ISSF rule change from 1st January 2013

[bluetentacle]

ISSF keeps pointing to other sports to justify the start-from-zero principle. But they are ignoring one factor that makes it problematic to transplant this practice into the shooting sports: in most other sports, the qualifying format is basically the same as the finals format. In diving, for instance, you dive six times in qualification, six times in semifinal, and another six times in the final. At each stage of the competition, the entire spectrum of skills is demanded of the athletes.

But in shooting (the slow fire events), qualification and final are very different, and test somewhat different parts of a shooter's skillset. Qualification is an endurance event consisting of 40-120 shots; the final, by necessity, is a sprint consisting only of a lot fewer shots. Starting from zero in the final is tantamount to excluding the athletes' performance in endurance shooting from the final results. The winner that comes out of this process will only be the best at performing in the final, not the athlete that excels in all aspects of the sport. Going back to the diving analogy, this is akin to discarding scores of backward and armstand dives from the final results. It's not fair, and it's contrary to the spirit of the sport.

[Muffo]

You still have to be able to do both or you aren't going to make the final

[Marcus]

I think you got it now Muffo. Just like Bluetenacle said above we need both to count!

Marcus

[Richard H]

Like it or not, the argument about fairness is wrong. If everyone is competing under the same rules its fair. Yes it's different, saying that the qualification round doesn't count for anything is another poor argument, cause it does, it earns you and seven others into the final, where now you face a different test.

[Dave IRL]

Like it or not, the argument about fairness is wrong. If everyone is competing under the same rules its fair. Yes it's different, saying that the qualification round doesn't count for anything is another poor argument, cause it does, it earns you and seven others into the final, where now you face a different test.

The point is that the whole competition (qualification and final together) needs to have one purpose: To determine the best shooter on the day. Therefore, if someone goes into a 3x40 final fifteen points ahead of their nearest rival and comes fourth in the final with a perfectly good score, say 1.1 points behind the winner who has an absolute blinder, they're still far and away the best shooter of the day, but now they don't even get a medal, and yet the guy who happened to have ten good shots at the right time wins, despite having come fifteen plus points behind in qualification. If the best shooter across the whole day isn't ending up on top of the podium, then the competition does not determine who the best shooter is. It's whole objective is therefore completely undermined.

[Muffo]

Like it or not, the argument about fairness is wrong. If everyone is competing under the same rules its fair. Yes it's different, saying that the qualification round doesn't count for anything is another poor argument, cause it does, it earns you and seven others into the final, where now you face a different test.

The point is that the whole competition (qualification and final together) needs to have one purpose: To determine the best shooter on the day. Therefore, if someone goes into a 3x40 final fifteen points ahead of their nearest rival and comes fourth in the final with a perfectly good score, say 1.1 points behind the winner who has an absolute blinder, they're still far and away the best shooter of the day, but now they don't even get a medal, and yet the guy who happened to have ten good shots at the right time wins, despite having come fifteen plus points behind in qualification. If the best shooter across the whole day isn't ending up on top of the podium, then the competition does not determine who the best shooter is. It's whole objective is therefore completely undermined.

The final wont be 10 shots any more it will be 20 there for almost ruling out luck. some times a average shooter can string together 10 good shot and do well in a final, given 20 shots will rule this out most of the time

[bluetentacle]

Like it or not, the argument about fairness is wrong. If everyone is competing under the same rules its fair. Yes it's different, saying that the qualification round doesn't count for anything is another poor argument, cause it does, it earns you and seven others into the final, where now you face a different test.

Perhaps unfair is the wrong word. But what is clear is that the finals do not represent the full spectrum of skills in each discipline and therefore it is against the spirit of the sport to exclude the qualification scores from results.

For instance, wind combat is one of the most important skills at higher levels of the sport and yet most prone finals are held indoors. Among top shooters, this becomes little more than a gun test. Does it pass the smell test that superior wind reading, which can only be demonstrated during qualification, counts for nothing in deciding the winner amongst the top eight?

A similar problem exists for 3P. If shooters continue to shoot standing during the final and the final begins at zero, they've effectively turned the discipline into 1P. No wonder the finals format for 3P is still up in the air. I just can't see how you can cram all three positions into a television-friendly time frame without turning it into a completely different discipline. (witness the 3P stage of the Norwegian nationals, where they shoot all three positions in 10 minutes, with a 6.5x55 repeater. The jackets they wear have a zipper down the left side that allows rapid transition into kneeling. This zipper, incidentally, would probably count as a seam and therefore violate the new ISSF rules.)

[Spencer]

...and yet most prone finals are held indoors...

I know Munich is indoors for 50m Finals:
- how many other World Cup 50m Finals ranges are indoors?
- how many National 50m Finals ranges are indoors (non of ours in AUS are)?

[Grzegorz]

I agree sport use to be the cutting edge of technology from there it would trickle down to the masses. This seems to be a trend in all sports this longing for nostalgia. They've basically ruined Formula 1, look at the BS with FINA and swimsuits. They banned the high tech suits and what happened, they went out and broke records that were said to have been set because of the high tech suits and were therefore unbreakable now with the current suits.

Hmmm... maybe we should step back to the black powder competition on OG?

Seriously, the answer is very simply - the results of scientific research should be used using the brain too. I could point some gadgets used by shooters being absolutely sure they influence the shot accuracy, whereas they do not. But this is not a reason to ban them.

BTW, I watch F1 and do not see it as "ruined". I see rich drivers with suits covered in 90% by sponsor marks. When I watch shooters I see hobby fellows covered by ugly fixed - by referees - scraps of tech tapes to hide even the smallest mark on their equipment.

Story: WCup - jury member tape a mark on a rear sight blinder. - Oh, I even haven't noticed there is any mark on my blinder. I have found it on a floor at my club range...

[Sparks]

Like it or not, the argument about fairness is wrong. If everyone is competing under the same rules its fair.

That's an insufficient condition for fairness. If - to use an extreme example so the point is more clearly seen - the rules said that all americans' scores were divided in half before everyone was ranked, would that be fair even though everyone was competing under the same rules?

You need the rules to be fair before the competition is fair. And right now, the proposed ISSF rules are not, in several ways both obvious and subtle. The starting from zero in the finals; the boot flexibility rules; the vibration reduction system ban, if it's as bad as it sounds; the supporting-arm-side seam rule; and so on.

And that's just the point of fairness, it's not even looking at whether or not the ruleset is fit for purpose (ie. will it determine who the better shooter is).

[KennyB]

I thought the aim of the ISSF was to create a sport that was more dramatic, more exciting, more entertaining and more televisual.

Fairness and who is the best shooter have nothing to do with it...

Less sport, more spectacle.

Less games, more gameshow.

Sad and dumb.

K.

[Richard H]

Like it or not, the argument about fairness is wrong. If everyone is competing under the same rules its fair.

That's an insufficient condition for fairness. If - to use an extreme example so the point is more clearly seen - the rules said that all americans' scores were divided in half before everyone was ranked, would that be fair even though everyone was competing under the same rules?

You need the rules to be fair before the competition is fair. And right now, the proposed ISSF rules are not, in several ways both obvious and subtle. The starting from zero in the finals; the boot flexibility rules; the vibration reduction system ban, if it's as bad as it sounds; the supporting-arm-side seam rule; and so on.

And that's just the point of fairness, it's not even looking at whether or not the ruleset is fit for purpose (ie. will it determine who the better shooter is).

What now we're going to resort to dumbass straw man arguments? Because now that's not everyone competing under the same rules now is it?

Now if they divided everyone's score by two then that would be the same rules.

Everyone can whine and bitch on forums till the cows come home, it won't change a bloody thing. I suggest that everyone learn to shoot to what ever the new rules are or find a new sport cause the ISSF doesn't give a damn about your concerns. What are the Athletes going to do? Not compete? That will never happen cause everyone knows there's someone else whose more than happy to take thier spot.


Every change they introduce is met with the same hew and cry,it's going to ruin the sport. The simple fact is its going to be a different sport and that's seems to be what the ISSF's intention and objective is. I guess you guys to start your own organization up and shoot the old way then see if the IOC would kick out the the ISSF and bring you guys in because of the wild popularity of your sport.

[Sparks]

Like it or not, the argument about fairness is wrong. If everyone is competing under the same rules its fair.

That's an insufficient condition for fairness. If - to use an extreme example so the point is more clearly seen - ..

What now we're going to resort to dumbass straw man arguments?

I was under the impression that I was using an extreme example so the point is more clearly seen. Perhaps I should have used bold text the first time round.

Now if they divided everyone's score by two then that would be the same rules.

That's the extreme example.
The current situation is that the rules are not the same for everyone. Example: Boots. I have a size 13 boot; I compete against people who have size 6 and 7 boots. Clamp the toes, apply the same force to the heel, and boots made with the same stiffness in the material will bend to different angles because of the different lengths in the boot and the basic physics of levers.
But the rules ignore that physics and say all boots must bend to the same angle from the same force. Which means I have an advantage over people with smaller feet because you can make my boot from stiffer material and still pass the test; even though in dimensions other than toe-to-heel, my boot is better than the smaller ones.

Example: the lower limit on dropping the buttplate in air rifle, which favors shorter shooters by forcing taller shooters into awkward and more unstable positions.

Example: this Vibration Reduction System ban, which will mean - as pointed out here - that those who have a natural ammo/barrel match or those who can afford to test lots of barrels to find one, will have a massive advantage over those who cannot; and given the new finals setup, that becomes even more unfair.

Example: Jacket stiffness tests for smaller shooters, where you have to measure stiffness over a seam, thus requiring the use of floppier material.

And there are the examples where the rules impact women more than men, as Jen pointed out.

But I thought an extreme, easy to see example would be a faster way to make the point. My error, I suppose.

Everyone can whine and bitch on forums till the cows come home, it won't change a bloody thing.

A thousand signatures on that petition so far, with (last time I heard) 23 Olympic medals signed up between them.
If the ISSF won't even listen to something like that, then it's time to change ISSF so they do. This is what the CAS was designed for, after all.

What are the Athletes going to do?

Take the ISSF to the CAS and have their case heard by third party arbitration. It's a bit of an extreme, but it's an available option. ISSF shooting is not the private plaything of a few individuals who currently hold office in ISSF - they are its stewards, they are there to hold it in trust for the shooters. If they forget that, then there are mechanisms in place to remedy that forgetfulness.

[Dave IRL]

The final wont be 10 shots any more it will be 20 there for almost ruling out luck. some times a average shooter can string together 10 good shot and do well in a final, given 20 shots will rule this out most of the time

No, the final will be a certain number of shots depending on where you place. If everyone got to shoot 20, you could argue fairness, but when people are eliminated on the basis of the results of two shot groups, which aren't at all representative of the capabilities of the shooter/gun/ammo system, being far too small to be significant, then no, it's not fair.

[Freepistol]

How about for the finals everyone has to trade guns and ammo? Like this:

first and eight
second and seventh
etc.

This will test the ability to adapt.

[Sparks]

This will test the ability to adapt.

So would being dumped naked into the middle of the amazon rainforest with only a pocket knife and having to walk out.

But that's not really the ability ISSF shooting is supposed to be testing...

[jhmartin]

Like it or not, the sport is going to change.

There are "procedural" changes that can be adapted to, and it's hard to guess if they will hurt or help the sport. Nobody really likes change, but it's coming, it's here.

There are other equipment changes that are "whatever!". (Belt loops, Trousers in prone, Safety flags,etc)

There are some equipment changes that (I see) can definitely hurt the sport. These are changes will cause the dumping of equipment and purchasing new. Or if folks/clubs/programs cannot afford to buy new kit, they will move to another sport .... not really the "excitement" that was foreseen.

The last category, I think is where the majority of the outcry should be.

[jhmartin]

I think some folks are misinterpreting this (new) rule.
Quick sketch to show how I'm interpreting how they are trying to limit limit the >>width<< of the grip. My guess especially on the chest side so that it does not become a support point if you shorten the stock.
Although I think they should identify the plane as a "VERTICAL" plane
My guess:

For those adjustable grips, it would also set (depending on the PG depth) the max rotation you could put on the grip

[taz]

How about for the finals everyone has to trade guns and ammo? Like this:

first and eight
second and seventh
etc.

This will test the ability to adapt.

I would love to see a shooter with an XL grip in his free pistol try to fit his hand in another shooter's XS grip...

[Muffo]

I think some folks are misinterpreting this (new) rule.
Quick sketch to show how I'm interpreting how they are trying to limit limit the >>width<< of the grip. My guess especially on the chest side so that it does not become a support point if you shorten the stock.
Although I think they should identify the plane as a "VERTICAL" plane
My guess:

For those adjustable grips, it would also set (depending on the PG depth) the max rotation you could put on the grip

Have you got a link to this rule. this will disadvantage cross dominant eye shooters in a big way