ISSF Rules - who takes care?!

Jose Rossy · Post by **Jose Rossy** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:02 am

David, Spencer, it seems to me that most of the loophole "exploitation" doesn't have much to do with actual performance improvements.

There is simply no way that a blinder slightly bigger than what is legal, or a light, flexible leather glove on the trigger hand (like what Pfeilschifter is wearing) will give anyone an advantage.

There is a big difference between regulating the stiffness of shooting clothing, which is a direct contributor to shooting performance, and regulating the width of a blinder. A cm either way makes no difference.

But what do I know...... I tend to think for myself too much.

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:58 am

Jose Rossy wrote:There is simply no way that a blinder slightly bigger than what is legal, or a light, flexible leather glove on the trigger hand (like what Pfeilschifter is wearing) will give anyone an advantage.

There is a big difference between regulating the stiffness of shooting clothing, which is a direct contributor to shooting performance, and regulating the width of a blinder. A cm either way makes no difference.

As I have previously said, I remain to be convinced that the flexible trigger hand glove is against the rules. Nobody seems to be able to give me a rule number.

Also as I previously said, the ISSF have responsibility for the rules on several fronts. Obviously clothing stiffness is a performance issue. The blinder width was always put forward as a public relations, i.e. TV, issue. Both are perfectly valid realms for the ISSF to control the rules for. Whether they have got it right on the blinders is clearly very much a matter for debate.

Grzegorz · Post by **Grzegorz** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:57 am

As I have mentioned before - blinders 40mm instead of 30mm make no difference on score. I am a bit confused only, because ISSF force us to follow that rule TO KEEP shooting in Olimpic programme, and at the same time ISSF referees allow to break the rule exactly in the Olimpic finals! (nb. in air rifle final also not correct blinders were used...).

Concerning a secound glove and similar problems (scotch to fix boots, etc.). These are examples how ISSF works (or rather do not work...). Rules evoluate, and this is ok. Sonia P. uses a second glove? OK, only today on this WC. Several days after Technical Comm. should interpret the Rules and state if it is allowed or not. For next competitions.

Grzegorz

Richard H · Post by **Richard H** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 6:21 pm

The danger of using blinders bigger than the rules allow is the fact that I as another competitor could protest you using a bigger blinder and I really don't see how they would not DQ you for using it. So using the oversize blinder is do so at your own risk.

xtreme · Post by **xtreme** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 4:29 am

Grzegorz wrote:As I have mentioned before - blinders 40mm instead of 30mm make no difference on score. I am a bit confused only, because ISSF force us to follow that rule TO KEEP shooting in Olimpic programme, and at the same time ISSF referees allow to break the rule exactly in the Olimpic finals! (nb. in air rifle final also not correct blinders were used...).

Grzegorz

VERY GOOD POINT

thenikjones · Post by **thenikjones** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 7:50 am

Grzegorz wrote: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

I am a contact lens wearer, but use glasses for shooting. I found that when I concentrated hard, my eye started to "water" when wearing lenses - not good! Also, Sod's Law suggested that when in an important match, a bit of dust etc would start irritating my eye - and indeed it did.

It's an interesting thought though!

Nik

Grzegorz · Post by **Grzegorz** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 5:15 am

Yes, of course I know very well that contact lens is often a problem. My question was asked however from slightly different point of view... ISSF Rules! The idea I have proposed (the use of contact lens AND classic lens together) is nothing else than a hidden way to use... a field-glass (telescope) :-0 and then... is it allowed? ;-)

I would like to stress that I am particularly interested in finding any more precise answer concerning that "fameous" second glove... As I have not found any definitive answer, I am going to write a fax to ISSF Headquarter. Will see...

Grzegorz

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:07 am

Grzegorz wrote:I would like to stress that I am particularly interested in finding any more precise answer concerning that "fameous" second glove... As I have not found any definitive answer, I am going to write a fax to ISSF Headquarter. Will see...

That would be particularly interesting. I can see nothing in the rules which even hints that a glove on the trigger hand would not be allowed. Despite asking on this board, nobody has come up with any justification for them not to be allowed.

Have there been instances of them not being allowed in a major competition, if so, was the Jury asked to give a reason.

Let us know when you get an answer.

Val · Post by **Val** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 11:04 am

This glove issue reminded me of an episode from coach Poddubniy's memoirs:

At some point he was shooting a FP match in a cold weather an he was using a cover over his shooting hand. The main field judge got positively anal about and prohibited it, even though it was not technically against the rules on the basis of "unfair advantage". Later the judge (also high official in the USSR shooting) gave Piddubniy a "special edition" of the rules, the first item being "use of any devices not mentioned henceforth is prohibited".

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 12:03 pm

Val wrote:.......Later the judge (also high official in the USSR shooting) gave Piddubniy a "special edition" of the rules, the first item being "use of any devices not mentioned henceforth is prohibited".

That's exactly my point. Gloves are allowed in the rules and, unless I have missed something (quite possible), there is nothing to say that you can only have one or that they can only be on the non-trigger hand.

Val · Post by **Val** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 1:41 pm

On the other hand (whoa! a pun!), the trigger-hand an supporting-hand gloves are completely different animals, and the aspects of the rules dealing with the supporting-hand glove do not automatically transfer to the trigger-hand glove (as I would interpret it).

As such, the only way to resolve the issue would be to get the official interpretation from the ISSF technical committee.

(whoa! a pun!)

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 2:04 pm

Val wrote:On the other hand (whoa! a pun!), the trigger-hand an supporting-hand gloves are completely different animals, and the aspects of the rules dealing with the supporting-hand glove do not automatically transfer to the trigger-hand glove (as I would interpret it).

As such, the only way to resolve the issue would be to get the official interpretation from the ISSF technical committee.

But they are not rules dealing with "supporting hand" gloves, they are just dealing with gloves. Providing that the trigger-hand gloves comply then I, and obviously Sonia Pfeilschifter, can see no problem.

I have no axe to grind one way or another, I have only ever shot less than 100 rounds through a rifle.

I would love to hear the ISSF interpretation.

Val · Post by **Val** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:54 pm

Speaking of the glasses and contact lenses.

Quote from the rules.

7.4.2.3.1 Correcting lenses and telescopes must not be attached to the rifle, but correction glasses may be worn by the shooter.

Lets reiterate the semantics of the above statement: the correcting lenses and telescopes are not explicitly prohibited, as long as they are not attached to the rifle.

There exists a type of glasses with magnification systems built in (bioptics).
http://www.biopticdriving.org/vendors.htm

Although not explicitly prohibited, the use of such system may be forbidden under the following rule, which is subject to interpretation.

7.4.1.1 Shooters must use only equipment and apparel that complies with ISSF Rules. Anything (rifles, devices, equipment, accessories, etc.) which may give a shooter an unfair advantage over others and which is not mentioned in these Rules, or which is contrary to the spirit of the ISSF Regulations and Rules, is prohibited. ...

I'd like to hear the official word regarding this as well as the glove thing.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 5:38 pm

Val wrote:I'd like to hear the official word regarding this as well as the glove thing.

The only way that's going to happen is if someone protests another competitor for using a glove on their triger hand.

As far as I can tell, Sonja's glove is some kind of thin leather affair that is freely available to anyone.

How is that an unfair advantage is beyond me.

Go buy one if you want her "advantage". I'm sure she could wax all of us on a standing match wearing nothing more supportive than flip flops, a pair of shorts, and a t-shirt.

Sparks · Post by **Sparks** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 6:01 pm

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure she could wax all of us on a standing match wearing nothing more supportive than flip flops, a pair of shorts, and a t-shirt.

No fair trying to distract us in such a pleasant manner! :D

Tired of games · Post by **Tired of games** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:16 am

Anonymous wrote:
Val wrote:I'd like to hear the official word regarding this as well as the glove thing.
How is that an unfair advantage is beyond me.

It - and anything else - becomes an unfair advantage when the rules are bent for just specific shooters in particular circumstances.
While we go about getting riled up over the rules, they appear to be allowed to proceed blissfully along.

RobStubbs · Post by **RobStubbs** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:28 am

Tired of games wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Val wrote:I'd like to hear the official word regarding this as well as the glove thing.
How is that an unfair advantage is beyond me.

It - and anything else - becomes an unfair advantage when the rules are bent for just specific shooters in particular circumstances.
While we go about getting riled up over the rules, they appear to be allowed to proceed blissfully along.

I don't quite understand how she has 'bent the rules' when no-one here has suggested how it may give any advantage. I would suggest that perhaps one of the 'skills' of any competitor is to fully understand the rules and if possible use that to their advantage. I would stop short of doing anything unsporting but as I stated above I don't see the glove offering any advantage and it's certainly available to every other competitor.

Rob.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:55 am

So VERY SORRY that the post came up in multiple! Kept getting an error message off of the submit function.

WRC177 · Post by **WRC177** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:59 am

RobStubbs wrote:I don't quite understand how she has 'bent the rules' when no-one here has suggested how it may give any advantage. I would suggest that perhaps one of the 'skills' of any competitor is to fully understand the rules and if possible use that to their advantage. I would stop short of doing anything unsporting but as I stated above I don't see the glove offering any advantage and it's certainly available to every other competitor.

Rob.

I think the original idea was that the rules forbade the use of a glove on the trigger hand. At least a lot of us thought that that's what the rules said. It's come as a surprise to know that no such rule exists.

Having said that, I do wish I could dig up an old NRA Intl rulebook from the 80's or so. I am quite sure it stipified a glove on the support hand only. Maybe that's what some of us are thinking of.

Jay V · Post by **Jay V** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 12:56 pm

Isn't it illegal under ISSF rules to have a blinder attached to the rifle?

More than a couple of competitors in the Olympic finals that I saw (Men's 50M prone and 3P) had it mounted on the rear sight.

Another thing on the finals (mostly prone) - weren't there numerous shots after the "STOP" command was called?

Jay V