TargetTalk

This is the winner of Women Air Rifle in Tokyo. Does this look right to you?????

Um. No.

Wow...thats surely unacceptable at this level!! TOTALLY shocking in fact.

Being an uneducated person in Olympic shooting, kindly explain: "what's wrong?"
Seems like she ought to be wearing protective eyeglasses, but that's all I see wrong... !!! ???
Thanking you....

Not that I know much about rifle:

Rearsight touching the head

Eye blinder touching the head

Rearsight support touching the head

Hands touching each other

Sleeve extending over the wrist

-Both hands touching the rest- In fact they're not, my bad.

?

A lot of pistol grips seem marginal at best

These shooters didn't show up out of thin air. They had to qualify at world cup levels, where they would have been subject to very close scrutiny. What ever you see in the photos, is either permitted, or would be dealt with. If the apparent faults are not dealt with, there is a good reason for it. These competitors are among the very best in the world. Do you imagine that a little finger in a glove while slightly touching another finger, gives someone an unfair advantage? Is the shooter in questions in the process of firing a shot, or resting between shots? The rule about the sleeve over the wrist applies in the prone and kneeling positions. I would allow the judges present to apply the rules as they have been instructed to interpret them, and not do it armchair style from several thousand miles away.

stephen_maly wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 11:08 am These shooters didn't show up out of thin air. They had to qualify at world cup levels, where they would have been subject to very close scrutiny. What ever you see in the photos, is either permitted, or would be dealt with. If the apparent faults are not dealt with, there is a good reason for it. These competitors are among the very best in the world. Do you imagine that a little finger in a glove while slightly touching another finger, gives someone an unfair advantage? Is the shooter in questions in the process of firing a shot, or resting between shots? The rule about the sleeve over the wrist applies in the prone and kneeling positions. I would allow the judges present to apply the rules as they have been instructed to interpret them, and not do it armchair style from several thousand miles away.

They also had to shoot qualifying rounds in Tokyo. Juries should handle these violations during PET. They should never get to the finals. You ask if I imagine that a little finger in a glove while slightly touching another finger gives someone an unfair advantage. No it does not. And if it does not, why is there a rule against it? Which there is. The sleeve over the wrist is not an issue. The glove touching the left shoulder is an issue. Again, it does not constitute and unfair advantage. But it is against the rules. We either have rules and enforce them, or we don't need rules. This is unfair to those shooters who compete within the rules.

As far as the pistol grips go in the other post above, I see nothing wrong with any of them. The fact that the photos are on the "off" side of the grip makes it hard to determine exactly if the wrist is free. But they all look good to me as best I can tell from the angle.

Which rule prohibits the left hand touching the left arm? 7.6.1.3 J states the right hand may not touch the left hand or arm, but I can't anything for the left hand.

It would be pretty tough for the left hand to touch the left arm. The issue in the photo is the left glove touching the left side of the jacket. No contact is allowed on the left side of the jacket. That means rifle, left or right hands, fingers, gloves, etc.

Again, it seems like a stupid rule, but it was established so that the rifle could not be supported by the left chest. So nothing is allowed to touch the left chest. Does incidental contact of the edge of the glove provide support. NO. But that's not what the rule states. Either change the rule or start enforcing it.

Either there are rules or there aren't, multiple infringements which 'barely matter' add up to an advantage, and the chinese shooter made every visible infringement possible besides lying down.

'They weren't called out in the last stage/match/event so they must have been deemed OK' doesn't really cut it.

Nor does 'well everyone is doing it and always has, so I can too'

Marc Orvin wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:01 pm The issue in the photo is the left glove touching the left side of the jacket. No contact is allowed on the left side of the jacket. That means rifle, left or right hands, fingers, gloves, etc.

Do you have the rule which forbids that? 7.6.1.3 f forbids the head (under any other part touching the rifle), but I can't see any general prohibition on contact with the left arm by itself.

The 3 points of contact on her head are CLEARLY designed (especially the riser rail) for facilitate placing her head in exactly the same place every time. Which is what you want to do, but using actual contact with the rifle is against the rule as Tim noted.
Same reason visors cannot touch the sights.

This should be caught in PET and qual. However, in a final I seriously doubt any official would be willing to approach an athlete - ESPECIALLY in an Olympic Final.
That would probably be the last time they worked a match.
(Marc, you are the exception to this :-) )

Of course if the Jury noted to the other officials to ignore this rule, then it would not be enforced ... again make one wonder why the rule is there in ANY instance.

Looks like she was at it again during the mixed air gun final as well. Why even have the rules?

It's important to remember that a single photo doesn't tell the whole story. From the angle above side it looks as though the rifle isn't even on her left hand, but obviously it must be and watching different angles on the TV it clearly is.

Her hands are fine, and the rifle isn't touching her jacket - it's close, but close is not "touching".

The stand out is that her face touching the sights/blinder is a clear violation but as with the neoprene visors a few years ago, seems to one of those rules that generally goes unenforced except at local or regional matches where a bored official will get a bee in their bonnet about it and start waving yellow cards at juniors.

The single photo at the top of the page is one that indeed tells the whole story.
The Officials FAILED in their duty to enforce all the rules for all of the competitors.

Rhetorical question (which means it doesn't call for a reply): How much of this brouhaha is a result of her being Chinese?

Is there more (or less) here than meets the eye? I should think that one or more opposing coaches would have drawn officials' attention in real time had they seen or even strongly suspected.

william wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 9:37 am Rhetorical question

Another rhetorical question:
你他妈的看什么?

atomicgale wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 2:16 pm Another rhetorical question:
你他妈的看什么?
How to translate into Serbian?

Speaking of "Where's the Jury?":
Mikec: Men's AP FINALS, Lane F:
Mikec: 5'10"; 178cm
Does THIS look like "less than 1.00 meters"?

LINK: (go to 1:10 this was during the Final):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DElNObgheg

8.6.3 Pistol Support Stands
Athletes may place pistol support stands or boxes on the bench or table to rest their pistols between shots. The total height of the bench or table with a support stand or box on it may not exceed 1.00 m (see Rule 6.4.11.10, maximum bench height is 1.00 m). During Elimination or Qualification Rounds, a pistol transport box (Rule 8.6.3) may be used as a pistol support stand, provided the total height of the bench or table plus the box does not exceed 1.00 m. During Finals, a pistol transport box may not be used as a pistol support stand.

As a matter of fact, that distance could easily be less than 1.00 m. 1 m is just under 39.4".