| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dmf
Joined: 15 Mar 2010 Posts: 45
|
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:52 am Post subject: under clothing rules
|
|
|
I would be interested in finding out whether "spandex like" under clothing is still permitted by the latest ISSF rules, in particular the Sauer Technical Top.
Thanks
D |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:49 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Is there a particular rule you are referring to that you could cite?
I would think that Spandex is the opposite of the concerns in many rulebooks, as it is stretchy and not constricting or by any means providing artificial support. It's also very thin so fabric thickness is not an issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dmf
Joined: 15 Mar 2010 Posts: 45
|
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:25 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
The rule in question is:
Rule 6.4.2.1.1: "The use of any special devices, means or garments which immobilize or unduly reduce the movement of the shooter's legs, body or arms is prohibited in order to ensure that the performance skills of the shooters are not artificially improved by special clothing."
I'm mostly wondering about the Sauer Technical under clothing, as this is what I own. Also, would Under Armour type clothing fail this rule? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jhmartin
Joined: 29 Nov 2004 Posts: 1512 Location: Valencia County 4-H, NM USA
|
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:24 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I think the only rulebook which mentions this is the CMP 3-P Air ... prohibited in sporter.
I think it's a silly rule and that they were looking at too many of the "muscled" adds which seems to imply support. (Note: $0.02) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:58 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I would not think Spandex fails this rule. Spandex is stretchy, it does not immobilize or reduce movement, you have full mobility of all of your joints and muscles. "compression fit" is just marketing, if it reduced movement, it wouldn't be marketed toward athletes that move a lot (football, running).
I would say that such under garments as a women's corset would definitely fail though ;-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RandomShotz

Joined: 04 Dec 2010 Posts: 377 Location: Lexington, KY
|
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:49 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | I would say that such under garments as a women's corset would definitely fail though ;-) |
NOW you tell me. Dang.
Roger |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RobinC
Joined: 09 Nov 2009 Posts: 302 Location: Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, England
|
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:14 am Post subject:
|
|
|
The way the old farts at the ISSF are moving spandex will be the only thing you'l be able to wear soon!
Good shooting
Robin |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Christopherie
Joined: 06 Nov 2012 Posts: 1
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:05 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Love that the warmer weather is here. Tee shirts and baggy gym shorts are the norm for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ghostrip

Joined: 01 Mar 2004 Posts: 226 Location: ATHENS, GREECE
|
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:54 am Post subject:
|
|
|
just for laughs.
perhaps issf should make a lingerie division. only clothing rule is you have to buy your clothes from victoria secret etc ... it will certainly boost tv numbers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jhmartin
Joined: 29 Nov 2004 Posts: 1512 Location: Valencia County 4-H, NM USA
|
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:09 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| ghostrip wrote: | | perhaps issf should make a lingerie division. only clothing rule is you have to buy your clothes from victoria secret etc ... it will certainly boost tv numbers. |
Ummmmm ... maybe not |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|