ISSF World Cup @ FT Benning

[gwsb]

They may not do it yet but by next year those 2 old geezers who have run ISSF for decades will be writing specs for bras.

[redschietti]

...and the ladies will be buying way overpriced "shooting" bra's

[gwsb]

I can see it now Red. Kurt Thune custom shooting bras $250 . $300 with your name embroidered on the strap in your choice of team colors.

[PaulB]

Since brassieres are not inspected, is this legal?

[gwsb]

Paul I guess you would be on the jury for that match wouldn't you? I think the bra would be legal but the blonde would be DSQ for being a distraction to the shooters.

[Marc Orvin]

Paul I guess you would be on the jury for that match wouldn't you? I think the bra would be legal but the blonde would be DSQ for being a distraction to the shooters.

Trust me, there are MANY beautiful young ladies shooting rifle these days that are already a major distraction to us old guys. Beautiful and great shooters. It was a great 10 days at Ft Benning for sight seeing.

[mbradley]

For clarification: Under my jacket I shoot with a light t shirt under a sweater that are less than 2.5 mm combined. If I then put on a light weight elbow pad during prone, am I now disqualified? In other words, I can think of no padding combined with wearing a sweater or sweat shirt that would not add up to more than 2.5 mm in that specific area. Thoughts?

[Marc Orvin]

For clarification: Under my jacket I shoot with a light t shirt under a sweater that are less than 2.5 mm combined. If I then put on a light weight elbow pad during prone, am I now disqualified? In other words, I can think of no padding combined with wearing a sweater or sweat shirt that would not add up to more than 2.5 mm in that specific area. Thoughts?

Yes, you would be disqualified. Just as Martinov was at this WC for exactly that reason. The elbow pads in his sweater were too thick.

[KennyB]

I think the disturbing thing is reports that the thickness/stiffness measuring equipment used for equipment control was passing jackets but the equipment used in the post match checks was producing different results. Supposedly a jacket that failed post-match was retested at Equipment Control and PASSED.....

Something's not right there.

K.

[jhmartin]

Kenny ... you are saying there were 2 sets of testing equipment?
I know USAS has a certified set, but only 1 set.

[PaulB]

A certified measuring device is only as good as the calibration checks to assure that it remains within specified tolerances. When I was doing equipment checks at NCAA championships I made up my own check for the clothing thickness measuring device to test for the 5kg force of the springs. Nobody seemed to think that there needed to be a check of the device but the springs definitely weakened with use and time, causing clothing to be rejected that was legal. There ought to be a calibration check procedure for each instrument and a permanent calibration record logbook that stays with instrument showing the results of each check. During major competitions I would recommend that there ought to be at the very least a check at the beginning (which is the current rule) and end of each day, and ideally several checks throughout each day. Things can come loose and get worn out at any time and the only way to know is to check.

Current rules also call for a calibration check if a post competition check is going to result in a disqualification. Is this being done?

Also, an opinion of mine, generated from having served as an equipment control officer at more than 30 national level competitions and the 1996 Olympics as well as working at a nuclear research reactor for 28+ years (with many different measuring devices to keep calibrated) ---- if you are using two clothing thickness testers they will test differently. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to get them both to operate identically.

Here is what ISSF rules say:

6.5 GAUGES AND INSTRUMENTS
a) Each Organizing Committee must provide a complete set of gauges and instruments for Equipment Control during ISSF Championships;
b) A detailed list of Equipment Control Instruments that are required for conducting Equipment Control tests and the requirements and specifications for those instruments is available from ISSF Headquarters;
c) The ISSF Technical Delegate or the Chairman of the Equipment Control Jury must examine and approve all gauges and instruments prior to the competition;
d) Calibration test equipment for use in examining Equipment Control instruments is available from ISSF Headquarters and must be used to calibrate testing instruments before each day of testing and when a disqualification is considered during post-competition testing (Calibration Report Forms are available from ISSF Headquarters); and
e) The measuring devices used to test the thickness, stiffness and flexibility of athletes’ clothing must be constructed according to this rule (see Rule 6.5.1 below) and be approved by the ISSF Technical Committee.

[jhmartin]

Paul as I said, I think USAS only has one set of test equipment.
I've never worked a WC, but do work other USA national level matches, I know that there is a new cert label from the most recent Benning WC when I break out the equipment in the months from June(Nationals) thru the next April(WAG, Rocky & JOs).

How ISSF calibrates them at the WC I have no clue.
I have tested the weights on the flex and stiffness as well as scales as best we can ... we cross check the scales (pistol & rifle) and they are easily within 0.020Kg of each other. Weights are the same on each scale. We don't have a set of certified weights (only those in the kit that have been stickered by ISSF) and no calibrated thickness gauge to test the electronic gauges on the thickness & stiffness ... they are also stickered by ISSF, so we just zero and go from there.

I'm assuming that all the testers were re-certified by ISSF before the WC started this year.

[KennyB]

Kenny ... you are saying there were 2 sets of testing equipment?
I know USAS has a certified set, but only 1 set.

https://www.facebook.com/19453283392510 ... =1&theater

In the comments section is a post by Torben Grimmel which I was referencing.

Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W5YbS4 ... e=youtu.be

K.

[jhmartin]

@ -> KennyB - Thanks for those two links. So two different sets of measurement equipment. (ARRRRGGGG!!!) So I guess the only thing as a competitor that I'd protest with is to ask to:
1) Have the gear tested on the same machine you pretested on. (if you did so)
--and--
2) Ask to have the machine calibrated in front of me. Especially as in the Mouche video WITH the weight in place and reading near 1Kg .... not 10% low!
Those should be reasonable requests.

@ -> Marc Orvin ... Marc, did USAS get another set of machines? Did they bring their standard ones from Colorado? Does AMU have another set of machines?

I know at JOs we were using both button overlap test devices (different types - an Anschutz and the big crank model) that USAS has in Colo., but I know if there was a question, they swapped & used the other device as well.

--- This is not one of those instances that the organizing committee should be able to say "Well, it's the same for everyone", because:
1) With 2 different machines it is not
2) The test specifically states in the rules that a 1kg weight to be used for the stiffness gauge .... as in 6.5.2. and 5Kg for the thickness gauge (6.5.1). There is no "or -10%" in the rules)

Maybe I'll make a little cup to pour in some lead shot to make sure the machine is to specs next time I do these tests! I NEVER thought of testing the weight IN the machine. I'm surprised it has that much "drag".
I'm learning A LOT here!

[Marc Orvin]

@ -> Marc Orvin ... Marc, did USAS get another set of machines? Did they bring their standard ones from Colorado? Does AMU have another set of machines?

There were two sets of machines. The USAS set and another. Don't know where the other one came from, and I was (fortunately) at 25m most of the week so didn't get involved in the post competition checks at 10 and 50.

I do know that both machines were identical as I saw both of them. Not like they were different mfr or something weird like that.

The jury of appeals was busy every day for the entire match. Most times these folks are never bothered.

[Marc Orvin]

PaulB wrote:

When I was doing equipment checks at NCAA championships I made up my own check for the clothing thickness measuring device to test for the 5kg force of the springs. Nobody seemed to think that there needed to be a check of the device but the springs definitely weakened with use and time, causing clothing to be rejected that was legal.

Springs?? I have not seen a machine that uses springs. Is this something new? The only things I have seen in the WC matches I have attended here and in other countries were weights.

[jhmartin]

Those of us that work JOs and do equipment checks there (mandatory for our juniors) have pushed USAS to get two sets.
(LONG LINES!!)

If they ever do, I see that now we must make extra effort to cross check between the machines. Even to the point of having samples we can use on both sets. The thin scale, looks to be a requirement to do the cross checks. Thin, 1gr resolution scales are under $20.

[redschietti]

If there are two sets of testing equipment then the competitor should be allowed to pass on either

[jhmartin]

PaulB wrote:

When I was doing equipment checks at NCAA championships I made up my own check for the clothing thickness measuring device to test for the 5kg force of the springs. Nobody seemed to think that there needed to be a check of the device but the springs definitely weakened with use and time, causing clothing to be rejected that was legal.

Springs?? I have not seen a machine that uses springs. Is this something new? The only things I have seen in the WC matches I have attended here and in other countries were weights.

Marc, I think he was purposely dating himself!

[jhmartin]

If there are two sets of testing equipment then the competitor should be allowed to pass on either

So correct