New irrational proposals of the ISSF committees

[plinker]

When I shot 3-Position Smallbore in college, the ISU rules were in force, and we used to joke that eventually we would probably have to shoot in our underwear just to make everyone happy!

We used to shoot in regular combat boots until challenged by another team's coach right before our match. Our coach came back and told all of us to just take our boots off and shoot in our bare feet. Guess what? We still out-performed the other team, and we didn't let it throw us off our game mentally. By the time the next match came around, our footwear met the rule requirements.

I am also in the market for a new jacket, and I will probably buy something that is approved under the CURRENT guidelines. I no longer shoot exclusively ISU/ISSF matches, so it's not as critical for me to adhere to the ever-changing international rules as it is Olympic level athletes. If I decide to compete in future ISSF matches, I'll have my equipment re-checked long before the day of the competition anyway.

[shootx]

First of all I hope all of you that have commented on the "proposed" clothing rule changes and "preliminary" minutes from the ISSF Technical Committee have read the version that is color coded. If not, you have no way to read the document correctly.
Nothing regarding clothing changes is approved, or will be approved prior to review and approval by the Administrative Council or Executive Committee of the ISSF.
The text that is in "green" is the position of the Technical Committee, nothing else.
"Noted for Rule Book 2013 - bring it forward 2011" was correctly interpreted by one or more of you. It will be considered for incorporation into the rules, after the 2012 Olympics and in time for the new book effective 1/1/2013. "bring it forward 2011" means that the proposed change will be brought back to committee, for reassessment, at the annual meeting in November 2011.
Yes, the committee's involved are trying to establish an ISSF policy to have all new equipment submitted for approval prior to release to the public.
The Rifle Committee and the Technical Committee have been directed, for the past two years, or more, to do something about the shooting clothing. Much of this has be driven by requests from the IOC, ISSF leadership and media.
The reference to a 2010 change to the shooting shoes rule was the expressed position of a committee member that "It could be incorporated in 2010", not that it would.
To the person that questioned the English language usage...Those items of text in question were written by a wonderful gentleman from Great Britain, well trained in English an his native language.
Much of the proposal text was written by non-native English speakers, but understood fully by all members of the committees involved.
And to anyone here that wants to knock Gary Anderson, you are very much off base.
The above statements are my own and do not represent the ISSF position or the Committee's position relative to the content of this forum. They are my comments to what has been discussed on this forum, and are based on my personal knowledge and participation as a member of the ISSF Rifle Committee.

Respectfully,
Allen Harry

[Derzch]

This brew-haha has been raging for a while now. Why couldn't this explanation have been posted LONG ago? If it is correct, it would have saved a great number of us from wasting time being concerned and more time being constructive. What the HELL?!

[Sparks]

There's nothing in there about not banning composite materials (in favour of materials which the wonderful gentleman with the excellent training in english has stated - publicly and in an official capacity - should not be used in ISSF shooting clothing because it breaks ISSF rules.

Nor is there anything about not invalidating everyone's equipment (thus imposing financial hardship on everyone in the sport during the worst global recession in living memory).

I'm glad to see clarification on the dates and the meaning of the text surrounding them; but the measures themselves remain unchanged, and those are the issue at hand.

[RobinC]

Allen Harry
Thank you for that clarification which I presume you are happy for us to take as gospel, it does releave a lot of deep concern within the shooting comunity. This issue has, knowingly by the ISSF, been in the public domain for some time, some of us, in my case due to spending a large sum of money on new equipment have contacted the ISSF for clarification and recieved no reply at all.
I thank you again for your courtesy in clearing this issue with out it being an official ISSF statement, but I think its sad that it has to rely on a public spirited member of the rifle committee to do this when a public statement by the ISSF could have put the minds at rest of many millions of shooters around the world as the ISSF rules effect us probably more than the elite few.
Best regards
Robin

[Alexander]

"Noted for Rule Book 2013 - bring it forward 2011" was correctly interpreted by one or more of you.

As presumed. But thanks for the corroboration.

It will be considered for incorporation into the rules, after the 2012 Olympics and in time for the new book effective 1/1/2013. "bring it forward 2011" means that the proposed change will be brought back to committee, for reassessment, at the annual meeting in November 2011.

Correct. But one would have to be able to READ to get this gist. :-)

To the person that questioned the English language usage...Those items of text in question were written by a wonderful gentleman from Great Britain, well trained in English an his native language.
Much of the proposal text was written by non-native English speakers, but understood fully by all members of the committees involved.

I do not know _where_ exactly the "wonderful gentleman" was uneducated. "Well trained" apparently means below the standard of any newly arrived immigrant from a non-anglophone country. Your assessment is ever so charitable.

As to the prolific abuse of language, and ineptness of shoddy expression in general in this document, I readily concede that no foreign speaker can be impugned for lack of dexterity in a language that is not his or hers; but readers who claim native proficiency, should be able to understand the semantic main content even when little mistakes, such as David Levene had chastised, would mar the image. The readers here did worse than the authors.

Alexander

[Hemmers]

but readers who claim native proficiency, should be able to understand the semantic main content even when little mistakes, such as David Levene had chastised, would mar the image. The readers here did worse than the authors.

That's hardly fair. The quote in question was:

bring it forward 2011

That's pretty much shorthand. Without a colour code that comment could be read either way and would be acceptable (if not perfect) English in either context.
Most of us assumed it meant bring the changes forward to 2011. David correctly came to the conclusion it meant merely to bring the discussion forward to 2011. Don't chastise him for getting it right! Thousands didn't which shows it clearly isn't well written. Maybe the ISSF Committee are superhuman linguists or psychics, or maybe they were able to verbally query it. That they understood it's context doesn't mean the comment is clear or well-written English.

Without a colour code it is unacceptably ambiguous for the minutes of a global governing committee. The fact that many native English speakers have heavily debated the actual meaning in the THREE WEEKS it has taken someone from the ISSF to make a clarifying comment suggests the language is insufficiently clear unless one was actually in the meeting and was aware of the context (i.e. the verbal discussion) at the time.

That they rely on a colour code at all (instead of good written language - whichever language they choose) is astonishing given that not all printers are colour - such as the common office laser printer or fax machine designed for simple B&W documents. Clearly here, B&W copies have been forwarded around, or colour documents without a key to decipher the colour coding, which one would surely think reasonable to have included on the front page.
One cannot control the colour of a document or the medium on which it will be displayed once it leaves your control. The content however remains the same unless the text is physically edited. Content not colour surely!

That the majority of committee members are non-native English speakers does not excuse the ambiguous language. If you're going to keep minutes in English, they should be kept in clear and well-written English - or French, German or Cantonese! Doesn't matter how you keep them as long as they are written clearly so a newcomer to the committee can pick up old minutes and understand them without having needed to be in the meeting to comprehend the context.

I have sat on several committees for Sports and Unions. In every meeting a Secretary sat in the corner and kept minutes. They were not in shorthand. Anyone could pick them up and understand what we had been discussing, whether it was discussion or decision-making and our conclusions/final decision - irrespective of whether it was printed in black, red or blue, on yellow paper, parchment or gold leaf!


Of more importance however is this comment:

The above statements are my own and do not represent the ISSF position or the Committee's position relative to the content of this forum.

THREE WEEKS and STILL no official statement on the ISSF website? Just unofficial posts from Gary Anderson and Allen Harry on web forums - indeed on this forum it was as a guest. It could be anyone posting anything!

THREE WEEKS?

This topic has caused massive controversy, confusion and not a little acrimony. A clarifying statement a week or two ago would have saved much confusion. The ISSF is clearly aware of the debate because of the aforementioned statements from committee members.
Why no formal clarification from them?
What are they doing? They need to get their thumbs out their arses.

[David Levene]

[As to the prolific abuse of language, and ineptness of shoddy expression in general in this document, I readily concede that no foreign speaker can be impugned for lack of dexterity in a language that is not his or hers; but readers who claim native proficiency, should be able to understand the semantic main content even when little mistakes, such as David Levene had chastised, would mar the image.

What I was "chastising" was your assumption that what was written could only have one meaning.

So, which of the two parts "bring" and "forward" do - supposedly! - native speakers not understand?

From my first post on this thread I admitted that there was more than one way of reading the minutes. I just happened to interpret them correctly.

[robf]

First of all I hope all of you that have commented on the "proposed" clothing rule changes and "preliminary" minutes from the ISSF Technical Committee have read the version that is color coded.

The colour coded document attached to the first post of this very thread you mean?

If not, you have no way to read the document correctly.

Besides it's ambiguity.

Nothing regarding clothing changes is approved, or will be approved prior to review and approval by the Administrative Council or Executive Committee of the ISSF.

So what, it shouldn't be discussed until it is?

The text that is in "green" is the position of the Technical Committee, nothing else.
"Noted for Rule Book 2013 - bring it forward 2011" was correctly interpreted by one or more of you.

Out of all the forums across the world? That's one hell of a message success rate! Medals all round.

It will be considered for incorporation into the rules, after the 2012 Olympics and in time for the new book effective 1/1/2013. "bring it forward 2011" means that the proposed change will be brought back to committee, for reassessment, at the annual meeting in November 2011.
Yes, the committee's involved are trying to establish an ISSF policy to have all new equipment submitted for approval prior to release to the public.
The Rifle Committee and the Technical Committee have been directed, for the past two years, or more, to do something about the shooting clothing. Much of this has be driven by requests from the IOC, ISSF leadership and media.
The reference to a 2010 change to the shooting shoes rule was the expressed position of a committee member that "It could be incorporated in 2010", not that it would.

Could be then... so still could be, and if wanted, would be then.

To the person that questioned the English language usage...Those items of text in question were written by a wonderful gentleman from Great Britain, well trained in English an his native language.
Much of the proposal text was written by non-native English speakers, but understood fully by all members of the committees involved.

Just failed outside of that arena though.

The above statements are my own and do not represent the ISSF position or the Committee's position relative to the content of this forum. They are my comments to what has been discussed on this forum, and are based on my personal knowledge and participation as a member of the ISSF Rifle Committee.

Respectfully,
Allen Harry

There doesn't seem to be an ISSF position, or comment, despite being addressed directly.

I'd say this opens up new debates about who controls the sport, and who now needs to participate in ISSF.

[Alexander]

I readily concede that no foreign speaker can be impugned for lack of dexterity in a language that is not his or hers; but readers who claim native proficiency, should be able to understand the semantic main content even when little mistakes, such as David Levene had chastised, would mar the image.

What I was "chastising" was your assumption that what was written could only have one meaning.

1. Nope. You actually chastised an ellipsis on part of the writer that omitted an "in" before the indication of the year. A not uncommon Germanicism on the part of the minutes taker, I daresay.

2. My assumption was correct. The question was not what meaning the phrase "bring it forward" could have in any - ever so far-fetched - hypothetical context (pushing the apple cart more to the roadside, e.g.). The question was what meaning it had in preliminary committee minutes that serve to propose a future rules change. It this context, it WAS absolutely unilateral.
Which does not mean that the intent could not have been expressed better or clearer - you, I and Hemmers might be in screaming agreement on this point. :-)

Alexander

[Guest]

Quite apart from the expense for established adult shooters in changing all their kit, what about still-growing juniors, when new rules make all the relatively recent secondhand kit out there illegal even though it's only available secondhand because it's no longer as stiff as once it was?

I'll tell my daughter she can take up shooting again when she stops growing, shall I? She's on her third jacket so far (two outgrown), and is likely to need a completely new set of shooting clothing every year (possibly more frequently) for probably the next four years. Like it wasn't expensive enough already...

Like someone else said, I see no need for a rule on thickness. Let's have a rule on flexibility which older, worn jackets can pass too.

[Luke Duncan]

I have been shooting 3-position and air rifle for nearly 4 years. I have a standard fit pair of leathers that fit very nicely, and a pair of boots. I can tell you that when I have practiced for extended periods of time without leathers, I have noticed extra strain on my back. Our rifles are too heavy to shoot with no support. Before I had shooting boots, I used hiking boots, and they worked very well. If we were only allowed to wear tenishoes, I can't help but feel that some shooters would experience injuries due to no support in the lower leg.

[DougB]

Why cause everyone all this money to replace gear when all they need to do is make the 10 smaller. That would solve the problem of too many 600's. I dont know what the big deal is about the penguin parade. Maybe we should suggest to the IOC that skiers should wear big fluffy jackets instead of skin tight body suits? The whole idea of needing all new shooting jackets, pants etc is absurd.

I agree with above that it will cause too many people to give up the sport because of the expense.

[Quest1]

Why cause everyone all this money to replace gear when all they need to do is make the 10 smaller. That would solve the problem of too many 600's. I dont know what the big deal is about the penguin parade. Maybe we should suggest to the IOC that skiers should wear big fluffy jackets instead of skin tight body suits? The whole idea of needing all new shooting jackets, pants etc is absurd.

I agree with above that it will cause too many people to give up the sport because of the expense.

The people who are shooting the 600 scores are mostly making dead center hits, so reducing the size of the ten ring wouldn't affect their scores that much.

[RobinC]

Its has little to do with scores, its about image, IOC and Media led, and a sprinkling of old men who want to wind back the clock.
Best regards
Robin

[Barney]

DougB,

It's a little hard to make the 10m Air rifle "10" ring any smaller than it already is, is .5mm now and its outward gauged.

As Quest1 said, it will make little difference to the top shooters who a taking the dot clean out.










'

[gerhard]

to Barney +1
I believe that printing smaller is not possible with a regularity. But not sure.
But with electronic, no problem.
I am OK that top shooters dont drop scores to much, the .177 is enough large for them and allow to make a ten (for them)
best regards from France

[Pat McCoy]

However, removing use of shooting jackets, boots, and pants WILL reduce the scores while limiting costs, thus making it affordable for more shooters to get involved while leaving room to continue to improve the ability to shoot better scores without artificial support.

[GTFS]

My earlier post suggested that until 600s in rifle prone are shot ALL THE TIME nothing needs to change, After a little research the fact is since 1989 (about the time the 10.4 mm 10 ring was brought in?)the score of 600 has ONLY been shot at internationl level competiton 18 times by only 13 shooters, and 2 600s at the same competition only once in 2005. in fact 599 is also very uncommon. 18 times in 20 years is not all the time. Also the idea that removing the pocket from the jacket will reduce the cost of the jacket, come on.
I hope your tens are as good as mine.
Glen Turner

[Alexander]

However, removing use of shooting jackets, boots, and pants WILL reduce the scores while limiting costs, thus making it affordable for more shooters to get involved while leaving room to continue to improve the ability to shoot better scores without artificial support.

Now that is an interesting proposal. A comparable step has already been undertaken in the German ISSF federation, the DSB, for the national discipline 1.58 (military repeating rifle, 2 positions - 20 prone and 20 standing, plus finals 10 standing rapid fire).

After the expectable yelps, the results of the 2009 championships showed that the previous top shooters still remained at the top, but that the scores sunk a bit lower overall, and now showed more room for improvement.

It was definitely a step that tried to make the discipline again more appealing to a broader field of shooters, while keeping its appearance and style more in synch with its original intention.