Re: interim fly rules for discussion
Posted by Pete van Meurs on Nov 10, 2011; 4:30am
URL: http://oldforum.flyshooter.com.au/interim-fly-rules-for-discussion-tp4977473p4979994.html
Before offering comment on the changes Les has suggested I wish to remind everyone that the Fly rules MUST be read in conjuntion with the main benchrest rule book. This can be accessed two ways - purchase from SSAA St Mary's in NSW or downloaded from 'Other Stuff' on the Bencrest Bulletin website. Whilst it is still an interim set of rules changes can be made at, and implemented immediately after the National Benchrest Delegates Meeting which is held at the B/R Nationals over Easter each year (2012 will be in Perth). The next print is due in 2014 after which changes can be decided upon at each Nationals but not implemented until the next print (up to 5 years hence). So we still have nearly 3 years before the rules are set in concrete. Furthermore, nothing in the Fly rules can countermand any existing rule in the main rule book. Some contradictions may occur due to the different nature of the Fly shoot format (eg no bench rotation). Now onto my comments -
Re 2.8 This is adequately covered in the main rules
Re 3.1.1.2 Electronic triggers are allowed in the main rules as they confer no advantage since they must still be set off by finger pressure.
Re 3.1.1.3 The original draft of these rules made mention of the competitor lifting his or her own rifle onto the bench but was changed so as not to discriminate against the frail, elderly and infirm etc - litigation could easily be the result.
Re 3.2.4 Seems a sensible re-wording. By the way has anyone actually seen such a devise in use?
Re 3.2.5 I would suggest keeping the original wording but adding the words 'whilst shooting is in progress', just to clarify it.
Re 3.2.6 This is already fully covered in the main rules - Item 6.11.4
Re 3.2.8 Unworkable and contrary to the main rules - quite common in all other B/R matches to have reserve rifles to cover mechanical failure or change in conditions etc.
Re 3.2.9 Again unworkable and discriminatory. A competitor with only one rifle (a LG) should be able to shoot two classes if desired to justify the trouble taken to get to a match for example. It is also to the detriment of organising clubs as it may reduce their revenue. Refer also to 3.10 and 9.13 in the rule book in regard to these last two points.
Re 3.2.10 This is adequately well covered in the main rules 7.9.1 although 7.9 should be upgraded to refer to say 20 lbs rather than 15lbs as it now is.
Re 3.3.1.3 Agree that mention of a warmer target was overlooked.
Re 3.4.4 Agree that the tolerance is a bit too slack, but would prefer to retain +/- to avoid potential issues on existing ranges.
Re 3.5 Under 'Target Scoring" would also change from 'Group SIZE' to Group BONUS POINTS. to clarify.
Re 3.5.1 Unnecessary as it is all covered in the main reules - Item 11.3
Re 3.9.2 Unnecessary as it is simply repeating Rule 15.5
Re 3.10.1 As anyone who has been involved in Benchrest for any length of time will appreciate (especially those involved with organisation) - it simply does not work. Also, unlike most ranges used for 100/200 B/R, I have yet to note any permanently BAD benches on any of the 500mt ranges I have been to. Sure there can be a bad bench on the day but it's totally unpredictable. Also into the mix is not just people sharing on one bench but often people on adjacent benches will want to be so situated to share flags.
Re 3.10.2 Following on from the above this is creating extra work for no gain and would be near impossible to have done days in advance to allow people to put their flags out at their leisure.
Re 3.10.3 Again following on from the above - mandatory use of all available benches is wasteful of targets and target crew time. It has always been pure practicality to compress the number of benches down to suit the entry level.
Re 3.10.4 Unnecessary - repeating Rule 7.2.3
In explaination of my comments where the main rule book either already has that exact rule or that something is adequately covered, my time as a B/R delegate has taught me that most delegates will oppose any such duplication (if for no other reason than we don't want the rule book to become as big as the Holy Bible)
Pete