Safety flags & other again

[jhmartin]

Did they put in the match program that this was a verification event? If not then they should have enforced the rules and basically gutted the event.

Have you read the rule interpretations issued by the ISSF?

Yes, and have been an RO during a match where we specifically stated that those rules would not be enforced, but noted. (I'm playing the devil's advocate here)

The point is ISSF is finding out that their assumptions were incorrect ... so they keep sloughing forward with no thought? If they are so sure they were right, why wait?

[Grzegorz]

Wow :-)
Don't you mix up things?

You just received any mail from Mr. Garry Anderson and you treat it like the Bible. ISSF does not begin and end with GA.

This rule has been inserted BECAUSE there were "some manufacturers" that intensionally used the seam to create an additional support. So, the shooters used such equipment not only looked like robots during presentations (hands 90 deg, no more), but also tried to get another unfair advantage.

As on this forum I already presented opinion that more space for judges decisions should be given, I agree - this rule is, in my opinion, not necessary. It would be enough to describe the case as interpretation and kick off unfairly playing shooters from ranges basing on it.

[jhmartin]

Wow :-)
Don't you mix up things?

You just received any mail from Mr. Garry Anderson and you treat it like the Bible. ISSF does not begin and end with GA.

This rule has been inserted BECAUSE there were "some manufacturers" that intensionally used the seam to create an additional support. So, the shooters used such equipment not only looked like robots during presentations (hands 90 deg, no more), but also tried to get another unfair advantage.

As on this forum I already presented opinion that more space for judges decisions should be given, I agree - this rule is, in my opinion, not necessary. It would be enough to describe the case as interpretation and kick off unfairly playing shooters from ranges basing on it.

1) Not enough coaches/instructors/shooters are willing to "mix things up".
2) Mr Anderson was the only ISSF official that responded as to the why of the rule.
3) I think we're really on the same page, we both agree that the rule is ill thought and unnecessary ... It seems the solution to not being willing to enforce rules that are already on the books is to add more rules by pulling ideas out of a black hat.

--> Jacket side panel ... if a shelf was created by certain jackets, then the juries that observed this should have made an interpretation and banned them from the matches where they were seen.
We are now seeing that assumptions by ISSF were incorrect ... can't they admit that?

--> Boots .... Why were the rules already in place not enforced? ... walk normally ... so now they come up with a dubious machine that tests for normal walking ability .... Warn them, then DQ them

--> "More exciting" ... here I'll actually admit that the new formats for the rifle finals (no experience w/ new pistol finals) is indeed more exciting for the spectators. However, I'm not convinced (from my one match that I worked, and my opinion, admittedly) that the top shooters of the tournament were on the "correct" places on the podium ... as I've said before ... it's a different game now.

[David Levene]

Did they put in the match program that this was a verification event? If not then they should have enforced the rules and basically gutted the event.

Have you read the rule interpretations issued by the ISSF?

Yes, and have been an RO during a match where we specifically stated that those rules would not be enforced, but noted. (I'm playing the devil's advocate here)

I am a bit confused then why you suggested that the European Shooting Confederation should have ruined their own event be applying a rule that was not in force.

[jhmartin]

I am a bit confused then why you suggested that the European Shooting Confederation should have ruined their own event be applying a rule that was not in force.

I'm playing the devil's advocate here

[RobinC as Guest]

Yes, found it, David is right, after they issued the initial interpretation with no reference to a transition on 2nd Feb, they've now sneaked in another general guidance dated 8th Feb with a transition period to May.

Wow!! thats generous!!!! Note, its not a period of consideration and review, the transition is stated as time to enable people to meet the rules, and states that the rules WILL be enforced from May 2013.

The problem is most of us can't keep up with this devious routes the ISSF takes to publish its rules, it almost needs a weekly visit to their website to check that nothing has changed!
The ISSF is a total bureaucratic fiasco, they issue new rules at a months notice which state clearly on each page "effective Jan 2013", on the 2nd of Feb they issue interpretations, and on the 8th Feb they issue further interpretations with a transition period, which is on some rules, not all, is to May.
The transition, which is pathetic any way and should have been at least a year should have been announced and in print in 2012 before the initial first rules were issued.
This whole rule change has been a fiasco, little or no consultation, secrecy, short notice, confusion on interpretation, poorly written and ambigious, all written in a 500 page rule book, and as many again for guidance!
ISSF is not fit for purpose and its costing us mony trying to keep up.

[David Levene]

Yes, found it, David is right, after they issued the initial interpretation with no reference to a transition on 2nd Feb, they've now sneaked in another general guidance dated 8th Feb with a transition period to May.

Have you got a copy of the ISSF interpretation dated 2nd Feb; I seem to have missed that one.

[RobinC as Guest]

David
No, sorry, I got the date wrong, the one I refer as the 2nd of Feb is the Rifle one of 30th Jan.
I've also noticed another anomaly in the general interpretation of the 8th, they, in that refer to the chest rest weight for air rifle as not permitted and that it is not allowed to be attached to the butt plate, yet it is NOT banned in the air rifle rules as long as it is inside the overal outline. The banning of attachment to the butt plate (why? no logic?) is only defined in the 50 mt rule, which they refer to but want to also include it in air rifle!
They say that this was the intention originally, if so why, and why was it not in the rules, looks like people are making up rules as they go along and interpretations are at odds with the rules as written!
This whole rule revision is a pigs ear!

[JSBmatch]

What a disgraceful mess on the firing points. Very dangerous and you could easily trip up may be while carrying a gun. Not very good range house keeping. The range officer should not allow it.

JSB