TargetTalk

Is it against the rules to listen to say, classical music on headphones during a match, or for that matter to record a cant or meditation exercise and listen to it?

Unfortunately, no headphones. Apparently there were some situations where shooters were wearing headphones to make it look like they were listening to music, but they were really plugged into their phone, listening to their coaches.

The latest news I heard at 3xAir was that no use of phones for timers. Some shooters were using their phones for their timers and then coaches were texting them during matches. The only electronic device allowed would be a kitchen timer/clock.

It's all a little silly. I don't care if another shooter is listening to their coach while they shoot. And I'd enjoy listening to some Enya or other blood pressure lowering music while I shoot.

Oz

Rule 6.2.5 Sound Producing Equipment
Only sound reducing devices may be used. Radios, tape recorders, or any type of sound producing or communication systems are prohibited during competitions and any training.

Rule 6.3.6.6
The use of mobile telephones, walkie-talkies, pagers or similar devices by competitors, coaches and team officials while within the competition area is prohibited. All mobile telephones etc. must be switched OFF.

This one can develop into one more race between rulemakers and technology: Words like Sound Producing and Sound Reducing are getting mixed up by modern electronics.

I normally wear electronic hearing protection when shooting: the kind with passive sound suppression plus microphones that enable me to hear the surroundings at a level that I can adjust to my liking. These are well established among shooters.

I own, and some og my mates that work in noisy surroundings use, electronic hearing protection based on electronically derived "anti-sound". The best of these use digital processing. This seems OK, except that most of these devices are actually headphones and sold as such!

So I guess maybe they will have to say that headphones are OK as long as they are not connected to or contain radio receivers, communication or playback devices or other types of links (e.g. optical) to sound or program sources other than microphones for reinforcing or suppressing ambient sound in the shooting venue.

You see the trend? This will get complicated and hard for lay persons to understand, and unlike me, most shooting judges do not have degrees in electronics/acoustics. Expect them to get confused when trying to understand the nature of your headgear a couple of years into the everdeveloping brave new future!

Indeed, rule Rule 6.2.5 will prohibit active noise reduction headsets (the one that reduce low frequency noises by playing anti-noise) what, I think, was not the aim of that rule, the guy who wrote it just forgot these type of headsets.

jipe wrote:Indeed, rule Rule 6.2.5 will prohibit active noise reduction headsets (the one that reduce low frequency noises by playing anti-noise) what, I think, was not the aim of that rule, the guy who wrote it just forgot these type of headsets.

It's hardly a new rule though is it. It's been around since 1993 when it was numbered 4.1.13 in the STRs for Pistol. It skipped the 1997 rules but re-appeared in 2001 as 8.4.1.3 and stayed as the same rule number in 2005.

Similarly the wording of the current 6.3.6.6 first appeared in 2001 as 8.4.1.4 (and stayed in 2005).

Another rule which governs ear muffs is 6.2.3, the last sentance of which is "Ear protectors incorporating any type of receiving devices are not permitted for shooters."

That one first appeared in 1997 as 2.8 of the STRs for Pistol.

I have only given the rule numbers that apply to pistol. In rule books before the current ones there would obviously be (slightly) different rule numbers for rifle.

edit note:
It is interesting that the current 6.2.3 had the same number in the 2001 rules. On 10th March 2004 Philip Lee of Precision Sports in Canada wrote an email to the ISSF as follows:-

Dear Sir/Madam:
RE: Rule 6.2.3 Ear Protection
I am writing to seek clarification on the use of electronic earmuffs in ISSF
competitions.
Electronic earmuffs such as those made by Peltor has microphones picking up
ambient sound and then amplifying it to a desired level by the user. They do
not transmit any signals, nor do they receive radio frequencies, but they
electronically process ambient sound such as talking.
Would they be considered as "receiving devices" as outlined in Rule 6.2.3?
And subsequently, would these earmuffs be allowed in ISSF competitions?
I appreciate your assistance in giving an official interpretation of this
rule.

He received the following reply (although I do not have the date):-

Dear Sir,
The mentioned earmuffs made by Peltor are allow3d in ISSF competitions
with best regards

Franz Schreiber
ISSF Headquarters

It's a shame that this was not clarified in subsequent editions of the rules.

Rule 6.2.5 Sound Radios, tape recorders, or any type of sound producing or communication systems are prohibited during competitions and any training.

According to the wording of the rule, the Peltor earmuffs are prohibited because they are a "sound producing systems". To allow earmuffs like Peltor, the rule should be changed.

It was most probably not the intention of the one who wrote the rule to prohibit earmuffs like the Peltor, but the way it is written makes that these are prohibited.

I contend that the Peltor earmuffs (and similar earmuffs by other manufacturers) are NOT "sound producing" but rather are sound REPRODUCING.
The sound heard by the wearer of these muffs is essentially the same sound heard by all other competitors. Yes, it is electronically reproduced, but in content it is no different than what the other competitors hear. No different, really, than having the range officer's commands reproduced by an amplifier system so that all competitors can hear the commands.
It is a safety issue! A competitor who has impaired hearing sensitivity (ie partially deaf) should be allowed to hear range commands as readily as an unimpaired competitor, and other competitors should expect that every competitor can hear the range commands clearly.
The potential problem that a competitor wearing these sound-amplifying muffs could also hear a coach's softly spoken words directed at the competitor is addressed by other rules. Additionally, such 'coaching' could be heard by others wearing the 'electronic' muffs and a protest made.
(end of rant) Mike T.

Per rule 9.4562.546.436.678.24.7477.254 sub section 19284773 Part B

No Classical Music is to be allowed. However the shooter may have his choice of either Country or Western.....

Mike Taylor wrote:I contend that the Peltor earmuffs (and similar earmuffs by other manufacturers) are NOT "sound producing" but rather are sound REPRODUCING.

Read the rule: radios, tape recorder are also reproducing sound (from the tape or from the braodcast) and are prohibited. That the sound comes from a microphone instead of a tape doesn't change anything.

Thank you, guest, but I have read the rule, in its entirety, many times.
Indeed, that the sound comes from a microphone instead of a tape does change everything.
As David has quoted, regarding Philip Lee's enquiry, the Peltor 'electronic' muffs are permitted by the ISSF. The argument should now devolve to whether other brands of 'electronic' muffs that are similar to the Peltor muffs should be passed by match officials without challenge.

I agree with Mike. The actual difference is 'what the other shooters would normally hear'. The Pelter earmuffs do not add to what would normally be heard on the line and in line with normal earmuffs are designed to reduce noise.

Anonymous wrote:Is it against the rules to listen to say, classical music on headphones during a match, or for that matter to record a cant or meditation exercise and listen to it?

I think this thread is a long way off topic but this is interesting to talk about. Until today, it is not allowed to use mp3 or other music materials when you are in a match. It is a rule—the reason is that, the player would be distracted and accidents might happen if he will be allowed to use the said music gadgets.


super bowl 2011 live stream Headphone

This seems to be one of those rules that go far beyond what was originally intended.

Mike Taylor wrote:Thank you, guest, but I have read the rule, in its entirety, many times.
Indeed, that the sound comes from a microphone instead of a tape does change everything.
As David has quoted, regarding Philip Lee's enquiry, the Peltor 'electronic' muffs are permitted by the ISSF. The argument should now devolve to whether other brands of 'electronic' muffs that are similar to the Peltor muffs should be passed by match officials without challenge.

I come back on this subject.

First, the answer of ISSF to a mail without a reference to any ISSF rule is not usable by a shooter to argue that his Peltor earmuff is allowed by the ISSF.

Second, when I look into the Peltor range of ear-muffs for shooting (http://peltorcomms.3m.com/World/AppHunt ... Number=911), I see that ALL models are able to also play sound from an external source (mobile phone, .mp3 player...) at least via an input jack or from a jack and a Bluetooth link. Nothing is said on the Peltor webite about any ISSF approval of their ear mufs. I would like to know what Peltor model could be allowed by the ISSF ?

75tARW3d wrote:...the reason is that, the player would be distracted and accidents might happen if he will be allowed to use the said music gadgets.

Not really; the reason is to prevent coaching while the competitor is at the firing point.

Despite the hopes of some coaches, alert range staff can usually detect 'illegal' coaching. Usually it is the coach's actions that gives the game away, but sometimes it is members of other teams who let the range staff know what is going on.

At one competition we noticed that one coach was having trouble with a cough - strangely the coughs always coincided with a coming drop in the crosswind...
...one of the range staff deveoped a cough that equally strangely coincided with an increase in the cross wind: he only had to do it twice before the coach's cough cleared up.

Spencer wrote:

75tARW3d wrote:...the reason is that, the player would be distracted and accidents might happen if he will be allowed to use the said music gadgets.

Not really; the reason is to prevent coaching while the competitor is at the firing point.

There is the coaching issue, but that's not the main issue - there are rules on coaching, and the means by which illicit coaching is obtained is irrelevant. It's the coaching itself that is the issue.
There is however a clear safety risk if the headphones are drowning out range commands or worse yet an emergency stop call.
If it were the coaching issue, then such a rule would be redundant, as illicit coaching is already banned (and it wouldn't be hard for those with the knowledge to fit a seemingly regular set of ear defenders with a diddy cell battery and receiver unit).

I don't see it as that big an issue though really.
I've never failed to hear range instructions whilst wearing regular non-electronic ear defenders thanks to the inevitable sound system in every large range.
The confusion over whether peltors are allowed is interesting, but fairly academic. Most people have regular ear defenders or static/non-electronic plugs.

At the end of the day, this very firmly falls under the fair play clause.
You don't need a degree in electronics to be able to say "You were receiving coaching when you weren't supposed to be. The means by which this was achieved (coughs, electronicry, smoke signals, semaphore) is irrelevant - the act is contrary to the spirit of sportsmanship this contest is held in, go to the naughty step pending the Jury's decision."