as the ISSF is concerned these are the new rules!!!!

I have just returned to the UK from a shooting trip in Germany and of all I met including two major gun manufacturers, a major accessory manufacturer,shooters and prominent people in German shooting none who had been consulted or knew about these proposalss until they appeared on the internet last week. All disagree with most of these proposals. I was told that the German federation has said that it will not enforce these proposals in their domestic competion next year.

If this proposal is allowed to become rules it will do nothing to improve the sport for the elite or for TV but will aid the decline in lower levels of club and national shooting.
The petition is only against the finals procedure, to protect our sport we must all object and swamp the ISSF e mails with objections, just leave the rules as they are and enforce them correctly.
Robin

RobinC as guest wrote:So as far as the ISSF is concerned these are the new rules!!!!

I'm sorry but that is rubbish.

They are not the new rules, merely a summary of some of the major changes.

We will only understand what most of them really mean when we see the actual detailed rules.

David Levene wrote:

RobinC as guest wrote:So as far as the ISSF is concerned these are the new rules!!!!

I'm sorry but that is rubbish.

They are not the new rules, merely a summary of some of the major changes.

We will only understand what most of them really mean when we see the actual detailed rules.

Yes they will define more detail (hopefully!) but the statement on the ISSF website is categoric, these are not ideas out for comment or discussion, it states and refers to rule changes that WILL apply in 2013, and states that the ISSF council has ALREADY APPROVED MOST OF THE 2013 RULE CHANGES.

From the ISSF website Quote:-

"The ISSF has, however recieved many requests from National Federations, coaches, athletes, and industry about rule changes that will apply in 2013. Since the ISSF Council has already approved most of teh 2013 rule changes, we are pleased to publish the enclosed summary of approved changes in the 2013 -16 ISSF Rules."

We need to object now, by the time they are detailed it will be too late.
Robin

David Levene wrote:

RobinC as guest wrote:So as far as the ISSF is concerned these are the new rules!!!!

I'm sorry but that is rubbish.
They are not the new rules, merely a summary of some of the major changes.
We will only understand what most of them really mean when we see the actual detailed rules.

It's not rubbish, it's just not precisely stated, and that should be obvious, as should Robin's meaning. These are not the new rules, true, but merely the summary of those new rules.

However, that distinction is not what RobinC and myself (and quite a lot of other people, many with more recognisable names than ours) are worried about. What we are talking about is the nature of the process by which these new rules have been drafted and the nature of the process by which they will be approved.

Yes, there are problems with the rules themselves; this would never have been otherwise - as a general rule, in all walks of life, all change is resisted, sometimes for better reasons than others, and that's how it should always be so that no change is too radical and no status quo gets to be too stagnant. Change itself isn't the problem; bad changes are the problem. It was ever thus. And in any sane and well organised system, changes are discussed by everyone in the system and agreed on by everyone in the system, and that's perfectly healthy; how that discussion is carried out and how that agreement is reached are how you tell how well organised a system is and it's that how that's worrying here.

ISSF has a truely lousy system for carrying out that discussion and reaching that agreement and their system is so bad that with very few exceptions nobody in the sport in general has had any opportunity to take part in that discussion before their agreement is deemed by ISSF to be given. And from what's been said sotto voce here and elsewhere, even some of those inside ISSF, on the athletes and coaches committees and elsewhere, have not been listened to.

This is a way of thinking and operating that has destroyed a lot of organisations in the past, and ISSF isn't some special case.

That they haven't even recognised the problem for what it is despite the massive uproar during this Olympic cycle just past is really worrying because the longer an organisation lets a problem like this go unaddressed, the larger, more radical, and more painful and costly the action required to fix it becomes.

The ISSF are systematically destroying shooting under our very noses and we just let them do it.

JSB

I agree with JSB. But what can be done to stop the ISSF.

Please correct me if I am wrong. The ISSF is recognized by the IOC as the international governing body for shooting sports. Shooters only have limited input into what the ISSF does through the few shooting representatives in the ISSF. The only way to get true change in the direction of the ISSF would be to have the IOC decertify the ISSF as the shooting sport's representative which could only happen if they are in violation of the IOC charter or rules (kind of similar to what happened when the USOC dropped the NRA as the USA NGB and USA Shooting was formed). Any possibility of this happening since the ISSF seems to be doing the IOC's bidding?

One way to get our message across is for all shooters to boycot ISSF regulated matches in 2013.
I would also make your feelings known to the ISSF by E Mailing them and saying if they don't become more democratic and transparent in decision making then they must face the consequences from the shooters.

They need to be told in the strongest terms, no pussy footing.
I'm in favour of forming a new body to look after our interests and as I said before, when its big enough the IOC will have to listen.

JSB

JSB that sounds good but like in most other endevours in life there will always be someone willing to under cut you. So if the top level shooters didn't show up to the world cup well the lesser shooters would see this as their opportunity.