New ISSF Rules

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:03 am

The amended ISSF Eligibility and Sponsorship Rules, effective from 1st January 2008, are now available.

They have issued a warning that for the Olympic Games, IOC rule 51 applies.

Steve Swartz · Post by **Steve Swartz** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:41 pm

So the IOC will immediately disqualify any athlete who, for example, wore a christian cross pin . . . or had a sticker that said "Fair Trade" on a shooting kit; or how about a "Carbon Neutral" patch on a shooting jacket . . . etc.

Fascinating that while such "overtly political" [sic] displays have been tolerated (encouraged even, for "politically correct" causes) in past Olympics, such "overtly contentious displays" are being banned in CHINA.

Wonder how they are going to judge "overtly political displays" that will be occurring in GREAT ABUNDANCE sponsored by the host country . . .

Steve Swartz

Richard H · Post by **Richard H** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:25 am

Everybody pucker up it time to kiss China's butt.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:03 am

John 8:7

Jose Rossy · Post by **Jose Rossy** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:14 pm

And people wonder why ISSF shooting is virtually non-existent in the US..........

Richard H · Post by **Richard H** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:58 pm

Why is that? Because of the ISSF sponsership rules?

Spencer · Post by **Spencer** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 1:28 am

Jose Rossy wrote:And people wonder why ISSF shooting is virtually non-existent in the US..........

Whoa! Why pick on the ISSF?

IOC rule 51 applies to all Olympic sports, and most of the sports have eligibility/sponsorship rules pretty much the same as for shooting. Are all the other Olympic sports 'virtually non-existent in the US'?

Spencer

Mellberg · Post by **Mellberg** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 7:41 am

Ooh. I wonder if these rules will be carried out as much during the 2nd World University Shooting Championships that will be arranges after the olympics on the same arenas?
Better keep an eye out.. wouldn't want to be DQ's because of something like that. =)

Steve Swartz · Post by **Steve Swartz** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 7:45 pm

The US is an incredibly heterogeneous society; we have anarchists and communists; hedonists and puritans; college professors and plumbers living next to each other in the same neighborhoods. Literally.

In the U.S. (perhaps other places as well?) there are huge "cultural" (!) differences between groups of people who participate in olympic events like "shooting" versus "gymnastics."

Shooters in the US generally have visceral reactions to totalitarian, group think policies that are considered a normal part of being a "good citizen" in many/most of the developed world. Stop at a stop sign? Pay taxes? Horrors!

Most other participants in olympic style sports in the US have absolutely no problem with following "for the good of the whole" type conformity. Indeed, they understand that in international issues, "going along with the crowd" is not only required; but considered good, wholesome, etc.

I believe that many behavioral restrictions/free speech restrictions that would be graciously (unquestiongly?) accepted by (just about every) other discipline(s) would be looked at, shall we say, somewhat "askance" by the shooting community- at least in the USA.

Steve Swartz

Dogchaser · Post by **Dogchaser** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:34 pm

I think "going with the flow" and "for the common good" is why olympic shooting events are nearing the end. Way too many Communist/Socialist thinking nations out there right now.

It sure seems like the world as a whole likes training in the USA and loves the $$$ in advertising that we pump into the Olympic sports from top to bottom.

"Gunz R bad for the Kidz" mmmmK

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:58 am

Dogchaser wrote:.....and loves the $$$ in advertising that we pump into the Olympic sports from top to bottom.

IMHO it's those very dollars that will kill off Olympic shooting.

The Olympics are now much more about satisfying the television audience, and therefore the accountants, than they are about sport.

If you are in a sport that can draw large TV audiences, with frequent breaks for the adverts, then you are pretty safe.

Richard H · Post by **Richard H** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:08 am

I for the life of can't figure out why the Olympics is still the be all and end all. Organizations are basically willing to prostitue themselves for the Olympics.

The argument that its the best in the world doesn't really hold much water, the World Cups are filled with the same people and in therory prorbaly could represent the best shooters in the world more accurately. an example if some started shooting really well right now, you'd have to wait 4 years to see them (because 1 they don't have an MQS and 2 they could even be from a country that didn't earn a quota).

TV is the most important thing in the Olympics but not the only thing either. Shooting does have disciplines that are better suited for TV but you won't see them either (trap, skeet, IPSC, any reactive target).

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:45 am

I think the Olympics are a big deal because before people started traveling it was a place that the best of an area would meet with the best of another area. Up until modern travel this was impractical to do so they best from an area would only get together every so many years. I guess the only reason its a big deal know is tradition.

ASA · Post by **ASA** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:12 am

David Levene wrote: If you are in a sport that can draw large TV audiences, with frequent breaks for the adverts, then you are pretty safe.

This observation fits nicely with a regulation here in Germany: Until 2005 the size of the blinds for the non-aiming eye and on the sides was not regulated in a competition. Since that year the size is restricted in width and length.
The reason for this is: The television wants to see the face of the athlete. As if there would exist extensive TV coverage for our sport

Richard H · Post by **Richard H** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:37 am

Thats sort of the same point I was making Asa. The ISSF has followed this appeasement strategy, basically ignoring shooter safety, comfort and in some instances abandoning events in this hope that they could make the IOC gods happy in fear that if they say NO the IOC will drop shooitng (which it probably would which is eventually inevitable anyways). As long as there are guns in shooting it won't be televised, no matter what is done, and as long as it doesn't bring in television revenue to the IOC it will be on the chopping block.

It has nothing to do with the sport itself they televise darts, bowling and golf, it has to do with the political correctness or lack there-of of our sport.

Fred Mannis · Post by **Fred Mannis** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:00 pm

Richard H wrote:Everybody pucker up it time to kiss China's butt.

Richard, given your last post, don't you mean 'kiss the IOC's butt'?

Richard H · Post by **Richard H** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:08 pm

While the IOC will kiss China's butt, then the ISSF wants us all to kiss their butt. So there is enough but kissing to go around.

Jose Rossy · Post by **Jose Rossy** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 5:13 pm

Steve Swartz wrote:The US is an incredibly heterogeneous society; we have anarchists and communists; hedonists and puritans; college professors and plumbers living next to each other in the same neighborhoods. Literally.

In the U.S. (perhaps other places as well?) there are huge "cultural" (!) differences between groups of people who participate in olympic events like "shooting" versus "gymnastics."

Shooters in the US generally have visceral reactions to totalitarian, group think policies that are considered a normal part of being a "good citizen" in many/most of the developed world. Stop at a stop sign? Pay taxes? Horrors!

Most other participants in olympic style sports in the US have absolutely no problem with following "for the good of the whole" type conformity. Indeed, they understand that in international issues, "going along with the crowd" is not only required; but considered good, wholesome, etc.

I believe that many behavioral restrictions/free speech restrictions that would be graciously (unquestiongly?) accepted by (just about every) other discipline(s) would be looked at, shall we say, somewhat "askance" by the shooting community- at least in the USA.

Steve Swartz

Indeed.

While many in Europe think there is no target shooting going on in the USA (at least the form of target shooting Euros think is "appropriate"), they are apparently unaware of the US NRA rifle target shooting disciplines of service rifle, match rifle, mid-range fullbore, long-range fullbore, and US style smallbore (both prone and 3P). We have our own rules and targets (with some minor amount of overlap with ISSF in NRA SB 3P), and in the case of fullbore, the US NRA has flatly stated that it will NOT adopt any of the mysterious ICFRA (International Confederation of Fullbore Rifle Association) rules. Even though the US NRA has a seat at the ICFRA, the secrecy in which many rules have been promulgated and the waffling that has accopanied some rule changes plus the fact that we function very well within our borders has led most US fullbore shooters to not care much about whatever the ICFRA has to say.

What does that have to do with the ISSF and the IOC? As Steve said, we have a tradition of sedition and independence and view anything coming from elsewhere with anything from mild suspicion to outright hostility.

And to further compound matters, we have embraced target shooting sports in which the object is not to shoot the highest score on round targets but to engage humanoid targets in the shortest amount of time with only deductions for hitting outside the vital area with firearms capable of rapid fire and capable of holding a vast amount of cartridges in their magazines.

ASA · Post by **ASA** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 6:58 pm

Jose Rossy wrote: While many in Europe think there is no target shooting going on in the USA (at least the form of target shooting Euros think is "appropriate")..
What does that have to do with the ISSF and the IOC? As Steve said, we have a tradition of sedition and independence and view anything coming from elsewhere with anything from mild suspicion to outright hostility.

my, my, is that supposed to mean that we are not one big loving family of shooters, or do I witness a case of domestic violence? Surely this time of year is the right time to bring this up - did I already say Merry Christmas?

Jose Rossy · Post by **Jose Rossy** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:00 pm

ASA wrote:
Jose Rossy wrote: While many in Europe think there is no target shooting going on in the USA (at least the form of target shooting Euros think is "appropriate")..
What does that have to do with the ISSF and the IOC? As Steve said, we have a tradition of sedition and independence and view anything coming from elsewhere with anything from mild suspicion to outright hostility.
my, my, is that supposed to mean that we are not one big loving family of shooters, or do I witness a case of domestic violence? Surely this time of year is the right time to bring this up - did I already say Merry Christmas?

I did not imply anything.

I merely stated things as I see them.

Merry Christmas to you, as well.