TargetTalk

23_General_Technical-v11.doc

25_Pistol_Rules_Draft_v6.doc

FredB wrote:May I ask the source of this pdf.?

It's genuine, as far as it goes.

It is just a summary of the rule changes approved so far. There are also rules still being worked on.

The ISSF are damned if they do and they're damned if they don't.

Everyone wants as much notice of the changes as possible, but want the full details immediately. If the rules are still being worked on then that simply is not possible.

If we want the full definition of the changes then I'm afraid we will just have to wait for the rules.

Muffo wrote: that all finalists start with a score of 0

I saw that one coming....from RPF.
Frankly, whether everyone stars with 0 or everyone starts the way it is now, makes no difference TV wise. Frankly I think seeing Jin Jongoh chasing down everyone was quite an achievement. If everyone started out as zero, he would run away from the competition by the sixth or seventh shot!

The ISSF is really making Blackpowder shooting look better and better....

Mike M. wrote:Reasonable, I think, but something ISSF should have considered.

If you are using "walk-down" target changing then you are already breaking the ISSF rules anyway. Why should the ISSF take that into account.

David Levene wrote:

Mike M. wrote:Reasonable, I think, but something ISSF should have considered.

If you are using "walk-down" target changing then you are already breaking the ISSF rules anyway. Why should the ISSF take that into account.

How so

Muffo wrote:

David Levene wrote:

Mike M. wrote:Reasonable, I think, but something ISSF should have considered.

If you are using "walk-down" target changing then you are already breaking the ISSF rules anyway. Why should the ISSF take that into account.

How so

For 10m, rule 6.3.15.2 "10m ranges must be equipped with electric-mechanical target carriers or changers, or Electronic Scoring Targets."

For 50m, rule 6.3.14.2 (last sentance) "Target systems used on such ranges must be capable of changing targets without disturbing neighboring shooters."

Also, if you're only shooting 1 competition shot per target on 10m and 5 competition shots per target on 50m, both as rule 8.8, then you will be doing a lot of walking.

If you shoot 10 shots per target in 50m and shoot it in 18min blocks then everyone stops I don't see how that breaks that rule. If everyonehas stopped shooting then you aren't disturbing the shooter next to you

Why shoot in 18min blocks?
I may prefer to shoot fast the first 20 shots and then have a break and you might prefer to evenly distribute you time between shots.
One of us would have to change his routine that way.

Muffo wrote:If you shoot 10 shots per target in 50m and shoot it in 18min blocks then everyone stops I don't see how that breaks that rule.

Well to start with, the rules say you should shoot 5 shots per target.

Also, where in the rules does it say that I only have 18 minutes to shoot 10 shots.

I was using that example because that's how it is shot in Australia. If it is shot on paper targets its shot 10 shots per target and it's split into 30 mins for sighters and 10 scoring shots then 18 mins for each lot of 10 scoring shots after that. The range is cleared after 18mins and targets are changed. There for I don't see how that breaks the duke of disturbing the shooter you are next to

Could be but this is not how it is done in other places in the world.
Although I have not shot free pistol in more than 20 years, the range we were using at the time had a ditch along the targets. The targets were placed on a very simple mechanism that was used to retract them into the ditch for changing without anyone having to stop shooting

Muffo wrote:I was using that example because that's how it is shot in Australia.

That's fine, but it's a local variation, nothing to do with the ISSF.

If you have a local variation to allow 10 shots per target and a forced break then it's easy to have another one to allow extra time.

You can't expect the ISSF to take local variations into account when writing their rules.

David Levene wrote:The ISSF are damned if they do and they're damned if they don't.

I don't think that's the case.
I think they're just making bad decisions and being damned for it.

Look, all of these changes are justified by wanting to make the sport more exciting and accessible to the general public, right?

Except that none of these changes are things the general public will ever see or notice. Belt loops, shoe shapes, times during qualifications - nobody ever sees those unless they're eager to see them, and if they're eager to see them, then they're not the demographic the ISSF is looking to attract, they're the demographic we already have.

Look at London, and ask yourself - why were the crowd going wild for the last shot of the Mens Air Rifle Finals? Was it the tension caused by several hundred people watching one man standing there on the line taking the final shot of the match, everyone knowing he would win or lose the gold medal depending on whether his score was higher or lower than a 9.7? Was it seeing that shot land and knowing instantly that he'd won it? Was it the commentator taking the entire audience to that point by walking them through the progression of the finals and winding them up for that final shot?

Or was it down to the blinders being smaller? The belt loops fewer? The buttplate being restricted from turning on an axis parallel to the boreline of the rifle? The shooter walking in a normal fashion? The dress code being adhered to?

If you want to bring in a spectator who knows nothing of the sport and get them excited, you have to show the spectator what you're doing. Look at football (any kind of football) and you see people spread out over a large physical area and a visible ball being passed around as the visually distinct teams try to move it to a visually identifiable goal. You can see the game happen.

In shooting the game is too small to see with the naked eye from the stands, and unless you know what you're looking for, it's not visible to the naked eye from even a few feet away. The average punter won't notice Debevec's position being any different from Emmon's in kneeling; won't notice the signs that Piasecki is having a good day or a bad; won't be able to tell who's really handling the pressure in a finals. Unless you show them, with big screens showing electronic target results, cameras showing the shooters close-up, commentators explaining the state of play for neophytes, even things like strapping noptels or the like to the rifles. You want to attract people to our sport? Do that. Don't write rules that nobody understands and that seem to ban every firearm made since the late 80s!

Sparks wrote:Don't write rules that nobody understands and that seem to ban every firearm made since the late 80s!

How about waiting until we read the rule, not just a summary of it, before jumping to conclusions.

David Levene wrote:

Muffo wrote:I was using that example because that's how it is shot in Australia.

That's fine, but it's a local variation, nothing to do with the ISSF.

If you have a local variation to allow 10 shots per target and a forced break then it's easy to have another one to allow extra time.

You can't expect the ISSF to take local variations into account when writing their rules.

My point is the same as yours the rules are made for electric targets. If we are using paper targets then we work around those rules. Plus I couldn't see how using paper targets broke the rules

David Levene wrote:

Sparks wrote:Don't write rules that nobody understands and that seem to ban every firearm made since the late 80s!

How about waiting until we read the rule, not just a summary of it, before jumping to conclusions.

How about releasing the rules that they've had several years to work on?
Or answering email queries?

I don't buy that we're jumping to conclusions. This document's been released by member federations of the ISSF; it's in widespread circulation; and everyone I've seen who's read it has picked up on the same point and gone "WTF?" in the same way.

I mean it doesn't cost you much to get someone to proof-read a document! It costs you even less to release a statement going "hang on, what we meant was this...".

Muffo wrote:My point is the same as yours the rules are made for electric targets. If we are using paper targets then we work around those rules. Plus I couldn't see how using paper targets broke the rules

Paper targets don't break the rules, they are specifically allowed in rule 8.8. You need to use them in a way that allows you to comply with the rest of the rules.

If you want to change the number of shots per target or introduce an enforced break then that's fine; it allows people to shoot. It isn't strict ISSF though.

Sparks wrote:I think they're just making bad decisions and being damned for it.

Look, all of these changes are justified by wanting to make the sport more exciting and accessible to the general public, right? ...

If you want to bring in a spectator who knows nothing of the sport and get them excited, you have to show the spectator what you're doing. Look at football ... You can see the game happen.

In shooting the game is too small to see with the naked eye from the stands, and unless you know what you're looking for, it's not visible to the naked eye from even a few feet away. ...

The document attempts to address those points by implementing certain principles and ideas that include:

• - qualify for the Finals, then start at zero and shoot more during Finals;
  - progressively eliminate the lowest scorers during the Finals to add drama;
  - decide medals with two-person duels; and
  - use scoring systems that spectators can react to instantly.

It seems to me that ISSF wants rifle and pistol events that are fun to watch, even for people who know nothing about shooting. Based on your post, it appears you think the same.

What confuses me, though, is that such contests are not hard to design...but they wouldn't look anything like the current roster of ISSF events.

The history of rifle and pistol sports at elite levels is a mostly solitary and introspective thing where results are determined well after the last shot is fired, after taking time to carefully gauge a bunch of holes punched in paper. (That's fine; I enjoy that sort of thing, myself.) It seems to me that trying to take sports that were born in that environment/mindset/era and transmogrify them into telegenic marketing events via rule tweaks and electronic targets (that speed things up but also, we must admit, put a layer of abstraction and possibly even obfuscation between the spectator and the action) is a difficult if not impossible path to follow.

If ISSF really wants to adhere to the principles and ideas in this document in order to achieve a goal of "fun to watch, easy to televise", they'll have to scrap everything, haul in the biathlon targets or something similar, and design whole new contests. That won't happen.

Just how close to the goal of "fun to watch for everybody" is it possible to get for the Olympic rifle and pistol events? Is there a better way to get there, given that building on the past is an apparently mandatory component of the process?

Note that I specify the rifle and pistol events. The shotgun events already have the basics down pat. There's a loud boom and then, if the shooter did right, a cloud of colored dust appears where there previously was a target. Anyone, including folks with zero knowledge of the shooting sports, can appreciate the simplicity of that sort of hit-or-miss scoring. The shotgun folks can tweak a bit for TV drama if they'd like but their foundation as easy-to-watch-and-understand is already solid.

Also please note that I have no opinion on this. I've always felt that rifle and pistol spectators showed up because they already knew what was going on and that there was no need to try to attract new audiences of people who were never going to give the sports a try. The whole concept of trying to make watching a shooting match fun for non-enthusiasts is sorta weird to me.

What's the goal here? Why the need to change and become more telegenic? I've just always accepted that some sports are for participants, not spectators. How can you tell the experienced spectators at dressage events? They're the ones with an apple and a knife...because cutting an apple in half and watching it turn brown is way more exciting than watching dressage.

BenEnglishTX wrote:Is there a better way to get there, given that building on the past is an apparently mandatory component of the process?

I have some ideas on that...

As I’ve said many times before in many places, the problem with being a spectator of ISSF shooting is not that it’s boring; it’s that you can’t see it.

So with that in mind, here are my suggestions for how to meet that challange and achive the goal ISSF has set itself:

• Make it mandatory for World Cup level events and above to have wireless Noptel/Scatt/Rika electronic trainer setups attached to barrels for finals and presented on screens above the shooter. Show the spectators the shooter’s approach to the target, their settling, their hold and their wobble and their triggering. We’ve tried that before in a Eurosport shooting match some years ago and it was magnificent – and more to the point, we know it can be done and how…
• Make it a contractual obligation with Suis Ascor, Megalink and any other ISSF-approved electronic target manufacturer to produce software that lets you share scores live on the web (and by software, I mean software that works well, is robust and easy to use, not the poke-your-own-eyes-out-with-a-butternut-squash nightmare they currently have). Every shot, as it’s fired, should be up on the web, whether on a custom website or on Facebook or Twitter or all three. It isn’t rocket science, it’s a fairly simple task, using standard well-understood tools (I say this as an engineer who’s done this for a while).
• Hire the commentator from the London Games to be the official ISSF commentator on the ISSF youtube channel and for all ISSF major events in the future.
• Make it mandatory to use Twitter and Facebook duing ISSF major events and to up the amount of interaction we see. One single press release with an image from an event was a good step forward, ten years ago; today it’s just not cutting it, and the demographic ISSF want to capture is used to far more. More than half the shooters from the international circuit are on Facebook, and lots are on Twitter as well. If you can access both from a mobile phone, and you have professionally paid PROs at these events, then you can tweet/facebook from them too.
• Drop this idea of resetting scores to zero for finals. If you have to do this duelling model for finals – and you don’t, London proved that – you can do it without doing the resetting of scores. Archery’s been doing that for twenty years now. And beware – if you show a wildly different style of shooting to the public in the finals than they’d encounter when they try the sport themselves, you’ll be sabotaging yourself…