Thread: BFTA & Kneelers
View Single Post
Old 20th November 2013, 09:14 PM
Shaun's Avatar
Shaun Shaun is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Member of: Harriers
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 1,789

About 5 weeks before the AGM I, as Comp Manager, submitted to the Secretary some proposals for change to be voted upon. These are constructed from the opinions I have heard, conversations with shooters, analysis of information etc.

They are not my personal views.

Here is an extract (but you'll all have seen that because it was on the published agenda and discussed at regional meetings)

There is on the circuit plenty of debate about the legality of some kneeling positions. I believe that we should clarify, if necessary using pictures, what is legal within the definition above or change the definition.
• Does “upright” mean that the sole of the foot is at right angles (approx.) to the shin or can be relaxed to parallel with the shin?
• If the latter is legal then does this not reduce the contact points from 3 to 2?

• A seat can be used to support the ankle or keep the knee clean:
• If the bag bridges the gap from ankle to knee then does this replicate the position above and hence reduce the kneeling position to 2 points of contact?

• There are some people whose bag prevents their knee from touching the ground: legal?

• And the main point of contention: some shooters use their bags to provide support for their kneeling leg – it folds around their knee/thigh and also potentially supports the shooter in the groin area. Then there are shooters who kneel on the edge of their bag and allow the bag to fold and support their bottom!

One might argue that marshalling should weed out actions that are illegal but it does not. This is part of a wider debate about marshalling and the knowledge of the sport that they should have. In my view we rely heavily on volunteer marshals and until we move to dedicated BFTA marshals then it will continue to be difficult to enforce consistent ruling.

Is there a definition that will be easier to police?

For all BFTA organised events – remove the use of the bag. The BFTA will supply 1m2 soft mats, shooters will be allowed to use these to provide comfort for the knee and the mat must remain flat.

Does such an action discriminate against all those who use their bags correctly?

Perhaps one solution could be to ask a group of the top AA shooters to discuss this issue and provide a definition.

My words did not contain a proposal but were provided for discussion in the hope that a clear definition could be provided from the regions. In my report to the (your) committee I emphasised that I was cautious of proposing a definition because there were so many shooters who shoot correctly to the present definition. Please notice that some text is bold and underlined.

Two regions made proposals (SWEFTA and FFTA). The FFTA proposal was carried with 7 regions for and one abstention (no votes against)

So the proposal was passed by your representatives. The ones that you elect to attend the BFTA meeting on your behalf.

Now the AGM is over the moaning begins.

I wonder why that if solutions were so simple then why were they not proposed before the AGM?

It is of course the BFTA's fault - who is the BFTA? In case you don't know: there are 9 members of the BFTA they are the regions. Each region gets one vote upon proposals. There are also some officers {Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer} and some co-opted officers such as the Comp Manager. None of these positions can vote upon proposals except the Chairman who votes in favour of the status quo in the event of a tied vote.

It has been suggested that every shooter should get a vote. I think that has some mileage but it would need a new constitution for the BFTA. Any volunteers?

Shaun Shore (BFTA volunteer who works so some can moan continuously)
Reply With Quote